il)r),i: i; ìl¿, ,;.1.' I, ', ll.| .li, lit,r rli'. , ,,i ii l|1i,t i,il'ii ir ri.,..

i ii l|1i,t i,il'ii ir ri.,..i: ì irl :,,¡'l 'l' '

lììr:li 'i ll ,i, :, ,:

':.' ' .rr : iilr" l' ' , .'l ;il I
',,,

,ti( r;ìi..if.' l1 l, ltiìlfi ,i r ' , ;;i1t; ,.,1

---

DUMBARTON OAKS STUDIES

XXIV

PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS

IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
 ---

PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS

i'l.jri"r - ç,¿o¡,,ofr IN THEBYZANTINE EMPIRE

JOHN PHILIP THOMAS

Juliana Anicia as founder and patroness, from the Vienna Dioscorides,

Vindo. med. gr. !, ÍoI. 6v (Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek) rt/ .,\
'\, ¡:ì l. ì
i., ir-f' 'l ,,;,i.

DUMBARTON OAKS RESEARCH LIBRARY AND COLLECTION

WASHINGTON, D.C.
 J,-

Contents
@ 1987 DUMBARTON OAKS
TRUSTEES FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY Acknowledgments vll
\íASHINGTON, D.C.
Abbreviations ix

Introduction 1

1 The Origins of Private Religious Foundations in the Later 5

Roman Empire

2 The Regulation of Private Religious Foundations under 37

Justinian and His Immediate Predecessors

3 Private Religious Foundations in Egypt from the Evidence 59

of the Papyri

4 Private Religious Foundations in Byzantium,565-1.025 11.1,

5 The Crisis of Private Religious Foundations and Its 149

Resolution

6 Private Religious Foundations in the Age of the Charistike 1,67

7 The Reform Movement against the Charistike 1,86

8 The Rise of the Great Independent Monasteries 214

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 9 Private Religious Foundations in the Last Centuries of the 244
Byzantine Ernpire
Thomas, John Philip.
Private religious foundations in the Byzantine Empire.
Glossary of Technical Terms 270
(Dumbarton Oaks studies ; 24)
Bibliography: p.277 Select Bibliography 277
lncludes index.
1. Byzantine Empire-Religious and ecclesiastical 289
Index
institutions. 2. Byzantine Empire-Church history'
3. Orthodox Eastern Church-Byzantine Empire-History.
L Title. II. Series.
8X300.T47 1987 250',.9495 87-8870
ISBN 0-88402-164-5
t-_

Acknowledgments

This book has been ten years in progress and is offered gratefully to the
scholarly world with acknowledgment of the individuals and institutions
that have facilitated my work on it. Though I cannot claim to have been
his student, it is hard to see how this book could have been written with-
out the benefit of the late Emil Herman's distinguished bibliography. My
'Wolff, guided me
fondly remembered merìtor, the late Robert Lee
through the preparation of the Harvard doctoral dissertation (completed
in 1980) that has served as the foundation for this book. Peter Topping
and Alexander Kazhdan, who read and commented upon that disserta-
tion, have indirectly helped me improve the book. To Giles Constable I
owe the idea for the book; to Dumbarton Oaks, four years of support as
a research associate. Numerous colleagues, fellows, and visitors to Dum-
barton Oaks during those years have read portions of this manuscript,
including Patricia Karlin-Hayter, Robert Ousterhout, Natalia Teteriatni-
kov, Leslie MacCoull, and Frank Tiombley. To them, too, I owe thanks,
absolving them and the others who have helped me for the faults of this
book. Some important revisions were made at the National Humanities
Center in Research tiangle Park, North Caroiina, during the 1984-85
academic year. Final work on the manuscript was done at The Citadel,
Charleston, South Carolina, with the assistance of a grant from the Cit-
adel Development Fund.

Hingham, Massachusetts
-r---

Abbreviations

The following is a list of all abbreviations employed in the notes to refer

to journals, original sources, and collections of sources. The list also in-
cludes a small number of secondary sources referred to in the notes by
acronyms, but not the much larger number of such works referred to
after first citation by shortened titles.

AASS Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana (Brussels, 1643-

1,770,1,894-; Paris and Rome, 1.866,1887)
AB Analecta Bollandiana
ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E.
Schwartz, 4 vols. (Strasbourg, Berlin, and Leipzig,
1,91,4-)
AHDO Arcbiues d'histoire du droit oriental
AKK Archiu für kath olisches Kircb enrecht
ATR An glican T h eolo gical Reu iew
B Basilica, ed. H. J. Scheltema and H. Van der'Wal,
Basilicorum Libri LX (Groningen, 1955-)
BA The Biblical Arcbaeologist
BASP Bulletin of tbe American Society of Papyrologists
BCH Bulletin de correspondance bellénique
BF By zantinisch e F or s chungen
BGU Aegyptiscbe Urþ.unden aus den staatlichen Mu-
seen zu Berlin, Griechiscbe Urkunden, 11 vols.
(Berlin, 1,895-1.968)
BIFAO Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Ori-
entale
BKU Aegyptische Urþ.unden aus den staatlichen Mu-
seen zLr Berlin, Koptische Urkunden,3 vols. (Ber-
lín,1902-68)
'Walter Ewing Crum, Catølogue of the Coptic
BM Copt.
Manuscripts in the British Museum (Lonclon,
1905)
BN/ Byzantini s ch -neugri e ch is ch e J a h r b ü c h er
BSAA Bulletin de lø société archéologique d'Alexandrie
BSC Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers
BZ Byzantinisch e Zeits chrift
 tt---

ABBREVIATIONS X1
x ABBREVIATIONS

C. Ant. Concilium Antiochenum (ca. 326), canones ed- DACL Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de litur'
R&P 3 (Athens, 1853) gie, ed. F. Cabriol and H' Leclercq (Paris, 1'907-
C. Carth. Concilium Carthaginiensis (41'9), canones ed. 53)
RE P3 (Athens, 1853) DDC Dictionnaire de droit canonique, ed. R. Naz
C. Chalc. Concilium Chalcedonense (451)' canones ed. (Paris, 1935-)
REP2(Athens, 1852) Dig Digest, ed. Th. Motnmsen' Corpus iuris ciuilis,
C. Const. Concilium Constantinopolitanum (5 3 6), Acta, ed. Vol. 1 (Berlin,1.928)
Mansi, Vol. 8 (Florence,1762) DOP Dumbarton Oaks PaPers
II Concilium Constantinopolitanum primum et se- EA Eþ.þle siastiþ.e Aleth eia
C. Const.I et
cundum (861), canon¿s ed. R&P 2 (Athens, 1852) EEBS Hepeteris Hetaireias Byzantinon Spoudon
C. Gang. Concilium Gangrense (ca.362), canones ed. REcP EO Echos d'Orient
3 (Athens, 1853) FIRA Fontes iuris Romani ante-Justiniani, eð, S. Rl co-
C, Laod. Concilium Laodicenum (ca. 340), canones ed. bono and others, 2nd ed. (Florence, 1940-43)
REP3(Athens, 1853) GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Reuiew
C. Nicaen. II Concilium Nicaenum secundum (787), canones GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
ed. R&P 2 (Athens, 1852) HJ Historisches Jahrbucb
Concilium Tiullanum (692), canones ed. RE¿P 2 IF I ndo germanis clt e F or s ch ungen
C. Tiull.
(Athens, 1852) Inst, Institutiones, ed. P" Krüger, Corpus iuris ciuilis,
CH Cburcb History Vol. 1 (Berlin,1.928)
CJ Codex Justinianus, ed. P. Krüger, Corpus iuris ciu- IRAIK Izuestiia RussÞago Arcbeologicheskago Instituta
ilis, YoI. 2, 1.0th ed. (Berlin, 1'929) u KonstantinoPle
CLT A. A. Schiller,Ten Coptic Legal Texls (New York, JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
1,932) ]EA Journal of EgyPtian ArchaeologY
CMH Cambridge Medieual History, ed. J' B. Bury and /GR K. E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graeco-
others, 8 vols. (Cambridge, 1'91'3-66) romanum, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1 856-84)
CO Walter Ewing Crum, Coptic Ostrøca from the /Hs Journal of Hellenic Studies
Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund (Lon- J abrbuch der österreich is ch
en byzantinisch en G e-
loBG
don,1.902) sellschaft
Const. Apost. Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, ed. F. Jones, LRE A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-
X. Funk (Paderborn, 1905) 602: A Social and Administratiue Suruey, Ameri-
CPR Corpus papyrorum Raineri, 4 vols. (Vienna, can edition, 2 vols. (Norman, Okla.' 1964)
189s-1958) ISAH Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians
CSCO Corþus scriptorum cbristianorum orientalium /rs Journal of Theological Studies
'Walter Ewing Crum, Koptiscbe Rechtsurkunden
(Paris, Louvain, 1903-) KRU
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiøsticorum latinorum des achten Jahrhunderts aus Diême (Theben),
(Vienna, 1,866-) (Leipzig, L91'2)
CSHB Corpus scriptorum historiøe Byzantinae (Bonn, KTE P. V Ernstedt, Koptskie teksty Gosudartsuennogo
1,828-97) Ermitazha (Moscow-Leningrad, 1959)
Codex Theodosianus, ed. Th. Mommsen, P. KTM P. V Ernstedt, Koptskie teksty Gosudarstuennogo
CTb
Meyer and others (Berlin, 1905) Muzeua izobrazitelnikh isÞussty imeni A. S. Push'
kin a (Moscow-Leningrad' 1'9 5 9)
 -.---

ABBREVIATIONS x11l
xll ABBREVIATIONS

'Walter Ewing Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic

Mansi J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum noua et am- P. Copt. Ryl
plissima collectio,3l vols. (Florence and Venice, Manuscripts in the Collection of tbe John Rylands
1,759-98) Library, Manchester (Manchester-London, 1909)
MB K. A. Sathas, Mesaionike Bibliotheþe. Biliotheca P. Flor. G. Vitelli and D. Comparetti, Papiri Fiorentini,3
graeca medii aeui, 7 vols. (Vienna and Paris, vols. (Milan, 1.906-1'5)
1,872-94) P. Fouad A. Bataille and others, Les Papyrus Fouad I
MDAI Cairo Mitteilungen des deutsch en arch äolo gis ch en Insti' (Cairo,1939)
tuts P. Grenf.2 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Neu Classical Frag-
MGH, AA Monumenta Germaniøe historica, Auctores anti- ments and Other Greeþ and Latin Papyri (Ox-
quissimi, 15 vols. (Beriin, 1.877-1,9 1,9) ford,1.897)
MH Medieualia et Humanistica P. Lond. F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell, Greek Papyri in tbe
MIOG Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische British Museum, T vols. (London, 1.893-1'974)
G e s ch ich t s for s ch un gen P. Micbael D. S. Crawf ord, The GreeÞ Papyri in the Collec-
MM F. Miklosich and F. Müller, Acta et diplomata tion of Mr. G. A. Michailidis (London, 1955)
graeca medii aeui saua et profana, 6 vols. (Vi- P. Mon. A. Heisenberg and L. Wenger, Veröffentlichungen
enna, 1860-90) aus der Papyrussammlung der koniglichen Hof-
MTZ Münch ener tb eologiscbe Zeitschrift und Staatsbibliotheþ zu Mùncbent Byzantinische
rü Kroll, Papyri (Leipzig-Berlin, 914)
N/ Justinian, Nouellae, ed. R. Schoell and
1

Corpus juris ciuilis, Vol. 3, Sth ed. (Berlin, 1928) P. Ness. C. J. Kramer, Excauations dt Nessana, 3 vols'
NPB Angelo Mai and J. Cozza-Luzi,Noua patrum bib- (Princeton, 1958)
liotheca, 10 vols. (Rome, 1.852-1.905) P. Oxy. B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and others' The Oxy-
N Val Valentinian lll, Nouellae, ed. Th. Mommsen, rhynchus Papyri,50 vols. (London, 1898-)
Codex Tbeodosianus (Berlin, 1905) P. Princ A. C. Johnson and others, Papyri in the Princeton
OC Orientalia Christiana lJniuersity Collection (Baltimore and Princeton,
OCP O ri entalia Ch ri stiana Per i o di c a 1.931-42)
Ostrogorsk¡ HBS George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine P. Ross. Georg. G. Zereteli and P. V Ernstedt, Papyri russiscber
Sløre (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969) und georgischer Sammlungen, 5 vols. (Tiflis,
P. Amb. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Amherst Pa- 1,925-35)
pyri,2 vols. (London, 1900-01) PG J, P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus'
P. Antin The Antinoopolis Papyri, 3 vols. (London, 1950- Series graeco-latina, 161 vols. (Paris, 1'857-66)
67) PL J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus.
P. Bad. Veröffentlichungen aus den badischen Papyrus- Series latina,221. vols. (Paris, 1844-55)
Sammlungen, 6 vols. (Heidelberg, L923-38) PLRE A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale and J. Morris,
P. Bal. Paul Kahle, Bala'izah, Coptic Texts from Deir el- Tbe Prosopograpby of the Later Roman Empire,
Bala'izah in LJpper Egypt,2 vols. (London, 1954) 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1.971-)
P. Basel E, Rabel and \ù{ Spiegelberg, Papyrusurkunden PO Patrologiø Orientalis, 39 vols. (Paris, Turnhout,
der öffentlicben Bibliothek der Uniuersitiit zu 1,904-)
Basel, 2 vols. (Berlin , 1.917) Ps-Ath Wilhelm Riedel and Walter Ewing Crum, The
P. Berl.Inu. Unpublished papyri of the BGU series Cønons of Athanasius of Alexøndria, The Arabic
P. Cøiro Masp. Jean Maspero, Catalogue général des antiquités and Coptic Versions (London-Oxford, 1'904)
égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Papyrus grecs d'é- Ps-Bøsil Canons of Pseudo-Basil, ed. Vilhelm Riedel,
poque byzantine,3 vols. (Cairo, 1,91'1-1'6) Die Kircbenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alex-
andrien (Leipzig, 1900), pp. 23 1-83
 V,-

xlv ABBREVIATIONS

PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology

PSl G. Vitelli and M. Norsa, Papiri greci e latini,1.4
vols. (Florence, 1.9L2-57)
Rô.P G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Syntagma ton theion Introduction
þ,ai hieron kanonon,6 vols. (Athens, 1852-59)
RAC Riuista di archeologia cristiana
RB Reuue bénédictine
REB Reuue des études byzantines The pioneering work of Ulrich Stutz introduced the concept of the Eigen-
REG Reuue des études grecques kircbe, or "proprietary church," to the scholarly world of the late nine-
RH Reuue historique teenth century"r His work has stimulated a series of regional studies and
RHE Reuue d' h istoire ecclésiastique much controversy in regard to his theory of a Germanic origin for pro-
RHPR Reuue d'histoire et de pbilosophie religieuses prietary churches.2 In the field of Byzantine studies, however, an able
RlDA Reuue internationale des droits de l'antiquité Austrian scholar, Josef von Zhishman, had already anticipated Stutz's
SB F. Preisigke, F. Bilabel, and others, Sammelbuch work with his D¿s Stifterrecht in der morgenländischen Kircbe (Vienna,
griechischer [Jrþ.unden aus Aegypten, 11. vols. 1888). Zhishman's work was fundamental and is still of grear value. He
(Strassburg, 1.9L5-26; Heidelberg, 1931-55; wrote too soon, however, to take advantage of the important and exten-
'Wiesbaden, 1958-)
sive evidence from papyri uncovered at Oxyrhynchus, Aphrodito, and
SBN Studi bizantini e neoellenici elsewhere in Egypt in the early decades of this century.3
SCH Studies in Church History Artur Steinwenter, a renowned Coptic legal scholar, wrote a brilliant
soÁw Sitzungsb ericbte der österreiclt isch e Aþademie der article in 1930 which for the first time outlined rhe uses of the papyri for
Wi s sen s ch aften. P h ilos op h is ch - h i stori s ch e Klas s e the study of proprietary churches and monasteries.a Thanks to Steinwen-
'Walter
ST Ewing Crum, Short Tþxts from Coptic Os- ter, it is now clear that not only the "founder's right" studied by Zhish-
trøca and Papyri (London, 1921) man but actual private religious foundations existed in the eady Byzan-
stud. Pal. C. Wessel¡ Studien zur Palaeogrøphie und Papy- tine Empire. Stutz's theory of a Germanic origin for the Eigenkirche thus
ruskunde, L1 vols" (Leipzig, 1901-24) is no longer tenable, for it is evident that the proprietary churches of
T(rM Tiauaux et Mémoires Byzantium and of medieval Europe developed from the private religious
tinchera, SGM Francisco tinchera, Syllabus graecarum mem- foundations already in existence in late Roman times.r
branarum (Naples, 1 865) This book is an attempt to bridge the work of Steinwenter and Zhish-
'Walter
VC Ewing Crum, Varia Coptica (Aberdeen, man and to serve as a foundation for a yet unwritten institutional history
1,939) of the Greek Orthodox church in the Byzantine era. Zhishman's ap-
vv Vizantiis k ii Vremennik proach to his subject was admirably systematic in presentation and con-
ZRVI Zuorniþ rodoba Vizantiolosh k og instituta stitutional in outlook. My own presentation is more analytical and relies
ZSR Zeitscbrift der Sauigny-Stiftung für Rechtsuissen' primarily on a continuous historical narrative. This book, then, should
schaft
tUlrich Stutz, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelaberlich-germanischen Kirchen-
rechtes (Berlin, 1895 ) and Geschicbte des kirchlìchen Benefizialuesens uon seinen Anfangen
bis øuf die Zeit Alexanders lll (Berlin, 1895).
2Consult the bibliography in H. E. Feine, Kirchlicbe Rechtsgeschichte,Yol. l: Die kath-
olische Kirche (Veimar, 19 50), 131.-41.
3Discussed below in Chapter 3.
aArtur Steinwenter, "Die Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Klöster nach den Papyri," ZSR
50 þ.ø. 1.9 (1930), 1-50.
sFeine, without a full knowledge of the Byzantine sourcesr.argues against this view in
"Ursprung, rr)Øesen und Bedeutung des Eigenkirchentums," MIOG 58 (1950), 195-208. See
now also Richard Puza, "Gründer einer Gemeinde und Stifter einer Kirche oder eines Klös-
ters in der christlichen Antike," AKK 151 (1982),58-72, esp. 69.
 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 3
2

be of interest to any student of the Byzantine church or of its role

in all those churches, monasteries, and philanthropic institutions (e.g., no-
historY. sokomeia, or "hospitalsr" gerokomeia, or "old age homes," and arphan-
Byzantine
-'1. otropheia, or "orphanages") founded by private individuals (usually lay-
ir, o*.t *"¡ this is pioneering work, like that of Stutz, Zhishman'
many men) and retained for personal administration, independent of the public
and steinwenter. My task has been made considerably easier by the
authorities of the state and church. In actual practice, the matter was
splendid articles of the late Emil Herman (mostly in orientalia.chris-
considerably more complicated, since clerics and monks are known to
tiana periodica), which have laid the groundwork for most of what we
have founded religious institutions in the capacity of private property
know about the institutional structure and internal operations of the
oiryners, and emperors and other public officials might as readily endow
nyrurr,in" church.6 Nevertheless, students of Byzantine history are well
that evidence for cerrain periods is so scarce that frequently it is private foundations as public ones, depending upon their personal pref-
^Ç^r" to in- erences. The modern historian looks in vain for a contemporary Byzan-
impossible to do more than offer reasonable conjectures as guides
I had to allow some maior interpretations tine definition, and there is certainly no systematic legal exposition of the
t.rpr.t"tion. All too often have
status of these foundations. Even on the more limited question of the
to ,tand on only one or two testimonies in the sources. on the other
hand, I have no ãorrbt that I have failed to exhaust the potential illustra-
rights and duties of private benefactors, such testimony as does exist
arises chiefly from litigation or restrictive legislation.T Yet there can be
tive Áaterial for many well-attested developments. The fact that there
is
historiography that is not. in some way no doubt about the existence of private religious foundations in the sense
scarcely any topic in Byzantine
encompassed by the deûnition above, thanks to explicit contemporary
irnportant iot ,-h. undeistanding of private religious foundations. means
references. The fifth-century Codex Theodosianus terms the churches
that this study cannot be exhaustive. My work will doubtless need emen-
priuøtae ecclesiae, and a law of Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081-
dation and expansion by other scholars; but a significant body of evi-
1118) calls the monasteries monasteria þosmiþa.8 Only rarel¡ however,
dence has .,o* lo.,g been available for the study of these foundations'
so

it is time to begin io appreciate their importance for Byzantine civiliza- do we have the benefit of such explicit designations, and the modern
tion. historian must face the vexing problem of identifuing probable private
This study concerns the private ownership of ecclesiastical institutions; religious foundations on the basis of somewhat arbitrary criteria.
yet, in any societ¡ an inåiuid,ral's right to ownership of
'any form of I have relied upon three broad indicators of private ownership. The
the nature and extent of strongest indication is a testimony of a sale or purchase of a religious
;.;p;;,t i, ,"r.ly'"brolute' !ühat' thãn, was in the Byzantine Em-pire? Did institution by a private individual. Such testimonies, although not com-
prlv"r. o*r,.rrhip of religious institutions
o*n hit foundation outright, or was, he' as its mon, occur with sufficient frequency throughout Byzantine history (until
ä priu"t. benefactor
of his relationship to the founder, merely the ben- the patriarchate proscribed sales in 1325) to confirm the continued ex-
founder, or by virtue
of legal rights in it? There are no simple answers to istence of private foundations. Testimony to significant financial assist-
eficiary of a complex
ttt. tegãt relationship of a private patron and his ance provided by a benefactor to a religious institution is another impor-
these questions because
foundåtion varied considerabl¡ depending upon the vigor of governmen- tant indicator. The difficulty is that it is often hard to distinguish private
foundations, properly speaking, from those institutions that (like most
ial and ecclesiastical legislation, throughout the long history of the Byz-
modern churches) were only lay-assisted. Obviousl¡ provision of oper-
antine EmPire'
tt *uy Ëe useful to starr with a definition to initiate discussion. In the ating expenses or of clerical salaries is more significant than the gift of a
mosaic or votive offering. The last of the three indicators is the fact of a
broadesi sense, private religious foundations can be held to encompass
private act of foundation, particularly when coupled with the exercise of
6Emil Herman, "Les bénéfices dans l'église orientale," in DDC 2 1937), cols'
benefactors' rights by the founder or (even more significantly) by his or
-(Paris'
sBN 5 (1939)' 657-
706:¿"i-;;2"À r.ii.nri.hen Benefizialwesen-im byzantinischen Reich,"
7i; "il. bischöfliche Abgabenwesen im Patriarchat von Konstantinopel vom IX' bis zur her heirs. This is significant because until the late eleventh century few
mon-
luii'," d.r iii.Jårttri""¿äts." oCP 5 (1939).434-513r "Ricerche sulle istituzioni benefactors were willing to erect a church or monastery without obtain-
;rìiÃ.-úl;irË. fypif." ktetorika, caristicari e monasteri 'liberi'," OCP 6 (1940),293-
(1941\' 406-60; ing compensatory benefits.
JZIïìiOi" i.e.lung ãer Armut in áen byzantinischen Klöstern," OCP 7(19.42)' 378-442; It is important to remember in this connection that the designation of
;o,å f.".iii.li"n Einkùnfte des byzantinischen Niederklerus," OCP I
,.i" rl.f"..ioni vietare al clero bizantino," ocP 10 (1'944),23-44; "'Chiese privâte' e
dil,oãñ¿;rion. n.gfi ultimi secoli déll'impero bizantino," OCP 12 (1946).' 302-21;
ii" lrt"bilitu. loci, nel nlonu.tti..o bizantino," OCP 21, (1955), 115-42; "The Secular TSee the discussion below in Chapter 9.
8
CTh 16.5.1.4; Alexius Comnenus, De jure patriarchae (/GR 3.408.12)
Chu..h," in CMH 4 (2nd ed.), pt. 2 (Cambridge,l'966),1'04-33'
 7

4 INTRODUCTION

a foundation by one of our sources as "independent" did not

mean' as lt
an autono-
does now and even in Byzantium after the eleventh century,
mous, self-governing institution.e Rather, these foundations are
to be
,,indelendent" in the sense of being under private.admin- CHAPTER ONE
urrJ"irtooais
istration, that is, noi a "public" institution controlled by the ecclesiasti-
."i f,i.r"i.fty. It is also important not to confuse the spiritual iurisdiction
ou., priu^t. institutions tirat was often claimed (and sometimes- actually The Origins of Private Religious Foundations
.".r.it.d) by the ecclesiastical hierarchy with the right to administer in the Later Roman Empire
ä.r. lnrii,uiions. The latter the founders nearly always reserved for
themselves, their heirs, or designees'
This is fár from the only insiance in which the technical vocabulary
of
linguistic conservatism of
our sources deserves close attention. Given the GREAT number, if not an actual nrajority, of the ecclesiastical in-
¡yr"",i". high culture, it is not surprising to find a fair amount of con- A
LL stirutions of the Byzantine Empire owed their foundation to privare
il;irt of usãge throughout the life of the empire. Naturally the modern initiative. This apparently was the case even in Constantinople, where
inu.rrlg"ro, ,iurt b. a-lert for the masking of important changes by the the number of imperial religious foundations was exceprionally high.1
f.rrirtãn.. of traditional nomenclature' Inofmy being
experience, however'
very Çareful about These private religious foundations should be distinguished carefully
ihe Byzantine sources give every indication from other ecclesiastical institutions.
the .rs"ge of terms thaiserved to distinguish certain types of institutions
official dignities Among the oldest churches, predating official recognition of Christian-
and their staruses, personal rights and responsibilities,
careful philological it¡ were the ancient foundations of the early Christian communities. The
and ranks, sundry i-n.o-.r, fe-es, and emoluments.
In sources refer to them in late Roman times as þatholikai eþþlesiai.2 These
study of tûese teims promises rich rewards for future investigation. included the bishop's (or "cathedral") church and its immediate depen-
employ uniform English
un,i.ip"ri"n of this work, I have been hesitant to dencies in each diocese. They appear in cities, towns and occasionally in
.quiuåt."* in this study without reference to the Greek originals' Here, the countryside throughout Byzantine histor¡ yet they were much rarer
ir'r..,,,r, it is English and not Byzantine Greek which serves to obscúre than one might expect from their imporrance as the empire's public
crucial distinctions. As an aid to the non-specialist reader' I have
pro-
technical terms and the churches.3
viJed a lengthy glossary of the most important Imperial foundations such as Hagia Sophia, Holy Apostles, and the
strictly funJtiorra-l English equivalents I have used for them in this study'
numerous churches built by Justinian (527-565) in Constantinople and
In t'he absen.. of a"propei institutional history of the Greek Orthodox
elsewhere constitute an intermediate category of foundations to be dis-
church in Byzantine tìmei, it has been necessary for me to treat
private
{oundations in a very general context. It need hardly be said that the lThe tenth-century itinerary Patria Konstøntinoupoleos, ed. Th. Preger, Søiptores ori-
achievement of this inslitutional history is still a long way off, and this ginum Constantìnopolitanarum (Leipzig, 1907), attributes ninety religious insrirutions to
,tfiy o.rgt t not be taken as a claimant to that honor. Yet given itsAges ad- the emperors and their families, but rwenty-rwo of the attributions to Constantine and his
mother Helena must be considered extremely doubtful. The Patria notes fifty-6ve founda-
*l*å¿fy Ëro"d focus, srudents of the church in the western Middle
tions by laymen, but only eight by monks and members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. De
-"y *.ll miss cross-references to the essentially parallel historv of its antiquitatibus Constantinopolitanis, ed. Anselmo Banduri, Imperium orientale (Paris,
ecciesiastical institutions. For this shortcoming I must plead
my own 171 1) records sixty-four imperial foundations, including thirteen attributed to Constantine
knowl- and Helena, forty-one private foundations, and only three patriarchal or monastic foun-
in."f.trit.. Nevertheless, I have benefited enormously from my dations, with six unattributed. Precise figures for Constantinople await tabulation from R.
the slest, which more than
.¿g. .r the course of ecclesiastical history in lanin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin,Pt. L: Le siège de Constantinople
onie 1ras given me an indication of what to look for in the less well et le patr¡arcat oecuménique, Vol. 3: L¿s églises et les monastères,2nd ed. (Paris, 1969).
For some preliminary figures, see Peter Charanis, "The Monk as an Element of Byzantine
explored Bîyzantine sources. I hope that my present work will yield recip-
Societ¡" DOP 25 (1971),6I-84, esp. 65-68.
2On these public churches, see W'. E. Crum, "A Use of the Te¡m'Catholic
rocal dividends for the study of the church in the West' Church',,'
PSBA 27 (1905),1.71-72; Stephan Zorell, "Die Enrwicklung des Parochialsysrems bis zum
Ende der Karolingerzeit," AKK 82 (1902),74-98.
rHerman, "Secular Church," 118; seconded by
Jean Lassus, Sanctuaires chrétiens de
eSee the discussion below in Chapter 8. Syria (Paris, 1947), 25 3.
 Y-

CHAPTER ONE ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMP]RE 7

6

The development of the institutional infrastructure of Christianity

tinguishedfrombothpublrrandprivatechurchesyetsharingfeaturesof
could not have occurred without the generous participation of the laity
.u.î.. 1.n.y were in ìh. firrt instance personal benefactions, whether state at all times. Denied ready access to the synagogues, the first Christian
ãr..i.¿ *ití', funds from the private fortune of the emperors-or-from
with the passage apostles resorted to meetings in private residences. Before too long, the
,"u.rlu.r, yet they tended to assume a public character
discretionary au- regular meeting of the Christian community acquired the designation of
; *".. eitl,ougi, the church authoriries enjoyed wide the right to nominare eþþlesia.8
;h.;it;, theä, the reigning emperor exercised founders and their An injunction believed to be of Christ himself commanded stability of
ä.ãiá"r.t for clerical ordlnution' in them, as private residence: "lnto whatever city (polis) or village (kome) you may enter,
families did for their foundations'5
study had inquire who is worthy in it, and there remain until you depart. Entering
ih. private religious foundations that are the subject of thisConstantine into the house (oikia), greet it. If indeed be the house worth¡ let your
,n.it otigint in tËe age before th.e conversion of Emperor
peâce come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return unto
period Christians were
tiOe-Sh to ChristiJnity. Since for most of this sources will be readily you." t By no later than e.¡. 57, certain Christian communities had made
n f-r..iU.a sect'6 it i, not to be expected that the
.ripi.y"Uf. ,for âetermining the institutional origins o_f these founda- it a practice to hold their meetings in particular private residences.lo
hardly Thus, the apostle Paul wrote several times of the eþklesia at the house
iionr- îi,. fairly abundant ire-Constantinian Christian literature
helpful inscriptions (oiÞos) of Prisca and Acquila at Ephesus. Other lay benefactors figure
ever sheds -orå th"n incidental light on the question'
prominently in the Pauline epistles, such as Phoebe, the prostasis (patron-
f.*, and the evidence afforded by archeology often.pos€s as many
"r.
o.obleÁs as it resolves. Still, a tentative outline of the probable
evolution ess) of the eþþlesia at Cenchreae, the port city of Corinth. Paul also men-
tioned Nymphas of Laodiceia and Philemon of Colossae as hosts of
äf private religious foundations can be attempted'
Christian assemblies in their private residences.
Christian scripture does not indicate the next step of institutionaliza-
tion until the pseudo-Pauline epistle Ephesians (4.o. 80-90) adopts ar-
ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP chitectural terminology to form a metaphor for the spiritual community:
"No more are you strangers and so¡'ourners, but fellow citizens of the
disentangling the saints and kinsmen (oikeioi) of God, having been built on the foundation
Perhaps the greatest difficulty facing the investigator.is
and private foun-
origins of wñ"t emerge as th; distin;tly separate public of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone
d"tion, of the post-Constantinian era. Their origins before the.Constan- in whom all the building being fitted together grows into a holy shrine
¡ni"n .onu.rri,on hard to distinguish precisely because the þ.at.holikai (naos hagios) in the Lord, in whom also you are being built into a dwell-
"r. 1'public" institutions before the
could hardly be conceivedlf as ing place (Þatoiketerioz) of God in spirit." 11 As this scriptural citation
"iùit¡o¡
;ñi;i-;;;nirio., oi Christianity.T Consequentl¡ in the era before Con- indicates, it was becoming possible for the Christian communities of the
churches were necessarily private foundations, yet
stantine, all"christian empire to associate themselves with the architectural setting of their
some more so than others. meeting places rather than seeing themselves as an essentially spiritual
community meeting wherever might chance to be convenient. This insti-
aFor these imoerial foundations, see Gilbert Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale: Constan- tutionalization was not accomplished without a certain amount of am-
,ir.pi;;';i;'r'¡iri,'"i¡.r, ii :"io (paris, le74), 3e7-408; L. voelkl, "Die konstantin-
i'+s t
n".h iJn tit"tãilt.t't.n þuellen des Okzidents," RAC 30 (1954),99-
ischen Kirchenburt..r precostantiniana (Mílan, 1948),3-70; Gerda Krüger, Die Rechtsstellung der uolkonstan-
ü;';;ä ö;; J¿r"ninrtftuigi" ies Kaßers konstantin im Lichte des römischen Saþral-
tinischen Kirchen (Stuttgart, 1935); Elisabeth Herrmann, Ecclesia in re publica: Die En-
)írllr, tc"t"e"r, t964);c. li;-ri;";g, ,,_constantine's churches: Symbol and structure,"

iiinll (iij+j, s-rá, "t.p;;ì;i¿hr.ä Building and Church-State Relations, ¡'n'Fourth 313- twicklung der Kirche uon pseudostaatlicher zu staatlich inkorporierter Existenz (Frankfurt,
I 980).
gozl, t'-n','\iäi;lÃp..iår õhurch"Building in the Ho-lv Land in the
åîi,j cru'¡å tr sFor the general development, see Harold Turner, From Temple to Meeting Place: The
nÁ'io ttÇøt¡,ei-l[2' i"li"' c'-'S:fp!'::'Vol' 3' pp'-41-50' 4s5-70;
Eusebius'
éî'i";'; ri.li^t Hãiket , tíOZ); Procopius, De aedificiis Phenomenology of Places of Worsbip (The Hague, 1979); Stephen Valke, "The Use of
nc uitd Constantini 2.45-6,1.lS," 1l-eipzig
Ecclesia in the Apostolic Fathers," ATR32 (1950), 39-53; andJ. Y. Campbell, "The Origin
1.8.5, ed. Jakob Haury (Leipzig, 1'913; rev' 1964)' and Meaning of the Christian Use of the \Xlord Ekklesia," /TS n.s. 49 (1.948), 130-42.
'N/ 3.2.1 (53s). ...Why \Were eMatt. 10:11-13; cf. Mark 6:10-11., Luke 9:4-5, ed. E. Nestle and K. Aland, Nouum
oFor the legal status ot Christians at this time, see G. E. M. De Ste. Croix,
26 (1'963)' 6-38' te staffi entum grae ce, 26th ed. (Stuttgart, 1 979).
th" Èarlv Chrlstians Persecuted?" Past and Present
"'"';#h;ï;tdprãfr.- ãi,rt.ir legal status. before the conversion of Constantine, see '0Rom. 16:1-3, I Cor. 16:19, Col. 4:15, Phil. 2.
ttEph.2:19-22.
Giuseppe Bovini, La p*p)iüa' ,i"tiri'astica e la condizione giuridica della chìesa in età
 Y 'l
L
i
r.

ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 9

8 CHAPTER ONE

apologetic litera- erected early in the third century, the domus ecclesiae itself would appear
bivalence that was to persist for centuries.l2 christian to date after renovations undertaken ca.23 1. The building itself was
even in the early
ture such as the Octauiøs of Minucius Felix could deny' destroyed in 257, providing a valuable terminus ante quem for the initia-
or altars'
;hird ;;;;y A.D., that Christians had -any use for temples tion of this stage in ecclesiastical institutionalization. The archeological
conservative posi-
ðñ.r; of Ale"andria also maintained the quaintly (atbroisma) of the evidence and the available literary sources provide no clue as to who
¡on "1, is not the place (ropos) but the assemblage purchased or administered domus ecclesiøe such as this one at Dura.
--;;;that I call an eþþlesia"' recognition of Christianit¡ Isidore of Pelu-
elect Thus it is unclear whether the domus ecclesiae is the distant ancestor of
i"rg after the "ffi.i"1 the post-Constantinian private churches or of public religious founda-
of true believ-
sium echoeá clement in maintainlng rhat the community tions. Perhaps it served as progenitor of both.
building' In fact'
; ;;; ih. ,."1 church, not some elaborately decorated developed by no It is clear, however, that by t.o.250-260 Christian bishops owned
ho*.u.r, a rudimentary institutional infrastructure had landed property, specifically burial grounds known as þoimeteria, for
in.his
i"r.. ,tt"n the micldle ,..o,,d century'13 Justin Martyr wrote '4pol-
these were seized by the imperial government in Valerian's persecution of
Sunday at establiihed sites where Christians gath-
osia ofmeerings each
257-:260 and restored by his son and successor, Gallienus (260-268).16
;;;á ir itt. .ir[r and in rhe countryside. More informal arrangements The bishops suddenly assumed an important role in the latter half of the
claimed (ca' 165) in
l"y ',".ff have persisted, too, as Jusiin himself later third century, supplementing what to all appearances seems once to have
beforeìmperial'examiners that he held meetings only in
his res-
been the exclusive role of the laity in the provision of places for Christian
iá.i..""¡r"e the Ëaths of Myrtinus in Rome. Post-Constantinian apoc-
"iËsi"g
Christian con- worship. An admittedly late account by the fourth-century bishop Greg-
ryphal literature recalls this era by postulating wealthy ory of Nyssa records the foundation of a church by Gregory Thaumatur-
ulrr, *tro hosted the apostles in túeir homes or turned their residences
gus, bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea (d. ca. 270).17 This was a com-
" to them for use as churches'1a
over
back munity undertaking, but under the leadership of the bishop, and for the
irr. afocryphal tradition reads conversion of private dwellings in institu- creation of a church eþ ton themelion, as many of our sources describe
,oo f"r, fut in so doing shows an awareness of the next stage
it, or "from the ground up," so to speak.
for ecclesiastical
ti,cnaliáation, the acquisition of property for renovation Indeed, the "Peace of the Church," as the long interval (260-303) be-
services. These renovat.d p'i""it d*tliings are
known as'domus eccle-
-r¡or, im- tween the persecutions of Valerian and Diocletian is called, saw the re-
at this point the àvidence afforded by archeology becomes
^nd The domus ecclesiae of Dura-Europos is one of the earliest and placement of old churches (presum ably domus ecclesiae) with new build-
Dortant.15 ings of more spacious dimensions in the cities of the empire.18 Ironicaliy
i*"inry the best known of these churches. Based on a private structure it is the vehement anti-Christian polemicist Porphyry whose Kata Chris-
12Minucius Felix, octauius L0,32, eð. c. H.alm, csEL 2 (Vienna, 1867); clement of tianon logoi of 268 is the earliest text to mention the erection of build-
Alexandria, stroftrøta7.5\i'¿ï,'rLt.'illlrlsidore of Pelusium, Epßtolae2.246(PG78,
Herbert Musurillo' Tåe
ings intended from the start to serve as Christian churches.le The Chris-
col. 685); cf. {'l"li"¡ it
Martytium
'o'ió'u*'
Rec' B' 3'1' ed'
tian communities had come full circle. Once their leaders had criticized
Acts of ihe Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972)'
^'i:JiJi;ù;;:ii,i'Àiä"í,"- r:¿t;;à. i. r. i. uon otto (Jena' 1,876)i Martyrium s.Iustini, the pagans for their temples, but now they were erecting structures that
Rec. A, 3. rivaled them.
""\;i'.f.,'ert" pauli etTheclaeT,ed.LeónVouau\ I'es Actes de Paul et ses lettres apo-
(PC 116' col' f80); [Ps-] The novelty of the episcopal role is apparent from the difficulties en-
cryphes (Paris, 1913); vitã-a"-i'ii'ium sanctae Ca.eciliae 26
Clement of Rome, Recogr-itiàræ C.á, rc.2 l. ed. Bernhard Rehm (Berlin, 1965-)' countered at Antioch when Paul of Samosata, who had erected a church
1rF. v. Filson, .,Th. sid;h;;;;. of ,t. Ea'rly House churches"' /BL 58
(1939), 105-12;

Hans-JosefKlauck,"Dit^li;;;;;inát"lt'LtbtnsformimUrchristentum'"MTZ32
in notes 44-48, and Hausge-
16Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica 7.11..10, 7.13; with Christopher Haas,
¿19R1)- 1-15. referenäiãî.."¡y Christian sources
with "lmperial Religious Policy and Valeriant Persecution of the Church, t.o. 257-260," CH
';í:r'i;;;;h;;'rii*'øï¡*-i,ilen chris'tentum (Stuttgart, lesRichãrdl); Joan retersen, "House-
Krautheimer'Earlv s2 (1983),1,33-44.
Churches in Rome,,, vigil';:r'ëir:i'"irrot-ll Ogàs.¡,2"64-72: rTGregory of Nyssa, Epistolø 25 (PG 46.3, cols. 1093-1100); for Gregory Thaumatur-
Christian and Byzantine lr"ø¡iä"ir, irA.d'.
(¡"lii-"t., 1'979),27-38; J' P' Kirsch' "La gus, see Eusebius, Historiø ecclesiastica 7.'1.4.
in Mesopotami.a," in Studi dedicati
domus ecclesia¿ cristiana á.i iii t.*fó a Dura-Èuropos r8
Eusebius, Historia ecclesìastica 8.1.5 .
alla memoria di paolo uaîlî¡' (lnt^i, 1,937-45), ZZ-52, anð "origine e carattere degli tePorphyr¡ Kata Christianon logoi, Fr. 76, ed. Adolf von Harnack, Abhandlungen der
*í¡ III di studi romani, ed. c.
antichi titoli cristiani di R;;,'lì; dtt congresso nazionale
öamber' Domus Ecclesiae: Die ähesten königlicb preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse
G. Paluzzi (Bologna, f s:¿i, Våf . t, pi' ig-q7; K' (Berlin, 1916); cf. Krautheimer, Byzantine Architecture, 38.
Kirchenbauten Ãquileias (Regensburg, 1968)'
 Y
CHAPTER ONE ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 11
10

refused to give pressed Christians of Palestine were reverting to the practice of their
to serve as his episcopal see, was deposed for heresy and
o? th. .h,rrch.2' The Òhristian community sought the as- ancestors by once again resorting to the renovation of oikoi to serve as
"pìrtt.tti.n
5iirån.. of Emperor Aurelian (270-27i),and got it, specifically.a prak' churches.26
l"àn ordrrtng ihe tru.,rferral of the building to "those. with. whom the Not only private property owners but also the corporate Christian
should communi- church (called the corpus Christianorum) suffered confiscations as a re-
ti;h.;; ;¡the [christian] doctrine in Italv and Rome as our source Eu- sult of the edicts of persecution. An Egyptian papyrus of 304 shows a
;; ñ writing.;' This was a very important- decision'
it es- lector of the "former church of the village of Chysis" declaring that said
;;bi"r, bishop"of Caesarea, ,..*t only dimly to have realized' for
i"¡iirfi"a the principle that the Christian community could exercise a church had neither money, slaves, nor possessions, either from gifts or
Aurelian (or the testamentary bequests.2T Yet a slightly earlier papyrus speaks of the
valid claim to the ownership of its meeting place' Had
r,rpporiPaul, itis hard to see how a distinct system donation of land to a church as "an old custom," confirming that some
¡iriàptl decided to
established itself churches had already become property-owning institutions.2s
of *h"i w.r. to b..o-. the public churches could have
The imperial legislation issued in 31tr-313 to end the persecution and
independently of private religious foundations'
A, it *"r, ih.rË ..-"ined"considerable opportunity for confusion'
An mandating the return of confiscated property to the Christians reflects
in the mixed pattern of ownership of Christian ecclesiastical institutions at
lnr.ription åf Tib.rius Polycharmos, patron of the Jewish synagogue
analogy'21 This ben- the turn of the century. The original edict of toleration of Galerius (305-
SiáUi, datable to 279,telliigly demonìtrates this by
thl synagogue considerably through the ex- 311), issued in 311, encourages the Christians to build their churches
.i".iå.."i¿ently enlarg.d
p.nái,ur. of his own fãrturr., "iitttoul touching in any way the
sacred once again but makes no provision for the return of confiscated prop-
ifñ;i; iet polychar-o, ,.r.rued for himself and his heirs rights of erty.2e Maxentius (306-312), however, seems to have anticipated his im-
of the addition. consist- perial colleagues by restoring confiscated properties to the Christians of
o*n.rrt ip (despáæia) over the upper chambers
of ,erponribilit¡ polycharmos pledged in this in- Rome in a letter given to their bishop Miltiades (31,1-31'4).30 The text of
ent with ìhis dìrrision
the upper chambers. Licinius' (308-324) instructions to the governor of Bithynia, issued in
;;;ipñ io .,nd.rt"k" the repair of the roof tiles of struck,
úh.r, the catastrophe of diocletian's persecution the transition June 313 and popularly known as the "Edict of Milan," is especially
from domus ecclesiie to churches erected ek ton themelio,n had not yet important because it shows an awareness of the distinction between
f.., ..r pr.ted. Indeed, ar Rome the bishops continued to acquire pri- Christian places of assembly owned by private individuals and those that
¿*aii"g, fo, .onuérsion into domus ecclesiae long after the perse- belonged to the Christian communities corporatively: "Since the afore-
""i.
curion had ãnded.t2 So also at Constantinople, where- the
partisans of mentioned Christians are known to have had not only those places in
private dwelling which they have been accustomed to assemble, but also other possessions
Àirnop Gregory Nazianzus (37g-381') converted a small
in,o ,i',. .hrîr.h of St. Anastasia because the church of Hagia Sophia was of their corporative right (ius corporis)-that is, of the churches, not of
for a time in the hands of his opponents.23 The onset of persecution
then individual persons-we command all these to be returned by the law
fåuna *"rry Christian .o--u"itits still worshiping in domys
ec.clesiae' which we have expressed above, absolutely without any ambiguity of
; ;;,h. small African rown of Abitinae, where the local authorities meaning or disputation, to the aforementioned Christians, that is, to
in the
ãir.ou.r.d a priest Sarurninus holding a religious servíce in 304 their corporation and their places of assembly (conuenticula)."31
and in-
domus of Ociavius Felix.2a At Cirta the authorities confiscated
By 310 the hard- 26Eusebius of Caesarea, Liber de martyribus Palaestinae 13.1, ed. E. Schwartz (Leipzig,
ventoried the contents of another church in a domus]s L908),947.
27
P. Oxy.33.2673 (4.D. 304).
20
Eusebius of Caesarea, Histotìa ecclesiastica 7 '30'1'9 ' 2sP.
,'N. Vulió,,,tnr"riptioi gr..q". à. s,.U-i," BCHJ6 (1932),291'-98r f.ol tle.Stobi svn- Oxy. 12.1,492 with Giuseppe Ghedini, "Ho topos nel P' Oxy. 1492," Aegyptus 2
Ernst fitring.i';.,i Su.u.y of ihe Early Christian Town
of Stobi," DOP 3 (1.921),337-38;cf.P.Oxy.8.11,62.2, andClementof Alexandria, St.'offiata7.5.
âsosue. see 2eEusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 8.17.1',9; Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 34,
tiõíø|,
' ',j st-tø2, esp. ß1l,42, with bibliograpþ at.15e-60'
im Altettum (Paderborn' 191 8)' ed. S. Brandt and G. Laubmann, CSEL 27.2 (Yienna' 1897).
Ëå, *hi.h i.. J. p. Xi.r.Ï, o;i ì¿*¡tílrri iitelkirchen
'
2rsozomen, Historia t)äît¡*ät^-i'l, tJ' J' si¿t' and J C' Hansen.(B-erlin' 1960)r cl r0Augustine, Breuiculus collationis cum Donatistis 3.34, and Contraparteffi Donati post
Géographie'.Yol' 3'. p.' 22' gesta 1i, ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 53 (Vienna, 1910); Optatus, D e schismate 1.16-17, ed.
S"..;;; É;;;; ,io ,"rtrriortl"o s '7 (PG áz¡, with ;anin
ed ' Fránchi de' Cavalieri, Note øgio' KarlZiwsa, CSEL 26 (Vienna, 1893).
2a passio
SS. Datiui, Sorlü;lri pritø. et àll;orum, Pio
srLactantius, De mortibus pelsecutorum 48.7-9, with section 9 quoted here, of which
grafice (Yatican Cit¡ 1935), 49-7I,at.51'
""-)l-ðirro
apud Zànoph;íik,- i"¡ Ziwsa, S. optati Mileuitani libri VII, CSEL 26 (Vi' Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 10.5.11, preserves a similar text in Greek; for the edict
"a. itself, see Herbert Nesselhauf, "Das Toleranzgesetz des Licinius," Hl 74 (1955),44-61'.
enna,1B93),185-97'
 I
CHAPTER ONE
12
The nomos of Maximinus Daia (309-313), also of 313, notes that
the
orders of Diocletian and his colleagues for the abolition of christian
assemblies had served as a pretext for the confiscation of private
property
belonging to Roman citizens by zealous officials'32 Even though the
own-
ershif,of"christian churches ar that time happened to be divided between
private patrons and incorporated Christian communities' it is easy to
åpfr".iá* how the officials charged with carrying out the edicts of per-
,å.,rtion might have thought this a distinction of little importance' Now,
however, NÀaximinus Daia chose to reaffirm Galerius' edict permitting
the construction of new churches and also to command the restoration
of ho,rr., (oiþiai) and estates (choria) to the "ancient [legal]
jurisdiction
of the Christians."
A diataxis of constantine to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, is conso-
nant with other imperial legislation of 313, ordering the return of
pos-
sessions once belonging to the þatholiþ.ai eþklesiai.33 This is the
first men-
tion in the legal ,o,rr.Ã of the þ.atholiþai ekklesidi, soon to assume their
of the empire. Another imperial directive of
-t. ", the piblic churches
ðonrt"rrtinË recorded by Eusebius of Cu.tu."" notes the ownership of
martyria (martyr's shrines) by the (public) churches, and likewise orders
their return.3a In 318 a certain Paul, priest of a community of Marcionite
Christian sectaries, appears in an inicription as the founder of a church
at Lebaba, a syrian-village.3s Täken together, these sources show the
emefgence of a rudiment"iy tyrt.- of public churches ,ust as Christian-
ity wäs receiving official recognition and support from the emperor'
For their partl private benefactors were not inactive, even at the height
of the great perseiution. The site plans for the Anastasius martyrion near
Salona"(ca. iOS-¡tO) show an exãmple of what was to become a typical
post-Constantinian private religious foundation, with the martyr's re-
'*"ir* plr..d under ih. upr. anã the sarcophagi of the founder and his
family under the nave.36
IMPACT OF THE CONVERSION OF CONSTANTINE
\with the conversion of constantine to christianity, there was a dramat-
ically increased need for places of worship according to the new state-
s2Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 9.10'8'
,,;;;;úi;;; u¡rtorl¡o rrrúriort¡"o 10.5.15-17; for relations berween constantine
and the
chri;i;;;;;.; iimothy Barnes, constantine and Euseb.ius (cambridge, Mass., 1981).
toËusebius of Caesaiea, De uita Constantini 2'37, 39' 40'
rvifÀ.f- Dittenbergei, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, Vol.2, No. 608 (Leipzig'
905).
'-lJÉin"r
1
Dyggve and Rudolf Egger,Forschungenjn Sclona, Vol.3 (Vienna,1939)' esp'
10-12; Atã.'é"ðr"b"., "L., .oniä.tt6 p"leo.ñtétiens de Salone et les débuts du culte des
inDisputationesSalonitanaelgZO,ed. Zeljko Rapanió (Splír,1975),69J4.
Àr.i^,"
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 1.3
supported creed. Even before the end of the persecutions, Pope Marcellus
t:öb-¡Oql is said to have had to draw upon the resources of his church
at Rome to build new structures to serve the needs of recent converts.3T
The shortcoming naturally was acute in the new capital of Constanti-
nople, where the pre-Constantinian Christian community was probably
quite small.ts Constantine took vigorous action to remedy the deficien-
cies. He erected several new churches himself on a lavish scale at Con-
stantinople, Nicomedia, and Jerusalem.3e Täking full account of the ex-
isting stock of churches, he ordered that the bishops should enlarge or
completely rebuild these with the aid of the provincial governors and
fundì from the treasury. In Palestine this effort was not limited to the
great cities, for even such lesser towns as Mambre and Heliopolis re-
ceived churches at this time thanks to Constantine's generosity.
The direct involvement of the emperor in the construction of þatb-
otikai ekþ.leslai, sometimes distinguished further as basilicae (imperial
churches), was bound to lead to misunderstandings and controversy. Nor
were problems long in coming. Optatus of Mileve preserved a letter of
Constantine to the bishops of Numidia (330) in which the emperor ex-
presses his frustration at the refusal of Donatist Christian sectaries to
ielinquish the "basilica of the ecclesia catholica" which he had erected
for his namesake city of Constantina (formerly Cirta), declaring that
"though they had been warned to give up what was not theirs, they re-
fused to do so."ao To compensate the orthodox bishops, the emperor
decided to accede to their request to turn over a public building "with
all its rights" to the ownership (dominium) oÍ the ecclesia catholica to
serve as the site of a new church. Doubtless the Donatists thought them-
selves equally entitled to the earlier basilica on the strength of a prior
imperial bequest.
Constantine was not the only emperor to discover that a basilica once
enrrusted to the ecclesiastical hierarchy might be impossible to recover.
In 385 Emperor Valentinian ll (375-392), at the instigation of his
mother, Justina, âttempted to lay claim to the Basilica Porciana in Milan
so it could be put at the disposal of his mother's retinue and her Arian
Gothic bodyguard. Bishop Ambrose (374-397), with the backing of the
orthodox faithful of his diocese, successfully opposed the emperor's
37
Liber Pontificalis, eð. Louis Duchesne (Paris, 1886), Vol. I, p. 164.
38Janin, Géographie, Vol. 3, p. xi.
reEusebius, De uita Constantini 2.45-46,3.25,48,50-51, 58, 4.57; Socrates, Historia
ecclesiastica 1.16; Sozomen, Historiø ecclesiastìca 2.3; cf . the important comments by G.
Dagron, Naissance,388-409; G.J.M.Bartelink, "'Maison de Prière'comme dénomina-
tioñ de l'église en tant qu'édifice, en particulier chez Eusèbe de Césaréee," REG 84 (197 l),
101-18, piovides a valuable philological study of the terminology'
ooEpiitula Constafltin¡ de basilica catholis elepta, ed. Karl Ziwsa, S. Optati Mileuitani
libri VII, CSEL 26 (Vienna, 1893), 21,3-16.

CHAPTER ONE
1.4
claims. A letter written by Ambrose to his sister Marcellina recounts the
events and recalls the bishop's exchange of correspondence with the
em-
peror: ,,you have no right tã violate the house of a private individual, so
äo you think you canlake away the house of God? It is asserted that
eveíything is permitted for the emperor, that everything is his. I respond:
Oh å-peior, do not oppress yourself with the notion that you have any
imperiál right in thosá ihings that are divine. . . . The palaces belong to
thË emperãr, the churches ro the priest. Authority is committed to you
a'
- public, not sacred buildings."
over " .. ^
neihap, ít is significant that ih.r. t*o successful defiances of imperial
*irh., fo, the .riploy,nent of basilicae occurred in the western half of
the Roman Empirå. In rhe easr, and during most of the course.of Byzan-
tine history, the emperors generally were able to put imperial churches
at
the disposal of partisans of their own favored creeds of Christianity'
There is even a iossibility rhar some sort of imperial right of patronage
in churches ,.r.ir u, Hagia Sophia provided the basis for the frequent
dismissals of patriarchs by the emperors in Byzantine history
lf katholikài eþþlesiai and imperial churches could not always be dis-
tinguished, the distinction between simple private churches and secular
d*ãlling, was even murkier. The tangled aftair of Ischyras, a priest of the
Meletian christian se6 in the Egyptian village of Irene Secontaruri, was
one of the scandals employed by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and
other enemies of Athanãsius, bishop of Alexandria (328-373), to dis-
credit the latter in the eyes of Constantine. The allegation was that one
of Athanasius' partisans, a certain Macarius, had used violence to stop
Ischyras from cãnducting a religious service and had broken a chalice
in
'What actually happened cannot be reconstructed, since only
ih. iro..rr.
Athãnasius' defense survives in his Apologia contra Arianos.az ln it
Athanasius flatly denies that Ischyras ever received proper ordination as
a cleric of any iect and that he ever had a church in which to minister:
,,He found no one to believe him, except his own relatives. For he never
had a church, nor was he ever considered a clergyman by those who lived
but a short dírt"n.. from his own village. . . . The church that he says he
has never was a church at all, but quite a small private house belonging
to an orphan by the name of Ision. . . . He is not a priest of the katholiþe
ekklesia',nor dåes he have a church, nor has a cup ever been broken, but
a3
he falsified and fabricated everything."
alAmbrose, Epistolø20 (PL 16,col. 10388, cÍ. 1042A).Fo^r the controv.^.1Ï,-t9. Andrew
L.r;-¿;;t;;håm, ,,The Topogi"phy of the Basilica Conflict of ¡.o. 385/6 in Milan,"
Historia 3l (1982), 353-63.
--';;;;i;r*J*.,
Aþologla contra Arianorum, ed. H. G. Opitz, Athanasius
g(/erke (Berlin,
i, i,
rs+6f ü"r. ír. ppi. tz-Løt; cf. Sozom,en,
't¡û.
Historia ecilesiastica 2.23.L; in general, L.
;A,h"n"ìiu. and thé Meletian Schism ¡n FgyPt," JEA.59 (1973).,181-89'
sá;r"r¿,
"';Ãìrtãirim,
Apologia74.3-4,76;trans. adapted fiom Archibald Robertson, Sølecl
Wrnìig, a,nd Látt")s oþthanasius, Bìshop of Alexandria (London, 1891), 139-40.
Y-
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 15
Athanasius' account, accepted at face value, would serve to show how
simple a matter it was for anyone to promote himself as a priest and
ooiñt to any convenient private residence ashis domus ecclesiae. On the
äther hand, it certainly is possible that Athanasius was being less than
forthright here, and that Ischyras indeed was a dissident priest superin-
tending a modest village church' In that event' it would stand as an in-
teresting testimony to early rivalry between private foundations and the
bishop's þ.atbolikai eþ.þlesiai. Whatever the actual facts in the case, it
should be noted that Ischyras eventually was able to obtain an imperial
grant from Constantius ll (337-361') in 339 for the construction of a
ihurch. Athanasius, to his credit, dutifully includes the letter of award in
his defense of his conduct in the aftair.aa
Even if the claims of Ischyras were completely fabricated, there are
other examples of private oratories, or eukteria, usually of wealthy
Christian families, that are attested by later sources.a5 Some of these were
completely private, in the fullest sense of the word, closed to all but the
families and the household of their owners. Yet the more extended house-
holds, especially those on great estates, might well have had an oratory
that would come to assume a quasi-public character due to the scarcity
of churches in the countryside in the fourth century. Since theii owners
would have to secure the services of priests on occasion, these private
chapels soon became a matter of concern to the ecclesiastical authorities,
iust as Ischyras' supposed church in the house of the orphan Ision came
to the attention of Athanasius. Other sources and archeological evidence
indicate that there were also transformations of rooms or buildings that
remained constitent parts of private dwellings into family oratories.a6
CASE STUDIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION, PATRONAGE, AND
MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE CHURCHES
To a certain extent, the Constantinian imperial foundations provided er-
empla which very wealthy private benefactors would follow in subse-
quent generations. Late and unreliable sources allege that some churches
in Constantinople owed their foundations to such benefactors even in
Constantine's day.a7 These attributions should be rejected as spurious,
aaAthanasius, Apologia 85.7.
{N/ 58 (537), 131.8 (545); Lassus, Sanctuaìres' 1'46, ñg. 62, a chapel associated with
the Byiantine palace of Qasr ibn Wardan in Syria; the house of Eusebia in Sozomen, Hrs-
toria ecclesiastica 9 .2.I-1'3.
a6R. Goodchild, "A Byzantine Palace at Apollonia (Cyrenaica)," Antiquity 34 (1960)'
24 6 -5 8, esp. 25 2-5 3 ; A. W. Meates, Lullin gstone Roman Villa, Kent (London, 1 955 )' esp.
130-47.
a7
Patria Konstantinoupoleos 3.6, 16, 99 (ed. Preger, pp. 21'6, 218, 249), with commen-
tary byJanin, Géographie,Vol.3, pp. 259,409,492.The reputed founders are all unknown
to PLRE, Vol. l.
16 CHAPTER ONE
especially when the sources use the name of a city district to account for
the origin of a church located in that quarter (for example, the invention
of a patrician Probus as the founder of a church of St. John the Baptist
in a quarter of Constantinople known as ta Probou). None of the indi-
viduals alleged to have founded churches in the capital in the Constan-
tinian era is attested elsewhere in the sources for the period. It seems
more likely at this time that domestic residences continued to be con-
verted into domus ecclesiae by private patrons as well as ecclesiastical
prelates, and that family chapels slowly evolved into oratories which
were still privately owned but open for public worship on the model of
the diocesan þatbolikai eþklesiai.
Such transformations were presumably accomplished in a variety of
ways. An unusual case connected with the rediscovery of the relics of
forty soldiers who suffered martyrclom under Licinius illustrates one way
this chanced to happen.as A certain Eusebia, a deaconess and partisan of
Macedonius I (341-360), a former bishop of Constantinople, kept the
remains of these martyrs in her own house outside the capital. Macedon-
ius was important for his role in introducing monasticism to the capital
as well as his sponsorship of diocesan philanthropic institutions.ae As a
firm opponent of Arianism, he lost the confidence of Constantius II and
was deposed in favor of Eudoxius (360-369)' Macedonius' followers
continued to play an important pârt in the monastic life of the capital
even though they suffered condemnation as heretics at the Council of
Constantinople in 381. When Eusebia saw her own death approaching'
she reached an agreement with some Macedonian monks' She promised
to bequeath her house to them in exchange for a promise to bury her
next to the relics. It was agreed that there should be an euþterios oikos
(oratory) there in order to render due honor to the martyrs. All the ar-
rangements were to remain secret, and the oratory itself was located un-
derground.
Some years later, Flavius Caesarius (consul in 397) buried his wife,
who had also been a partisân of Macedonius, next to the tomb of Euse-
bia, once her intimate friend. Still later, Caesarius purchased the site
from the Macedonian monks so that he might be buried next to his wife.
Evidently Caesarius had no idea that the site contained a Macedonian
oratory, only that he was buying a Macedonian monastery (he himself
was orthodox), which the monks sold, and he then demolished' without
as
Sozomen, Histoia ecclesiastica 9.2; cf . G. Dagron, "l-es moines et la ville: Le monach'
isme à Constantinople jusqu'au concile de Chalcédoine (451)," T¿tM 4 (1970)'229J6, at
246-47.
oeSozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4.2.3,4'20.2,4.26,7.7,8'1; Socrates, Historia eccle-
siastica 2.42; with commentary by Dagron, "Monachisme," 239,244-49, and Naissance,
pp.441-42.
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 17
oualms. The consul then erected his own private church dedicated to St.
ihryrur on the site of the older building.
Sometime after Caesarius' death, a priest named Polychronius recalled
that there had once been a Macedonian oratory on the site and resolved
to investigate its origins. The priest had been a household servant of
Caesarius and now probably served in the church of St. Thrysus. He was
fortunate enough to find one of the aged Macedonian monks still living
who revealed the secret of the existence of the relics of the forty martyrs.
The lapse of time and the extensive alterations to the site prevented the
old monk from determining the precise location of the relics. Polychron-
ius hacl witnessed the burial of Caesarius' wife, however, and with the
assistance of some clues provided by the monk he was able to excavate
and uncover the underground oratory and the prized relics. Empress Pul-
cheria took a personal interest in the excavations. She declared a holiday
upon the rediscovery of the relics and supplied a costly casket for their
rededication in the church of St. Thrysus. Sozomen, the church historian,
was present for the occasion, which he says occurred during the tenure
of Proclus (434-447) as archbishop of Constantinople.
The account, even if not strictly accurate in all details, nevertheless
indicates that by the 390s many of the distinctive features of Byzantine
private religious foundations-such as the construction, sale, and pur-
chase of church buildings-were already socially and religiously accept-
able. To the very end of the Byzantine Empire, this reliance upon private
philanthropy for the expensive construction of ecclesiastical foundations
was normative.
Even individuals in religious life might be dependent upon private phi-
lanthropy for the m€ans to erect these expensive foundations. This was
true especially of monasteries, which in their origins were exclusively
private foundations.so The Syrian monk Isaac, for example, convinced
Flavius Saturninus (consul in 383) to donate land and build a monastery
for him in Constantinople in 382.51 Likewise it was the Egyptian land-
owner Petronius who founded the monastery of Têveu for Pachomius (ca.
340), even though an official of the bishop of Panopolis had encouraged
Pachomius in the endeavor.s2
r0See Karl Suso Frank, Grundzüge der Geschichte des christlichen Mönchtutts (Darms-
tadt,1,975), esp. 15-17, 36-37, and Vera von Falkenhausen, "Monasteri e fondatori di
monasteri a Costantinopoli tra Costantino Magno e Giustiniano 1," Corsi di cuhura sul-
I'arte rauennate e bizantinø26 (1,979),151-55; for the female ascetics discussed below, see
Elizabeth Clarke, "Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine Advancement: A Paradox of Late
Ancient Christianity," ATR 63 (1981),240-57.
st Vita S. lsaacii, AASS Ma¡ Vol. 7, cols. 251.C-252C; cÍ. Dagron, "Monachisme," 232-
.J.t,
s2Vita prima S. Pachomii 80-81, ed. François Halkin, Subsidia Hagiographica 1.9
(1932), I-96, at 54.
18 CHAPTER ONE
Melania the Elder, heiress of a wealthy Roman famil¡ built a monas-
tery for herself in Jerusalem, where she lived for twenty-seven years until
ca. 410.s3 She also was the source of philanthropic distributions to other
churches and monasteries which were disbursed through a trust admin-
istered by her relatives and stewards. Her granddaughter Melania the
Younger was advised by African bishops not to distribute alms casually
to monasteries, but instead to "give to each monastery a house (oiþia)
and an income (prosodon)" in order to assure permanent benefits for the
recipient institutions.sa Melania followed this advice in founding two
great monasteries in Thagaste, for which she provided a "sufficient in-
come." Later, when she founded a monastery on the Mount of Olives
outside Jerusalem, Melania provided an example of humility by declin-
ing the office of hegoumene (abbess) for herself though she retained
the right to choose the foundation's director.ss Olympias' another weal-
thy benefactress active at the beginning of the fifth centur¡ built a monas-
tery adjacent to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople which she populated
with her relatives and chambermaids.s6 Olympias' unlike Melania the
Younger, assumed the direction of this foundation herself, and was suc-
ceeded in that office in turn by two of her relatives.
For their part, imperial and ecclesiastical authorities followed the lead
of Constantine and Macedonius and played their own roles in the con-
struction of new foundations. Even so, the role of private philanthropy
remained paramount. It is doubtful whether the institutional church
could ever have raised such monumental structures as the principal
churches of Constantinople independent of the benefactions of the em-
perors and wealthy private individuals. The number of patriarchal
churches in the capital always remained small.s7 It also appears that a
decision by the imperial authorities in the 390s to cut back on all forms
of direct and indirect subsidies to the churches and the clergy may also
have played a part in opening the field to private benefactors at this time.
Private religious foundations were even more important in the rural
areas of the empire. John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople
(398-404), pointedly urged the great landowners to undertake the task
of providing places of worship for the agricultural laborers on their es-
tates.58 Here, as in the medieval West, it is likely that the pagan masses
of the countryside first attended services at the oratories on the estates of
13Palladius, Historia Lausiaca 46.5,54.2, ed. Cuthbert Butler (Cambridge, 1898-1904).
raGerontius, Vita S. Melaniae junioris 20,22, ed. Denys Gorce (Patis, 1962).
55Gerontius, Vita 41,.
s6Vita S. Olympiadis 6, 1.2, ed. Anne-Ma¡ie Malingre¡ Jean Chrysostome: Lettres à
Olympiøs,2nd ed. (Paris, 1968).
s7
De antìquitatibus 35F-, ed. Banduri, and Patria Konstantìnoupoleos 3.65 (p. 239), pro-
vide some examples of patriarchal foundations.
ssJohn Chrysostom, ln acta apostolorum homilium Xvlll (PG 60, cols. 147-50).
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EIvÍPIRE 19
their empioyers.re Thus the rural private church became one of the prin-
cipal vehicles for the propagation of the Christian faith in the country-
side.
Of course the ecclesiastical authorities were concerned, as Athanasius
had been in the Ischyras affair, that the correct credal version of Chris-
tianity be preached in the countryside. A law of Emperor Valens (364-
378), probably from the year 377, complains that religious dissidents,
expelled from the (public) churches of the empire, were finding refuges
for holding their religious services in the residences and on the estates of
private landowners.60 A subsequent law of Theodosius I (379-395) in-
dicates that it tvvas common practice by 381 for outlawed sectaries to
establish churches in residences and on private estates where they hoped
to be beyond the reach of the law.61 A law of Gratian (375-383) issued
at Tiier in 378 demonstrates that the authorities in the V/estern Roman
Empire were also aware of this problem.62 By 388 the government of the
Eastern Roman Empire was already making a distinction between public
and private churches in legislation prohibiting heretical assemblies: "'$íe
command that the Apollinarians and all other followers of diverse here-
sies shall be prohibited from all places, from the walls of cities, from the
congregation of honorable men, from the communion of the saints. They
shall not have the right to ordain clerics, they shall forfeit the privilege
of assembling congregations either in public or private churches." 63
While the use of legal sources in connection with the assemblies of
religious dissidents on private estates leads to many vexing problems of
interpretation, they do indicate the existence of private churches in the
countryside as early as 377. Theodosius I prayed in a rural orator¡ prob-
ably of private origin, that happened to be near his army's encampment
on the eve of the battle of Aquileia in 394.6a Although these oratories
were apparently not uncommon by this time, there were still not enough
of them to satisfy conscientious church authorities. The fact that the
sources frequently give attention to oratories associated with heterodox
groups should not obscure the fact that contemporaneous orthodox
chapels (such as the one visited by Theodosius I) also existed. Yet serious
consideration ought to be given to the possibility that the expulsion of
religious dissidents from the public churches of the empire gave an un-
5eCf. Elie Griffe, La Gaule chrétienne à l'époque romaine, Vol. 3 (Paris, 1965),291.-96,
and \V. Seston, "Note sur les origines religieuses des paroisses rurales," RHPR 15 (1935),
243-54.
60cTh 16.6.2.L.
6t CTh 1.6.5.8, ct. L6.5.1.2 (383), 16.2.33 (398).
6'CTb 16.5.4 (378).
ßCTh 1,6.5.'1,4, trans. Clyde Pharr,TheTheodosian Code (Princeton, 1.952),p.453.
6aTheodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 5.24, ed. L. Parmentier (Leipzig, '1.911.; rcv. ed. Ber-
lin, 1954).

20 CHAPTER ONE
intended boost to the development of sectarian private churches in the
countryside.
of course the mere fact that a private individual, orthodox or hetero-
dox, founded a church did not mean that the building, once erected,
would femain in the full proprierorship of the founder and his family.
The extent of the rights that a founder exercised in his or her church
seems to have been a matter of personal discretion. Since these founda-
tions were not yet regulated either by civil or canon law, and the technical
considerations of ownership and responsibility for their supervision did
not interest our literary sources, proprietary rights must be inferred from
the study of individual foundations over the course of several genera-
tions.
The case of a church of St. Theodore in Constantinople.is instructive.6s
Apparenily there already was a tiny church dedicated to this saint lo-
."tèd n.*t to a great palace owned by the patrician Sporacius (consul in
452) when the latter structure was spared the ravages of a devastating
fire that swept the capital. Sporacius attributed the preservation of his
palace to th; agency of St. Theodore' and proceeded to build a grand
new church in his honor on the site of the first church. The Anthologia
Palatina preserves Sporacius' dedicatory inscription for this church. An-
other ins-ription in the same collection shows that his nephew Antolius,
whom Sporacius had brought up as if he were his own son, buried him
in st. Theodore,s. Later, the honor of burial within a church became an
exceptional privilege, usually reserved for the institution's founders and
chief benefactors.66
Despite its private origin, this church of St. Theodore eventually came
to be asssociated closely with the cathedral church of Hagia Sophia, with
whicþ it shared a common clergy along with two other dependent
churches by the year 535. As this was one of the chgrches destroyed in
the Nika revolt of 532 and subsequently rebuilt, it is possible that the
change in its status from a private to a public institution occurred at that
time. Yet the fact that Emperor Anastasius (491-518) ordered the Theo-
paschite addition to the hymn of the Tlisagion chanted in St. Theodoret
in 512 suggesrs that this church had become a public charge well before
its destruãtion in the Nika revolt. Perhaps this was occasioned by the
demise of Sporacius' family line sometime before the early sixth century.
152-53; Chrysippus, Laudatio S.Theodor.i, AASS No-
65Janin, Géographie,Vol. 3, pp.
u..Ë.r, úol. +, pp. 70Jl'; Aàlhologia Palatina 1.6-7, ed. Hugo Stadtmüller,(Leipzig,
189a); N/ 3.1 (5i5), esp. lines 33-38; Chtonicon paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB (Bonn'
1S32i; VðI. 1, p. 623; iheophanes, Chronographia a.m. 6005, ed. Karl De Boor (Leipzig'
1 8 8 3-85 ), p. 1 5 9 ; Patria Konstantinoup oleos 3.30, (pp' 225 -26).
66The þtetoriþon dikaion ensoriasthesomenon, for which see Zhishman, Stifterrecht,63.
Y-
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 21,
In any case, Emperor Maurice (582-602) restored it at the end of the
century when it was damaged again, this time by fire.
The church of the Theotokos ton Chalkoprateion, one of those that
shared a common clergy with St. Theodore's and Hagia Sophia, had al-
ways been an imperial foundation at the disposal of the diocesan author-
ities.67 It was one of the four important foundations initiated by Empress
Pulcheria. Apparently she left it uncompleted at her death in 453, and it
was left to Empress Verina, wife of Leo | (457-471'), to bring the work
on it to a conclusion. Significantly, title did not pass to Pulcheria's rel-
atives, the surviving members of the Theodosian house. Instead, this
church remained an imperial rather than a private responsibility. Leveled
twice by earthquakes, it was rebuilt by Justin II (565-578) and by Basil
r (867-886).
The praetorian prefect Rufinus (392-395), the powerful minister of
Arcadius (395-408), erected an important group of ecclesiastical build-
ings on his estate in the suburbs of Chalcedon.6s These included a great
church dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul (for which Rufinus brought relics
from Rome) and a substantial monastery with its own oratory. A mag-
nificent palace adjoined the ecclesiastical buildings. Rufinus' contempo-
rary Claudian, the pagan poet, severely censured him for arrogance in
erecting this grandiose monument to his own fame. Yet Rufinus' ambi-
tious undertaking foreshadowed the preferences of subsequent genera-
tions of benefactors. Only an occasional Byzantine dared to criticize such
ostentatious displays of philanthropy.6e
Ru6nus' sudden disgrace and death in 395 cut short the completion of
his plans. It is uncertain whether he was even buried in the church as he
had intended. The Egyptian monks he had settled in the monastery de-
parted for home, and the whole estate lay vacant for some time. Rufinus'
67Janin, Géographie, Vol. 3, p. 237; NJ 3.1 (535), lines 19-33; Theodore Lector, Eccle-
siastica historia 1.5, ed. G. C. Hansen (Berlin, 1971); Nikephoros Kallistos, Ecclesiastica
historia 14.2, 15 .1,4 (PG 1,46, col. 10614, PG 1.47, 4lD); Patria Konstantinoupoleos 3.32
(pp. 226-27); Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB (Bonn,
1838), p. 339.
Jules Pargoire, "Rufinianes," BZ I (1899),
68For RuÊnus, see PLRE, Vol. 1, pp. 778-81;
429-77; Janín, Géographie,Yol. 2: Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzan-
tins (Paris, 1975),36-40; Claudian, In Rufinutn 2.447-49, ed. Maurice Platnauer (Lon-
don, 1,922); Callinicus, Vita S. Hypatii 8.4-7, 12.5, 1.2.1-3, 34.2, ed. G. Bartelink (Paris,
1971)i Zosimus, Historia noua 5.8, ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1.887); CTh 9.40.1.7
(399); Sozomen , Historia ecclesiastica 8.17; Vita S. Auxe?ttii (PG 1.1.4, col. 1408); C. Const.
(536), Acta, ed, ACO 3, p. 48; Procopius, Bellum Persicum 1..25.21,30, ed. J. Haury (Leip-
zig, 1905-1,3; rev. 1962), Bellum Vandalicum 2.9.1"3, ed. J. Haury (Leipzig, 1905; rev.
te62).
6eAmong the few,
Jerome, Epistola 130, ed. I. Hilberg, CSE¿ 56 (Vienna, 1918), p. 183;
also, John Chrysostom, ln Matthaeutn homilium ¿ (PG 58, col.509), cf. In acta aposto-
Iorum homilium XXIX (PG 60, col.2l7).
 Y I
CHAPTER ONE
22
wife and daughter had sought ecclesiastical sanctuary. When assured by
Rufinus' riuafE.rtropius that no harm was intended them, they departed
for Jerusalem as exiles. They certainly did not inherit Rufinus' property'
most of which reportedly went to Eutropius, his successor as Arcadius'
chief minister,
when Eutropius in turn suffered disgrace and exile, an extant law of
Arcadius (399f ordered that all of his property was to be confiscated by
rhe treasury. That the religious foundations, located in the heart of Rufi-
nus' former domains, shared the vicissitudes of the bulk of his property
seems to offer the best explanation for their subsequent history. Empress
Eudoxia placed the great church at the disposal of Archbishop Theophi-
lus of Alexandria foi the famous synod of the oak in 403, at which John
chrysostom was deposed and sent into exile. Meanwhile, st. Hypatius
and an intrepid banã of companions had settled in the ruins of the mon-
astery and undertook some rePairs'
Earlier attempts to revive monastic life in the monastery abandoned
by Rufinus' Egyptians had been unsuccessful. The treasury must have
been willing to tolerate the existence of Hypatius' community. The Hy-
patians rehãbilitated the memory of Rufinus as the creator of the original
?oundation (Hypatius' biographer, Callinicus, calls him maÞarios, "fhe
blessed one,;), rho*ing the deference roward the founder that would be-
come a notable Byzantine tradition. In 431 Hypatius made bold to erase
the name of Patriarch Nestorius (428-431) from the diptychs in the ba-
silica in defiance of the bishop of Chalcedon, his ecclesiastical superior.
urbicius, cubicularius of Theodosius II, made an offer in 434 to under-
take the renovation of the monastery. Hypatius accepted gratefully, but
he himself remained the director of the institution. By the end of his life
in 446 Hypatius musr have appeared to be well on his way to establishing
the independent status of his monastery as a private foundation' He re-
ceived legacies and pondered the legal rights of the monastery to inherit
the property of a rich man who had died in its care'
TLe srrbsequent history of the monastery is obscure, but it was visited
by St. Auxentius in 451 and by st. Sabas in 513. lts hegoumezos (spiri-
mal director) was among the signatories of a synod at Constantinople in
536. Ru6nus' estate ne"i e*.tges in the full light of history as the hered-
itary possession of Justinian's famous general Belisarius. Here the gen-
eraús wife, Antonina, succeeded in disgracing her enemy, the praetorian
prefect John of cappadocia. The prefect took refuge in a church on the
.st"t. in 541, quite possibly the basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul erected by
Ruûnus. It would appear, then, that Hypatius' efforts to establish an in-
dependent *o.r"rt.iy came to naught, and that the treasury firmly rees-
t"blirh.d imperial authority over the whole estate. Justinian may have
given the property to Belisarius as a reward for his loyal services, perhaps
l'
I
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 23
in 535 when he pensioned his Vandal opponent Gelimer with an estate
in Galatia. The monastery appears once again in Byzantine history under
patriarch Theophylact (933-956), who found it necessary to rebuild it
from ruins.
The career of Juliana Anicia, one of the last descendants of the Theo-
dosian house, deserves special mention for her work in the erection of
several important churches in Constantinople and its suburbs.To She was
the daughter of Anicius Olybrius (d. 472), one of the last, ephemeral
rulers of the Western Roman Empire, and Placidia, daughter of Valenti-
nian III (425-455). since she vgas born after the Theodosian dynasty had
ceased to rule in either half of the empire, her benefactions are all the
more remarkable as expenditures from her evidently considerable private
resources.
II and
Juliana's grandmother Licinia Eudoxia, daughter of Theodosius
,pôur. of Valentinian lll, had begun the construction of the church of St.
E-uphemia in Constantinople in 462. Licinia died before anything but the
foúndations could be completed. Her daughter Placidia and son-in-law
Olybrius completed the construction and provided properties for its sup-
port. Juliana herself took an interest in furnishing and beautifying this
iamily church which was located near the palatial residence of her father.
Several dedicatory inscriptions preserved in the Anthologia Palatina
commemofate her labors, acclaiming the church as the work of three
generations. The most detailed of these reads as follows: "l am the House
áf th. Tti.tity, and three generations built me. First Eudoxia, daughter of
Theodosius, having escaped from war and the barbarians, erected and
dedicated me to God in acknowledgement of her rescue from distress.
Nexr her daughter Placidia with her most blessed husband adorned me.
Thirdl¡ if perchance my beauty was ar all deficient in splendor, munifi-
cent Julianã invested me with it in memory of her parents, and bestowed
the treight of glory on her mother and father and her mother's illustrious
mother by augmenting my former adornment. Thus was I made'"
71
These inscriptions, then, provide a unique documentation for this period
of a long-standing family association with a religious foundation.
Julianã was also responsible for the consrruction of a church of St.
stephen in constantinople, probably during the reign of Anastasius
(491-518). Here she piaced the relics of St. Stephen that her great-
70
For Juliana Anicia, see PLRE, Vol. 2, pp. 635-36; Frank Clover, "The Family and
Early Caieer of Anicius Olybrius," Historia 27 (1'978), 169-96; Janin, Géographie,Yol' 2,
p.2i;VoI.3,pp.124-26,274-76405-6;PatriaKonstantinoupoleos3.60(p.238);An'
tttotoþio Palatìia 1.1.0,1.2-1.7, esp. 12; Marcellinus, Chronicon t.o. 439, ed. Th. Mom-
...nJMGH, AA L1., p.80; JuleJ Pargoire, "A propos de Boradion," BZ 12 (1903)' 449-
93,''1|esp. 489.
Anthologia Palatina 1.12, trans. \ì(/. R. Paton, The Greeþ Anthology, Vo[. 1 (London,
1916),13.
 7
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EIV{PIRE 25
24 CHAPTER ONE

marter how prolific its progeny and how tenaciously it

held on to its
grandmother Aelia Eudocia, spouse of Theodosius II, had brought back
iith h., from Jerusalem in 4ig.r, These relics had reposed temporarily .,roo.rru rigltts, it is not surprising to see many changes in the adminis-
'rräon tf iarticular churchès over the centuries. The offices of the em-
in the churcn of St. Lawrence founded by Pulcheria, Eudocia's sister-in-
law. It is possible, as has been suggested, that Juliana exercised a sort of orror, ,h. iatriarch, and the local metropolitan or bishop did not depend
of these
right of ,;pious spoliarion" by translating these relics discovered by her ån pu.riËular family or dynasty for survival, so the incumbents
"
,,.,ritions ofren were the Leneficiaries when the founder's line ceased.
great-grandmother some sixty years earlier-
" as well as nu- 'Mor.ou.r, when disaster (whether man-made or natural) struck, the em-
Juliãna Anicia also founded a church of St. Polyeuktos work of
-Ërou, other churches not identified specifically by the sources. A re- f.ror *"t often the only one with the-resources to attempt the
of Dioscorides in vi- 'rr.onrt.,r.tion, as Justinian clid after the Nika revolt in 532 and Basil I
markable dedicatory illustration ro a manuscript
enna (see Frontispiece) salutes her as the founder of a church of the wâs to do after a severe earthquake in 870'
T'heotokos in Honoratae, a suburb of the capital.t3 The manuscript
illumination portrays a seared Juliana, flanked on either side by per-
sonifications, on th; right by Phronesis (Prudence) and on the left by IMPERIAL TAX POLICY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO CLERGY
ON PRIVATE ESTATES
Megalopsychia (Magnanimity). on the lower le{t are two srnaller per-
,on"in.uiionr, Euchar*istia Technon (Gratitude of the Arts), who kisses the Initially the emperors had played an active role in sponsoring the erection
right foot oí the patroness, and Pothos tes Philoktistou (Desire for De- of ne* churches as well ãs in rebuilding existing structures. Yet these
uiion to Building) who holds an open book, upon which Juliana drops rv.r. no, the only ways that the emperors chose to promote the devel-
some coins. Juliaia herself holds a book or diptych. All these figures
are
star. In the points opment of the institutional infrastructure of Christianity. Constantine
within oðr"gon, itself framed by an eight-pointed
hi, successors granted many privileges to the church and its minis-
"n are f"ound the letters of the patroness' name. The star is found
of the star ters, foremost among them being some important tax exemptions.Ts
"nd
within a circle, with the inrersrices ñlled with scenes of putti engaged in Cnr1rt"ntin. relieved the ,rrban clergy of the obligation to pay the collatio
building consiruction activities. A reference in the Chronographia of lu.stralis, a particularly vexing rax that fell on urban craftsmen
of all
Theophãnes to this church dates its foundation to 51"2' sorrs. His exemptio' of the rural clergy from capitatio, the head tax' was
and several granddaugh-
Juliana died in S27,leavíngbehind t\ryo sons prou"uty .u.r, nlor. significant in terrns of the number of clergy affected.
ters. An interesting postscriptto her career is the fact that the curopalates 'Conrt"ntin. also estaÙlished the principle that clergy should always be
peter, brorher of ÈÁperor Maurice (582- 602), transformed the old resi- since
exempt from compulsory labor services known as munera sordida.
dencá of Areobindus and Juliana into a church of her beloved Theotokos. and Byzantine times
the våst majority ãf .l.rgy throughout late Roman
By then it appears that the remarkable family of Theodosius had Ênally seem to have support.d ih.-r.lues at least in part by agriculture
and
díed out, some nine generations and well over two hundred years after it crafts, a partial oriotul tax exemption could make the difference between
had become prominent in the political life of the later Roman Empire. a difficulì and a comfortable existence for these individuals'76
Juliana's fåundations serve to illustrate the transmission
of ecclesias-
ownership that The existence of tax exemptions practically insured a significant in-
ticäl institutions and the changes in administration and
crease in the numbers of aspiring clergy, a fact oÍ which constantine
might occur during their extremely long existences' Some churches in
Since himself was aware.Tt His son Constantius ll (337-361) confirmed the
Co-nstantinople had institutional lives of over a thousand years.Ta
no patron's family would ever span more thân a fraction of this time no 7s
Leges saeculares 117 , ed. s. Riccobono, FIRA 2, p. 794; CTh L6.Z.2
(319); and A. H.
(Norman' Okla-
M. JãnËs, The Later Roman Empire 284- 602,.Amerkan edition, 2 vols'
T2Patria Konstafttinoupoleos 3.59 (p. 237\; Janín, Géog.mphie,Yol' 3,^p' 27 5; K' Holum n"rirÃj tgø+i, 65, 431., 912, Iti1, n. 52, and 1382, n. 101; for discussions.of clerical
,,The Triei Ivor¡ Adventus Ceremonial, and the Relics of St. Stephen," DOP i.-rri,i.., ... ólé-.n.. Dupon,,-"Les privilèges des clercs sous Constanti¡," RHE 62
G. Vik"n, "t"'^'^åll-Zig-SZ, über die Güter
"nd Otto Grasho?, "Di. G..åtr.ge6ung der römischen Kaiser
- (1979),113-33.
-33
tìi¡.optt"n es, Chronographia a,m.6005, ed. De Boor, pp-. 157-5 8; o.ltl. Dalton, Byz-. iïJl--unttat"n der Kirche und d.r Klerus nãbst deren Motiven und Principien," AKK 36
ont¡ii Àri and Árchaeolågy'(Oxford, 1.911),460; Ioannii Spath_arakis, Corpus of Dated (1876),3-51, and Barnes, Constantine, 5A'
'--;¡'Ji,rr. ágiicultural ánã .o*-.r.i"l activities of the clergy, see Herman, "Professioni
Greek Manuslíipts to the Year 1453 (Leiden, 1981), Vol' 1' pp' 5-6'
-- -lióuuio".ly
lllurninated
including Hagia Sophia, Hagia Irene, and.Holy Apostles, but also St. Menas ui.t"ir,i ä-q7, Ewa Wipszycka , Les ressources_e.t les actiuìtés économiques des églises
en Egypte du lVe^"a Vllle 1972),154-73'
tl^"¡", Ciisioph¡i,voí z, p] ::¡i, and Thlotokos of Blachernai
(lanin, Géographie,Yo¡ au siècle (Brussels,
*
3, p. 161). cTh t6.2.6 (326).
 Y
26 CHAPTER ONE
clergy's immunity from collatio lustralis and munera while also extend-
ing exemption from capitatio and munera to their wives, children, and
servants.Ts Emboldened perhaps by these concessions, the fathers of the
Council of Ariminium (359) petitioned the emperor for the elimination
of munera attached to church lands liable to Í.he iuga, the land tax.7e The
emperor granted this request as well, but he ruled that individual land-
owning clerics had to pay the iuga on their own property and sustain the
nlunera attached thereto. This petition makes clear that the church did
not enjoy automatic exemption from property taxes on the lands it
owned.s0 Moreover, clerics who were fortunate to own lancl of their own
had to pay the iuga also, even if as individuals they were exempt from
cLpitatio.
Although the pagan Emperor Julian (361-363) canceled these tax ex-
emptions for the duration of his short reign, it appears that his Christian
successors restored them promptly after his death.tt Theodosius I af-
firmed clerical exemption from the capitatio in a law of 38X.82 Yet by 398
it appears that the imperial government had begun to reconsider what
must have been a very costly policy of tax immunities for clerics of all
sorts as well as their families and dependents. A law of Arcadius from
that year orders internal recruitment for ordination to the clergy for
churches in villages or on private estates so that these clerics would con-
tinue to meet the obligation of their capitatio.si The law leaves to the
discretion of the local bishop the number of clergy who ought to be or-
dained to serve the needs of each localit¡ and clearly indicates that uni-
versal clerical exemption from capitatio was no longer being extended.
It is remarkable that such an abrupt change of policy would have oc-
curred without comment by one of the many interested contemporary
observers of ecclesiastical affairs. Perhaps certain categories of clergy,
such as those who staffed the churches on private estates, had never en-
joyed the tax immunities of their fellow urban clergymen, despite the
picture of universal exemption given by earlier laws. Alternatively, the
rural clergy simply may not have been very numerous until the prolifer-
ation of churches on private estates, which was occurring at the very time
this law was issued.
The fiscal interests of the state probably prompted this reversal of pol-
icy-if such it was-concerning the payment of capitatio and the insis-
tence on local recruitment. These were complementary provisions, for
78
CTh 1 6.2.8 (3 43), | 6.2.1,0 (3 4 6), I 6.2.1. 4 (3 5 6), I 6.2.1. s.1 (3 60).
T CTh 1,6.2.L5 (3 60); but cf . CTh 1 1. 1.1 with Jones, LRE, 1373 n. 65 .
' i;;; g;;;;"",
80
CTh 16.2.40 (412), 11.1.33 (423); Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica 4'7; lones, LRE,
361,.
sl
Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 5,5,
srcTh 1.6.2.26 (381).
83CTh 16.2.33 (398).
ORIGINS IN THF, LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 27
surely a clergy recruited locally from the peasantry would have posed the
fewest probiéms in administering the collection of the cøpitatio.sa As a
result, the local bishop's choices for clerical appointments to many of the
churches within his spirtual iurisdiction narrowed considerably'
A law of Theodosius II (409) refines the government's polic¡ forbid-
ding an individual enrolled on the tax lists for capitatio to become a
clerlc withour rhe express permission oÍ his dominus (landlord).as tn.
tenor of this law is in accord with the socially conservative views of con-
remporary church authorities, but it meant a further abridgment of the
lo.aì birhop's choices for appointments since it foreclosed the possibility
that he .ouid.hoore a candidate (even locally) without securing the prior
approval of the owner of the estate. It surely was a short step from these
lá*r to the right of the landlord to nominate the clergy for ordination to
-hi,
churches on estare-a right that received legal recognition by the
mid- sixth century.s6 John chrysosrom, for one, thought it a fait bargain
that the landlord should employ a cleric of his own choosing in exchange
for the construction of a new church.sT Evidently others agreed with him'
for there is no record of protests from the ecclesiastical authorities in the
East as the choice of clergy for these churches slipped out of their con-
trol,88
A certain number of clerics continued to enjoy exemption from the
capitatio even in the fifth century.8e Those ordained in excess of this num-
b., ha¿ ro pay the tax and also perform the ruralia obsequia, a form of
munera) alihough they were allowed to offer substitutes to discharge the
latter responsibility. The idea of restricting the number of clergy in any
given locality was not a new one. Constantine himself feared ân unre-
gulated increase and directed that replacements should occur on a one-
io-o.r. basis as older clerics died.e0 Arcadius' law of 398 left the decision
to the local bishop. It would have been difficult to lay down a universal
formula by legislátive fiat, since local needs must have varied greatly in
accordance with population and the number of existin$ facilities. Con-
stantine's inflexible formula quickly became impractical as the number
sa perhaps by the intermed iary of a landlord having the right of self-tax ation, ot autopra-
geia,for which seeJones, LRE, 358'407'780.
' ti Cl t.3.16 (409); A. i{. M.';.rn.r, "The Roman Colonate," Past and Present 1'3 (19 58),
1-13, esp. 6.
inNJ 57.2 (537) and 123'18 (546)'
"ôffici"llyrecognizedbyJustinian
87John Chrysos iom, Homilium XVIII (PG 60,- col" 148).
rr-Cf. the sírict limitations imposed on founders' rights in ostrogothic Italy by Pope
Gelasius, Epistolae Nos. 14.4, 2i,34,35, ed. Andreas Thiel, Epistolae.romanorum ponti-
(Braunsberg, íSød); fo. Gelasius' attitudes on thc appointment of clerics to
lriu"rå churches, Nos. 14.4, 20-22,41 (ed. Thiel), and Epistola No.
iO, .a. S."rr¿r" "rí'Epktoio"
Loewenfeld, Epistoiae pontificum rotnanofum ineditae (Leipzig, 1885).
8' CJ 1.3.16 (409).
,ocTh 16.2.6 (326).

28 CHAPTE,R ONE
of Christians expanded, and the perceived need for clerical manpower
continued to increase down to Justinian's time and even beyond.
The emperors of the late fourth century also took stock of the value of
other revenues lost as a result of generous tax exemptions accorded to
the clergy by their predecessors. A law of Gratian dated to 379 limits the
amount of tax-free income that clerics could earn before they became
subject, like lay craftsmen, to the collatio lustralis.el The authorities were
certainly not eager to see slaves and coloni (peasants attached to the land
they worked) elevated to the priesthood in order to escape the tax rolls
by reason of clerical exemption. Two laws of Valentinian III forbade ac-
quisition of exemption in that way.t2 Far from defending the rights of
slaves and coloni to aspire to clerical stâtt¡s, the church authorities were
already on record in favor of a policy of friendship and cooperation with
the landlords. They fully supported rights of ownership or patronage
over slaves, coloni, and others of "ignoble birth"' in part because the
church feared the double claim on the loyalty of clerics bound both to its
service and that of their masters.e3
This understanding helps account for such legislation as a law of
Theodosius II dated to 434. This law upholds the right of the church to
inherit the property of clerics and monks who die intestate without sur-
viving relatives, but excepts those who had been liable to the tax-rolls,
subject to ius patronatus (patron's right), or of curial (civic councillor)
status.e4 The self-asserted logic of this distinction is that in the latter cases
the property of the deceased belonged to his patron, the dominus of the
possessio (or the curiainthe case of decurions), and so was not transfer-
able on the death of the incumbent to his church. This law then serves as
an indication that many clergy serving in rural private churches were
simply coloni who had to work land rented to them by their landlords in
order to earn a living.
The laws of Arcadius and Theodosius II remained definitive on the
status of the clergy until Justinian took up the problem again over a
century later in 546. An earlier law in which he permitted even runaway
slaves to become monks under certain conclitions demonstrates that this
emperor was determined to favor the interests of religion over the prop-
erty rights of the landlords.es The law of 546 is very much in the same
spirit.e6 It orders that slaves who became priests "r,r'ith the knowledge of
their lord and the absence of his opposition" also became free men by
n CTh 13.1,.1,1, (379); this law applied only to clerics in Gaul, Ital¡
e2N Val 13.8 (445),35.3 (452).
erSeeLeo the Great, Epistola 4 (PL 54, cot. 611).
vcrh s.3.1(434) -- CJ 1.3.20.
sN/ 5.2.1 (535); contrast to Zeno's CJ 1.3.36 (484).
,6NJ 123.1.7 (546).
Y
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 29
virtue of their ordinations. Slaves could even become priests and free men
without the knowledge of their masters, but in that case there was to be
a probationary period oÍ a year during which their masters could claim
thäm and return them to their servile status. Similarl¡ enapographoi
(peasants bound ro the soil) had the right to become clerics, even con-
iiury ,o the will of their masters, provided that they continued to fulfill
theii agricultural obligations. Here Justinian was reversing Theodosius
II's requirement that the lord of the estate should approve all promotions
of his ãependents to the clerical state. Justinian left Arcadius' law intact,
howeuer, since the enapographos, given his contractual obligations,
could only serve as a cleric close to his own landholding'
Evidenily Justinian was attempting to break the stranglehold on cleri-
cal appoiniments thâr lay landlords exercised in his day, while previous
.,rrp.iorc had aided and abetted irs creation in the fiscal interests of the
,r.årury. The new legislation gave local bishops more latitude to make
their own appointments, and is consistent with the rest of Justinian's
ecclesiasticai ligislation which sought to strengthen the rights of the epis-
copacy ou., priu"t" benefactors and their foundations in the dioceses.eT
Tt e piacticai effect, however, is open ro question, since it would have
taken a determined bishop to provide the moral support necessary to
maintain a priest in his tenure of a private church against the will of the
owner of the estate.es
IDEALIZED PORTRAIT OF AN ESTATE CHURCH
Although the actual balance of authority between the local bishop and
the lanãlord church owner in the countryside may be a matter for con-
jecture, one of the homilies of John Chrysostom presents a valuable, if
.*tr.-ely idealized, image of a rural private church ca. A.D. 400.ee In the
homily óhryrorto- reproved his audience of landowners for providing
such amenities as markets, baths, and taverns for peasants while omit-
ting to erect churches for them, implying thereby that estate churches
*.i. ,rot yet an ordinary fixture of rural settlements. If we are to believe
chrysostom, the church nearest to some estates might be quite far awa¡
though surely not the thousand s of stadia (or multiples of 1,2! miles) that
he clãimed in the homily. His homily sets as an explicit goal that no estate
would henceforth be without a church of its own in order to promote
eTSee B. Granió, ,'Die rechtliche Stellung und Organisation der griechischen Klösrer nach
and lllyricum.
dem iustinianischen Recht," BZ 29 (1929), 6-34.
,tihis was true especially since Justinian recognized the right of patrons to present can-
to this
didates for ordinatioå by the local 6irhop, inNJ 57.2 (537). For conditions attached
right, see the discussion below in Chapter 2.
"rjohn Chrysostom, Homilium XVIII (PG 60, cols. 1'47-50)'
 T
30 CHAPTER ONE
Christianization of the countryside and to serve as a safeguard against
heresy.
The apparent reluctance of property owners to undertake the con-
struction of these churches is noteworthy. Justinian's legislation on the
subject in the sixth century indicates that this reluctance would persist
for some time to come.100 Chrysostom himself openly admitted that the
costs would probably exceed any profits, at least in material terms' but
he suggested that the non-material rewards would be quite substantial
and worthwhile. Foremost among these vvould be an increased respect
for law and order among the landlord's peasants. The church itself would
serve as an everlasting memorial of the benefactor' who would enjoy the
honor of recognition as its founder. A considerable prestige would attach
to the estate which had the only church in the area. Peasants from neigh-
boring estates would travel some distance to attend services there. The
property owner would find the church conveniently located for his own
,.tr. morning and evening services. The peasants c6uld attend each
"t
morning before commencing their work in the fields. The priest himself
would provide an example of piety to all by working with his own hands
in the fields. He would be a dinner companion and spiritual director to
the landowner as well as a molder of peasant behavior and a guard of
the estate. In Chrysostom's vision, "The farm having a church is like
God's paradise: there is no shouting there, no tumult' no enemies atvar-
iance, no heresies; you cân see that all are friends holding the same be-
liefs in common!"101 Even the ordinarily unruly peasant assemblies and
the foremen would be respectful out of deference to the priest.
Chrysostom's homily urges all men of good will to the task, not only
the great proprietors of his audience but the smaller ones too. They
should recruit a priest, a deacon, and a sacerdotal college, then provide
apomoirai (portions) and aparchal (first fruits) as a sort of "dowry" for
the church. If the owner could not meet all the costs of construction, he
should at least make a beginning by laying the foundations or making a
small house in the form of a church, that is, a domus ecclesiae. Subse-
quenr owners of the estate would then embellish this foundation, reserv-
ing the founder's glory for the original benefactor. An individual who
could not undertake construction all by himself was urged to persuade
his neighbors to help in a joint project. Thus all men of means had a role
to play.
THE PROBLEM OF SECTARIAN CHURCHES ON PRIVATE ESTATES
Chrysostom's homily shows an acute awareness of competition between
official orthodoxy and proscribed religious sectaries for the hearts and
(530); N/ 131,.7,10 (545); cf. Zeno'slaw, CJ 1'.2.1,5 (474-491).
tooCJ 1..3.45
l0rJohn Chrysostom, Homilium Xvlll (PG 60, col. 148, lines 6-9).
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 31
minds of the rural population of the empire.102 In part this competition
,.rult.d from the *uy in which the imperial government attempted to
.nfor.. its religious policies. Except where an entire province stood in
opposition to ù-t.r. policies (as Monophysite Egypt did in the fifth
and
it was a simple enough matter for the state to
,iïh ..rrru.ies),,.orthodox" lend its
support ro the faction of the clergy and expel the previous,
noï air...dited, incumbents from the easily accessible public churches
of the empire.1o3 It was a much more difficult matter to root out the
,,hereticali clergy stationed in private churches on estates' There the arm
of the law *as leak. As a maiter of fact, the imperial government ordi-
narily depended upon powerful private property owners to perform
,o-. gou"rnmentai fu.rctions such as conscription for the army and tax
collectlon.too This essential weakness of the government led to the issu-
ance of a major part of the ecclesiastical legislation of the Theodosian
code which is deãicated to laws against various christian sectaries.105
Generally speaking, this legislation assumes that the landowner was
ignorant oi th. fact ìhat there was a heretical conuenticulum (meeting
p"lu.e¡ on his estate. In the eyes of the law, the property owner enjoyed
th. ¡átr.nt of the doubt.106 The heretical church, having been denied legal
existence, could be viewed only as a completely secular structure em-
ployed for illegal purposes.r0T Although the religious sectaries themselves
the im-
-uy ttuu. .outid.ìrdthat they held their churches corporativel¡
perial legislators were incapable of recognizing this for ideological rea-
sons,108
This outlook makes the legal sources difficult to use as a tool for de-
termining the ownership of the religious edifices mentioned in them. It
is, for exãmple, problematic whether a conuenticulum (that is' ecclesia)
was privareiy ow.red by a landlord who sponsored its conuent.us (as-
sembìy), whether rhe se6arian community itself owned the building, or
*h.th.i the place of worship was subordinated in conventional pattern
102Forbackground, see w. H. c. Frend, "Town and countryside in Early christianity,"
scH 16 (1979),2s-42.
t'Athànasiús, Historia Arianorum 54, ed. H. G. Opitz, V9l' 2' Pt' l'.pp' 183-230'
SoZ()-ìn, fl¡¿oíia ecclesiastica 4.20,7.5,8.1, and Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 2.38'
3.11, provide examples of such displacements.
roaJones, LRE, 362, 615' 805.
totfT¡ 15.5. be hâereti'cis, discussed by Lucio de Giovanni, Chiesa e Stato nel Codice
Teodosiano: Saggio sul libro XVI (Naples, 1980)' 81--l 06'
106Note, for ãiample, CTh 16.5
'21 (392),16'5 '34
(398),1'6'5 '57 (415)'
t.iyn.rlur, Epistàla'No.67, ed. A,. Garzya (Rome, 1979), echoes this attitude of the
f"*, aliÁir.ini the Arian churches as nothing more than_private dlellings; so also Augus-
;;;;,-l;;;;;;;3iis iì'n Psolmo' xxl' 2.31,.eð. D' F' Delikers and I' Fraipontprotection
(Turnhout'
ï;\'6;;; ii:, ìr condemning Doíatists for usurping tituli Christi for the of
private residences.
'";;¿it"ì¿.t.iz.z t+tS); also Justinian's emendation of the word ecclesiae in CTh
16.5.65.3 (428) to co,nue;;¡cula, quae ipsi audacter ecclesias nilncupLle conantur in CJ
1.5.5.
 Y
32 CHAP'TER ONE
to a local (in this case "heretical") bishop. As it is, the legislation chooses
to portray large estates worked by conductores (short-term leaseholders)
and administered by procuratores (the owner's property managers) and
other domain officials, often in opposition to the expressed wishes of the
possessores,l0e This may have been true in some cases, but the picture is
at variance with John Chrysostomt contemporary testimony to the es-
tate owner's interest in the close surveillance of his property'
In more candid moments, the imperial legislation reports property
owners who offered preexisting private churches to persecuted dissi-
dents; others simply refused to expel clerics and communities of cobe-
lievers already living on their properties.ll0 Yet the law's emphasis on the
makeshift, secret, and irregular character of their meetings is surely mis-
leading. The sectarian communities employed all of the ordinary copiae,
potestates, and facultat¿-. of orthodox communities, as is clear from the
explicit prohibition of their exercise.111 These churches had developed
hierarchies, including lectors, deacons, priests' and even bishops in some
cases, as well as established sources of income.112 In short, everything
suggests that the churches of the sectaries were modeled on those of the
orthodox, In some cases, as with the Arians, Nestorians, and Mc¡no-
physites, they had once been the "orthodox" churches' and in the minds
of their local adherents they continued to be so regarded in defiance of
whatever credal variant the imperial authorities happened to be support-
ing at the time.trr
Since the commencement of official disfavor did not cause the sectaries
to adopt a radically different form of organization, there would appear
to be much to learn from an examination of these "heretical" churches
in the way of clues to the organization of analogous "orthodox"
churches. Indeed, the legal sources confirm John Chrysostom's testimony
that similar orthodox churches existed on private landholdings.lla One
need not take seriously the assertion of a law of Leo I that churches on
torcTh 16.5.27 (3g2), 16.5.34 (398), 16.5.36 (399), 16.6.4.1 (405), 16.5.40.7 (407),
16.5.54.5-6 (41.4), and 16.5.57 (41'5).
1r0For heretical assemblies in private churches, see CTh 16.5.14 (388) and 16.5.30 (402).
tltFacultas obtinendørum ecclesiarum: CTh 1,6.1,.3 (381); copia fabricandarutn ecclesi-
arum: CTh 16.5.8 (3S1), cf. 1.6.5.1.2 (383) and 1'6.5.65 (428)t potestas instituendorum
clericorumz CTh 16.5,14 (3SS), cf. 1'6.5.1'2 (383); copia colligendarum coftgregationum:
CThL6.5.12 (383),cf. 1.6.5.1.4 (388) and 16.5.65(428);licentiacelebrandiconuentus:CTh
1.6.5.66.2 (435), cf. 16.5.12 (383) and 16.5.30 (402); donatio in ecclesiae: CTh 16.5.65.3
(428).
t'1 CTb 1.6.5.19 (3 89), 16.5.6.t (428), cÍ. 16.5.52.5 (4'l'2), 16.5.57 .2 (415)' and NJ 42.3 '2
(536).
tt3See The Sixth Booþ of the Select Letters of Seuerus of Antioch, ed. E. W. Brooks, Vol.
2 (London, 1903-4), passim, e.g., pp.24,45, in which the Monophysite patriarch of An-
tioch habitually ¡efers to his party as the "o¡thodox" r¡4rile castigating the official (Chal-
cedonian) party as the "heretics."
14CTh 1.6.2.33 (398), 16.5.14 (388); cf. CJ 1.5.10 (466-472?).
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE JJ
properties transferred from orthodox persons to sectaries would simply
collapse and fall into ruins from disuse.11s That there was little or no
srructural incompatibility is apparent from the fact that imperial legis-
lation usually awards a sectarian aedificium (building) to the local cath-
olic church.tt'
The geographical scope of the anti-heretical legislation is noteworthy.
Violations of imperial ordinances are foreseen in the following localities:
the urbs (city), oppidum (town), uicus (vlllage), ciuitas (city), private
domus (house), fundus (large family estate), priuata possessia, uilla,
suburbanum (all suburban estates), praedium (a private estate), or ager
(farm).l17 As might be expected, rural hiding places dominate the list'
Tlreodosius I tried to set up a network of inquisitores (investigators) in a
law of 382 in order to enforce the ban on these illegal assemblies'118 He
encouraged informers to come forward without fear of the usual odium
being attached to them on account of their âccusations. This apparently
was an ineffective measure, for a year later this emperor turned again to
property owners "who esteem the cult of true observance" to expel those
holding illegal services behind the walls of private dwellings.lle
Theodosius' sons decided to rely upon local officials for enforcement
of the laws. Arcadius enlisted the services of the rectores prouinciarum
(provincial governors) in a law of 404, while Honorius depended upon
th.e defensores curialium (rnunicipal advocates) in his law of 408.120 A
later law of Honorius (414) supposes that the indignant dominus of an
estate, informed of what was going on behind his back through the ac-
cusation oÍ r.he iudices (provincial governors), would sternly reprove his
local subordinates or replace them.121
Despite all these enactments, the task of eliminating the institutional
infrastructure of dissident religious sects proved no easier than convinc-
C/ 1.5.10.3 (466-472?).
"5
16 cTh 16.5.57 .2 (4151, 16.5 .65 (428), 1,6.5 .54.5-6 (41,4).
117In order of appearance, domus: CTh 16.6.2.1' (377)' 16.5.8 (381), 16.5.12 (383)'
1.6.5.33 (397), 16.5.34 (398), 16.5.35 (399), 16.5.36 (399), 16.5.30 (402), 16.2.37 (404),
1,6.6.4.1. (40s), 16.6.7 (41'3), t6.s.s4 (41'4), 1'6.s.s7 (415)' 16.5.s8 (415); fundus: CTh
1.6.6.2.1 (377),1.6.5.8 (381), 16.5.21 (392)' 16'5.36 (399); ager: CTh 1'6.5.4 (378), 16'5.8
(381), 16.5.9.1 (382), 16.5.1,2 (383), 1'6.6.7 (41'3); oppìdum: CTh 16.5.4 (378), 16.5.7
(381);urbs: CTh 1,6.5.7 (381), 16.5.14 (388)' 16'-s.19 (389),16.5'20 (391), 16.5.34 (398)'
16.5.58 (415); ciuitas: CTh 16.5.8 (381), 16.5.34 (398)' 16.5.45 (408), 16.5.58 (415);
priuata þossessio: CTb 16.5.8 (381), 1'6.2.33 (398?); vtlla: CTh 1'6'5.12 (383)' 16.5.66.2
(435); suburbanum: CTh L6.1'6.5.1'9 (389\, 1'6.5.66.2 (435); uicus: CTh 1'6.2.33 (398);
praedium: CTh 16.6.4.r (405), 16.5.40.7 (407)' 16.5.54.5 (414), 16.5.58.4 (41'5). This list
incidentally provides a chronological documentation of the geographic spread of private
churches.
rscTh 1.6.5.9.1 (382).
ß, cTh 1.6.5.1.1. (383).
t20CTh 16.4.6 (404) and 16.5.45 (408).
t2t cTh 1.6.5.54.6 (414).
 Y
34 CHAPTER ONE
ing them that their beliefs were erroneous. Meanwhile, the imperial leg-
islation reveals a graclual change of focus from the landlord's agents to
the landowner himself as the likely culprit in the transgressions.l22 Ac-
cordingly, the imperial legislators modified the particularly savage pen-
alties ónce imposed upon rhe procuratores and conductores as time
passed on.i23
The survival of religious dissidents over the centuries in the bosom of
the empire proves that the government's repressive measures were never
u.o-p1.,.^success, and it is likely that private churches continued to
provide havens for these sectaries. The Historia arcana of Procopius of
'c".ru..u,
for example, restifies not only to the survival but also the
astounding prosperiiy of some Arian communities of the empire i' the
early sixtÈcintuiy.t2o'I'his was well over a hundred and fifty years after
the iriumph of the Nicaean creed under Theodosius I. According to Pro-
copius, the Arians preserved some of their churches intact throughout
thl period as wellãs their endowmenrs of aikiai (houses), komai (v¡l-
lages), and chorai (estates). Even many orthodox peasants reportedly de-
pJna.a for their livelihoods upon lands owned by these churches. These
Àrian churches survived unmolested by the emperors before Justinian's
time, despite laws forbidding their legal existence and even an explicit
bar againìt an Arian making a will or inheriting property.l2s The Mon-
tanisti also survived in Phyrgia despite similar repressive legislation.126
It was no simple task to uproot entire communities of sectaries in the
countryside. Thå peasants had a strong devotion to their traditional be-
liefs and were determined to fight, if necessary, to defend them.127 Con-
stanrius II had discovered rhis earlier when, at the urging of Bishop Ma-
cedonius of constantinople, he sent four detachments of troops to
Paphlagonia to aid his efforts to convert a Novatian community at Man-
tinìum, Nearly a half century later, a proud Paphlagonian peasant re-
called for the church historian Socrates how the Novatians' armed with
improvised weapons and suffering great losses, had destroyed the impe-
rial army almost to a man.
most of the sec-
Justinian also encountered armed resisrance, although
n, cTh 1,6.5.57.1-Z (415) and 16.5.58 (415) mark this new emphasis on the dominus oÍ
the domus or Possessio.
'2rComparå C-th i.6.5.36 (399) and 1,6.6.4.1. (405) with the more moderate provrsrons
of CTh 1.6.5.57.1-Z(415) and 16.5.54.5-6 (414)'
l2aprocopius, Historiaarcana1L.l,4-23,ed.JakobHaury(Leipzig,1906:'-r_ev.7963).
rts¡"r1i.i repressiue legíslation against the Arians includes cTh 1'6.5.8 (381), 16.5.11-
13 (383-334).'Cl 1.5.12(527) andN/45 (537)areprominentamongJustinian'sownmore
sene.al laws against religious sectaries; cf. Procopius, Historia arcana 11.15.
' rir¡u.1r., .ãpressiue iegislation against the Montanists includes CTh 1'6.5.34 (398),
16.5.57 (415), 16.5.65 (428); cf. Procopius, Historia arcana 1'L'23'
tttprocopils, Hìstoria arcana 11,.21-22; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica2.3S.
ORIGINS IN THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 35
taries simply fled their ancestral lands to find new refuges elsewhere.128
The Montanists of Phyrgia burned themselves in their churches at the
approach of the imperial army. The Arians could be uproooted only by
the confiscation of their church properties and the dispossession of their
agricultural dependents on these lands. Despite the difficulties of the un-
dertaking, Justinian must have realized that legal disabilities alone would
not suffice to wipe out the Arian and Montanist sectaries. Only a deter-
mined attack upon the economic infrastructure of their communities
could accomplish the government's goals.
The legal status of these sectarian churches is ambiguous, as it prob-
ably was to contenìporaries as well. According to a law of Theodosius II
dated to 415, the churches of the Montanists existed on private posses-
sions but still had their own donarii (votive offerings):12e
If, indeed, any person should receive the aforesaid persons [Mon-
tanistsl for the purpose of holding the forbidden meetings, he
shall undoubtedly understand that he will be deprived of the
property in which he allowed such meetings to be held and the
accursed mysteries to be performed, whether such property was a
house or a landholding. . . . Moreover, if any of their buildings
should now exist, which ought not to be called churches but fu-
neral grottoes, such property with its votive offerings shall be ad-
judged to the venerable churches of the orthodox sect. This must
be accomplished in such a way that the property of private per-
sons shall not be molested, so that under the pretext of property
belonging to the Montanists, despoliation and plunder may not
be perpetrated against private persons.
This peculiar situation of a church located on private property but pos-
sessing its own donarii might well have been the norm for private
churches, whether sectarian or orthodox, which were closely associated
with great estates.
Unlike the Montanist churches depicted in this law, the Arian churches
do not seem, according to Procopius' account, to have been ordinary
private institutions. Yet the legal limbo in which these churches existed
must have obscured their status. Procopius may not have had a clear idea
of their organization and administration or have cared to convey it to his
readers if he did. If these churches were independent, they must have
become so by being communally owned and managed. At this late date,
they certainly could not have remained public churches of the official
l28Procopius, Historia arcana 11.20,23; cf. the penalties enjoined against the Montanists
in CTh 1.6.5.57.1 (415).
t2'CTh 16.5.57 (415), trans. Clyde Pharr, p.461.
 Y
36 CHAPTER ONE

diocesan organization, for is unlikely that any government'. however

it
o."inefficiení, would have tolerated continued control of
þath-
;ã;ig;;,
olikai eþk"lesiaiby an illegal sect'
The ambiguous statusãf ,h"t. churches helps to explain.thedifficulty CHAPTER T\øO
for illegal
,h;;h. i-pãri"l legislators faced in determining responsibilitya domus (in
;;li;ir", assembliei since the place of conuentus was both
,,rilil.g"f title) of íh" dom¡nit of the estate and an ecclesia of the sec- The Regulation of Private Religious
taries. ihe usual close association of private churches
with the estates of
iñ.i, fou"¿.rs (notable in Chrysostom's hornily) and the unwillingness Foundations under Justinian and His
of sectarian churches com-
of the legislators to recognize the existence Immediate Predecessors
bined to" create rhis coricept,ral difficulty. The law of Theodosius II
shows the inevitable results of this self-imposed confusion.
ã""*¿"U."e
= provision of financial support
Th. priuute nomination of clergy and
must hãve been more conducive to the maintenance of sectarian com-
munities than the episcopal nomination and provisioning that wâs the
T T NTIL the mid-fifth century private benefacors enjoyed nearly com-
,ril l,' ,n. public Jh,rr.h., of the empire.13o The emperors rhemselves L,l plete liberty in the construction, endowment, and management of
of dissident religious commu- their foundations. Slowly this began to change, with the Council of Chal-
-igh, n"u. unwittingly aicled the survival cedon (451) marking the beginningof a new era of strict regulation of
,iri.r Uy severely timiiing the local bishop's choices for clericalthe ordina-
local
iion, ,o estate résidentu ipp.ou.d by the landlord. Presumably these increasingly important and numerous institutions.l The guiding
heterodox candidate not of his principles of the council's legislation on this subject were thar a founder's
Uirt op could alway, ,.furå to ordaìn a
ãr"n-ånoorirrg, but determining orthodoxy may not have been a simple grant, once made, was irrevocable and that all religious foundations,
of Anti- including private ones, must be subordinated to the authority of the local
matter. The correspondence ois.u""t', Monophysite patriarch
pressures he was under to ordain bishop.2 Hereafter no one was to found a monastery or an oratory with-
ã.n (Sf Z-Sf 8), illustrates the constant
candidates, even unqualified ones, as favors to powerful laymen.13l Sev- out the prior approval of the local bishop. Estate and other rural
made themselves enemies to the churches were to be subject to the oversight of the local bishop too.
.ru, ,.-"rked that rebuffed petitioners
prelate as Severus found it so Monks likewise were to submit to the spiritual authority of their local
tvtonophyrite cause. If such a conscientious
to a public church' it bishop, and their monastery, once consecrated by him, could not be con-
difficuit io ,erirt these pressures for appointments
rural bishops in the matter of verted to any secular purpose.
;;;t;" imagine the predicament faiing Despite this legislation, conversions of monasteries and philanthropic
to private estate churches'
"ppointrn.ttts institutions into secular dwellings continued ro plague the ecclesiastical
authorities down through the centuries.3 Unscrupulous laymen converted
religious foundations into hostels, taverns, and factories, as well as pri-
vate residences. Yet for structural reasons churches were less attractive
prospects for conversion projects, and so secularization of these institu-
tions does not seem to have occurred to any significant extent. The per-
sistence of the secularizations of the other facilities indicates that prop-

lSee Leo Ueding, "Die Kanones von Chalkedon in ihrer Bedeutung für
Mönchtum und
Klerus," in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, eds., Das Konzil uon Chalkidon: Gescbichte und
Gegenwart, Vol. 2 (Vürzburg, 1953), 569-676.
'zNo foundations without episcopal approval: C. Chalc., c. 4 (R&P 2.226); stbordina-
r30For the provisioning of the clergy in the. c_a-thedral churches of the empire and their tion of all clergy to the local bishops: c. I (R&P 2.234), cÍ. c. 17 (R&P 2.258); founder's
deoendencies, ,.. H..-"n,-;S..ui"t õhu..h," 1'21-25, and A. H. M. Jones, "Church Fi- bequest o{ a monastery ir¡evocable once made: c.24 (R&-P 2.271).
;ã;;;;,t.
'ï'S;;;r ÉlÍth Sixth Centuries," /TS n's' 11' (1960),84-94' 3
C. Tiull., c. 49 (R&P 2.423); C. Nicaen. II (787), c. 13 (R&P 2.612); Alexius Studites,
"nd
of Antioch, Epistolae 1,.8,1'7,33;7 '6, ed' Brooks' Hypomnema B' (1028) (R&P 5.30).
 Y
REGULATION UNDER JTJSTINIAN 39
38 CHAPTER T\IO

their foundations post, but the lector's sudden death spared Gennadius the necessity of
erty owners were often stubbornly disposed to treat
permitted by law in most other such a drastic intervention in a private foundation.
with the arbitrary proprietor's discretion The ecclesiastical authorities' position vis-à-vis the private founda-
remained' however' as
;"tp..;t. The caáoìicål leeislation of Chalcedon
hierarchy that tions, however, was somewhat stronger after Chalcedon. Pope Leo the
ãf¡",i. ."pr.rrion o"f opinion of the ecclesiastical
and purpose Great, in a letter to Empress Pulcheria dated June 9,45'J', could use only
,rriu",Ë relieious foundations ïad a special
",, legal character
moral suasion to bring about the deposition of the Monophysite archi-
*Àl.n n...õsarily limited the property rights of their owners' mandrite Eutyches from his leadership of a monastery in the suburbs
the founders could
The council's restriction' on thi property rights of
to how completely of Constantinople.s After the council, the imperial government joined
h";;i; b" ,"id to b. onr.o"', uni servg emphasize
had been be- forces with the hierarchy in a determined campaign to compel acceptance
arbitrary the power of the pairons_ of religious institutions
law traditionally hadtaken a of the new orthodoxy by all religious foundations. For his part, Emperor
fore the mid_fifth century. ilassical Roman forbade the foundation of Eutychian churches or monasteries
of pagan Marcian
*àr" ,adi."l position ii,h tt'pttt to th€ sacral
not
character
possible-for an in- and outlawed their use of existing facilities.e His law followed in the
i.*pf.t. The lurist Papinian assËrted that,it was
Marcian declared that sacred tradition of successive emperors since the last quarter of the fourth cen-
diviciual to own .onr'..'uttd property'a tury who had tried to prevent the founders of private churches from put-
;;**; *", i,t.np"bl. Uy atnni'øn of belonging to an individual' and
ting them at the disposal of outlawed religious sectaries.
,.-"in.¿ sacred even if túe temple erected on it ceased to stand's these
Some
prin- Emperor Leo I, in a law that dates to 466-472, reaffirmed the existing
É-p.ror Justinian endorsed
*d ñ after Chalcedon, them in his legal handbook, the restrictions by forbidding the sale or transfer of praedia (rural estates) or
.iii.J "i J"ssical law by incorporáting however' or of other properties that contained churches or oratories of the orthodox
iíri¡irrrt.' These rules áid t'ot actual circumstânces'
'"fl"ct faith to any member of a heterodox sect, on pain of confiscation of the
;;;;-;;;"g"ized legal practice, as the discussion of Justinian's regulation
property by the treasury.l0 The law poses no objection, however, to sim-
át fri.,ur"" fo,rndaiion, will iílustrate. The more limited
Chalcedonian
practice' were to prove more influ- ilar transactions between orthodox property owners, and so it implicitly
rriåliof.r. though ulrã in.fftttive in acknowledges the legality of private ownership of religious institutions"
åriåi""r"irr. rrira"rJ against which future reformers would iudge the
Another law of Leo I, dated 459, lent the support of the government to
practices of their own times'
"^nf*ttgft Chalcedln certainly strengthened the hand of the local Chalcedon's provision that oratories could be founded only with the ap-
within his proval of the local bishop.1l According to the law, there was now no
¡irfrrp in"his relationrttlpr with'private foundations located A story shortage of such churches, and so public buildings were not to be subject
ãiol.å., the prelate still had to .rr. hi, aurhority with discretion.
point' to arbitrary conversions for service as ecclesiastical institutions.
pr.t.t".¿ in John Moscus in his Pratum spiri,tuale :[::"1:t:-:le to cor- This legislation served as a prelude to the first general law governing
(458-471') wanted
ih. p"tri"r.ú of Constantinople Gennadius
â lector in the- oratory the construction of private churches that was enacted by Emperor Zeno
rect the notorious conduct of ã certain Charisius, (474-491.).12 His law requires that a founder granting property for the
Gennadius summoned the lector
of St. Eleutherius, a private foundation'7 foundation of an oratory or philanthropic institution submit legally cor-
p.rror,"lly reproved him, but Charisius persisted in.his.old ways'
"iá to send hís apoÞrisia.rios (per- rect acts of donation which would bind him and his heirs to his
il;;;;;;;;rrirr.å found himself obliged
to to St. Eleutherius announced intentions. Zeno gave permission to the bishops and their fi-
,on^i .nuoy) to the oratory with instrultio's appeal
the recent nancial stewards, the oiþonomol, to take the initiative from the heirs, if
irì-r.ü.1,úár ro reform the lector or strike him down' Despite necessary, and to compel fulfillment of the promised foundation.
affirmationofhi,po*"rsofspiritualsupervisionoveralltheclericsofhis Through this law the government was declaring its interest in seeing pri-
charisius from
his diocese, the patriarch did ñot venrure to disrniss vate religious construction projects carried through to completion. This

aDì9. 18.1.73. 8
Leo the Great, Epistola 84 (PL 54, col. 922)
sDig. 1.8.6.3. ,CJ 1.s.8 (455)
6
Inst. 2.1.7-B ; 3.23.5. of this toCI 1.s.10 (466472?)
Tlohn Moschus,l'ratum spirituale (PG 87'3' cols',3008-9)' For the foundation ll cI 1,.3.26 (4s9).
reign of Arcadius' see P,tria Koft-
.h"l.h:';;;;;àìt'ut ,rt. p"it,.i".' sÀltios during the t2
cl 1,.2.15 (474-49L).
ä'iäi',Tí.ùTii.;;;6 iìsi, Janin, Géographie'Yot' 3' pp' 115-16'
"t'
 REGULATION UNDER JUSTINIAN 41
40 CHAPTER 1-\øO

private property,rights, an no man,s property" remained without practical effect.t6 l-eo I's legisla-
concern took precedence over the founder's tion had the effect of confirming the rights of private property owners to
the abridgment of these traditional rights of
disposition
;;;;;;".p i' buy and sell ecclesiastical foundations among themselves. In 545 Justi-
over private foundations' nian himself issued a law that tightened up some of the provisions of
Inawestern¿o.u*.n.of4TltheCatholicGothFlaviusValilalisted Leo's law by including Jews, Samaritans, and pagans on the list of those
the church of the Blessed
the sources of ,.u.nu" *hìlh h" ""igned for ineligible ro purchase property that containecl a private church.rT By this
near modern Tivoli'13
Virein that he hud .r.it"i on his estaá ar Cornura same law he also forbade rental of such properties to the groups enu-
for the supporr of the as-
ii,,:ä;;ii;;;;riã;;.¡ documenr provicles for necessary repairs and merated, and he changed the recipient of confiscations from the treasury
;ñilùrgy;for the riglìirg of ,h. .hur.h, and
from his landed to the local orthoclox ehurch.
building rn"int.n"rr..l V"fí" intended that revenues known Leo's law, and Justinian's emetldation of it, provide the background
legal device
;õ;i;h.di supply the necessarv funds' Under a
for consideration of two important laws of Justinian that deal specifically
caLtsa) Valila reserved some of the land and its
as the donatio morti; with private churches. The first of these laws, issued in 537, places severe
revenue for his o*r, *. t'ntií dt"th, when
the church was to receive the
restriitions on the employment of oratories in private houses.rs The em-
whose revenues would sup-
entire estate.la Valila u.i "rid" specific lands of peror objected to the private celebration of the liturgy. Accordingl¡ he
Dorr the officiating .r*-gy, ir,r, s.p".uting their maintenance from that tan.,ed rhese oratories, but lessened the signiÊcance of this prohibition
donated to the
ihi:i,;ì;h;, "inäi.. Éis list of the movableasprop,erty as.agricultural im- by permitting private individuals to summon clergy from the regular
church includes ,t. u*"i church furnishings
well
clerics, bish- .ú,ri.h.r lprovided the local bishop gave his permission) to celebrate the
of rhe estate. valila excluded
J.;;;;; ¡"; the exploitationdesce"dants alike from any right to alienate
liturgy wlihin the residences in special rooms set aside for prayer. This
ã;;;;tá his relatives-and
respects' then' this document
arrangement preserved the local bishop's rights of spiritual supervision
iliese dedications from the church' In many in accordance with the canonical prescription of Chalcedon.le Justinian
law two
the requirements that Justinian was to enact into feared that without such supervision, these most private spiritual retreats
"nri.if",.t
generations later. woulcl be used by sectarian dissidents'
In Justinian's second laç' on the subject, issued in 545, he made his
LEGISLATION OF JUSTINIAN inteniions clearer by forbidding anyone to perform the holy liturgy,
either in his own house, or on a proasteion or chorion, or to allow others
his quaestor Tþibonian (d' ca' 542)' to do so, excepr, of course, the clergy subordinate to the local bishop.20
Justinian, acting initially through private foundations as no
elaborated and systemati"d tht ttgulation of Justinian therãby extended the scope of his earlier law to cover
rural as
;;;;;;¡;t;ã. him ever dld'" Naturuilv ht was much indebted well as urban localities. Since the novel that contains this law also in-
"ft.,
to the precedents t"ppfit¿ Sy his imperial predecessors' -1:^:1Ï:tt "t cludes Justinian's revision of Leo I's law on the transfer of estates con-
benetactors'
Cn"il.àorr, and the .ãnt.-pornry practices of conscientious taining churches, it is clear that the emperor had no intention of banning
His own regulations *outir.-"in authoritative until the late ninth cen- privaté churches outright. Justinian was not trying to prevent regular
tury. servi.es in private churches either. His intention was simply to subordi-
ñeither the civil nor the ecclesiastical authorities of
the empire ever
nare these åhurches to the local bishops through their control of the of-
theoretical
atte;p;d to outlaw itt.-ftiu"" gwnerslp of churches' The by Justinian
ficiating clergy. Justinian certainly did intend to prevent private individ-
borrowed from'pagan classical lãw and embraced uals fróm sponsoring religious services closed to public scrutiny and
"ril.i'of.
i"'äiirrr¡ãir,,o tt. effåct"that "what belongs to divi'e law is among from maintáining their own clergy without effective supervision by the
and also Luigi Bruzza'
bishops. It is hardly likely that he intended to place the same restrictions
13
Ed. with commenrary by ulrich srutz, Benefizialwesens,53-54,
Regesto della chiesa di Tiuoli (Rome' I 880)' D9t: l'. t6Institutes 2,1.7
-
raFor the donatio **,,î'rà)-t¡'',"t6 Ci i.'¿.tC.t t470) and W'
\M Buckland
'Textbook
o{ .
1'N/ 131.14.1-2 (545).
Roioi Lo*,2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1950)' 257-58' 18N/ 58 (537).
cesetz' I
* For Justinian.. ...r.rlrriiiãii.gislatiãn, see Gustav Pfannmüller, Die kirchliche p
c'. chalc., c. 8 (R&P 2.234) and Theodore Balsamon, commentaria ad c. chalc., c.
ìöit i;;t;;
(Berlin' k;;tht' Svstem des iustinianischen Kirchenuet- (R&p 2.236), both suggesting possible abuses by laymen in their capacity as founders or
e,ebuns lustiniazs
mösensrechts(Stuttgart, 1g05);íì;il Alivisatos, oæ kìrchliche Gesetzgebung des Kai- patrons as a motivation for this canon.
<prs Iustinian I. (Berlin,'iõiJi,-?;; T.ibonian's role
in the formation of Justinian's
(London' le78)' esp' 243-s6' 'N/ 131.8 (545); cf. C. Chalc-, c. 17 (R&P 2'258)'
iåálråiøí,'iå" i."y äã"t.¿' Tribon¡an
 CHAPTER TWO
42
on those urban and rural private churches that were open for public
worship under the watchful eyes of the orthodox bishops'
In a iaw of 538 Justinian acknowledged that landlords were still build-
ing illegal churchès for religious dissidents despite repeated legal pro-
hiËitioris.tt Monophysite sources present an even more vivid picture of
widespread conrempt for the laws.22 Justinian and his chalcedonian par-
tisans condemned these churches as "robbers' lairs" and "dens of iniq-
uity.,, The emperor neverrheiess hoped to curb the problem by insisting
that the p.osp"ctiue founder obtain the approval of the local orthodox
bishop ¡.forË commencing construction. The emperor must have real-
ized tirat private foundations were too important to ban outright, despite
illegal employrnent posed for the good order of the
the dangårs"His that
church. legislatioì sought to prevent future abuses and to channel
indispensable private philanthropy in useful directions'
at the time of his first
Justinian,s áiffi.ulties with the lv{onophysites
la* rn the subject in 537 had an important influence on his decision to
ban oratories in private houses. The fathers of the council held in con-
sranrinople in Mãy 536 had petirioned the emperor,to expel the Mono-
physites from the capital, complaining bitterly that_they were conducting
,.*i.., illegally in the public churches, in private homes, and on proas-
teia.23 Four monrhs latèr Justinian obligingly issued a novel complying
with all their requests.2a Empress Theodora's protection atlcl nrainte-
nance of Severus ãf Antioch and other Monophysite leaders in the im-
perial palace itself probably convinced Justinian that the problem was
grave and that new laws were needed'25
Alrhough Justinian had no objection to the sale, rental, and transfer of
propertie; containing churches and oratories among orthodox landown-
.rr,'h" was vehemently opposed to secularization of religious faciiities'
A law dated to 535 singles out rhe Egyptians (although noting violations
elsewhere) for this offense with respect to monasteries'26
The requirement for founders to obtain the permission of their local
bishop before initiating the construction of a church or monastery was
the cårnerstone of Justinian's program for regulating private founda-
^NI (538); cf. N/ 131.14.2 (s45)'
67.1'
,¡1g., \w. Brooks, Po 17
of Éphesui, Liues of .tbe Elstefn.saints, ed. and trans. E,
lor-,i-r
óf and Sergius,.pp.106-7;TwelfthHistory: Lives
(pur¡i,15íz),FiÍth i-listory: Lives Simeon
;1 À'dt
".,á'Euph.-i",
i. tzl; po 18 (Paris, 1,92\,Thiltv'Þirst Hístorv: Lives of Elijah
and Theodore, p. 583.
23C. Const. (fiq, ¿"ta (Mansi, Vol. 8, col. 1006C)'
]ljYrit !tiÍH'1":,'l?;,,,po
18 (paris, te24),rwentv-Fi h Histo^rv: Lire or John or
U.pËã.rtopolii, p' S:t; Foity-Seventh- History:-Of.the Refugees in Constantinople' pp'
eù-Aq; Fårty-Éighth History: Lives of the Five Patriarchs, p' 686'
'6NJ 42 (536), esP.3.2.
REGULATION UNDER JUSTINIAN 43
tions. In support of the mandate of Chalcedon, Justinian issued a law in
538 (renewed in 545) which sets out the prescribed ritual observances.2T
The bishop was to say a prayer on the site, fix a cross there, and arrange
for a procession. All of this would serve to make the erection of a church
or monastery a matter of public knowledge and official scrutiny'28 In
time, the establishment of the cross came to symbolize the bishop's spir-
itual jurisdiction over the building, though it did not, of course, give him
any property right in it'
Despite Justinian's best intentions, ecclesiastical clissiclents were not
deterred by this requirement. After the condemnation of the Monophys-
ites at the Council of Constantinople in 536' they lost control of many
of their existing churches and monasteries, especially in the large cities
like Alexandria. There a notable named Dorotheus lodged an appeal
with the governor of Egypt, Aristomachus, asking permission to build
new churches for communities of Monophysite monks.2e Surprisingl¡
Aristomachus gave Dorotheus permission to do as he wished, effectively
undermining Justinian's law. In another case' a militant Syrian Mono-
physite monk named Sergius defiantly erected a monastery at Qlwfyte
without the pennission of the local Chalcedonian bishop.30 Sergius' op-
ponents reported him to the bishop, who sent his agents to arrest him
ãnd demolish the monastery. Sergius vowed to rebuild the monastery
thirty times, if necessar¡ and ultimately he was successful in defying the
local authorities and establishing his foundation on a permanent basis.
Like his predecessor Zeno, Justinian was concerned about insuring
that the heirs of a benefactor would carry out testamentary plans for the
construction of religious foundations. Justinian confirmed Zeno's regu-
lation in a law of his own issued in 530, and he also established time
limits for the completion of construction.3l At first these were three years
for an oratory and one year for a philanthropic institution, but in 545
the emperor thought it necessary to extend the limit for oratories to five
years.32 Justinian obliged the heirs to buy or lease a building to serve as
a temporary home for a philanthropic institution if they could not meet
the time limit.
Justinian ordered the local magistrates to assist the bishops and their
c. 4 (R&P 2.226); confitmed bv N/ 131.7 (545).
Nl 67.1 (538), cf. C. Chalc.,
rCf. N/
'z,
123.32 (546), which forbids laymen to conduct religious processions without
the participation of the local bishop.
,qHistory of tbe patriarchs of Alexandria, ed. and trans. B. Evetts, PO 1 (Paris, 1907),
pp.457-58.
^-
:o;ohn of Ephesus, Liues, PO 17 (Paris, 1923),Fifrh History: Lives of Simeon and Ser-
gius, pp. 106-7.
3'C/ 1.3.45 (530).
,N/ 131.10 (545).
 CHAPTER T!(/O
REGULATION UNDERJUSTINIAN 45
44

responsibility of amination of imperial foundations is beyond the scope of this study, there
oiþonomoi whom Zeno had already deputed for the
if is still much to learn from the circumstances attending the erection of
,.rì"g i" i that the heirs fulfilled their Ègal obligation.33 Moreover, and the these institutions since they continued to form a paradigm for the bene-
,h. ,írrropolitans and archbishops suspected that the bishop a foun- factions of private individuals. Zachariah of Mitylene provides an ac-
benefactor,s heirs were in collusion to frustrate the
completion of
for counr of Bishop Thomas of Amida's consrruction of a church at Dara
ãã.i"r,lrrrlnian ordered that the¡ too, should assume responsibilitysum-
could under the ordefs of Emperor Anastasius (491,-51.8).42 Anastasius obliged
the fulhîlmenr of rhe tesramentary bequest.3a The authorities
where they might be com- Thomas to submit an account of his expenditure of imperial funds on
-ån ifr" reluctant heirs to court if n.ð.tt".¡
bequest from rhe founder's esrate.3s the project, and in return he sent the bishop a receipt from the treasury
;;ii;t r. pay double the original to_undertake the task acknowleclging proper use of the money and promising immunity from
írrrìrr",,i"á.u.n willing to u'ilo*.th.io.cal,bishop investigation for embezzlement. Evidently this procedure remained the
äf .or,r,ru.rion himself ,o exclude the founder's family from partic-
""nd financial administration of the insti- gsual way in which the emperor's subordinates received documentation
þ",i; inyetthe frequenrly profirable of the faithful and honest performance of their duties, ¡udging from the
;;;;.r. only u flut ,.?urul ro proceed with construcrion, maintained
incidental mention of such receipts in a late eleventh-century monastic
;;; ; long períod of time, woulcl iustify this drastic overriding of the foundation charter.
traditional rþhts of the founder's family'
was frequently The monastic hagiographer cyril of Scythopolis recorded Justinian's
In the abselnce of a testamentary bequest of property, it
founda- own arrangements fof the construction of a church of the Theotokos at
n...rr"ry ro pufchase land on which-to build a new religious Empress Theodorus,
;i;;." ú"r. ,h. Solitary, a Monophysite ascetic and favorite of Jerusalem in the early 530s.a3 The emperor assigned a ceftain
of a mecha.nikos (architectural engineeer) for the actual construction of the
irr.å¿år", purchased á'proortriår lsuburban estate) in the vicinity
to build with church. The trakteutai (tax clerks) of the praetorian prefect's office in
èã"ri"",iråple as the site for a martyrion that he intended Palestine were to supply the gold necessary to meet the costs. Peter, arch-
imperial assistance'" Thomas the Armenian' another Monophysite
for the erection bishop of Jerusalem, had the final authority over the project, but Bara-
;;;k, purchased land adiacent to the Euphrates River purchased chos, bishop of Bakatha, was charged with immediate oversight of the
of nit'àonastery." The famous Palestinian abbot St' Sabas construction. Thus the emperor seems to have adopted for himself the
he had in-
iand for a xenodocheloz (guesthouse) at Jericho with money
Sion was com- system of administrative oveisight that he was requiring of others at this
r,.ri,.¿ from his morher, Sophia.a0 St. Nicholas of Flagios
in order time in his law regulating private foundations.
;;ilrJ;b;; i"r; for a church his
that he wished to erect at Pinara
Justinian and Theodora also took an interest in assisting the private
io ou.r.o-. opposition to plans'a1
foundations of their ecclesiastical favorites. The imperial couple's activi-
ties in this area resulted in foundations that defy easy categorization of
IMPERIAL FOUNDATIONS ownership. According to one version of the foundation of the Chora
a lesser extent' their predecessors as monasrery of Constantinople, Justinian allowed the monk Theodore (re-
Justinian and Theodo ra, anå, to putedly the maternal uncle of Theodora) to tour imperial properties in
;;il, ;"t. great benefactors in their own right' Although a detailed ex- ihe capital to pick out a site for the monastery.aa Theodore selected a
xcl 1.3.45.2 (530). prop.rly that had once belonged to the illustris charisius and that al-
14c./ 1.3.45.6 (530).
5C/ 1.3.45.7 (s30). i."áy .ont"ined a small private church. Mare the Solitary was another
3'cl 1.3.45.1b (530). beneficiary of imperial favor who seems to have possessed the equivalent
rTFor a contrary vle* Granió, "L'a,cte de fondation d'un monastère dans les
prov-
see B.
i...r^;;.;q;;; Ã'nur_E-piJ.'* î. J, vte siècle," in Mélanges charles Diehl, Yol. I azzachariah of Mitylene, syriac chronicle 7.6, trans. F. J. Hamilton and E. 'w. Brooks
""
,o"l;j;li"'3lJfi*,::liå po 18 (paris, re24), rhirty-Sixth History: Life of Mare the (London, 1899)^ For táter dyzãntine parallels, see Gregory Pakouriano-s, Typiko,n)-ed.Paul
òautier,."Le Typikon du sébaste Grégoire Pakourianos," REB 42 (1984),5-145' at pp'
Solitar¡ p. 639. 1,27-29, lines 1777-78, 1794, 1'805-9 1'819, 1'823-24, 1 834-35.
:rJohnofEphesus,Liues,POlT(Paris,1923),Twenty-FirstHistory:LifeofThomasthe '
arCyrilof Scythopolis, VitaSøbae,Ch.73'eð. Schwartz, p. 177. ,
"";ö;i't p. 296.
Armenian,
s.y;hopolis, vita sabae, ch. 25, ed. Eduard schwartz, Kyrillos
uon skytho-
ooVita S. Thóodoi¡ Chorensis, Ch. 19, ed. Ch. Loparev, De Theodoro monacho hegume-
noque Chorensl (St. Petersburg, LSOZ); cf. Patria Ronstantinoupo.leos 3.184,(p.273) anð
polis (Leipzig,1939)' P. 109'
¡aiin, Géographìe,yol S, pp.5+6-+Z for an alrernate version of the origin of this
founda-
atVita Nicolai Sionitae,Ch.69, ed. Gustav Anrich. Haglos Niko/aos' Vol' I (Leipzig'
tion.
1913), p. 50.
 T\íO
REGULATION UNDËRJUSTINIAN 47
46 CHAPTER

AÍt'er purchasing a considerable total of imperial religious fou¡dations recorded by Proco-

of a blank check for the erection ol a martyrion'a\ pius and otl'rers.
suitable site, Mare ,""ì-^--.rr"ge to
officials of the palace asking for
forthwith' along with
craftsmen und ,uppti.r. Th"'" õere dispatched
Uuitding plans were. realized in a
men to supervise ,tt. *ä't' "nd Mare's
FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS
;;;;;; of ä"yr, at least according to our source' John of Ephesus'
After a benefactor had successfully carried out the construction of his
religious foundation, the provision of some sort of financial support to
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
.n"il. the institution to carry on its intencled functions was naturally a
The age of Justinian, thanks to Procopius'
De aedificils and the magniÊ- matter of the greatest importance. In the fifth century the endowment of
us. preeminently as an era of im- a private religious institution was a matter left to the discretion of the
cent surviving monumellts, appears to
interest in the regulation of pri- inàividual benefactor. Justinian's own investigations led him to the con-
;;i"î;;;"duîionr, ¿.rlii.'rrr.'.mperor's deceiving" Though privat€ clusion that conscientious private benefactors ordinarily made provision
vate insfitutions. Yet uff,u'unttt are surely
foundations suffered ;i;;;;;tty eclipse in relative importance for the for the support of a predetermined number of clerics.as Apparently not
whether rhere was a
h;;;-;. ;tnce the fourth ..n,,rry, ir is doubtfulimportant all benefaãtors were as farsighted, since Justinian complained later that
diminution in actual .ît"UÀ' tnáted' the most
personalities many rushed headlong into the construction of churches for the sake of
of the era took first ;;k ", private founders
of churches, monasteries, the honor involved, neglecting, however, to make any provision for op-
general Belisarius built a erating expenses.ae Such negligence meant that services would have to
and philanthropic insiitutio"''te Justinian's
and there *.ut 1 private .."r. ãu.niually, and the foundation would be abandoned'
church and a *rnodl,"h,r¡o?x out;ide Rome,
churchonhis.r,"r.'it'thesuburbsofChalcedon'PeterthePatrician' Reluctantly justinian issued a law in 535 that obliges the local public
late 530s, turned
ostrogothic.court in the church to provide sitesis (maintenance) for the clergy in private churches
Ñiill "-U"rruaoï^,;;h; gerokomeion (old age home)' Flav- whose fotinclers had neglected to do this themselves.sO This must have
his residence ln Cor,,in'*.'oflt ltt'o á
a church of his own in placed a heavy burden ãn the cathedral church of the patriarchâte of
ius Bassus, p.u.torlu"'f'"fttt itt 54{ founded 'Constantinople,
(chamberlain) of the an institution that already had difficult financial prob-
Constantinopl.' Ph";;J;;; es, epi tou koitiono's
monasterv of St' Mamas in this
ti"iu-ous lems of its own. A few years later, in 538, Justinian judged that the time
;;;;;;;;.p.rtedlv fot'ndttl
general Narses erected
reign. Under Justin äisãs-szs), the re.nowned had come to deal with the matter of endowments for private churches'
;i:;;.-irr"dätion i., òonrt"ntinople which included a gerokomeion,
a
He issued a law that required that each founder make provision in ad-
xenon (hostel), ti*tth' A number of lesser imperial officials and vance for the costs of lighting, for conducting services, for the support of
""¿ " contemporaries in the the attending clergy, and for the maintenance of the building itself.st
provincial -ugnut., ¡ãi*J irttit more famous
private fJ*"ã"tiont'a7 Täken together' these
rival even the Justinian ãi¿ nãi presume to specify what sort
of support a benefactor
erection of
shäuld provide for his foundation, but only that some provision be made
{John of Ephesus, Lìues,PO 18 (Paris' 1924)' Thirty-Sixth History:
Life of Mare the
for the fou, ne.essities he listed. There is in fact little uniformity on this
ttlii'J'ìl^;l'.? ed' (Paris' 1955)' 2e6r Peter the marter to be observed in the surviving sources. Sorne institutions enioyed
Liber Pontificalis. ed' Lours Duch.esne' 2nd
ceographie' Vol' J' p' 568r formal la¡ded endowments. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, in
Patrician: Pdtria Konstan',:iit'iài*'t i'si
(p' zcgl' cf' lanin'
potr¡o l'ió"íp"'53i;-tf' j;"ì;: voì' 3' p' oor Pharasinarres: Patria 3'185 (p' linking a prohibition against alienation of monastic property with the
Flavius Bassus:
274) cr. fanin, Vol. 3, o ;ii; Ñ"#; 1;;;;;' j'Çi 1p"z+e): cf' Ja'i'', vol' 3' pp' sss-s6' genera*l ban on secularization, seem to have had in mind the landed en-
t'9;u.*.,
Sylvanos, Dux Arabiae,who erected am.artyrion
at Anasa¡rha in S1'ria in honor ão*-.r1,, of some institutions of their own day.52 In addition, there is
c¡,uri¿"t, tJã*n'tro,n ,t. inscription edited bv L. Jarabert and René Mou-
of his daughter
ærde, Inscriptiur, ,r,,qui"ii'ti'i"l'''^iîí"
il;i¿vc;'' 2 (Paris' 1939)' No' 2e7; the masis- I l-19.
ltt"' also in Jalabert and Mouterde'Perer Vol' '3 N/ J (535). Preface, lines
/ros Bassus, from an lnscrlption-of a church
"t and t6e comites
*Ñl 67 (538), preface' lines l6-23
2. No. 625; the family oi ihe illustris Zosimus.
the ex-prefect-John, rN/ 6.8 (535), lines 4-13.
scythooolis in-Palestine late in .lustinian's
and Anastasius, *h. f.";ä;i';;;;;;;.; "t Fiugetald' A S,ixth Century Monastery øt s'NJ 67 '2 (538), lines 5-11.
reisn, known rron] inr..þtià"t't¿ììtá Uy ó' Y: szC. Chalc., c.24 (Rt<P 2.271\.
nrTi\ii), rlrnthopolis) ti'hil"d'lphi"' t93e)' No' I' pp' 13-14'
 I

REGULATION UNDER JLJSTINIAN 49

48 CHAPTER T!(/O

accepr the substitution of the income of a

abundant evidence in Justinian's legislation, in inscriptions'.
and in other Justinian's willir-rgness to
.r',åcific Þroperty foi a.t ann,ral cash payment and his declaration thât the
sources that churches and other ,.ligiout institutions
could own landed
oi" bán.f".tor would in any case stand as attachable surety for
legislation severely re-
;;;;;;;yrt yet the bulk of Justinian's extensive "'."o.rry indicate his preference for formal property endowments as a
'.nnli,ié,
í"ìå,ìrg ,n. sale and leasing of ecclesiastical property clearly.deals with the em-
of luprrio. means of supporting religious institutions. Nevertheless,
;h;l;;ã, of public churcheã, especially those of the cathedral church cultiva- ,.'".o. hi-r.lf acted more tike a private benefactor towarcl his own im-
peasant
óorrriu",i""pl.. Th"r. eþþ"lesiaitika cboria usually had lerial foundarions by granting a prosodon instead of land in most cases.
to the
tors atracheá. Wh"n Anastasius bought up some cboria belonging
city of Þro.opirt records ,u.h b.qu.tts to the xenon of Sampson in Constanti-
church of Amida in order to obtain landon which to found the
their own plots of the nunnery of the Metanoia in the suburbs, the church of the
p"r", h" freed the peasant cultivators and gave them ""pft,
or ousia fot it,"oiot ot in Antioch, and to the church of the Theotokos built in Jeru-
i"rJ.i. Subsequentþ Anasrasius provided a new endowment salem at the request of St. Sabas.5e Moreover, Justinian chose to support
--- cathedral church of Dara.
the
pr"p.rii.r donated by the emperor originated in the domus diuina, úte s"bur, nosol<omeion in Jerusalem with a "pure and unendingprosodon"
for
of 1,850 nomismata annually..o Justin II also showed this preference
p;;;;;tt;erty of t6e ruler eaimarked for the expenses of the. palace'55 funding through Prosodon.6l
a
ll* ao*"i inciuded properties located throughout the empire,. but many
special Justãs Flavius Valiia had done, most benefactors
made separate pro-
were concelltrated in Cåppadocia, for which Justinian issued. a.
viJion for the maintenance of clergy. Another of Justinian's laws, dating
l"* ln 536 regulating the relationship of the administrators of these es-
Theo- to slz, illuminates the manner in which a founder and his descendants
Empress
tates and the ãther gãu..n-.n, officiáls in the province-'56 law that the clergy were entitled-to their
àora had her own ão*rr,from which she, too, made donations
of prop- -"d. ti,i, provision.62 The srares
they would lose all-rights
,ior"gio (åalaries), but if they fled their posts,
to ecclesiastical institutions.
--io-.
erty
to reclaim their compensation in the future. Yet the founder's family was
private foundations in the sixth century received their.support
for these not to take advantage of the absence of clerics to suspend the customary
from anåuities, derived from income of properties earmarked altogethel sinee that woul¿ mean a cessation of services in the
presbia annalia, f
disbursements. In a law of 530 Justinian ruled that these "y-.n,u
payment .nur.n. The local bishop or (in the capital) the patriarch could step in
as they were called, could not be commuted into a lump-sum their
ancl install new clerics io replace those who had run away from
by the benefactor or his family, but had to be maintained indefinitel¡ posts. The benefactors had to provide as-usual for these new appointees'
pliãury through the hypothecation (mortgaging) of some. specific piece fut th.y were not obligated tå pay the former appointees as well if the
åf proprrry'" T;he ..u.n," derived from such a hypothecation was latter tried ro return,olhrir posis. If the benefactors attempted to cut off
nature
testimonies to the
t no*" irorodon (income). Although explicit
u,
period, it the customa ry choregia, the èmperor ordered that a certain piece of
their
of the financial support of private churches are scarce in this foithe priuata, the "ministry of imperial
ãpp."tt,n",,o*. t..,.f^ctors preferred to supply their.fo'ndations with f.op.rry was to be sãt aside res
i"nås," which would assure the continuance of payments'63
piåroao"or annuiries so that the properties that provided these revenues Evidently, then, private benefactors ordinarily supported the clergy of
would remain under their control's8 their private churches through the payment of salaries rather than en-
e cJ 1.2.17.2 (491-s18); Cl 1.2.22 (530); N/ 7.1_(53s); N/ 40
(535); NI 42'3'2 (s36);
grecques chré-
ã.*iåg their churches with specifii properties which the clergy could
procopius, Hìstoria ar"o"l'tLlg; H.n.i Ctegoit. , R'ecueil des inscriptions
who have u"sed to derive an incomi (that is, as clerical benefices).ca This is
mineure,v"i. i f p"tit, 1922), N;' 2, an ex-voto inscription of pe.asants
tiennes d'Asie
cultivated lands of , .hurã .iìì. îrfptt.ji at Aléxandria Troas;
also No. 314, discussed hardly surprising, given the relucrance of private benefactors at this time
fr"n, Cu¡¡ånt, "Ñóuu.lles inscriptions du Pont," REG 15 (1902)' 311- ,o grán, lands to ,ùpport other institutional costs of operation. Justinial
below in note 105;
ã;,ñ;.rã,;, p.'zt;k^iîilä",io""tuo¡rschréiienesdesyrie(Paris,1.947),251,from did"not want ro int.i?.r. with existing arrangements, but he realized that
Qabr Hiram (1.o. 575).
--lo-Z,ujh^riì of Mitylene, Syriac Chronicle 7 .6, trans. Hamilton and Brooks, pp' 165,167 ' 5e
Procopius, D e ae difi ci i s 1.2.1' 6 ; 1.9'1'0 ; 2'10'24 ; 5' 6'26'
v cl 7.37.3 (531). toCyril åf Sóythopolis, Vita Sabae, Ch' 73' ed' Schwartz, p' 117'
* iil :õ rs¡à), fár rhe domus diuina in general, see Rudolf His, Dle Domänen der röttt' tt Theophanés, Ch r ono grap h ia a.m. 605 8, ed' D e Boor, p' 242'
¡r"t ritii¡r*íí|t úrii,"ie,1gg:ø),28-33, ís-82, and Nicolas svoronos, "Histoire des in- 6'NJ 57 (537).
frffi*" ã; ¡;-pi*iyãårrì, ,i"'Annroií, de I'Ecole Prøtique des Hautes Etudes (IVe sec- ttFór the res prìuata, see Jones, LRE,412-27'"
4'
tion) (1'97 5 -7 6), 4 5 5 -7 6, esp. 4 67-1 landed úe.te6ces for the clergy of the public churches of the
n cJ 7.37.3 (53r). " o" ifr. "brån.. of i.p"irt.
. Byzantine Ëmpire, see Hãrman, "Bénéfices," col' 706'
rsSee the evidence trom Byzantine Egypt, discussed below in Chapter 3'
50 CHAPTER TWO
if the family of the original benefactor decided to cut off support for the
clergy of their private church, the only practical way to reverse this was
the imposition of a third party to assure payments in perpetuity. Justini-
an's remedy amounted to a confiscation of private property by the state
to achieve this end, a drastic measufe to be sure) but one that may have
been intended to approximate the effect of ordinar¡ voluntary reserva-
tion of the income from these properties for this purpose.
Despite the presumption of Justinian's law, even direct beneficiaries of
impe¡al financial support were not exempt from the possibility of having
their stipends cut off. A letter of Cassiodorus, praetorian prefect of Italy
(533-537) in the service of the ostrogoths, reports that certain munera
(dedications) granted by imperial constitutions to churches irr Bruttium
and Lucania had been diverted illegally by gove¡rment officials from
their siated purpose of supporting rhe clergy officiating in these
churches.65 On another occasion, Emperor Anastasius cut off saiaries
that the monks of the monasrery of f)almatus in Constantinople had
been accustomed to receive from the treasury as a means of exerting
pressure on them in a war of nerves with his patriarch, Macedonius II
(495-507).66
Like private and imperial institutions, public churches also provided
salaries for their clerg¡ and the proliferation of these appointees led to
severe strailìs on the financial resources of these institutions. Justinian
asserted that the success of the clergy in converting members of the het-
erodox sects had required an increase in the number of clerics in the
orthodox churches that was significantly beyond the numbers originally
provided for by their founders.6T Apparently the increase in the number
àf worshipers was not refleded in a parallel increase in voluntary offer-
ings sufficient to support the additional clergy.
th. .o--on complaint, in both the capital and in Antioch, was not
that the clergy was receiving less as their number increased, but rather
that the carh;dral churches rhemselves were running into debt in order
ro pay their salaries.6s This indicates that the clergy of the public
chuiches received a fixed salary rather than a share of whatever revenues
each church had at its disposal. The problem was most acute for the
cathedral church of Constantinople as the provider of last resort for pri-
vate foundations of the capital that had exhausted their endowments or
had never had one in the first place.6e Not surprisingl¡ the financial offi-
Cassiodorus, Varìae 1-2.1.3, ed. Th. Mommsen' MGH, AA 12 (Berl'in' 1894)'
65
66Zachaúaof Mitylene, SyriacChronicleT.s,trans. HamiltonandBrooks,p. 171.
rN/ 3.i (535), p. 20, line 38-p. 21, line 3.
Jo.,.t, "C'hrrch Finance,"'based on N/ 3, preface, p. 18, line 3l-p' 19, line 8,
ttSJ
Severustf Antioch, Epistola Sect. 1, No. 8, trans. Brooks.
6eExhausred .náo*-.nt., N/ 3.2.1 (535), cf. preface, lines 23-32; no endowments: N/
6.8 (536), lines 4-13.
REGULATION UNDER JUSTINIAN 51
cials of this church were fatnous for their resourcefulness. There is even
a record of this church lending a certain Eusebius, its þeimeliarcåos (cus-
todian of sacred vessels), to the church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusa-
lem in 535 to apply his expertise to improve that church's financial po-
sition.To
Justinian, however, was not irnpressed by rnany of the expedients em-
ployed. He rejected the idea that the public churches should seek to pur-
chase more property to bolster their income from endowment' He was
appallecl at such short-term expedients as the mortgaging and liquidation
of property in order to raise cash for salaries. I-Ie decided instead, in 535,
to impose an upper limit on the number of clergy in all churches (what-
ever the origins of their foundation) that were currently receiving finan-
cial assistance from the capital's cathedral church.71 These limits were
probably in excess of the number of positions providecl for by the origi-
nal founders but, by the emperor's candid admission, optimistically
lower than the existing inflated numbers. Justinian expected that reduc-
tion by attrition would solve the problem, but the need of Emperor Her-
aclius (610-641.) to resort to renewed legislation in the early seventh
century shows that this was a vain hope"
For those private churches that had managed to avoid bankruptcy and
had therefore stayed independent of the cathedral church, Justinian re-
quired only that they not exceed the established number of clerical posi-
tions set down by their founders.T2 Most of these private foundations
lacked the great financial resources and ingenious management that en-
abled the cathedral church-for a time-to increase its staff without re-
ducing salaries.
Little is known about the distribution of cboregia at this time. Justi-
nian's law on the maintenance of clergy in private churches suggests that
benefactors supported them with payments in cash and in kind.73 The
ecclesiastical historian Evagrius recorded an anecdote about Thomas, a
monk of Coele-Syria in the time of Ephraem, patriarch of Antioch (526-
545).?4 According to the report, Thomas was physically assauited by An-
astasius, the oiþonomos of the cathedral church, to whom he had re-
ported for the reception of the annual choregia for his monastery. This
suggests that, for the dependencies of public institutions at any rate, the
financial officials of the churches paid the choregia annually in a iump
roN/ 40 (535).
?'N/ 3 (535) preÍace,p.20.
NJ 3.2.1, lines 21-31.
?'1
rN/ 57.1 (537).
and TaEvagrius Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica 4.32, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (Lon-
don, 1898). For an example of the paymelìt of an annttal salary in an eleventh-century
Byzantine monâstery, see the typikon of Gregory Pakourianos, as discussed below in Chap-
ter 8.
 I

CHAPTER TWO REGULATION UNDER JUSTINIAN 53

52

sum ro representatives of the subordinate foundations. such was

also the churches that had fallen into disrepair or hacl been destroyed by the Nika
practice of -uny private benefactors at a later time in Byzantine history' riot of 532'80
Some ,o.rr.., aiso speak of analomatø (cash allowances), which
seem The emperor did not stop at requiring future benefactors to make
to connote *or. ci.cu-stantial disbursements than the legally mandated some provision for maintenance but also dealt with the problem of ex-
payments of choregia'John of Ephesu-s praised Empress Theodora's
gen- isting private churches that were suffering in default of such a provision.
.rárity in providiñg aralomata- to Theodosius, the exiled patriarch of He noted in a law of 538 the existence of numerous churches in Con-
Rlexandria, to JohÀ of Hephaestopolis' and to other Monophysite refu- srantinople and in the provinces that were in danger of collapse or simply
gees.75 Johá alsä wrote more u"g,r.ly of two archimandrites
from Arnida deserved rebuilding on a larger and handsomer scale.81 He urged private
ãnã Sopn"nene, who traveled io Constantinople "for the.sake of the benefactors of lesser means to imitate his example and rebuild these
needs áf their convents.,'76 Zachariah of Mitylene noted that Juvenal, churches with the permission of the local bishop or the patriarch. Such
f atriarch of Jerusalem (4ZZ-4SB), magnanimously
offerecl analomata to a benefactor would be entitled to call himself þtistes (founder) of the
å dirgrurrtl.ã -onk who had assaulted him, provided he left the coun- church he restored but would not have to meet the customary expendi-
tfy." tures (dapanemata) for the operation of the church. Justinian expected
'Empress
Theodora's efforts to win the esteeem of Mare the solitary by that those who had previously provided this financial support (that is,
otr"riåg him a gift of a hundred pounds of gold heighten,the.dramatic the founder's family or the holder of legal title to the church) would
effect o"f anothei of John of Ephesus' monastic biographies.Ts Theodora's continue to do so. Thus for the first time an emperor sanctioned the
saþkelarios (treasurer) brought out the money in a sealed bag, b.ut
Mare' restoration and beautification of existing ecclesiastical institutions while
ro the consrernation of onláokers in the palace, hurled it aside with a reserving to the founders' families the ultimate rights of ownership. A
curse. Theodora persisted in her attempt to make Mare her financial de- similar arrangement reappears in the late tenth century as the granting
pendent, ,..rt her chamberlains to entreat him to relent and accePt of monasteries and philanthropic institutions in charistiþe, for the same
"nd
in. -oí.y. Mare refused, but the sight of so many senators and other purposes of building maintenance, enlargetnent, and beautification.
high officials visiting the ascetic later on in his countryside rctreat con'
viãced some robberi that he was in fact the regular beneficiary of
impe-
RIGHTS OF PRIVATE BENEFACTORS
rial largess. The robbers set upon Mare in the hope of despoiling him of
his sup"posed wealth, but JohÃ's hero easily subdued them all' The story Justinian's legislation naturally was more concerned with fixing the ob-
itself mäy give some indicãtion of how imperial subsidies were disbursed' ligations rather than confirming the rights of private benefactors toward
Eu.n -ãr. so than with his requirement that benefactors provide for their foundations. Nevertheless, the founders of religious institutions
clerical salaries, Justinian's insistence on a similar provision for_ building continued to exercise certain traditional rights in their foundations
repair and maintenance indicares his keen anticipation of the likely fu- throughout this period of heavy regulation. Foremost among these rights
i"'r. pÀUt.-s of private foundations. Emperor Anastasius had already of the lay founder and his descendants was the nomination of candidates
recognized the importance of building maintenance and renewal'
for he for the clerical positions in the churches they erected and supported fi-
inc¡ided such neeis among the few legally acceptable grounds _for
the nancially. In two laws of 537 and 546 Justinian recognized this right to
alienation of church propãrty.tn Justinian himself concentrated much proballein (in Latin, designare) clergy.82 In the first law Justinian empha-
of his ecclesiastical U"ltai"g program around the replacement of older sized that the right of nomination did not imply that a patron should
expect automatic acceptance and ordination of his candidates' On the
-.John of Ephesus. Liues, PO l8 (Paris, 1924). Twenty-Fifthllistory: Life of John of contrary, the emperor ordered that the local bishop could appoint others
p' 53; Forty:seuenth History' Of the Refugees in Constantinople'pp'
676' if he found the patron's nominees unsuitable. This was part of the em-
H.pÉ"..i.p"fll,
83.
""
zr¡ohn of Ephesus, Liues, PO 18 (Paris, 1.924), Forty-Second History: Lives of Mari,
peror's program of actively involving the local hierarchy in the selection
Sergius, and Daniel, P. 657'
"-^frliriult"t 8oJohn Malalas, Chronographia 18, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB (Bonn, 1831)' pp. 474-75;
of Mityl.ne, Syriac Chronicle 3.8, trans. Hamilton and Brooks,
p' '55'
of Ephesus,'Llrreì,-'pO ß (Paris, 1924), Thirty-Sixth History: Life of Mare Procopius, De aedificiis 1.4.10.
the
"lonn 67.2 (538), lines 15-28; cf. Procopius, De aedificiis 1.4.L0.
Solitar¡ pp. 636-37. "Ñl
l'zÑJ 57.2 (437) and N/ 123.18 (546); see also Zhishman, Stifterrecht, 50-54.
" cJ 1.2.1'7.1' (491-518).
 Y
54 CHAPTER T'WO REGULATION UNDERJUSTINIAN 55

of clergy for estate churches. The second law recognized the same rights of the local bishop, a requirement that even the fathers of Chalcedon had
fo, the" fou.,der's heirs. In both laws Justinian tied the exercise of this not imposed.8s A second law of 535 actually turns the choice over to the
right to the provision of financial support for the clerics so nominated' discretion of the local bishop, though the emperor's final enactment on
privileges with these two laws' but the subject in 546limits the bishop to ordination of the candidate of the
Justinian was not awarding any new
änly ,".ognizing and limiting the established practice of lay nominations community's choice.se
ãi â..gy"rfrat irobably datãs back ro rhe later Roman Empire, if not Literary sources also depict imperial, ecclesiastical, and private fou¡d-
earlier.s3 ers exercising their rights of nomination. Evagrius, speaking of the early
Theemperorimposeclfewerrestrictionsonfounders'rightsinphilan- career of Grãgor¡ patriarch of Antioch, notes his appointment as abbot
thropic institutions. As early as 530 the emperor had recognized
the right of the monasrery of st. catherine on Mount Sinai by Justin II.e0 This
of a benefactor to propo sé ppistanal) ináividuals as administrators of emperor surely inherited his rights with respect to St. Catherin_e's from
these foundations.sa As in the case of private churches, the custom was his predecessor Justi¡ian, who founded it in the 550s. Zachariah of Mi-
rut.iy ofa.. than its legal recognition, since a law of 528 forbids simony tylene informs us that Thornas, bishop of Amicla, appointed and conse-
in ,tr. .ur. of a philanthropic administrator chosen through patronage crated the priest Eutychian as bishop of the church of Dara which
(dia prostasias).'; In ,o.,t'"'t to his regulations on churches' Justinian Thomas himself had built at the orders of Emperor Anastasius.el simi-
àiã ,i., gi". thå local bishops an explicil right to reiect these administra- larly, Nicholas, archbishop of Myra, appointed his teenaged nephew as
.r, others of ihei, own choice. Thus the lay right of nomi- abbot in the prelate,s newly founded monastery of Hagios Sion.e2 Nor is
"nii,,'pose
nation to the administration of a philanthropic institution appears
to an example of a private foundation lacking. According to cyril of syth-
have been rantamounr to appointment. Justinian did allow the bishops opolis' life of St. Abraamios, a cerrain John, an official of the imperial
to ,up..uir. the administratirons of these officials, but only in extreme tieasury under Anastasius, founded a monastery next to his ancestral
cases could they expel the benefactor's appointees'86
graveyard in his hometown of Krateia in the province of Honoria, and
private benefactors who enioyed p"iáll.l right to the nomination of úe appointed Abraamios as rhe first abbot.e3 Plato, bishop of Krateia,
" of the instal- þappened to be John's brother, and he obligingly consecrated Abraamios
an abbot most commonly exercised it only on the occasion
time of foundation.sT Thereafter, either as priest and abbot.
lation of the first appointee at the
the current abboi nominated his own successor' or the choice was A benefactor's nominee to a private church or monastery received or-
ih.o*n open to the community at large in a special election.after the dination from the bishop as confirmation of his appointment, while nom-
death of th. in.u-bent. Patrons intervened only in unusual circum- inees to the leadership of private philanthropic institutions received a
stances, as when it was necessary to depose an abbot of doubtful
ortho- "commission of administration" (empisteutheisa tes dioiþeseos) from the
doxy. benefactor himself.eo .fustinian strictly forbade a layman to exact a fee
Accordingly,Justinian'slegislationonabbatialelectionsassumesa for this commission, but he encouraged the nominee to offer part of his
personal property to the institution that he was to administer. Justinian's
choice *"aã 6yitr. .o--.r.,Ity itself without reference to
the founder's
wishes. His firåt law of 530 makes such choices subiect to the approval àvo*ed prin-iple in these marters was to prohibit payments to individu-

rights are implicitly recognized by John chrysostom, nt*:|!y,!!!1.(Pc

60' 88C/ 1.3.46 (.530).
s3Such
of such rights; c. sN/ s.9 (s35); N/ 123.34 (s46.\.
.rr. iìi, rirä 1,7_24);cl t.iJø éOSt âppeafs to assume the existence laymen e0Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia Ec¿lesiastica 5.6.
õiotr..,r.i (+Sr) tneipi.ïlli "ì;ent'nu'uä
th.- in mind by including among the
elZ,aci.¿rriahof Mitylene, Syriac ChronicleT.6,trans. Harnilton and Brooks, p. 167.
intermediaries in simouiacal ordinations' ezVita Nicolai Sionitae Ch. 7, ed. Anrich, pp.7-8.
84Cl 1.3.45.3 (530).
e3Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Abraamii, ed. Eduard Schwartz, Kyrillos uon Skythopolis
u cl 7.3.4r.22 (528).
(Leipzig, 1.939),244.
'"c7 r.J.45.3 (530)r cr. N/ l3 l.l0 (f1s). _ , Deme-
,'¡ãn., of Ephàsus, Liues,"PO 19 (i9Z6i, Fifty-Fourth History:.Life of Caesaria the Pa- ';Ni'tZl.tø.1 (546); for philanthropic institutions in the lyzantine EInpire, see.
a nunnery' ca' 541' de- trios J. Constant iot, Byzortine Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New Brunswick, N.J.,
t.i.iir, pp. ß:0-91,it in.,.i.rit., ,h. p"ttitian'C"esaria founded 196SÍ; H. R. Hagemann, Dìe Stellung der Piae Causae nach iustinianischem Re-chte (Basel,
;ìi;^*,å;t;;-. trtå r."a"itrtip herself,^but choosing another womân to serve as archiman-
p' 298' sussests 19S3i, and ,,DieiechtlicÍre Stellung dlr christlichen \Vohltätigkeitanstalten in_ der östlichen
à;;;;;:. iË F'fty-Ëigt'rr' si"-v: History of the convent of John urtava' at Amida from
of Mar John urtava Reichshalfte,,,RIDA 3 (1956),265-83; Timothy Mtl\er,Tbe Birth of the Hospital ìn the
;h;u.. ;a;Àirl ,ãrtr-.nt, ,á .onutv iht -on"'tt'v Byzantine Emp ire (Bakimore, I 985 ).
one abbot to another.
56 CHAPTER TWO REGULATION UNDERJUSTINIAN 57

als but nor to churches and other ecclesiastical institutions' He also en- Dorr when offered a reasonable pretext such as the flight of the attending
;;;;;J ,rminees for ordination to make similar donations to their il.rgy, despite the resulting termination of services, suggests that the rev-
enuãs received from churches did not always make up for the costs of
-'f*riniun churches.
appointed
realizecl that clerical appointments achieved through patron- operation.
ihe principal cause fo, thé growrh in the numbers of the clergy Moreover, the properties of churches ancl other ecclesiastical institu-
"g;;;;
¡i the cathedral church of Constantinople'es He also warned against tions continued to be liable ro state taxes in this period.lOo Private
lomparable dangers in the case of privately founded churches
now de- churches that had endowments and other sources of income under the
;;;ä.nf "prn thã cathedral church.ei Private benefactors, who ultimately control or management of private individuals were no exception to this
|,"d to foot the bill for any increase in staff, had a strong incentive
not to rule. Justinian described the need to raise cash to pay taxes as one of the
.*.r.ir. their rights of putronuge capriciously and thereby endanger the few iustifications he would accept for the alienation of ecclesiastical
survival of their-foundations. Justinian attempted to create a similar re- properry, showing thereby how importanr he considered the fulfillment
by holding the patriarchs of this obligation.lol
straining mechanism for the fublic churches
and their oiþ.onomoi perso.ralìy responsible for ordinations
in excess of Justinian did not, however, like to see the treasury seizing
lands be-
such appointments had to make longing to churches in default of taxes, much less the actual churches
ñi, pr.r.ril.d limits. Thor" who alláwed
to ttt. church out of their own propertv' iust as thev would theÃselves. His law of 537 directed that the churches should instead sell
;;;i;ú;i;;, those properties for which they could not afford the taxes to private in-
have done as private bene{actors.eT
other traditional rights were of less interest to the imperial legislator clividuàls, who would then assume the tax obligations toward the trea-
and find mention in ihe sources only in passing' These included
the sury. As a general policy, then, Justinian tried to get the treasury out of
fou.td..', right of burial in his church, commemoration of his memory the business of owning churches and their properties. In keeping with
in ,.rui.., a"fter death, and rental of ecclesiastical property to his family this view, he also revised old laws that had provided for confiscated pri-
on favorable terms.es'\øhu, *", potentially the most important
right of vare churches to go to the treasur¡ and changed the recipient to the local
all to founders-the ability to profit financially frot¡r the administration public church.l02
ãi ,f,.1, religious foundaiions--.un only be inferred from the sixth- It would be a mistake, however, to make too pessimistic an assessment
century
-- sources. of the prospects for financial returns on the investments benefactors
Àfrñ."gf, he condemned the alienation of property set aside for eccle- could hãpe io realize from their foundations. According to a law oÍ 529,
siastical iistitutions in the strongest terms, Justinian did not
attempt to property donated to any religious institution by a member of the sena-
i;;;;i";, on proÊteering from such foundations by the founders.. To be iorial cLass was immune from taxation as a capital gain.103 A law of 528
suie, his prå...rro. A"nastasius had issued a law that forbade bishops exempts benefactors from the necessity of making a public record of
andiheir-clergy to collect aparchai (first fruits) or prospboral
(offerings) their àonations if the declared value was 500 solidi or less' raising tlre
under comp,ri-rìon, and this measure presumably forbade_ private patrons limir for exemption thereby from the 200 solidi established by an earlier
iro- .oil.Ëtirrg obligatory fees from ihe parishoners of their churches as law10a Conceivabl¡ benefactors could exploit these laws to change the
to cut off financial sup-
well.ee Indeed,'the ,ãadiness of some benefactors
100Grégoire, Recueil, Vol. 1, No. 314 (e.o. 527), an important inscription.preserving a
,.r..ipt oÏ¡rriinian oráering that the oratory of St. John 2¡ I.agbe in Pamphylia should be
'rN.l 3.4 (535), p.21"lines2L-27' immdne frðm damages to its landed property "since . . . it is fitting to preserve our taxpây-
"" N/ 6.8 (535). lines 4-13'
"'Nr, 1,2.1 (535). lines 3 l-39. eri (syntelestai) unniolested"; see also the evidence from Byzantine Egypt discussed belorv
see zachariah_of Mitylen-e, Svriac chronicle B'5, in Chapter 3.
"ii.-b;;jii;i.*"å-rã*a"tions, totNJ 46 (547).
*un.. U"."itro" and Brooks, p. 209; Fitzgerald, Beth-Shan' Nos' 2' 4' 5;
for commemora-
and NJ 131..14'I-2. (545), which
iiu.-r..ui..r, see
property,
C/ 1.3.45 (530); cf. Fitzierald, No. 2.; for rental of ecclesiastical
at
''CÍ f.s.:, *hi.h "-.nd.ð CTh 16.5.30 (402), (535) makestheloca,l publicchurch
,r" ól l.Z.Z+ (530) in .o.rn.oiãn with th"e discussion below in Chapter 3 of such rentals "-.ndí
C7 t.ínç+eø-+22?).Notealsothat.N/7.11
-Aphrodiro in Egypt. the recipiånt of confiscated monasteries; CTh 1.6.5.57.2 (415) was.ahead of its time in
^';;
¿i i,:. jti+6ÞSßl,cf. Herman, "Bénéfices," col.713; for the attribution.of this law makingìhe local orthodox church the recipient of other confiscated churches.
,. A;r;;J; :;; j.;;;'LiE, Ses, r". other tithes jn Byzantium, see H. F. Schmid, "By- 10'cJ 1.2.D. (529).
zantinisches Zehnrwesen," iö'nC á'WISZ). 45-l 10. Noté
that Jolrn Chrysostom-hed urged 'oo
iJ t.2.1,9 iSZg); .f. htstitutes 2.7.2 for the olcl limít of 200 solidi for donations ln r¿¡
it .ïìf,. ..,"r. o*n.. hi-réif ,houLd'don"iá aparchai to his church in Homilium XVIII (PG uiuos;'CTh S.i,ìJ étø?) made the original provision for registry of gifts in writing before
a magistrate.
60, col. 147, lines 17-24).
58 CHAPTER T\øO

perhaps to avoid taxes

Iegal status or ownership of their property' and
in the process.
enjoyed
Moreover, there are indications that the return on endowment
A stray refer- CHAPTER THREE
try .ltu..tt., in this era need not have been contemptible'
.å.. in John Lydus' De magistratibus mentions a certain private bene{ac-
Galatia with
,*-eìiå-rt, ího hud endî*ed a church near Pessinusofinthe attending Private Religious Foundations in Egypt
;;; ;;;;cls of gold (1'440 sotidi) for the support
;i.õ; and that thi"s sum yielded an income (prosodon) -of .80 .solidi' from the Evidence of the PaPYri
Lydus further
which is a 5.5 percent unnt'ul return on the principal'105
informs us that his patron Phocas, praetorian prefect
of the East.in 532"
;;;"á; hasre to take the church inio ltit friendship," at what result to the
.i;tgy ;. are left to speculate '
--îá..orr¿ , , , r r -,- - Holy tTtge, evidence afforded by Egyptian Greek and Coptic papyrus docu-
example .o.r..rn, the endowment of the church of the
from the investment t rnenrs of the fifrh through the eighth cenruries proviCes a vivid pic-
S.pui.ft"t in Jerisalem' which, after
rure of a lay society profoundly shaped by Christian institutions from the
.áirrr.f proviãed by the keimeli.archos Eusebius, yielded a rerurn inat any
-benefiting 535
largest cities to the imallest villages.l This society created, nurtured, di-
.f :O p."t¿s of goid on 380, or almost eight percent'106 (the Justinian'
principal' he recied, and exploited its religious foundations unself-consciously as in-
,ur",,ftorrgl-rt thi"s such t*ttptional-tate of return
"n he was tegral parts of its social and economic order.2 Here, enthusiastic patrons
o¡r.rt.¿,îor-rld be recovered in less than thirteen years!) that
willingtograntaspecialexemptionfromhislawsprohibitingthealien-
.ã¿. ã reality out of John Chrysosrom's vision of the widespread dis-
semination of churches located on large private landholdings'3
ãf e.îlesiastiål propertyìn order to see it maintained'
",ir.
perhaps the mosr ,.[iÅg e"ample of the value of a founder's rights The business documenrs and personal correspondence left behind by
was as as any this society enable us to glimpse the inner workings of private religious
comes from Justinian's owi behavi<¡r' The emperor- f."1".":
over.imperial ioundations' The bishop of foundations, to catch its sponsors in candid moments as they pursued
;;ffi 6.;;iurr,,, of his rights
had built in the 540s their affairs unaware of the eyes of posterity, to determine how closely
Tralles coveted u -on"rr"t! that John of Ephesus
everyday practices corresponded to the mighty dictates of emperors and
*iril ir"p.ti"l funds. A..otãit'g to John, the emperor angrily denounced chuich councils. The vividness of the documents frequently is matched
usurpation, ,uyittg'- "Yh1' you.want is.to seize upon
a
th.
"n.-pted
*ã.r"rr.ry that belongs ,o -á tñd *hith was built with my knowledge
acted more lThere are two useful inventories of ecclesiastical institutions in Egypt in this period, but
;;; ;; ;i comma.,d.í 107 In this instance, then, the emperor partisan of both ur. ,o*.*hat out of date because of the papyri that have appeared since their publi-
ir ift. .h"r".,., of a private founder than as the staunch i",øn, p""t" Barison, "Ricerche sui monasteii dell'Egitto bizantino ed arabo secondo i
.pirlåp"f rights so famìliat to us from his regulatory legislation' documenri dei papiri greci," Aegyptus 18 (193S),_ 29-148, and Luciana Antonini, "Le
lhiese cristiane n.ti'agifo dal tv ãi ix secolo secondo i documenti dei papiri greci," Aegyp-
tus 20 (1940), L29-208.
,See the outstanding work of Ewa Wipszycka, Les ressources et les actiuités écono-
mìques des églises en Eþypte du IVe au VIIIe siàcle (Brussels, 1972)'
jFundamårtal
for thãèxistence of private religious foundations in Egypt is Artur Stein-
wenter, ..Die Rechrsstellung der Kirchen und Klösrer nach den Papyri," zs 50, Kanonis-
tischeÁbrciluns19 (I%0)l 1-50, an indispensable work, but still only an outline of the
available materìals, and his "Aus dem kirchlichen vermögensrechte de¡ P_agrrtr" zsR75'
k.a. a4 1958), 1-34;Ewa wipszycka, Ressources, TB-83, also has valuable observations
on p.iuut. chírches,'and ar tis-'sg, provrde¡ a very useful general.bibliography on the
chuich in Byzantine Egypt. See also hei "L'Eglise,dans la chôra égyptienne et les artisans,"
Aegyptus CB (tgøS), fJfj-¡9, and Roger Rémondon, "L'Eglise dans la. société égyptienne à
i6áil. bj,,l;tine,,:' Chroni'que d'E{ypte 48 (1'.973),254-77' For the private estates of
R' lWuensch (Leipzig' 1903)' By'raritine Égypt, ...¡."n Gaicou, "iéi grar,ds domaines, la cité et l'état en Egypte byzan-_
105John Lydus, De magisttatibus 3.74, ed'
uít ,'; i
"" 1ílasi, r-lo, with the older studies by E. R. Hardy,The Large Fstates of
'* N/ 40 (535). r !: \v, Þ-^^r.- /- c1-rl (¡r. Byzantine Egypl (Nel York, 1931) and.A. C. Johnson and L. C.'West, Byzantine Egypt:
r0Tlohn of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica' Ch' 36' ed' E' W' Brooks' CSCO' Scriptores
Economic Slúdies (Princeton, 1949) on the private estates of Byzantine Egypt'
Syrl. Series 3, Vol. J (Louvain. t936)'
 F,VIDENCE FROM THE, PAPYRI 61
60 CHAPTER THREE
Kyriakon was
of any attempt to converted pagan temple known as the Caesareum or the
hv their frustrating inexplicability' While the absence no one ofthË earliest of th" imperial foundations. One of the charges
iJd;..;î;;i;ñ welcome, our sources naturallv enough make permitted
own intirnately familiar ;;;r;h, by the great bishop Aihanasius' enemies was rhar he
;;ö;-r; ."pI"i,, ,r,. iáiosy.,cra.ies. of their
organizational principles of these u ,.rii.. in this church in ¡SS before its official dedication by Constan-
;;ril:¡.-. kïo*l.dg";f the gentral
¡r, lr, *r,. had paid rhe expenses for its construction.6 In reply to his
provided bv Justinian's contem-
;;;;;;; t'.l"ious founäations'it happilv
nËtpf"t in dealing with this difficulty' Fre-
critics, Athanasiui noted the unusual circumstances that had led him
did
to
not
nÕrârv reeulatorv legiJ;tion, sanction emergency use of the church, and he stressed that he
fails to conÊrm and clarifv' but
ä#it;ff;;;;;,;i";';;t'u' 'uiá'n" features of or- iniring. the eñperor's prerogatives by celebrating its formal dedication.
årìä"ã'i"ãil"t., th. uå*irã.rtrg complexity of particular ð;;;"; indeed'prohibited h|m from cloing so withoutdespite the permission of
overiooked by the law in its broad prescriptions. his reputa-
;;;il;
\Within the Roman EÁpire' Egypt itself led an idiosyncratic existence'
.
,hr-.*p.ro, a, ih" forrnder of the church. Justinian,
apparently
,ion great imperial benefactor of religious foundations,
observed there in the pa-
and so it is always p;idl. tírut"â.u.lopmenrs "r'"
was not important as a founder in Egypt'7 Quite possibly.the fact that
The lack of a com-
nvri mav have been diff."t" from thoie elsewhere' during his reign dis-
from another province to serve as a conrrol on ü;p;;.;"ined firmly Monophysite in benefactions
iympathies
he bestowed on
;åilËffi;i;;i;;;.. Yet rrearly all of the phe- ,,îáå"¿ him from gra,rting such-lavisl-r as
the Egyptian papyri "ggt"""1tt the problem' ' -fh;
neighboring Palestine.
in Egypt' including various as-
tt-."tï.f priuor. ,.1i"giot' foundations support' and exploitation' have p";ti"rchs of Alexandria were also active in erecting churches' but
pects of their construction' management' .,l.ry - nlexandria' 'We lack details of the role they public or their bishops
terminol-
nara[els ersewhere i" ;rú ..", ãf Byzantine history. Even the.
It S;;ii _urt h"u. played in the construcrion of the parochial
ff;ääjr.rft r ages fi,rd, expiession in Egypt at an.early date'a þøtholikai eþþlesiai did exist
of the outlines and basic .huráh., of Egypt.d Papyri show that these
seems reason"bl., tt.,.1i", to ""t"
an identity in the rnid-sixth cen-
in Egvpt with those found else- in.onrid.r"bi" "umb.t'in the town of Aphrodito
;;;;;;;aptiurt.'r"tigiå* fot"tdations Hermopolis' and
and the scale of ;;;ih;t. were also public churches at Oxyrhynchus'
rvhere, although ,ft. i""Ltf"rs' the modt's-operandi' Apollinopolis.
benefactions may have been different' 'As
Egypt hdd a great deal of the founders of churches and monasteries, laymen wefe also in-
;;;.I.;;.nt, uft., the Arab conquest of rule' Even some of the new volvedinamostfundamentalwayatthebeginningoftheexistenceof
*nrin"iry *ith thor. in the era of Bylantine reappeared later
just a few examples' Apollos' the
-"ny...l.riastical institutions. To cite Ammonios, an important land-
churches'
features, like the pu'i-otttttthip oí private hypodekte, (estate treasurer) of Count
of
elsewherelnthenyzantineworld.'sinceevidencefromtheByzantineEm- o*n., of Aphrodito in the early sixth century' founded a mon¿stery
,ri.. its.lf is scarce in the seventh and eighth centuries' Coptic devel-
sources
the christ_bearing Apostles theie near the end of his life. Apollos chose
il;';;':"i"*h;;^1"* *,it tn. Greek,lspecially_to document
in Byzantine times and to become the institution's first al¡bot.e In the cases of the monasteries
of
opments and institutìoi' thut had their origitts ü. pnoiuu_mon and St. Epiphanios at Thebes, there existed a custom of
cåntinued unchanged under Arab rule' [;;ii;tã;*n the directoiririp fro,n one þroestos (prior) ro anorher by
In a series of wills, a succession of priors
-""., ãf a personal testamentllo and
FOUNDERS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
IN EGYPT t.q.,.uth.d the monasteries along with all their interior furnishings
transmission was a device for
ecclesiastical attåched lands' In part, the testamentary
In Egypt, as in other areas of the empire' the emperors' the
for the founclation 6Athanasius, Apologia ad Constantium 14-18 (PG 25' cols' 612-20)'
hierarchy, and priuate f""ot" sþa¡ed responsibility 7Cf. Procopius' De aedificiis 6'1"
ho*tuer' were relatively
of religious irrr,l,u,iåni rÀferial foundaúon" in. Alexan-
riå, publli churches ií Elypt, see H. Leclercq, "Alexandrie," DACL 1"7)cols' 1107-
important churches 1 6'1' e 67
rare in Egypt' S.u"r"i t-perors founded D, þ:'ðr;;" M; t O. t,. n rt r^phroclito ), P' o x v r 6'19 00 (a' o' Grenf'2'e5
t 5 2 8 )
!
?nd : 91v'

dria in the fourth fifth centuries. Two were named (colloquially

ií))ip;-i'niÁ.'hu,), r. ;';';:l:ll a;;"ãto¡ 1Her-opotis)'P'
"
(6th c') (Apol-

at least) after
"J;iy
their ft;;å;tt' Emperors Theodosius I and Arcadius's A -'
linopolis).
(573-74)'.
;5.. l. Maspero's introduction to P' Cairo Masp' l'67096
10see ,,n..rrrcri.il,- g,," tz-tø andaByzantinische Mönchstestamente," Ae-
of devel- Steinwent..,
osteinwenter, "Rechtsstellung,- 42-50. argues.co.nvinclnglv for the corltinuitv i¿";'.'^"q5 der Äbte des Phoibammon-
ggypi"".ir"i*qu.ìì íg.r in Byzantiñe'Egyptr see also the cornment syptus tz (Ig3z), ss-64,'ü;;il 11'L'ente
opments in Byzantine KlöstersinTheben," ¡øoÀi,ciiìàiittsøs1,57-67:ch'Bachatl¡LemonastèredePhoe'
oi H.trn"n, "Ricerche," J40'
"^;;;;;;ñi, bammon dans le Thébaide (Cairo, 1981)'
"chiesej' 161' No' 2 a¡d1'63' No' 18'
 EVIDËNCE FROM THE PAPYRI 63
62 CHAPTER THREE
a fixed an-
like ecclesiastical beneficiaries of the estate treasury, received
but these documents demon- tlìat
the proestos to determine his successor' nuul ,"lury in wheat. Jeremias' receipt of a standard salary suggests
of the ownership of "indepen-
strate the peculiarly p;;;;;;i tt"ception- including
proiects the
monasteries which ir.-*", ..r"ined by ih. .oun, for ionstruction
dent" (that ir, priu"t.Ç"f"td.d ;t:d administered) churches and monasteries associated with his estate at Aphrodito' At
characterized BYzantine EgYPt' rhe estate managers of the famous Apion family routinely
ó"yrt y".t
the possibility that a future Proes- "s, for the needs of their churches. One document from
The use of a testarnen'ãlå open up ,r."iaåa bricks
intothe hands of lay relatives iust
ros might allow the -ät"t'"ty''o slip
of course' had leg- ö;y;h;;.h;s (probably from the archives of the Apion familv) provides
îtk.^;;î';rh;; part of îìîotL*': p'åpt"v' Justinian'
in canon law enioining a ;Jãi;J listini of ,ton", allotted for the construction of a church ded-
islated extensively in t"ppot' of decia'ations ovcr icated to St. Philoxenus.
,ig,i,.p"r"rion É.t*..n ãn ecclesiastical official's private property' In another papyrus of uncertain date and provenance' a count
prom-
for the erecrion of an
whichhehadfullpowersoftestamentarydisposition'an.lhisphrontis
neither bequeath nor alienate
ir* a prouli. u'uirt op with the requirements
(care) of church p,opt"y' *hith he could epist<opeion (episcopal iesidence) in preference
to undertaking the con-
gy the time of the monãstic testaments of accounts for
in ordinary.ir.r;,nutu-'-'tå''tt ,i.u.,iãn niÀr.tf.,t^Th. r-r"tu." of thì stmcture doubtless
wer€ aware of the dangers inherent for the rights
the mid-sevenrn ..n,u'y, the authors ,hi, ordinaril¡ the founder retained himself
in their use of ,h",t iått'*ents' Therefore
it is not surprising to find "rr.ng"menr.
over his benefåction. I-{ere, however, the author speaks
un-
alienate the monastery
.i á*,r.rr"nip
,.p."r.¿ admonitions to the new proestos not ato"God-fearing monk" of ambiguously of the foundation as the property of the brshop' ..
to his relatives but to bestow it in turn upon As"noted ubou., Justinian was so concerned with the failure
of heirs to
and the church fathers
his own choice.12 A, ,[ã"ùìirr"tion of Justinian carry out testamentary bequests for the_constfuction of ecclesiastical
in-
ectle'iastical property made such
shows, the confusio";îü;;;;l and stitutions that he set time limitations for construction
and named the
alienations to laymen;;iltl; ;"
ln tht case of p"ltit churches of the
danger was even greater' as Ìusti-
;lrh* ;f the locality as overseer for all foundations.ls In a Coptic cloc- to a
empire. 'With private'fi"i¿utions the r'rÀ.n, of the ,.u.r,ih century two individuals pledge themselves
nian'slawagainstr.*lu'i'o'lonofmonasteries(withspecialreference specifiecl m91tf perhaps
il;i;; i ' itt. cornpletion oi a church bv aoperation'1e '
Unfortunately
'" Egypt) makes clear'13
to
their own monâster- iliuståting the principle of Justinian's law-in
õ:ä;í";"ll¡ individuals in religious life founded ii i, no, iorriút. to'd.t.rÅine if the individuals
mentioned were the
ies and philanthropi.-lntiit"tion'l
tht monk Psaios' for example' was founders ih.mr.lu., or simply oiÞoclomoi, who might have been under
onthe lands of Apollos'
allowed in 57314,t b;ii;;i;; *n *"'odo"heion contract to build a church for the bishop'
Drivate monastery It is more unusual to find civil magis-
"rAph'od;to'ro for pil-
rh. work of erecting an apanteterlon hostel
(a
#äil;ilä; at Kom Ombo at an uncertain date in
erims simila, to *"odocheion) LAY OVERLORDS AND OVERSEERS
^ centurY'15
Ihe sixth or seventh -*here
As one might expect' there were many highly placed lay
administrative
In those f..' .u,t' there is evidence' professional- contractors'
labor of cãnstruction'lt At Aphro- foundations. The founder of a mon-
the oiþodomo;' out""* th" uttoul officials inigyptia,, private religious
named Jeremias who' urt..y .ouldåi-uyr r,r.ngthenhis position of authority by becoming a
dito, Count n--onä''tt"pftytã an oik'odomos the life of the ascetic commu-
-onL hi-r.lf and personally directing
Apostolorum', c' 40 (ca' n'o'
Attt., c. 24-25 (ca. 326) RS¿P 3.1Íj110. \-canones
11C. le(s46)' ni;;;t o,n.t founders held honorary positions as heads of their monas-
400)RErp2.55-56r cli.t.íl.i+iì)á¡,rvi7.10(s3si.N/t3i.l3(54s)'N/l2J seems was the role
,jKRU 75 (ca. 650) p]ånl., ,.)"r.'Wriler C.-fill.'lËíU.echtlicÈe
Unteisuchungen auf teries without servi'g as community dìrectors. This it
vot' 229'Pr' 2 (vienna' t954)' teg'
u'iliTåi"'::ió¿w'
Grund der koptischen
lrN/ 7.11 (535). t'P, Basel 19, as corrected by Stylianos Kapsomenakis' Voruntetsuchu.ngen .zu einer
*'il ãi rà' m o sp. t .67 0s b (s7
-74) 3 Aphrodìto'^. cro*^lt¡i-¿ii Þoi,pyri a"i"niri'rt i¡rlrt¡"ø", Zei (Muntch, L938), 97-99; for episkopeia'
in the British Museum
15H. R. Hall, copr¡"iíå'ë'ríre'r"räilli'e chrktian Period
see C. Nicaen. Il, c. 13 (787) F.UP 2'61'2'
1.J.45 (5J0). as amended bv N/ l'11't0 iDie'koptischen
(545)'
(s27-31') Aprrodito; P' ox "C/ ;;;.
iú õ. fif , Rechtsurkunden aus The-
l,'0.'r.rrrrrurr.26, 67r3e,.3'27',F6r'13 p
BKLI 69 (ca. 600) D'è.;. f

'tî?Ê:ä,1:jtrl 185 (6th c'¡' òregorv of Ñvssa' Epistola 25' 1964)'18'.

1.6.2041 (6th or 7th ,),';'-ö;;:1ã'ztgz 'tt" ben," SO.AW, Vol.244,Pt.3 (Vienna,
(pC 46.J. cols. 1093-tiOOì'piå"iä.r^"n .*u.pl"
tith.'...1.tì"tiical ernployrnent of oi- "-';e"e.,-Àpåfr .
oi in p.'co¡-'t'tliti. i.øzoge and the stratelat¿s Theodore in C-l'R
4'34'3a'

þ o domoi otrtside EgYPt'

 Y
EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 65
64 CHAPTER THREE

in the lintel in- which the author understood to be earmarked for the payrnent of taxes,
of Count Kaisarios, comlnemorated as ktistes (founder)
had in fact been alienated by his master, the chartoularios, or by their
scription
--ì,irh",lr.. of the famous White Monastery of Shenute'21
or nor the founder took ouei the claily administra.tion
of his common master, the illustris.2s This institution evidently had three ra¡k-
to inhibit the gen'ine ing administrators, a hierarchy analogous to that of Apa Agenios in
t";;;;t, ,h. -"r. Íact oÍ lay foundation served Apollos, the Aphrodito. The illustris must have held a position comparable to thât of
;ã;;;;å;r.e of his institution for several generations.
Christ-bearing Apostles in Count Ammonios. Tbe chartoularios, the "keeper of archives," was per-
found., and proesto.s of the monastery of the
Dioscoros' as the phro,ntistes haps his local represenrative who fulfilled a role like that of Apollos. The
e"pni.ãr., ¿i,sþnated his son, the layman
institution after his death.22 uuthor of the letter probably held the title of nosoþomos in his capacity
fg'""r¿i"rl'"nd"þourøtor (proiector) of
this
of ecclesiastical as director of the founclation. The author of this document and the au-
These titles were standard d.rign^tions for the overlords
of a thor of its parallel from Aphrodito ran the daily operations of their reli-
i^iitotionr. In this particular iu", u layman became the overlord gious houses but dicl not have final control over financial affairs, which
to the founder' Evidently
*on"rr.ry by ,eason of his blood relationship
not always result in ih. l"y administrators evidently retainecl for themselves.
."., ,fr. énr."n.. of a founder into religious life did management in subse- In another important yet enigmatic document of the sixth centur¡ the
tt',. .".lr.rrlon of lay influence in the inititution's
author, Abba Andreas, reports on an inspection of the administration of
ouent generâtions'
"*|';.i';;;iìá* ¿o."*e'ts illustrate the roles of these lay overlords the monasteries of Aphrodito undertaken by a certain Count Johannes.26
thev held' The monks of one of these monasteries had brought charges of fiscal
ou.rr..rs, though not all of these specify the precise offices
"J the monks of misadministration against their proestos. The count, ¡udging from this
A document of shortlf before 538 from Aphrodito shows
protoÞometes letter, seems to have regarded his inspection duties as an irksome and
,t',. -onur,.ry of Apa Agenios addesssing Apollos' the
agent of their time-consuming diversion from more important duties. He probably was
ii;;^; ;;;;rÁan) of^Aphr"odito, asking. foi his aid as the
an official of the same rank as Count Ammonios, a distant overseer who
,,common master,, courrt AmÁonios-in the recovery of money owed
"to take was accustomed to delegating his administrative responsibilities to sub-
,h.[-bt one of the count's tenants.23 The monks asked Apollosabbot had ordinates.
property' Their
care oÍ" (phrontizeinj themselves and their
to deal with Documentary evidence from Hermopolis in the mid-seventh century
;Ëj, *¡*.n ro rh; count asking that he send someone
he would shows that even a cathedral church could come under lay direction as in
ifr. pilrUi.r* ih" "btot informs Ápollos in this letter thatthis matter' the cases of the private institutions discussed above.27 Like them, the
from the count on
,ho.ity be receiving written instructi'cns
under.the administra- Hermopolite church also had a triple level of administrators. At the top
Another papyrus confirms that this monastery was
he actually administered was th; dux Senouthios, the phrontistes 6f the church. Next came Abba
tive control of Count Ammonios'2a Apparently
who was the of Menâs, archdeacon and dioiþetes' Finali¡ there was Joseph, "priest of
the institutio., thro.rgh his subordinaie Apollos' -author
countt agent' Apollos seems St. lvlerkourios" (perhaps the patron saint of the cathedral church), who
this second do.u-"ní, a rent receipt. As the
monastery's prop- handled routine financial affairs for the church.
to have had full contiol over the management of the
Another document of this cathedral church from the middle of the
.rry,ti"..inneitherofthesedocumentsdotheinstitution'sownofficers
seventh century accords the title oÍ phrontistes to the illustris Joannikios,
handle its financial affairs'
who was apparently a successor or predecessor of Senouthios.28 Thus the
InanundateddocumentofthesixthorearlyseventhcenturyJthedi.
question of the ownership of certain highest official of the church evidently was ordinarily a layman who was
^rlàiøioof a nosoþomeion reÍets a
rector
prop- u trlgtr governmental official. Senouthios, as dux of the Thebaid, was not
(farmsteads) to a count sen¡..1itos, asking $'hether these
endowment (moira) and
.iri.r, -ìri.t made up a part of the insiitution's 2sP. Amb.8.154; cf. discussion by H. Leclercq, "Hôpitaux," DACL 6'2' co|' 2761-'
26P. Fouad 1.87 (6th c.) Aphrodito, with Jean Gascou, "P. Fouad 87: Les monastères
DACL 4'1, cols' 471-73' for pachômiens et l'état byzantin," BIFAO 76 (1976).' 15.7-84.
21SB (ca. 400-430) Deir-el-Abaid; see Gustave Lefebvre, 27
Stud. PaI. 3.2718 (ca. 650) Hermopolis, reedited by Ewa Wipszycka, "Les Íactions du
backsround
- " -' and dating' cirque et les biens ecclésiastiques dans un papyrus égyptien," Byzantion 39 (1969)' 180-
ì f .-ç,o ¡ o M a s p. t ."ø7 o%
-7 (5 7 3 4) Ap hrodito'
"Rechtsstellung," 2-5,n. at 185.
98,'28p.
23p. Cairo tvtarp.t.øZóZiiU.ør. S¡Si¡phrodito; Sreinwenter, Berl. lnu. 1.1814 (ca. 650) Hermopolis, ed. wipszycka, "Les factions du cirque,"
l.' suoplies the name of the motrastery' 1 80-8 1.
"Þsl s.s-l: (5J8) Aphrodito.
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 67
66 CHAPTER THREE

so he had to delegate his administra- Alexandria (385-41,2) illustrates the employm ent of pronoetai by dioce-
resident in the town of Hermopolis'
letter of complaint from the monks san officials.3s The author, Aurelius Timotheos, pronooumenos (chief
tive responsibilities ,o-åiÀ..r.i Thá
pronoetes) of the katholiþe eþþlesia of Alexandria, addressed this letter
demonstrates that the overlord of institution might
of Apa Agenios ,an
of complaint to the riparioi (constables) of Arsinoe' The offending pron-
stillreceive..-on,,tun"tt'otott"tionandissuedirectivestosubordi- oeøi,lerapion and Timoros, were in charge of the church's estates in the
transactions (as at Hermo-
;;.;, even if -or, p.àbltms and business indication whether village of Boubastos in the nome of Arsinoe. They had ignored a first and
;;[i;.;; settled l,i*liv'-utrtrtunatelv. there is no
held their.position a second summons to come into the city and render their accounts.36
är-íl,ro,rr¡rtai oÍ theã,í1'"¿r"t church of Hermopolis Timotheos' letter invokes the services of the riparioi as police officers to
of sòme long-standing fam-
ex-officio as local,"^gi;;;";; or as the.result
cornpel the defiant pronoetai to render the missing accounts. Although
*ith Ìi-,"^.irr.rr. possibly the unusual situation of of
a lav
ily ;d;;;hç times technically subordinate,lay pronoetai evidently were not always obedi-
troubled
protectorate over a..athed'al church grew out of the
(61'8-628.) or of the Arab Conquest' ent employees.
the Persian occupatlon of Egypt
There were also lay officials known as dioiþetai in ecclesiastical ser-
Inpost-ByzantinetimesSomemonasteriesweresuccessfulirreliminat. in
from a series of documents vice. The tiùe dioiþetes has a generic rather than a specific meaning.
ing lay phrontistai, "; ;; it would seem
which the abbots themJues appear as tl-te
pbrontislai of their lespective Justinian considered both oikonomoi, the financial stewards of the
a certain Lord churclres, and the directors of philanthropic institutions to be dioiþetai.37
ln liehi åïiirìr, iiieems ironic that in 77112
institutions.3.
and phronti'sl¿s of the famous Although the fathers of the council of chalcedon evidently presumed
Psmo, "grea t archon," became pron,oetes
that time that institu- that the oiþonomoi would be clerics, some of those in private institutions
;;;;:r.;t;f st. pnolu"mã., in'Th"b.r,31 for until its autonomy' in Egypt were laymen, such as Jusros, the lamprotøfos (most brilliant)
,i.^ i"¿ successful in preserving
ú.en ,"murkably ^
called pronoitoi
lou"t"rs)' Some of oiþonomos of a church of Sr. Theodore in Arsinoe in the sixth century.38
The papyri
"lr" -;;;;;åmti"rt
pr-o appear scarcely distinguish- In this instance his honorific identifies him as a layman; clerics usually
these (like the Lord *.nri"ned above)
while óihers were clearly subor- bore the corresponding honorific eulabestatos (most pious). The double
able from ptrontlrtoi ^ni kà"oto""
churches and monasteries under role of a certain Menas, who was both a rìotary of the Apion household
dinate lay officials in'tt't t"t"ite of the
larter sort in the service of the and oikonomos of a nosoþ.omeioz, makes it possible that he, too' was a
clerical supervision. -"'irono"to¡ of the
¿ïtitt ti*ilu' 'o those of their counterparts in the layman. Other ambiguous cases also exist that are difficult to decide one
church probably t
"¿ for lower-ranking officials called way or the other.3e
service of lay landlo'¿t' fi *"t common
with his collection of occasionally individuals appear in rhe sources performing managerial
misthioi to assist ,nr"piå""rr¿s of an institution
accounts.33 Institutions with tasks similar to those usually undertaken by a clerical oikonomos. Alay
rents and taxes and it'. t ."pirrg of accurare
employed seve-ral ptonoetai' each of official named Pynote represented the community of the clergy of St'
extensive or widely;;;;ã ti"tt'
charge' Som-etimes' as at Her- Phoibammon in Aphrodito as estate manager by collecting the rent from
whom had a particuiu' Jitttitt ut'dtr his
of the officials for separate an emphyteutic lease held by an unnamed lay official somerime in the
mopolis, there was " iu"ht' specialization
sixth century.ao Similarly, the protoÞometes of Aphrodito represented a
collection of revenues in cash and in
grain'34
th^näl't'y of Archbishop Theophilus of local church in another rent receipt dated 511.a1
An important t.tt.' ït.,- tft"
At times laymen appear in more specific roles in the administration of
monasteries and philanthropic institutions. A certain Flavios Artemido-
?"Wipszycka. "Les factions du cirque." 186.,
-) ^r^-^_,;"tÒ.. 4 \4. a prrest as
cpR 4'34'
nhrontistesr CPR
'0Cl'R 2.16J (7th..),';i;;;ã;"äi
as abbot anrl
I

aiphrontistesiP'Copt' Ry/' 164'an rSB 6.9527 (385-412) Arsinoe.

abborand phrontistes;Clä'i.ili-fZ,i'c.).adeacon i6see P. Oxy. 16.1894 (573) Oxyrhynchus, for the letter of appointment given by Mak-
abbot and Phrontistes' ,.Rechtsurkunden,.. 188, arios, pronoetâs of a church at Oxyrhynchus, to Pambechios, misthios for the þome oÍ
3IKRU 104 (771-72)Dième, trans' \ü.. C. Till'
Steinwenter' "Vermöeensrechte"' 29' Sarapion Chaeremonis.
'2For the rwo types o( Þronoetai'see hv the"misthios rheodosios ror Sen- 'cl 1.3.45.1b (530).
trp. LonrJ.,.rrÐ trr(i.jiä;"i;'-;;;;;å Hermop.oleos. orobably rdentical with
the Dux '8 Siud.
Pal. 3.164 (6th c.) Arsinoe; cf . C. Chalc., c.26 (451).
outhios, pronoeres *rr¡å'år-ioi'iørys'ikon of ìhe cathedral church at Hertno-
3eP. Oxy. 1.6.L898 (587), 16.2039.15 (6th c.) Oxyrhynchus, P. Cairo Masp' 3'67299
Senouthios of stud.
prt.\".iiii *ià *^, phroniirro,
(7th c.) Arsinoe.
ottti;.. Greek papyri in the British Museum,
catalogue a0P. Ross. Georg.3.43 (6th c') Aphrodito.
the discussion of F. G. Kenyon , eð., at
P. Cairo Masp. 1.67101 (5 1 1) Aphrodito.
Vol' 5' p' 240' n' 1'
w¡th äits (London, 1893),
 EVIDENCE FROM THË, PAPYRI 69
68 CHAPTER THREE

of Apa Sourous'in Aphro- The brotherhoods of the pbiloponoi appear in Coptic documents of
ros \¡/as epitropos (trustee) of the monastery
Since it was this same Artemidoros who' the sixth century and in post-Byzantine times. The laymen who formed
dito in the mid-sixth century'a2
,ingi'i*ìl øtax oÍûcial)' received a donation of barley these associations were responsible for the administration of the prop-
in his capaci ,y
^u rnonastery in 528' he may well erties of certain monasteries.52 They promised obedience to the religious
from Count A,r1,r1onio, o¡ UànAf of this
have been rhe counr,s ;;;;., of this institurion.a3 Aeion, eþitropos of a leaders of these monastefies and were thus subordinate to clerical super-
'*rroaorlrr¡oz vision.s3 The chief philoponos sometimes held the rank of oikonomos in
in the Apion village of Spa.nia, provides a.contemporary
oi Artemidoros at Apa Sourous'aa the monastery that employed him.5a In a document of the eighth century'
narallel from Oxyrhy"Jf.,r, to thJrole
the philoponion oÍ a monastery of Apa Theodore at Hermopolis receives
i#ffiil;;rïìî'. ,-ir, or seventh century the singoularls Johannes
corlcurrently with his recognition as a distinct corporate entity, represented by its oikonomos.ss
holds the same officiaj';;;tri.; as Artemidoros
a.panteterion at Kom Ombo'as He
tenure as epimeletet t*in"Sttl of an
;;;;;t io h"u. been subordinate to layÉlavius overlords'
Phoibammon, cliief phy-
CLERICS AND MONKS IN LAY SOCIETY
In a remarkaUf. ¿r."-.r,t Jut.d 570,
his brother John.a6 He.describes his There was a significant presence of clerics and monks in lay society par-
sician of Arsinoe, ¿..ãr-i-,i, ",non to
dioikesis, epi-
;r;;rriúilt;y ,"*".aìie xe,non rarher floridly as a "holy t'f the terminology of
aileling the lay penetration of ecclesiastical institutions.56 Some of these
meleia, and pronoiø""ittiitipu'ing thereby 'á-e clerics were in the service of the great property owners, even though the
currenr later in Byzantine his- Council of Chalcedon had specifically condemned clerics who undertook
the administration of ,.ligio,r, inslitutions
his brother would manage the
tory. Since phoiba*-ãr"."!.i.a that is a
to managè the estates of laymen. In fact, an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of
institution as welr prouiå" for its support, it is clear that this 583 preserves the contract of a deacon who was a pronoetes and hypo-
",
private ecclesiastical institution' dektàs for the Apion famlly.s7 Several orher examples exist of sixth-
The lower ranks of the administrarion
of Egyptian e.cclesiastical insti- century clerics involved in the management of the estates of this great
t,rtiån, also incrudeJ raymen in positions
of responsibility. At Hermo- landowning family.58
al s called ap aitetai .who were resporl-
'Ihe house of
Monks also appear in the service of layrnen at this time.
;;ñ,Ìr;;;ri".,.., th...' were offiti from church lands'a7 They may have been Apion, for example, ordered the archimandrite of the monastery of the
sible for the collectio;;;tt
-oi'ti.
jronoetai or phrontistai.as some lay notarioi Hãmoousion to provide six hundred loaves of bread to the people of
attached to the staffs
(notaries) in se'uite' Their status varied greatly' Tärouthinos, an Apion village.se The monks of St. Andreas' an Apion
"lro "pp.", "ttit'i"'ticol oiþonomos of a nosoþomeion at
Menas, the notary *ho *"' also the privat€ monastery, offered a variety of products for other dependents of
Another Menas' who served the family.60 Another Oxyrhynchus document shows a monk receiving
Oxyrhynchur, tu, ¡.åî*tt'lioned already-
notttrios anà apaitetes'ae wages from two secular officials, but unfortunately there is no clue as to
,fr.'."ift.Jr"t'.t ur.f, l' ut'-opolit, was both Apion familv' also served
A certain laphnutior,ieguilit; "9átv
fo' the the duties he was performing.6l
as notary fo, do.,,ååt?t it*t¿ from
their church of St' Thecla and Even more than monks, the secular clergy were dependent economi-
"assistants" of the pronoetaì'
Menas' ,oroko*r¡o)'ii So-t mìsthioi' 12For rhe philopoftoi, see W. E. Crum, BM Copt. 1013, n. 4 for literary references; also
;lt"-;;p.". as lay employees of religious foundations'51 Ë,wa vipszycka,'Ressources, 150, and "Les confréries dans la vie, religieuse de l'Egypte
chrétienne,'; Proceedings of the Twelfth lnternational congress of Papyrology (Toronto,
a2P.CøiroMasp.2'67133(530or545)Aphrodito;cf'P'Lond'5'1704(527or542) t970), 51.1.-25.
Attt*ä;;t;' it"uãury froÁ this same monastery of Apa Sour- CPR 4.1.96 (7th c.).
s3
Aphrodito, also isssued b; s4
BM Copt.1,046 (7th c. or later); KTM 1 (8th c.) Hermopolis.
outÅ p. Cairo Møsp. 088 (55 1 ?), in which Artemido- ss
KTM L (8th c.) Hermopolis; cf. CPR 4.195.
r. Masp. 2.67 t 39F6v3 ; cf . 1..67
see Ger- \i/ipszyck a, Ressources,
i),iàî¡iàt i¡à¡irrttt ior information on titulature, 16
See I54 -7 3.
"o,ro npt,.oairo'i,
ros represents szp. Oxi.1:136 (583) Oxyrhynchus; cf. P. Oxy. 1.6.1894, in which alayman becomes
.Ïii"i"n.iiiirr'ai L:àa*iriålr,iãi ,'¡r¡t, de t'Egypìrc byzantine (Paris. l e28)'
"*;ii.-ì5;;:t6.20s8.131 (óth c.) oxyrhynch.us-., a misthios in church service under alay pronoetes.
ombo' 588GU1.305 (556) Oxyrhynchusinwhichadeaconservesasarental agentof the Apion
a5H. R. Hall, coptic 4;à"Gr;;'pliitt,'z,pl' 2 (6th-7th c') Kom
*f .' Co;ià Masp'.2.6715I't'82-95 (570) Arsinoe' household; PsI 1.81 (6th'c.) oxyrhynchus, a deacon as an Apion enoikologos;-P. oxy.
*þ. l'o"d. 27.Z4g0 Oxyrhynchus, a paymenr of 1.80 diplai of wine to a deacon for undis-
óeS-øe\
3. 1é60, 5.17 82; P' B erl' Inu' 1'1'814'
closed services.
asAs in P. Berl. lnu' 11'814' se
P. Oxy. 16.L952 (6th c') Oxyrhynchus.
o"p. Lond.5.1783 (7th c.) Hermopolis. 60P. Oxy.1.146 (555), 1.1'47 (556),1.148 (556), 1'6.1'911'.1'47-50 (557)'
'oÞ. O"y. 16.1898 and 1993 (587) Oxyrhynchus' . Oxy. 6.994 (499) OxyrhYnchus.
5 '1782 (7th c') Hermopolis'
tsi¡iõ"vìí'vt'tiu'l' i" ro'¿'
61
P
st P. ox'^t. 16.1894
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 71
70 CHAPTER TFIREE

cally upon lay property owners' To.all appearances' rural

clerics earned vides evidence of official concern about the problem.6e On the other
;h;í ii;-gr inìn.'n.tár, iust as ordinary parishioners did' The disposi- hand, the appearance of clerics as representatives of peasant communes
tion of beiefactors ,o ,.rbridir. monasteries more heavily than churches in various legal transactions indicates a continued degree of personal in-
thought to need. greater. freedom dependence.To Naturally enough' clerical employment in positions of
À"y r.fl".t the notion that monks were
fìo* fr."ry labor than the ordinary clerg¡ who certainly faced a harder mánagerial responsibility on the great estates must have brought some
for the prestige and securit¡ if not complete personal independence, to the for-
lot.., Both'at oxyrhynchus and elsewhere in Egypt, the evidence
ã.p"na"n.. of o.dit ury clergy upon lay landlords for their livings runate clerics involved'
is
Apion family
,,rorrg indeed.63 Since tíre p.Ãanitlttics paid rents to the
6 ."ã.* of the family's own donations to their village churches, it ap-
FOUNDERS'RIGHTS
p.r^ f,f..ly that the cÍerics' land grants constitutecl their principal means

of support.6a Like the determination of the social status of clerics, the information
Alihough it is not impossible that- large landowners only
gradually about founders' rights to be gleaned from the papyrological sources is
staffed with implicit rather than explicit. Through observation of the landowning pa-
obtained ].ontrol of whaì had once been public churches
.t.r* .t ot.n by the local bishops, the involvement of Count Atnmonios trons in their business transactions with ecclesiastical institutions, it is
Apions in th" constructi'cn of churches makes it m're
likely that often possible to deduce their rights from their actions' Generally speak-
"rJifr.
these institutions were from their origins private churches
with assigned ing, patrons had economic rights that included the power to sell, be-
J.p.tJ.", clerics. After the erection of such a church' the landlord queath, or donâte some institutions and the authority to manage and
Joïb,t.r, exercised his prerogative to nominate local peasants for ordi- exploit the properties assigned to others. In the former they evidently
,'"¡;; by the local bishÅp in ãcc'rdance with his rights under Justinian's had the usual rights of nomination of clerics, though details are lacking.
laws. It is the evidence of the private disposal of churches from one unrelated
Underthecircumstânces'itisreasonabletoquestionhowmuchfree- layman to another that proves the existence of private religious founda-
dom clerics in service at estate churches were able to maintain'
An Oxy- tions in Byzantine Egypt. A sixth-century papyrus from Hermopolis
hereditary lands stands as testimony to the sale or lease of a property in which a private
rhynchus documenr of 5 8 1, in which a priest pledges his
for a loan from an official of the Apion estate' shows that church was only one (and apparently not the most important) constitu-
^'r..urity
there were still some independent landowning clerics.even
in.the late ent part.Tr An Aphrodito document of the same century is a contract of
rì"ifr ¿."i"to'i y., it is alsä true that a default on his loan could easily sale between two laymen, Hermauos and Isaak, which likewise includes
clerics of
i-,"". pr, this priest in a position similar to that of most other a private church among the assets of the property transferred.T2
if,. npi"n house... A doìument of the sixth centur¡ i' which a priest Despite (or perhaps because of ) Justinian's condemnation of the Egyp-
and an oiþonomos are listed among the inmates of a
private prison be- tians for the secularization of monasteries, there exists no evidence in the
the indepen- papyri of this abuse.73 One papyrus of 512 records the case of the ortho-
longing to the Apion famil¡ illustrates.iust how tenuous
¿.nî. äf these clårics ** "i Oxyrhynchus.6T Clerics elsewhere did
not dox monk Eulogios who sold his monastery to the Meletian priest
private This act was in violation of imperial legislation against the trans-
i"r.-"pp*.iably better..s A series of imperial laws condemning Pous.Ta
to Egypt' pro- fer of ecclesiastical foundations to religious sectaries, but it is likely that
frit."t, includíng a law of Zeno's with specific reference this "monastery" was no more than an individual cell. Perhaps the prac-
tice of founders retaining control of the administration and exploitation
62SeeChartl,"ApionEstateDonations,"Part2:SizeofOrdinary'WheatDonations'
pursàur"rr,'tø3, n. 1; see also chart 2: "Peasanr clerics at
";.;;;'i;ì, ,å. w'iprry.t i- 6'CTh 9.11'.7 (388); C/ 9.s.1 (486); Cl 9.s.2 (s29).
Oxyrhynchus."
-'äS.'" ., - -,:-^- ^r .L^^- r^-^r'
donations to 70P. Cairo Masp.3.67283 (c. 548) Aphrodito; KRU 105; KTET (gth c.) Ashmunen.
wipr"y cka' Ressources,3T; cf' Chatt2, for the comparison of these 71P. Princ.3.180 (6th c.) Hermopolis.
their rents. 72P. Cairo Masp.1.67097 (early 6th c.) Aphrodito'
6'P. Oxy. 16.1892 (58 t), esp' lines 6.-36' NJ 7.11 (535i; P. Oxy. 16.1890 (508), despite the misleading comments of its editors,
P. Oxy.'l'.136.14 establishes that Great
73
priír.Z.B7 (612) O*yr-þrr.hu., lines 8-20;
"þ'. is not a case of private monastery ownership or secularization. See Roger Rémondon,
'-';;p'.'ö;;;was an Apion possession'
Tarouthinos
olivia Robi'- "L'Eglise," 273.
tø.zasøic, rø iãir' ..j o"y{¡n1!us; for private prisons, see
,oSB 1.5174 (512) Arcadia in the Faiyum; cf. SB 1.5175 (513). The stereotypical formula
son. "Privaie Prisons," R¡DA 15 (1968)' 389-98'
(6th-7th c.) Antinoopolis' suggests that this was a common practice; see Steinwenter, "RechtsstellunC"' 5-6,
"äP. Antin.3' 189
 I

E,VIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 73

72 CHAPTER THREE

family. This is, moreover' a ÍaÍe case in which it is possible to trace a

agreements or other devices
of their monasteries' lands through rental nearly continuous tenancy of ecclesiastical land by such a famil¡ even
the incentive for their suc-
iø, *tti.ft see the di,tu'uion belÑ) reduced their assets'
though it is unlikely that this was an unusual practice in Byzantine Egypt'
:;";t1; t"ppress these institutions and seiz-e the foundations' those in-
The poet Dioscoros, the son of Apollos who subsequently became
In comparison ,o out'ight l^y o*"t'ship.of phrontistes and þourator in his father's monastery, apparently did not
lands from various ecclesiastical in-
stances where f^yr,,.nî"?tiy 'åntt¿ rent the kleros Ierados himself.Te By a law of 530 Justinian placed a
more than mild abridgments of
stitutions might seem to huut been no view the rental twenty-year limit on ordinary rentals of church lands and a three-
it is necessary to
their autonomy. At npfltoåito, however' control and generation limit on lands held by emphyteutic lease.8o It is possible that
background of,lay
of church lands by f"y-* ãä"inst the Ammonios is al- ãt the time of his father's death in 542 Dioscoros found himself disqual-
Count
administration of ,n"'in'ii'uãon' themselvei Agenios' So is ified by these provisions'
of Apa
readv familiar as the overlord of the monastery had Flavios Artemidoros, another familar notable of Aphrodito, held po-
¡" the period sz7-sze' Bv 531 he
ffiil^'fi¡;i-,#Ëîà'ei" as ytll'" Before the end of the dec- sitions both as the epitropos of the monastery of Apa Sourous and as a
become protokomet,'Jf Ãptttodito singoularis (a tax collector) for Count Ammonios' estate. The count's
l"u"lotd in the administration of Apa Agenios' as
ade, Apollos became disbursement to him in the latter capacity on behalf of the monastery
two papyrus ¿o.,,-tni',ã"t nt-fy dated to 538 and another somewhat
him "Apa may have been intended to meet the institution's tax obligations.sl The
;;;J, ;J';tt76 The ruiä or the two Apa Agenios.p"tvlltitles
"fatherl' (the equivalent of
meanin!
monks of Apa Agenios had urged Apollos to consider employing part of
Apollos," an honorary designation
"Sl''te this title. ú neatly always reserved for the money owed them for this purpose too.
the Latin abba) in Cáp"t A year after Apollos' death, his son Dioscoros appears in a rent receipt
had founded his monastery of
monks or clerics, i, up'p'"tt that Apollos granted by Artemidoros as a tenant of land belonging to the Apa sourous
between the two documents.TT
the christ_bearing np."ir* i, the interval monastery.t' The substantial rent of ninety-two artabai (one artabe
up his management of the prop-
This indicates that Apollos did not give equals rhree Roman modii or % English bushel) of wheat suggests that a
of his own monastery' He was
erty of Apa Agenios åitt nt btca*ã heaá considerable tract of lease land was involved here. Although it cannot be
of continuing as the.subordinate of
in the seemingty proved that this rental arose out of a traditional leaseholding agreement'
"*Uiguout-p*ition while serving as the abbot of his
the count *ittt ,.rp..iioãpt¡'gtnios disposi- h.r. on.. again we have a notably close intertwining of the administra-
and testamentary
own monast.ry *irr, iuù ttgrttt ãf ownership tive responsibilities and financial interests of the officials of the estate.
"ätn
tion. The þattern of interrelated ownership and leaseholding as well as a
land from another eccle-
Apollos and his brother Besarion rented tolerant attitude toward laymen and clerics who pursued mixed careers
(New Church) of Aphrodito'78
siastical institution' int rc"i"t Ekklesia Apollos held in state service, private estate administration, and the management of
which
The tract of land i";;;';i'"";as the
kleros Ierados'
Apollos ecclesiastical institutions is especially clear from this evidence at Aphro-
from 521 to 526' Apparently
as tenant for six y.J*,ïtåU"bly to dito. It is just such a social setting, in which the conception of what
brother Besarion, who seems
rook over the lease .¡;fi'i, land irom his
to sublease constituted an "ecclesiastical" or "secular" responsibility was so ambig-
decided
have heltl it as a,"""tt i" 518' In that
year Besarion
uous, that encouraged the development of private churches and monas-
peãsants, whom he obliged to share
the rract fo. .,rrtiuutiåi by ,ruo rocai teries.
to this same tract
;il; ;t.pt equally *iitt rti*' If another document refers to exploit the tract di- The presence of estate officials like Apollos and Artemidoros at
of land, it would Bt'"'ion decided
;;r,,, i; ïrô *irr, ";;;;;h;t
to find
,rrå rr-.rp of a_colleague, victor. lt is interesting TeFor Dioscoros, see Malz, "Dioscoros," 345-47;Jean Maspero, "Un dernier poète grec
."rt"iri it"å, .i remaining within a single
church prop.rty
the rental of u d'Egypte: Dioscore, fils d'Apollôs," REG 24 (1,91L), 426-81; Leslie MacCoull' "The Cop-
tl. Ãrèhiu. of Dioscorus of Aphrodito," Chronique d'Egypte 56 (1981)' 185-93.
7, p. Cairo Masp. 67 301 .5 (5.] I ) Aphrodito. 80
cJ 1,.2.24.4-.t (530), confirmed by NJ 7.3.1(535); for the emphyteutic lease, see How-
and PSl 8.e33 (538) Aphrodito. ard Comfort, "Emphyteusis among the Papyri," Aegyptus 17 (1937),3-24.
-op. caìro uasp. t.ez'oàiìilf,í.;ilbl;;hrodito.
Brp. Cairó tøasþ. 1..øZOZS (55i), where he appears as desponiÞos,diciketes tes þomes
'TForApollos'rol."'founàttofthísmonaste'y"e"P'CairoMasp'l'67096(573J4)
l ' )'-co1s
Anhroditor fo. th.hono'iä;;;;' ';; ä;ìuu' L'{ébu"' DACL 8'e37 (52r)' an<l P' cairo Apbrodites, and 2'.67739F6v.3 (528); cf . P. Cairo Masp. 1-67062 (before 538)'
' 82P. Cairo Masp. 2.671.33 (543) Aphrodito; cf. P. cairo Masp..1.67087.(543), in which
'8p. Lottd.5.l6e4 (;ïäì,'iiiöi (sìïi Þ¡i s's:o tszt)' "2494-2s00'
Masp. 3.67307 ts.2'ol *i"i"tåti¿*rà"t
úi-Ct't'udt Malz' "The Papvri of Dioscoros"' Dioscoros pror..ut., the "son of Mousaios" for damage inflicted on another tract of land
Parileni (Mílan, 195î,34s-s6' For this
studi in onore di Arßti;;"c;i;;;;;;'i nob'rrto g' and Antonini' "chiese"' 191' that he held from the monastery of Apa Sourous'
church, see P' Cøiro M';;'á:¿7;8't'
p' io' rint
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 75
74 CHAPTER THREE

AphroditoandMenasatOxyrhynchusin-highadministrativepostsln of a saint.se Perhaps the right to propose candidates and the obligation
of the ex- to stand surety for them were regarded together as an integral part of the
.ri"i.-r,tpported monasteries almost certainly was the result
yet
personnel. there is little nomination process.
;;;;;; "¡ïy rights of nomination of clerical of patrons in
rights
áìr..i ..rri-on"y on the operation of these traditional
document of 334 from Hathor
EËypl. Ât r;fá.,un, uuiuudtv damage.d FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS
rfrîi"t priesi, Aurelios Pageos, arranging with the proestotes of a mon-
"
,o^"tlo* hi, broth.r Gerontios to assume Pageos' duties temporar- The papyri provide much more evidence than the legislation of Justinian
^t..y
ily during his expected absence at a synod in Caesarea'83
The agreement fo. t'h.^fitruncing of private foundations in Egypt, but the terminology
entitled Gerontios to oversee, aclminister, and act as
financial steward for familiar from the legãl sources (for example, sitesis, dapane, and chore-
provided that he did not giø) is almost entirel-y absent. Instead, we meet with six different types of
ifr. -on"t,.r¡ as well as to appoin t oiþonomoi'
innou"rions from established practices' Aithough not him- ñnancial support.e0 First, there are regular grants of cash to institutions,
urr.-p,
"ny clearly held some position analogous to the lay collegia of il.rgy or monks, or even on occasion to individuals, perhaps
self a layman, Pageos
above. one of these, count Johan- ,.lr.r.nratiies of collegia. These donations resernble the presbia ton
firont:isltai aid þãuratores discussed a proest.o.s who had
",
orrilior, the annual legacies or "annuities" regulated by Justinian in
ires, did not hesitate to call to account and depose
It reasonable, then, to several laws.el Although the usual beneficiaries oÍ presbia were a testa-
brought his monastery to financial ruin.sa seems
that lay p"rránr, like Pageos and Gerontios' also made use of tor's relatives, ecclesiaitical institutions and colleges of clergy were also
"rr,r,î. in accordance with Justi- eligible ro receive them. second, we find at Aphrodito disbursements in
it.l, p"*.* oi no-ln"tion ancl ãppointm.t-tt
nian's legislation'
wheat earmarked as ekphoria from the benefactor Ammonios' proper-
ih.r."i,more explicit testimony on these rights from C-optic sources ties. These will be discùssed in detail below. Third, both at Aphrodito
to his and at Oxyrhynchus there are records of other commodities supplied in
of th. seventh and eighth centuries't' A letter from a suffragan
up"ti.t-Uithop, for .l*arnpl., protests fg]rnst the latter's reluctance to kind, including barle¡ wine, and vinegar. Fourth, there are special cash
The suffragan bishop declares clonatiorrs on ñolidays, for feasts, or for special memorial services" Fifth,
;c;õ ; priest'árdained by the former.B6
tf,. iri.ri in question innocent of any taint of simony' emphasizing
that we occasionally find cash disbursements for specific purpos-esr for ex-
bestow ordination rather than ample, the payment of taxes and the purehase of bricks and firewood.
the priest's no*in"to., had moved him to
paymenr by the nominee himself. The suffragan's letter treats Sixih, the io-calle d prosphora donations, perhaps the most common
"ry'iif.g"f usual process by which an grant; of all, are found throughout Egypt wherever documentary evi-
friut""no-ination rí-ply as a step in the dence is preserved.
individual became a Priest'
A series of ostraca contains the sureties of candidates proposed
to a The evidence from the papyri reveals, therefore, a variety and com-
Uirftrf f.t clerical ordination or promotion'87 This was a procedure re- plexity in the forms of lay support for churches and other ecclesiâstical
quir.å by Coptic canon law. The sureties were often clerics themselves, inrtit,.rtio.,, at which the legislation of Justinian only hints. A complicat-
ä-.ri-å, ,.iut.d to the candidates. Parish priests coopted. colleagues ing consideration is that sáme of what appear at first to be charitable
;;t, ;;t in the early seventh century.ss In one particularly relevant case, diíburse-enrs may have been payments for goods or services provided
ho*.u.r, the sureties were laymen, and the church in question may well by the institutions as part of existing economic relationships between
have been a private one, sinte it bore the name of a
village rather than
pco 31.
,où*p".t"lir.d, periodic donations: P. Cairo Ma.sp.2.671.39F4r'7-8 (to religious insti-
ptospbota dona'
8jP. Lond. 1,913 (334) Herakleopolis, ed. H. Idris Bell, Jews.and.chrßtians ìn Egypt tutiorrs), 39F4r.9 (to a sustema or collegium),38F1r.4. (to an individual);
ilzll, p"rìi."rl¿y i-à, 1ã-ri, cf. steinwenter, ""Rechtsstellung," 2L, with re{- iørr,-lJ. ,fr. d"t"il.d discusssion beloi, with examples in notes; disbursements fuom ek-
urrai"l, ii;;;", þ. Cairo Masp. 2.67I3BF2r, 58p1t.zZ, 34, 39F4r; disbursements for speciÊc
erences.
P. Fouad 1.87
Lu.oo..., p. Cairo Masp.2.67139F6v.15 (for taxes), 39F5r.19 (for vegetables)' 39F5r.20
39FS..Zj trt, bricks), 38F1v.8 (for firewood); commodities supplied_in kind:
8a .
s5See Arrur Steinwenter, ,,Die Ordinationsbitten koptischer Kleriker," Aegyptus
I1 if".'ü;.krj,
'i. Oiy. tø.'tgt0-'1.2, 18.219 5 (wúeat), PSI B '953 (w-ine and vinegar), P.' Ox2t' L8;2197 'I1"
(1931.),29-34.
%vc 39. ràiiÉri.f.rf it"a. ia.3.299 ànd P.'tairo Masp.2.67139F6v.3 (barley); holiday, festal,
BTps-Basil 47, trans. Wilhelm Riedel, Dia Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alex- À.-oriát donations: P. Cairo Masp.2.67ßÇFk,25,67'141F5r.22-24,28-29'P' Oxy.
",.,a
1.6.L945
andrien (LeiPzig, 1900)' 261"
88As in CO 36. 'Cl 6.48.r.1'5-16,26 (528-29); C/ 1'3'45'9-15 (53 0); cf. CJ 1.2.2s (s30)
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 77
76 CHAPTER THREE

is' for example' not al- institution.ec Yet an Oxyrhynchus document of 587 shows that estate
landowners and their religious foundations' It
in an estate reglster means managers sometimes preferred other arrangements.eT The stewards of the
ways possible to determine if a laconic entry
y
;ðiu.'x amounr of money to so he can bny z for his instirurion," or Apion household in this case delivered 371. artabai of whear. all at once
commodity, Z sold to tó a nosoþomeion, for which the institution's oikonomos, our acquaint-
"Give X amount of *ãnãy to Y in exchange for ance the notary Menas, gave a receipt.es Perhaps the philanthropic insti-
,rt"Th"prosphoraandmemorialdonationsoftenweretreatedmorelikesort
offe.red in exchange for some turions, with their large resident populations, had their own baking fa-
fuy*.nm than grants since they were intentions of the cilities (as monasteries often did), or sold what they could not use on the
of memorial service in "..ot¿""ce with the expressed open market.ee
of financial sup-
ár"år. in"re neverrheless constituted important sources The size or the prosphora donations also varied considerably. At oxy-
pá" øt ift. Ueneficiary institutions' Moieover' there was wide.variation rhynchus, for instance, the Apion family provided the nosoþomeion of
in different places' The
in the means of ,,rppoí, .mployed by benefactors
may have- accounted Abba Elias with a prosphora grant of 371. artabai of wheat, while an-
natures of their ,.rpe.tiut'household economies
otlrer institution received only 4 artabai.loo Even the grant to a particular
ä;h; pr.r.r.r,.. .?;h; Apion family for distributions i' kind, were
while
more institution might vary greatly from year to year. Count Ammonios' for
eft,irai,o under count Ammonios cash allowances example, prouid"d the monastery of Apa Patemos in Aphrodito with
",
common,
grant; of 45, 6, and 13 artabai of wheat respectively for three consecutive
indiction years.1o1
The requiremenrs of bread and wine for the liturgy doubtless deter-
PROSPHORA DONATIONS
mined the specific form assumedby pros¡thora donations inter uiuos.toz
yet it seemi clear that the prosphora represented more than a simple
Prosphoradonationsdeservespecialconsideration.Itispossibletodis-
ir"g,i;h ,*t-ior-, of these donations' prospbora inter uiuos
and mortis provision of these eucharistic elements in many cases. Philanthropic in-
causa.ez The former o..u,,.d through ìhe generosity of living.benefac- stitutions and monasteries nearly always received donations larger than
,".r, had affinity with other unsfecialized forn-rsof
financial support tþose of churches, and in general only they received more than purely
"ta
¡;;-;|''u;r. ecclesiasiical institutions' Some of these donations may actu- nominal amounts each year. This suggests that the prosþbora was also
used to support the nutritional needs of the staffs of these institutions'
allyhavebeencontractualfulfillmentsofearliertestamentarybenefac-
prosphora mortis causa'.Beîe- Some piospbora donatíons inter uiuos may have represented a volun-
äo'rrr rn", come under the designation of
¡;;;;; provided grants of thii la*er sort from a deceased Christian's rary tirh; on ãgricultural produce levied upon each seasonal harvest' This
in expectation of-p.uy.., or memorial masses for his or her soul'e3 *o.rld for annual variations. Perhaps John chrysostom had
--;.".r""års
estate
inter uiuos donations in the form of com- "..o,rnt
something similar in mind when he urged private church founders to
usually tendãred
the 150 artabai of provide lpomoirai (portions) and aparchai (first fruits) as "dowries" for
modities.ea In the.ut. åi alarge donation, such as
wheat that a certain Count Eudãimon provided
as prosþhora for an un- iheir foundations. Coptic canon law agreed with John Chrysostom in
named institution at Oxyrhynchus in 481, tht grant may have.been a viewing donations of prosphora as the natural accompaniment to the
;;i,;";t the foundatián íitn the count's baker' which it
could draw erectio; of a new church by a benefactor.l03 Complaints that arose from
baked bread." The entries in Apion estate cases in which benefactors were reluctant to meet their traditional obli-
;;;;, ";.ará in the form of
of so many artabal of wheat or diplai of gations in this respect prove that in post-Byzantine times the prosphora
;;Ã;;., noting the provision ,,according
;i;; ¡.; u giuå indiaircn year to the orders of our Master" lines 30,31, and 82-83'
provided to each beneficiary '6As PSI 8.953 (567-68) Oxyrhynchus,
;;;. talîy all the vouchers of this sort e7
P. Oxy. 16.1898 (587).
e8
P. Oxy. 16.1898 (587)'
eeP. Oxy. 16.1,890 (508) Oxyrhynchus, and KRU 106 (735) Djême'
92Ìor prosphora, see G.
.W. G.reeþ Lexicon (oxford' 7961), 11'84,
H. Lamp.e, A.Patrktic too5.. ç¡".¡ 1, "Apion Estate Donations," Part 2, "Size of Wheat Donations'"
,t, berween inter uiuos anà mortis
and
.wipszycka
, Rrrrour"r'r,' àiil;\i, Rith"td Kay'."Benedict'
distincrion
Tustinian' and Donations
to1P. cairo Masp.'2.67139F4r.8 (7th ind.), 671.38F2r.31 (8th ind.),671'39F6r.12 (9th
caust, see CJ l'2'14'r t+iõjt"ttt ind.).
:l\i;;dô"':^'in the'Regula Magistri',""rìo RB e0 (l980\' 16e-e3'
102So Wipszycka, Ressources, 66-67.
o{see narticularru l.opåiå \ii;;;;; lein' str'''nr'"ng auf den Todesfall'* ZSR 32'
Ro-
t" lvlon'^õ'
*rps-Atb. S7 (Cãptic Version), ed. Vilhelm Riedel, Tåe Canons of Athanasius of AIex-
esp' J3J-32' a commentary on
"-;;l'.'õì,*y. andria (London, flfi+¡ lfor the ãate and attribution of these canons, see Wipszycka, Res-
(qÅ1,'i6.1b+s (+gil, Ps'Ath' 64' and PS/ 8'e53 (s67-68)'
^or¡rä[ør,qateitingçlÞt1¡,325-37'
to.ßzî sot¿rces, 14-17), in which prosphora is employed to mean "offerings"'
ss
P. Oxy' 16.1949 (481')'
 l

EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 79

CHAPTER THREE
78
ln 733 there was an unusual case of the alienation of a prosphora
and thus subiect to arbitrary suspen- of the
donations remained voluntary bequest, the proceeds of which a Theban abbot used for "the table
had associated prosphorai and
sion.roa Moreover, E*;;;;;Ãtastasius poår" tËe requirements of his monastery for assuring "the health lof
collection of these offerings
aparcbaiin his law ft"Ïiitî tf"^t"¡q"ftory
"nd 1i3 These uses may indicate the usual em-
to ihe soull of blessåd peschare."
tl-'"'l"tt¿lords themselves might have
by the church. r, ,.t"' ïr''t"t il''u¡ their tenant cultiva- ftoy*.n, of prospbora income. A Theban donor of 735 urged the sale
not compel
nrovide the þrospho;;;h*iilty to"f¿ åf in" p.op.ity tirat constituted his prosphora donation, with the pro-
,or, ,o PaY to the churches' ceeds tà bá used for charity and the expenses of the monastery'114
causa'is rel-
for prosp,hora donations mortis
Attestation in 'åiä period when there is Apparently only monasteries were recipients oÍ prosphora donations
'ftt
atively late (from "'"'
tiir within the
*oiti, ,orro, bui this may be due to accidents of preservation.lls The
Most of our infor-
'?å'"ùít
extensive do.,t-.ntut' ¡lnlo'"
¡ni" uiuos,ðonation''io's There actual donations might consist of landed property' l'vine or other
com-
from last wills and testaments'
mation comes nuttt'"ñi';;;;h the modities, or cash raised from the liquidation of movable property and
ho.ra donations of this sort and inalienable
was a close.o.tr,..,i#Läät;'t ln¿leed' some'sort of real estate.116 Once made, the donation became a permanent,
th" dttt""d'106
undertaking of runt"i;;;;i;;;itt soul of the deceased seems part of the monastery's estate, its diaþonia'|17
fo¡
;Ï;åfi1:r";; The varied nature of what was offered as prospbora must have made
'tr';üio'-ï'uv.,'
to have been a .";;r:o;åi.,
.rp..i"ily 'theamong the coptic christian
conversions to liquid assets necessary from time to time. Thoughtful
do-
population'r0' nors provided ahead of time for the liquidation of such properties.lls
, ^---^^,^,1 of ^f th"
the ecclesiastical instinstitution
'fhe exact torm of the services expected
remain conjectural' A list Estate executors exercised a vague intermediary role between the de-
must
in exchange for the p'io'iø*odonàdon of St' Sergius in Nessana in ceased donor's estate and the diaþonia of the monastery in this
connec-
o{ offerings ,o ,¡t *oi'"í;ö;;;h;
chu.rch all of his land to a monas-
with strokes ap- tion.11e A certain Plein, said to have donated
clonations'
the early seventh ttt*;;;;i"-des of
p'rosphora in a the eighth
tery as a soul offering, is mentioned document
oended afrer some ;i;L;;;;iü ;" indicate the performance of me- ceitury.rro Nevertheless, in the very same document his surviving chil-
to -"-oìi"l days connected
morial masses.1.8 d;;ä;;;;.refer dren ,Ënornce rheir rights to this land, which Plein actually hacl conveyed
Stut'ul testaments speak of a
prosphora
with prospbo,o aon-^'lon''to' of months or years'110 Per- to them rather than tÈe monastery at his death. Perhaps in this and sim-
obligation .on,,ut"åiãtl tpttntd
number
the number of years ilar cases the recipient monastery leased back to the donor's family by
haps the size or,ftt tåftäti
tñtã"t"'icl".determined emphyteusis in exchange for rental income the lands that made up the
ser-
co.ntinue to offer the customary
that the recipient -o""tttty would memorial d"t:'l"ll Flavius prospbora donation.
'
vices for the soul tf ;i;;;¿"'"d
on his or her
for Oihe. documenrs which show a delay of varying length between the
of Antinoe' made testamentary provision
Phoibammon, th. phy'itian time of initial donation and that of final occupation by the recipient mon-
that.tht recipient monastery should
a prosph ora¿on"'ioT iiäï'iptr"it¿ astery give additional evidence that the intermediary's role sometimes
accord him the ."..;;;i-rrãr.,
.r receiving hii body for burial within .",.ndJd beyond that of a testamentary executor to that of a tenant on
its walls.rl2
rrrKRU l3 (733) Djême.
r04H. R. Hall, Coptic and Greek TÞxfs' pl' 63' no'
J' 106 (735) Djême'
latest 'r4KRU
1'67003 and3'67312 (ca' 567); Ressoirces,T5, notes that pious Egvptians much preferred monasteries to
rosh^rliest mortis causa¿'.i'i,'-.."î' ê ã'ly y*tl rrr¡g¡Orrr.¡¿'
t, *, "rïàiì l'' oxv l o' I 8e8' 1 ee3.(s
i""íiiãn" 87)'
(Munich' t e26)' .hur.h.ilã'. the performance oi memorial inass .ervicts, or at least so it would seem on
s'"tr' äiä
ìí¡i s,.àà'*t^im griechischen Recht the basis of surviving evidence.
ro" ç'¿s ¡þs¡h¿¡i n.
;i';)"à
ri"t's7^, n $on s' and Ps-B¿sil 3l' P. Cdiro Masp'.- 2'67151' (570),3.67312 (567), and 1(R U 70 (750)'
eso. 302-1 7; alst: P. Lond' r''i's't'4.i 116

""";--IIÃd e)s"Ozg or 744) Djême and vc 5 (620-) Edtou' t17

P. Cairo Masp' 1,.67003,lines 15-22,2'671.51',.lines 1'21'-23'
108P. N¿ss' 2.79 (earlyt'í't'i'Ñ"ttät"' f'nes
zs-+:' with editor's comments' p' 229'lines rtr lr., ¡p y 69 (iz9 or 7 44) a woman ordains that her husband should sell her share in a
to.p. Lond. r.7B (ca. otölì íi".ïsi-ig'tï' co¡'o
uo'i' z'ettsl (570) Arsinoe' hou.. its attàched properry to her brother, then give the proceeds to a monastery as
f":g^i'"iñå of keeprng memorial "nJ
163-68r KRII 77 tø¡ol
to 'ut'ot 1905)' heroros1hora.¡(RU li'(7j3) iiauniqueexampleof thealienationof aprosp.hora bequest
''¿'*å"itä'aì"!
,lo,q for the dead 4",.a uu.'ü'io'cïrìi. ¿påri. s.¿¿, ed. F. X. Funk (paderborn, ;;í;;;õ;;;;;;;y; but th" uu'i.ä n"tu,. ãf what might be given, e.'g'' the household
"'"ioùnu oetz6 (ca. 700),70 (750) Diême' i,i."tfrirÀ musr have made conversion to more useful assets necessary from timeare
-"^;,Çlin. to time'
is orobablv a list of persons en- of KRt/ 69" CPR 4.178 (6th c.) and ST 56 both
rìrNore p. Bal.2.306trj".l,í öJ,í"ì-äiir'i*r,, which mentioned in P' Cairo
nurúãn¿ of ìh.
s a katalogos'o' Ãàpi'io' as to intermecliaries,
".,tho.
witl, instructions to hand over the property of the donors after
titled to memorial masses' perhap "ddr...ãá prosphora'
their decease to designated monasteries as
MasP.2.67751. Bvzantine times this
,ip. Cairo Masp. ).67151(570) Arsinoe' ri"ï lg1;1j'ln later 120H. R. Hall, Coptic Texts, pl. 66, no. 2.

*". " rp.llãitight for the founder of an tnstttutton'

reserved
 -Y I

!l

EVIDENCE FROM THF] PAPYRI 81

80 CHAPTER THREE

monk tells of his near pledging their future revenues as security.r2s Under Arab rule, some insti-
the donated land.'21 In a Coptic papyrus oÍ703 a
donation to his home mon- tutions also borrowed from wealthy members of their own communities
fatal illness which occasioned a-piosphora in order to meet their tax obigations.126 Since many tax collectors in that
the monks of the com-
urr.ry. \When his son nursed him'back to health' era wefe clerics themselves, financially pressed institutions had some
you away from your illness; it
*.,nl,y declared, "Your son has snatched flexibility in meeting their obligations to the government.t2T Individual
prosp,hora"' The monk then
ir ìiãnl, ,tt.t, that he should minister your clerics sometimes had to sell their own lands when the revenues they
á..tãr., in this document: ". . as it was agreed, they gave me everything
to^my son',so that obtained from them no longer sufficed even to pay the tax obligations'128
,t"i lfrr¿ given them, to the last coin' I have given itthe.first.third of the Institutions also unburdened themselves of lands for this reason, in ac-
ir. *il givã it fo, *.i' Another coptic papyrus of
corclance with Justinian's special provision in his law on the alienation
;ì;h;i; ;;*ry ,".ord, the prospbotå btqttttt of a certain Johanna to the
of church property.12e
oikonomosof a monaste.f whlth *"' ottly carried out much later by her
soft indicate that there was somerhing In Byzantini times the sources speak chiefly of taxes on church lands
son George. Documenrs åf rather than on the churches themselves.r30 These lands were also subject
'hi,
;;;p-.;r"; Íy, oÍ at leasr honorific, about the administration of a pros-
role quite desirable for a relative to general imposts, such as the embole, destined for the distributions of
lioíoi"q"rui tt rt made the executor's
*hèat in the great cities of Alexandria and Constantinople'131 In Aphro-
of
'lnth.absenceoffinancialaccountsforthemonasteriesofByzantine
the deceased.
dito in the sixth century clerics paid a head tax just like other villagers,
suggesting that clerical immunity Írom capitatio was now a thing of the
Copti. Egypt, it is very difficult to estimate the importanceoÍpros- pasi.r:r From Byzantine times into the period of Arab rule some churches
Perhaps
pbora âonationi as ,o.rr.. of income for religious institutions.
"nã
" Phoibammon monastery in in Aphrodito and Hermopolis also paid a unit tax in gold.t33
i, ir riã.in.ant that proestos Jacob of -the of pros' Lócal imperial officials were zealous in exacting tax obligations, real
ih.b.r"-rntioned in his will oi o.o. 695 that the administration
responsibilities.l22 In the Byzantine Em- or imagineá. Thirteen clerics and a monk joined their fellow villagers of
;;;;;;;; "ne of his principal commemorative offerings similar to Aphroãito sometime before 548 in protesting to Theodora, .consort of
ii.., fron' the late ninth céntuty'
causa did play an importaut. part in.the sup- Justinian, against the unjust tax exactions of the local ruler, the
pagarch
þroiphoro donations mortis as small village tf Antu.opolis.l3a In another protest, the monks of the monastery of Psi-
io.t'of monasteries and philanthropic institutions as well dignitary that Menas,
nepolis complained to an unnamed ecclesiastical
churches.123
anãthe, pagarch of Antaeopolis, had demanded public taxes (demosia)

t2sP.Ùad.6.173 (ca.600) provenance unknown; P. 8a1.2.102, cf. 103 and 125. Kahle's
introduction to his edition of- P . Bal., Vol. 1, pp. 41-42, provides a useful discussion of the
TAX OBLIGATIONS AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULIIES taxation of christian churches and monasteries in Egypt in post-Byzantine times.
t"E.g., P. Bal.2.293.
were not rou-
The fact that ecclesiastical institutions and their properties t27
P. 8a1. 2.1.33, 136, 145, 290.
for
ffi; ;;_.;;*pr i" the Byzantine Empire ser rhe stage a co.ntinuing 128P. Cairo Masp. 1.67088 (551?) Aphrodito, with editor's comments'
\2e
P. Michael. 41 6Zg or 554) Aphrodito, with editor's comments at pp' 79-80, shows
state authorities. The Egyp-
series of clisagreements b"i*..n ch,rrch and a monastery that gave away its share in â property in order to avoid taxes; cf. P. Cairo
iiu. "*pl" resrimony ro this srate of affairs.ofAa monastery in
sixth-century Masp. 1.67it7 (i)4) Aphródito, which is Jredord of registration of the n9w_owners of a
;;;r.;,
p.op.rty that had once belonged to a monâstery; Justinian's law is N/ 46 (547)'
ào.u-"n, oflnknown provenance shows the director for a
' ix'p.'yor¿.3.1060,3.107óA-D, 5.7782 (7th c.) Hermopolis, as discussed above in the
ih. *idrt of negotiations with a dux Íor an exrension of a deadline text in connection witÍr lay pronoetai in the service of the cathedral church of Hermopolis.
troubled monasteries
,"" p"yr"".,.t'iOther documents show that fiscally ßtSB 6.9144 (5S9) Aphrodito; P. Cairo Masp.2.671'38F1r'10, 15, cf' 1'67-030; drs-

borrowed money to pay their taxes from the tax collectors

themselves' .u...ã1y R. R¿-ondãn,"'Le moÁastère alexandiin cle la Métanoia était-il bénéficiaire du
fisc ou à son service?" in studi E. voberra, Vol. 5 (Milan, 1971,),769-81, and by Gascou,
"Monastères pachômiens," 17 8-83.
12tCLT2(703),I(RU1S(700-733)Djéme,anclthe.noteworthyP'CairoMa,sp'1"67003 col'
at lines iS-z¿'ïi*ttt of bv some monks to Flavros Mari- "'p. ço¡ro- ¡v1asp.3.67288 (early 6th c.) Aphrodito, col. 2, line 19; col' 3, line 16;
(before 522?), esp. .compìaint dìakonia o( 4,Lines 24 and 34; col. 6, line l. The gradual disappearance of clerical immunity from
anos, duxof the Thebaid. .;;*;;g ;;-r"g iiii,¿r,¿nui"" belonging to r.he
capitatio is discussed above in Chapter 1.
their monastery but contested by a certain Ezechiel' 133P. Cairo Masp.3.67288 (early 6th c') Aphrodito, col. 6, lines 1 and 5; BM Copt'
tzzKRIJ 65 (ca. 695) Djême, lines 4-5'
1100, Hermopolis.
r23See the discussion below in Chapter 6' ttip. ço¡ro^ ¡4otp.3.67283 (ca. 548) p. 2, lines 1*10; p. 3,lines 21-22'
t24SB 6.9607 (6th c.) provenance unknown'
 F,VIDENCE F'ROM THE PAPYRI 83
82 CHAPTERTHREE

not shrink from using the sources are almost silent about Egyptian ecclesiastical institutions,
from lands traditionally exempt'13s Menas did especially private foundations, in serious financial difficulty."o
monks capitulated and paid
armecl force to exact th; dispuåd dues' The The public churches, being more dependent on rhe voluntary offerings
in... inr,"ffments of tht tni"'' For a time the pagarch took
over the
property' The document unfortunately of their parishioners, did face difficult times under Muslim rule.1a5 Coptic
adrninistration of the *o""tt'y''
the details of the ca.ron lá* expected that churches would expend their whole income for
irïi;;ñ;.a, -ur.ing it ir.,posrible to undersrand with the au- eucharistic offerings, maintenance of clerg¡ illumination of the building,
ãlrpr,", U.t, ,î. ãi.. .oã,"qutnces.of misunderstandings on tax and charity for the poor.1a6 There was, however, no provision for build-
are clear enough' Perh.aps defaults
thorities in disputes ou.t ing maintenance, despite Justinian's requirement that founders see to this
'u*t'
obligationsareonereasonwhysomeecciesiasticalinstitutionscame need. coptic canon law simply obligecl the bishop to ensure that
u"ãË. ,ft" curatorship of government officials'136
-- for his heirs to churches áid not fall into serious disrepair. The tendency of Islamic law
itl. Arsinoe physicianîlavius Phoibammon arranged of St' to discourage or prohibit the rebuilding of Christian churches doubtless
to the monastery
assume the tax obiig;ot' for the land
he gave
Count Ammonios ap- exacerbated the problem.
T"..-iu, as his prosp hora donation'137 Likewise' in Aphro- coptic canon law directed churches with insufficient incomes to seek
þ;; i"* påi¿ th,e demosia for a church of St' Romanus
sf ¿¡¡¿ngement assistance from their bishops, but recommended recourse to a "rich
ãito."' Later, õoptic canon law would insist on this sort While these man,' if their prelates were unable to help.1a7 concurrent legislation
pt*"t¿ition for-".ttpting any bequest of property'13e
against clerics who frequented the "houses of the rich" seems to indicate
agai'st disputes
;;r;r';;;;rs musr lr"u. h.ip.ãto_ insuré the institutions
"r"á
of they in- a movement of clergy into private service accompanying the commen-
with officials such as that *hl.t faced the rnonks
Psinepolis,
in their internal affairs dation of churches to these powerful patrons.las similar problems
;;bly required u .onrirru.¿ interest of the heirs troubled the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Byzantium from the early seventh
behalf'
u, tl',. i.i." of continued paymelt::n their
--ih.'.hu..h in century until the formal recognition of the status of clergy in private
of Apollinåpátit fulfilled a special obligation sometime
records this service in the late ninth century'
the sixth century Uy lu"tt"ting troops' A
papyrus receipt
government ii-,fori,ioã on á ."thádral church.rao U'der Arab
unusual
in some localities stood
rule, special exactions i"t"""d' Monasteries PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS IN OXYRHYNCHUS
for local governors'1a1 As
under obligation to provide expense-T91"y The papyri from Aphrodito and Oxyrhynchus supply the most fully de-
of þatholiþe ekþlesia of
early as the late iou.itt t""t'y"t't officials
the
to bring their own taileå picture of the operation of private religious foundations in specific
Aio"ndriu had depended upon government officials in localitìes. The list of ecclesiastical institutions that the Apion family sup-
the situation worsened
disobedient pronoetiì to "Ëtot'ñt't" Again' ported in Oxyrhynchus by itself documents a veritable ecclesiastical em-
latercenturies,andcertainmonasterieswereundertheprotectionof martyria,
of the Mus- þire, including forty-seven churches, eleven monasteries, two
ðåîri. ðirrlriián offi.i"lr.i43 Doubrless the uncerrain attitude ãnd four philãnthropic institutions.rae The extent of the philanthropy of
limauthoritiesdid-*t,'ofosterthisrelianceonfriendlylocalofficials the Apion household has no parallel anywhere else in the Egyptian
who were coreligionists' ,otrr..ì, even in Aphrodito, where the benefactions of Count Amrnonios
prescriptions for the
It appears th"t priuui" patrons heeded,Justinian's
'!íith the exception of tax obligations' appear quite impiessive. This said, it must be noted that many of the
,"pp*i of religious founàations'
taaP. Fouad. 1.87 (6th c.), esp. línes 21.-24, with Gascou, "Monastères pachômiens,"
P. Caìlo Masp. 1'.67021 (before 567)Aphroditol?)' in PSi 8'9JJ and else- 1.63-77.
'3s
r,"8.g.,CountJo¡"nn.iin i.-;;;"¿. t.sz'and Count A-tonios Ps-Ath. 61,63,
in stud' Pal' \'2718 145On the fevenues of the public churches in post-Byzantine times, see
sixth ¿;i";;i'"th;ux-^ndph'ontis/es Serrouthios
''here rhoth of the in KRU 104 (8th c')' 65.
,Ï,rl'..i, iä.ipt^"'oìrh*
'
and phrontistes t46
Ps-Atb. 65 .
"- i.Coiro Masp.2'67151 (570) Antinoe' ^ t47 Ps_Ath. 23.
671'38F1't'4'
"'þ'. co¡'rl N1aip.2.67|39F6v'L5; cf ' 39F6r'2 and usPs-Atb.24, cf.22.
ß'Ps-Basil 86. laeFor Christian institutions at Oxyrhynchus, see G. Modena, "ll Cristianesimo ad Os-
voP. Grenf.2.95 (6th c') Apollinopolis'
sirinco secondo i papiri," BSAA 9 (1,937),254-69; G. Pfeilschifter, "oxyrhynchus: Seine
t4t P. Bdl. i.294, lin4- 1, 2.301, line 1 1'
Kirclren und Klösìei," Festgabe Alois Knöpfler getuidemet (F'reiburg, 1917), 248-64; P.
u2SB 6.9527 (385-412) Arsinoe'
of 8' and KRU 1'04 (771- Barison, "Ricerche," 75-83; L. Antonini, "Chiese," 1'72-83; and Chart 1, "Apion Estate
14r VC 8 (698 ot 728) íiåääi^tf" vC 9' apparentlv a version
Donations," Part 1, "Recipient Institutions"'
72) Djème.
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 85
84 CHAPTERTHREE

nonetheless quite small' As

far as liturgical (that is, eucharistic) requirernents of the churches themselves.
Apion household's donations were in. ? arìabai of wheat and the 20 diptai of wine attested by another
for example' only seven institutions
wheat distributions *;;;;;;;ttned' Apion estate document might well have sufficed for the celebration
of the
thirty-four received rhis amount or
received more than ti-ortiao¡,whiie able to liturgy during each indiction year.157
ress.150 It is not trt.ry ihut
it. t.r, fortunate institutionsYetwere
the needs of ¡uiiiniurr, Ëy .or-,r."rr, seems to have envisioned
that the clergy of pri-
of grain'1s1
u"i. .hu..h"s would receive a salary (either in cash or i' kind) from their
disbursements
subsist on such small annual were
attending'
a small church,
"
*ith ti;;; p'it" ""a perhaps a deacon
An austere monk' for patrons. Yet the emperor may have legislated with an urban setting in
actuallv more modest';'h;; tn" -ighi imagine' could make a living from the
; ;;".;,"rationJof !2 artabai of wheat'ls2 -ind *h.." the possibility that a priest
:::Ë[;ishäùil;'". l"nd *"u foreclosed.tts Tire Apion householcl's arrangements for sup-
Moreover, it was not necessary
to maintain the clergy of estate churches the spirit' if the
expecr these clerics to provide fáriing clerics in the countrysiãe seem to preserve 'ot
at leisure. A landrori ;;1á ordinarily i.,,.., äf the emperor's legislation. Moreover, the provision of bricks to
from working rented lands' at least in
most of their own
'ufpo" tñ"'-'o'''t of these churches were .i..gi "nd .h,trËh", by th. estate managers might represent'
The possibili,y t"nloî tt á*tlt¿t¿ to ;^t;: u fulfillment of Justinian's injunction to patrorìs to provide for
merely lay-assisted rather than
true private churches and were able
building maintenance.
from other ueig,hboring property own-
count on supprementary revenues had the Althãugh in the fiscal registers of the household the churches sup-
also possible lhar their clergy
lt is
ers or their o*n p""Jt'íont"' ported by"the family take on the names of the estates in which they were
fnancial support' su¡h 11-11nure of
ïo."r"¿, ít i, ,.uron"bly certain that they bore the usual patronal titles in
benefit of some less readily apparent
Apion estate registers do
rental properry ut "ãuttâ äes't"
Since.the
qualitv of the lands held bv each honor áf th. ,"i.,tu' the Blessed Virgin, or the archangels' In a,document
not provide uny trt'"i1ïîn"-'ãi"t*t oÍ 6tZ a peasant oi the estate of Great Tarouthinos acknowledges
a loan
ttypott'tåsis' Yet even if it could
be
tenant, it is impossúìt";;;tni' from the doorkeeper of the church of st. Theodore.l5e Since this was an
established that the Ñ;;
i"*ily did not provide any special assistance Ápio., possessio.,, it is probable that.theLkklesia Tärouthinos of the fis-
evident restrictions on their
to support ,t. .t.'gy'å;"th;^:í;ht" 'ht the churches in which they .ä ..gilr.r, ."u, ,1",i, sån-re St. Theodore's.160 The fiscal managers' habit
that
oersonal liberty *.i¿"r"ä..;-;Ji.";. this great land- of refäring to recipient churches by estate names increases the likelihood
ffäffiìi"r;; been any more independent of
have the
that these lnstitutions were owned by the Apion family. By contrast,
;;;ir;;r, usually do identify monasteries by their proper names, and al-
"*,ïîilî:î:l:ltt; lt, regard nor to conruse material
prosperitv with.
Paulos' a tenant of *iy, do so for philanthropic institutions.16l This in turn would seem to
the priest
personal freedom' f"th' l"tt sixth
century churches'
indicate that they enioyed gt.ut.t autonomy than the estate
the Apion epoikion;iþ;;"' ;uid
tt" t""'" Àu'.'"gers over 76 artabai A good n.r-ú., of ihe
-ch.r..her
in Oxyrhynchus are identifiable by
(sot¡d¡) in cash as the
of wheat ro-t*hut'lt" ihu" + nomismata indicates that his hold- their proper names, thanks to a calendar of station churches dating to
"rrd The renr alone
annual rent for hi, l;;dhr-ldirg.1r5 lncidentally' the S36li.ßz'Thrs is a list of the churches at which the bishop celebrated
the
him in comfort'
ins was more than ;äöä 'uppo* liturgy on rhe major feasts of the year. The presence of St.Jheodore's in
4 artabaiof wheat and 1t2 nomisma
iå,_1 i."îür;ililìi å;r"t.d oniy
p""írs probably setved.'56 Perhaps then a this ãocument is noteworthy.l63 Apparently diocesan officials did not
to the churcf, of lupî",ii"ir.* ir.ut Apion private churches as off limits and outside their spiritual iuris-
preferential rate on fo' clerics was not really necessar¡ providecl diction, wt ùt is nor surprising in view of Justinian's legislation
on the
""t' with sufficiently large properties from
ihat their landlords *pJitãìft"m subject. The appearan.. tf other Apion churches in this calendar dem-
Once the estate managers had
which they could '"p'ö'ilrttmselves'
only to concern themselves with the
made this p.oui'ioå]i'nti-nt"ata 15'ZPSI 8.953.8 (567) OxYrhYnchus'
r58See especially N/ 57 (537).
r50See Chart 1, "Apion Estate Donations"' Part
2"'Size of Wheat Donations'" t'o P. Princ.2.87 (612 ) Oxyrhynchus'
81' 160According ,o rr. clry. i.iï í.ll-tc,Great Tarouthinos was an Apion possession; for
ttt lo ¡qio"tt¡ a, Ressources'
(577)'
r52Jones, LRE,792. the ekþlesia of"this estate, see P. Oxy' 1'6'1'911'72
,rr'r¡y;p5¿ycka, s, I l-82.
Re ssource 161See Chart 1, "Apion Estate Donations"'
p. oxy.lq 205-6:11' l'6 (6th c')' tt.tzsl (536_37) with the valuable commenrary by the editors.
',.d..irp..i"iry "ri.-ori.
rsip. Ory. 16.1912.35 (584 or J9v)' t63P. OxY. I1.1357'65; cf' line 63'
ß6 P. OxY' 1'6'191'2'1 16'
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 87
86 CHAPTERTHREE

li{e of the household then paid the cbartoularios John to transport the total of
and active part in the liturgical
onstrates that they played a full 1,,112 artabai to the monastery.167
in Oxyrhynchus'r6a
*r.",", Christian communitypupy'ut docutnent of the sixth century
pro- In return, the monastery supplied a number of free products to. other
A curious O*y'tlyntnitt of dependents of the Apion estate. ln 566 its proestos gave four reed mats
means.and life-style of on9 member ,,water-pourer of the landlord's bath of the Great House," for
vides an unusual i.riÀï';;r'o..,l.,e estate of ,ol,rr,or,
¡uage elder of the Apion
*å;';;;t'ii"J"
the rural clergy. H. thJuse of two doàrkeepers.1cs At about the same time, the monks pro-
of furnishings stolen from his house
Spania. ln this do.u*tnt'' account kitchen equipment; vided a cord of rope for the water bucket in the baptistry of st. Mary's'
appear a supply ot gìåìn' rtummers' knives' and such as a re- apparently an Apiàn private church.t6e A third contemporary document
i.,"ttnold furnishings
priestly vestments
""å''*"tr'*'"tttt"'ptt'145 Since the plunderers did not ,t å*,the monaìtery arranging for the transportation of hay from the
clining couch, *"t"t", "tid u iandlord's loft to the monastery's stable.170 AII of these documents testify
"
neglect to take .rtt i-""h"i"ìt "f
th" doo"' it is sãfe to assume that
f'o- iht list' The picture of this to the close relationship that existed between the monastery and the rou-
nothing of any uurut t*^fìtïornntt¿ for hiò tine operations of the Apion estate.
was surprisingly comfortable
priest's possessions shows that he an amaz\ng'240 ThËre is little inforrnation on how closely the Apion family supervised
modest position ;;iii;;trt¡t' ut,had on-hand furnishings the management of the ecclesiastical institutions on their properties.
The
"t
artabaiof wheat, "rä ,'r,. i., value
of his household alone
oiþonomos of the
tempt- double ro"le of Menas, both an estate notary and the
his prosperitv that made him a
was 86 nomismata'fttft"pt it*as of nosoþomeion of Abba Elias, suggests that the family insisted on tight
first pt"té' o"" hundred and twelve
ing target for the epitro- control of these foundations.tzr Jþ¿¡ the family could order a monastery
'oUî"tïit''he ã'n"t priests' a deaco'n' and the
his fellow villagers (t;tì;il;-;;" Aside from to provide bread for the tenants of one of their estates confirms the in-
him for his losses'
þos of a xenodoclteiofl hadlo to-ptn'"te
fortune' the document incidentally ference,172
the testimony ,o rf',i''iii"JÃ'ft"o*f assigned to the religious There is a need for additional study of the estate registers to determine
of
orovides an idea .f ifti"tå-iì"t"""t
clergy
the size of clerical holdings and the amounts of rent owed, especially as
institutions of an APion village' compared to holdings r.ntr of tenants who were not clergy. Al-
St' Andreas in Oxyrhynchus "nd
Of all these institutions' the monastery.of reli- though the nature of the evidence makes it difficult to answer many ques-
orovides the best pi.i"rã'"i irre
implicatrons of lay control over a
r"mily. rhe dimensions of the support tioni it may yer be possible to make further determinations about the
äJ;"fJà;il t;;il; f;;;", ,f,. Àpion household afforded this monasterv
,t"tu, of thå élergy in Oxyrhynchus and the means of their support by
:#;il;*.Àul,rr^åi fo' suspecting that this was a private the Apion family.
alone suffice ,o p'o"i¿t-g'o"ni'
the.monastery received a customary
religious institution' îo'î"-pfe' This grant' the largest
donation each year "fî,;;;;;;'ùai.olwheat'166 Egypt' PRIVATE RE,LIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS IN APHRODITO
9"T: "t the
spe-
in Byzantine
for any .rrur. ,uppoii.ã'irrrtltotlon consul
fr."¿ of the hóusehold and Papyri from the town of Aphrodito provide another detailed picture of
cific written orders ;ffi;ilpørii, the
received 1'2 artabai on "the day of thË financing of private relþious foundations in Byzantine Egypt in the
in 539. In addition, the monastery Strategios
great man," p,tb"bi; th;ïitirt¿áv of
Apion himself' His son sixth centur|.rz: þnçs again, the most useful evidence comes from estate
*n.å. out of his own resources. The
it ulro gave anothe ,'\ò'o"r;;;;rlor
P. Oxy. 16.1911.1 52-3.
167

Stud'Pal' rezP.oxy.1.148 (: stud. Pa\.3.282) (556) oxyrhynchus'

"tþ. Oíy. 1.147 (: Stud. Pa\.3.281)
164St.Philoxenos(lines24-27'38'58'.64)mayalsobeanApionchurch(cf' (556) Oxyrhynchus; this is perhaps.the same
fro*'th. Áoøn likewise for St' Eu- from
10.35. line t1) if this ¿..í..-"i'i. "ttuuily "t.hiu.t;
5l and in Stud' Pal' I0'35' church as túe St. Mary's mentioned in P. Oxy. 1,8.2197.11 as the recipíent of.bricks
ohemia. mentioned b.,iliï;ir;'ii.;;f
.;;;; .r,"'.i'.. rrilà' +lattested
' )
as an Apion mørtyrton if,. epiãr irãrt.¡ot¿ i.f. St. Mary's rtution church in P. oxy.11.1'357' lines 30-32,
ï;;;;;lli"t s 4;28' 29" 5 3 )' ", "
iine o r much rnor. .."^i'i'i"T; i¡'iúã"o" of thJarchangelMi- 45,'no¡J.
68).
in P. Oxv. l6.lel2'e2' Alt#ö;il;ìÀ;' 'r's'' ^nd 1.746 (-- stud. Pal.3.2s0) (555) oxyrhynchus'
ç¡*r.
;'*:
.t'u.t u otr' n tt'' i'ï ;ii;;'ì;;''h"
* ji
"pp.,, are much too common to permtt cerr îl;im*"Uruil'¿i;1:
ì'i. ;i;'J"..t
i

Michael at Hermopolis)'
Îiðå: t7t
P. Oxy. 16.1898 (587).
nzP. Oxy. 16.1'952 (6th c.) Oxyrhynchus'
*'hi.h rho*. there were ffi:ihu.;ht;;iii.'t "tth"ng"l
""i;þ:'õ;. ",Fof6o1l.o¿1ro, r.. H. Idris Íìell, "An Egyptian Vitlage in the Age of Justinian"'/HS
16.20s8 (6th c.) oxvrhvnchus' 64 (1944),21,-36.
ut P. 6'r' 16'191'1'147-5 1'
 EVIDENCE FROM THË PAPYRI 89
CHAPTER THREE
88
Aphrodito employ this word in the sense of a rent payment'178 The
reg-
princioal landowners in Aphro-
resisrers. count Ammonios, one of.the by isters, howeu"i, u.. quite unequivocal and consistent in designating the
diio at this time, h"d ;;;;" detailed
t"utt .ttni"ers kept for his filesnine were derived as those of the count, not of
ìndittioñ vtutt seven through i"r¿r'frr* which the revenues
that
his agents. and the "tt;;i,,-;;;'lñt Later' these accounts came ,fr. -.""t,.ry.17e The receipt of this wheat, then, is clearly no proof
(that is, A'D. 529-5J ri"tt f"i¡V complete'r/a o"' ih. oro, *", independeãt, landowning institution. Instead, it appears
of tl'" Apollos who had serl^*
into the hands of Di":;;;';Jn of
'"t evi- "n
that this monastery was at least partially dependent upon the
count as a
of Ammonios' estate ;ä;.,t'.
À';t;; io"unutt preservation support
private generous benefactor for its financial support'
the nature and extent of " No* in each of the three indiction years for which the estate registers
dence for the determination"of Through these registers'
of religious foun¿"tio"liit
rt"táiy be imagined' of seven or
it is possible lt Ll:: show this payment to the oros, there was a variable grouping
with the aid or some ;äil;iì;it..,
und'r".eipts, for the compo-
financiai-aids to ecclesiastical rnstrtu- ,lgh,, p.urårri, *ho contributed all or part of their rents
the complet. p"ttt"gäî ot*":t siãon'of the count's payments from his eÞphoriø to the monastery"rs.
again until the advent of the
morrastic
tions in a way that is implssible 75
Since some of these ,nrrl. p."rnnts appcar in the registers for_ other in-

#;ä i privattil;ä*''h ; ä+i ár J'""""'t'-.:::'u

Bvz'antium''
fáundations existecl" in Aphrodito
is certatn' Ji.tion years as Ammonios' tenants without any concurt'ent obligations
That "r'g-u' papyrus mertioned aboie' which records a to the monaster¡ it would seem that they were primarily his dependents'
thanks to the sixth-century
in.r,rd., priu"t. church among
the iu.n i, obviousiy rhe case for those peasants who paid rent (pboros) to
contracr between ,*;'i;yáå-iúut ^ir.t' " generallv is the corrnt, brrt who never contributed to the eÞphoria payments'
There-
of th. prop..t"y'läi;;;;'.
.*pr.it testimony provide
fore, the monastery appears to have relied upon the count to.
a
assers
ntttt'urv to examine the surviving
unavailable in other t}a;t:';;J;;l'i' all of the cash *ort fo... for the'culìivation of the lands he designated for the support
records to identify likely
private institutions' Â li'tittg of
and re- of this institution.
Ammonios and uatious clerics
and in-kind transact;s b"*t"n the ex- Apa Agenios, an undoubtedly private monastery of Ammonios in
following patterns which suggest
ligious institutions '"ît"ft tttt certain epñ'rrai,ã, also had properties assþned for its support and likewise
de-
áf fouÅdations: the receipt by
istence of private "*ïãttftio 'f't't of pËr¿.¿ .rpon th. count icalled despotes) and his officials to administer
di'bu"t*tnis of significant size and
religious institutions'åî '"guf "t of different forms of aid' ih.- und assure continuance of rent payments.isl Extant rent receipts the
uniform nature;
'h''':;i;:äi'tåii*'o"lr';ges as wheat' bar- irr.r.¿ . private individuals by public churches carefully underline
including di,uu"t*ålì'^i" t"'ft
and in of
'uth"to*t"odities
-that of salaries or land
the receipt
grants f"" .f thË temporal nature of t.na.r.y and the retention of the rights
le¡ oil. wine, wool';;ã;;*t"ts; the institution itself be- o*n.rrhip by th" institutions themselves.l82 Private institutions like Apa
bv aninstrtuüon s ;;.r-i;" indication
record or rent pav- Agenios, ïo*.u.r, were beholden to the lay patrons who
administered
iå;åäï**';;;;iil; ìi'u' u*'nts); ûnalls a the properties set aside for their support'
À--o"i"s as their common landlord'
ments by clerics t Ciurg., in the composition of the peasant work force as well as vari-
f'o'n tht ekpboria'(produce) of
Ammonios' di'b;;t*t;t]"J*r"^t Aohrodito were his largest to ations iñ rhe rents of individual peasants indicate that Count
Atnmo'ios
his propertie' to made annual changes in his scñeme of exploitation for the
Mas- properties
*å'it "'"ti"l attention'tzo Jean
'r'iä'äì'iäJ""ttttt).of agreement
anv ecclesia"it"r 'n'itJirJt ""J these disburse- intended for the support of the oros of Aphrodito. A sublease
Ammonios r.girt.rr. interpreted work land
i:L:Ë";äìirï.i,t. fo' ùndt leased from this between Besarion, uncle of Dioscoros, and two peasants to
by th'
ments as ..,,' our-î'ì';;;àt 'touni rentedbytheformerfromtheKairreEkklesiaofAphrodito(presumably
ekphoria as agricultural dues
cer-
monastery.iTT This ä"io;ä; ,of context) for other documents from f"Ufi. .n"rch) demonstrates how the primary exploiters of ecclesiasti-
tainly would bt ltdi;;;;ln
u"otttt' "
ú8PSl g.936 (521), P. Cairo Masp. 1.67021 (before 567) verso, line 5' 2'67133 (543)'
3.67;8; f"l.llòl ¡óí'-¿i*t .f. p' i.td' 5'1'784,1785 (ca' 650) Hermopolis and P' F/or'
rns,itutions in Aphrod. 3.289 (6th c.) AntaeoPolis.
ì.ii;.c6;,1^f.3"ríÏin'"liliiJ;.'fi:illiËlJ':i'j:;'.ar Úe P'. cairo ltl.asp.2.øznab2r.1,, 6713.9F.4v '9,39F4v 'L'

ito.'' (9th ind')' See ,*iee detailed ng.,r.. in ðt-t"tti: "Ekphoria.from the Properties of Count Ammonios
' '-'l9Fiv.1
r: (7th ind')' 38F2r't lSth ind')' 38F3r'18 given to the Diaþonia of the O¡os of Aphrodito'" .
Cairo Masp. ¿.6/
t76P. R' Ré*ondon"'Sens et
Chart 3 for details' o"' ìíi;
il;;;;;;"'"' u' cìã'it REG"nd80 (1967)' 343-4e' '
't'p. ç4¡16 Møsp.1.67062
(before 538) Aphrodito'
emnlois deTo Orosa'n' rtJåoîut'îitï"dvroftgiques.''
""'Y-)"i-. "tE.g., P. F\or.3.289 (6th c')'
co¡ro MasP' 2'67 I 38' P' 29'
 Y
ËVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 91
90 CHAPTER THREE

per- church holidays which total 70 artabai.tse Although there is no mention

cal lands enlisted peasants on a yearly basis for this purpose'183 and
in arranging for the cul- of a group of contributing peasants, one must have existed for the sup-
hup, R--onios followed a similar procedure
port ãf this institution too, at least to make up the 100 artabai. At one
tivätion of his own properties' The oros of Aphrodito was likely as
of time, this group included the georgos whose falling into arrears on his
powerless as the monàrteìy of Apa Agenios to compel the forwarding
this monastery' too' rent occasioneã this monastery's complaint to Apollos. The list of dis-
i"nt, fro- peasants engaged in this way' Yet perhaps
bursements to this monasrery shows how limited the number and quan-
was aware äf *ni.n p.ãrãn6 would be obligated to contribute their
rents
tity of payments might be, even in the case of a fully proprietary institu-
for its support.
tion.
Ammolios' disbursements to the aros of Hagios Apa Patemoirs also
If it was necessary for l¡enefactors to assign real property for a mon-
merit attention.lsa His registers distinguish two types of payments: arr
astery's financial support' they preferred to keep the land and its culti-
ãø-"ty, non-speciÊc onJand a prosphora donation' both in artabai of vators under their own control. Perhaps this was a natural consequence
years,
wheat. únit. ,tt. ordinary payments hardly varied at all over three
pattern' greatly exceed- of the general agricultural labor shortage at this time. Without an inde-
the ptrosphora held to no ,..ogtirable sometimes
penden"t base oi financial support, religious foundations were in effect
ing,'sometimes falling below the level of the former payment. It is
most
payments, rnuch iike those made subordinated to the direction of their founding families. At the mini-
iitity t6"t cusrom fi*ãd the non-specific
mum, founders would not allow the exploitation rights of real property
iro- ,t,. eÞphoria of Ammonios' property to the o/os of Aphrodito. assigned for the support of a religious institution to escape their control.
Another institution, the oros Psinabla' also appears as a beneficiary of
Iiremains to determine how Ammonios maintained economic control
the count's philanthropy, and may have been dependent upon him in a
*oy .o-p"iable to the"oros of Aphrodito.185 Like that institution, the of the lands that supported his private monasteries. That the count
rented back the properties originally donated by hirnself or an ancestor
oros Psinabla received a large payment that the count raised by an as-
and turned them over for exploitation by his own peasants is one pos-
sessment on a group of three peasant cultivators. one of these
peasants,
pekuiios,- also incuired a concurrent liability to the oros of sible explanation. If this was the case, perhaps the count retained rights
a certain
peasant, Psachos, appears elsewhere as a reg- of us,rfru.t as a conditio¡ of the original donation, as did some admin-
Aphrodito.186 The second
to The remaining peasant is istrators oÍ prosphora donations elsewhere. On the other hand, it is pos-
ular tenant with obligations Ammonios'187
is a record of this disbursement only sible that the count never formally donated properties to his monasteries
otherwise unknown. Áltho.rgh there
at all, but simply designated certain of his own lands for their support.
for the seventh indiction year, this institution had received an allowance
close examination of the dues owed by the peasants provides some
for oil in an earlier year, so some sort of ongoing relationship with the
evidence for resolving the problem. Among those peasants who in any
count seems indicated't88
given year had a liability to rhe oros of Aphrodito, there were always
The package of payments to the monastery of Apa Agenios. naturally
foun- some who concurrently paid other dues to the count.1eo In some years
is of special iiteresi, since that indisputably was a private religious
disbursements do not span the entire pe- these latter dues actually exceeded those paid in support of the monas-
dation. Here too thre recorded
but come exclusively from the seventh in- tery. In addition to these obligations, the count in his capacity as auto-
riod covered by the registers,
of artabai of wheat (matching the prageiac landlord also collecte d the cbrysika, the government _head tax,
d,.tion. T'hey include ido.,ation 100
donation to the oros Psinabla) and three supplementary grants for àn{ln some cases also the embole, a tax in kind to provide the where-
withal for the grain dole in Alexandria and Constantinople. Ordinarily,
ts'P. Lond.5.1694 (5 l8) Aphrodiro. a cash paymenl of about 1,9 keratia (wíth 22 þeratia constituting the
18aSee Chart 3 for referencei. The amounts are as follows: lightweþht Alexandrian solidus) sufficed to pay a peasant's obligation
Indiction Year Ordinary Donations Prosphora fJr the chrysika.In exceptional cases the count's fiscal agents would have
7th ind. 2Lawhear 45a wheat
to devote ât least part of a peasant's in-kind rent payments toward an
8th ind. 20awheat 6a wheat
wheat 13a wheat unusually hígh ch ry siÞø obligation.
9th ind. 20a
It was-such a case that prompted a detailed accounting of the peasant
1s5qeeChârt 3 for references.
of
186 of wheat to tÀe-o¡os Psinabla (P. Cairo Masp.2.67139F3r'7);26 artabai
S (Ítab(1i tseSeeChart 3 for references'
wheat to the o¡os of Aphrodito (39F3v.7). 1e0seethe asterisked entries for peâsants in chart 7; cf. chart 8: "Payments of Phoros
187
P. Cairo Masp.2.67139F3r.12, cf. 5 ' Ammonios by his Tenants."
to Count
1s8
P. Cairo Masp. 2.67 l39F 5 r.1'0.
 E,VIDENCE FROM THE I'APYRI 93

CHAPTERTHREE
92 Some of these peasants had once owed
ar- taxes and phorosto the count'1e3 an
for the eighth indiction year" 93rh rent for the support ofthe monastery' or were to come under such
woman Tsenvictora's obligations ní 20 þeratla in cash'1e1 ordi- year)eo The payments of phoros by
tabai ofwheat' zsk;i;:;;;;ib;; obligation in a strbseq.,.nt i"dittio"
d one þeratioø as his personal rented from the count that had nothing
this group clearly *tt;;;; lands
^
narilv. the count k]eo' ;;i;i'th;;;;lõ'."t in the ninth indiction' He also the monastery' Yet u-Tong tho.se seven
shará of her dues, "' ht';id"
ìåi t*"*ptt' to do with the financial 'ippott of
uf,.r¿.¿uctions for the embole
and of cultivators liable for
keot whatever was l"f,ïìî"'*n.á,, had ;; õh;;;;;tr, *ht ãiJ'iåt- 'rtt annual groupphoros tg.th"' count con-
These deductions evidentlv ;;. ;î;o;;tt of the .non""t'v,''h"some also.paíd
thå ,upport of the ";';'l;h"åì"' remainder' fór incurring this obligation to
first claim on the *nt;;d;;;'
it't toun't share was clearly a when Then- .î;t.ññ;; nír,"t' 'rttt, *"' ""'o"
in the eiehth indiction'
sometimes u"tv in'ifntä;;;;;;;' "t u n"ttd for a third deduction
the count?
"^ï;;;;ttents of these individuals to the logos phorou have
"
victora's high cbrvsik;ï;Ë;;;;'t"""¿ outt and 'might
above the
constituted th. .outtl' shares of
artabe' peasant
ä;il;d;:.¿ rtit share to a single illu.strating the obligations in
wheat ""t'
of t'h" -o"u'tery' The count would have
It is possible ,() "tå""*t'-å åUft amounts pledged ft';;; *oocl"
fo, the supp"ort of the oros "Ínplt:.- rents from all his tenants on these
of all tLe peasanrs *r,äîärlilr. taken care ,o ,.. ,t'"i iht cåmbined
must remain incomplete ancl
con¡ec- engaged.to pay annually to the
dito.le2 Much of the information lands exceeded the tt*'ift"i ftt himself
for Tsenvictorais not avail- monastery' rh. y."'Ç^u"tì'iiã"t
in the /ogoi pborou y9"19 have been
tural, since the detaileä ä;;;g;t9tia¡J r't*tver' her case is readilv scheme" for the exploitation of
these
able for the other ffiil:" ü:ln1rl' the result of changes 1.';i;;r;t's replacement by
did' some of these peasants on fixed rents' their
u Just as Tserwicto'a properties. Th. d.pu'tott-ãf t"""tt'
employable
"' -o¿"i'
(for example. or"nttt"dtïlu'ou"
Henoch Pankam' and Phoibammon) others at higher ,.*', ine breakup or,consolidation of old leasehold-
by the ""ã all have playcd a part in annual
enioyed relatively
The shares of their rents claimed
in the inss into tracts of ¿iiftt*i ti" might
""'¡ìt""ti'' ;;;;; (the latter being recordedwere
oros oÍAphrodito ;;;;;ä; reãrganizations of these estates'
"a-ccounts.t'eceivable"' headings)
in-
Alternately, ,h. ditr;;;;ãiiotuti"nt
of rents pai{ b-v these individuals
register's logos pborou' át from count and the monastery may
claimed by tlrese two accounts who had concurrent obli"gations to the
u"ir.lv related' Tht ;t"'ptt;*t '.r''.""¡
from ytu' t vear' but together tnore than one tract apiece' Perhaps
they
each peasant varied cånsiderably indicate that they r'tlJit"inties of
equivalent to the talance of
the peasant's fixed both a peasant's rental obliga-
add up to a fairly tt";;;;;' custom or a contrac;;"ì-;;t*tent
This pattern is just what particular tracts would
dues in wheat ;;;;;";'"'ã -i"ttt"neous deductions' tion and the size oi t i, t.å.nold, but
"f"' t"" of agn"ton' who consistently paid the year to ytut' A peasant might have
oarticularly ,t'iking ;; iht make up this grant iot'fá u"ty from
tenants' suggesting that he and llre
others obligations vis-à-vis the count and
iareest rents of all the count's held two or more ,r"." *iin áitr"rinj
t;;; over the term
i"on"oì of their póssibility of variations in taxes pay-
.niäy.d the benefit';f sort of the monastery, not to tt'tntion the
"nt able to the imperial"#;tt*;'
Tius.in a vear when the monastery's
leases'
from the g'roup of seven or eight share of a peasant's dues appears
to rise at the expense'of 'the count's
monastery's share of the dues con- was that this time the cul-
each year also iemained relatively phoros,perhaps *t'u'*"' atiu"lly happ.ening
peasants assigned f;';' ';;ptrt shares the supportof the monas-
0 o'toboi'.although the institution's tivator held more tiirtttt lands set "iidt.fot
stant at slightty '"t; ;ï;'4'0 wh¡ then' did the indiction' The vearlv variation in
of the dues of i"diuä*i;";;;;;;'i'á tery than he had d;';ii;f"ui9'1u
allocations of each peasant's,
'on'idãrablv'
rent in *htut u"ty each year'
when both the
the allocatiot pt;;;;; *t" *t"r¿ then reflect the relative sizes of the
the total of support supplied to "f
tracts of those cultivaiã" *no rented
both types of lands'1e6 ,
dues of *or, pt"åt'ts and "'nottát ft"d impaci on the size oÍ the phoros'
the monastery remained nearly
constant? . External factors å"¿"t'fy some
r-- +laê ñâ¡/me
precisely --.L^1 the pay'ments
regls-
For some reason (;;;;;;;;t
tt'foitement?)' Tsenvictora did not
The answer hi"g*^;; àttermining
Some
-what peasants ln certaln 'l"tk
tered in th" .ot"'t'l bgos phoroø,represent' bt-ti did pay the usual
indiction y."r, o*ãjïo.ni'g 'o 'ht'*on""t'y' cf ' charts 7 anð
1Ð 8'
and Joseph the Herdsmen in the eighth
son of Cholos' Henoch Pankam'
'*!g., H;;otn,
to the oros or Aphrod-
'^"-;il
indiction.
7'
under obrigation the asterisked entries in Chart 4'
l;li:: 3H:Í; "ffiäl'3;fi;*:'f"Jin:":lnts
ch"" i'î;;;;':;'" of rsenvictora's
\wheat
the variable à'i'Àg"ttnt Êxed obligations as shown in chart
ito," which i' 'on"'u'iåå ï;^;il;;;i of "'E'g., "jì::;i;
Obligations."
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 95
CHAPTER THREE
94
The interpretation of the figures provided by the registers .is affected
seventh indiction' and the wheat logos pho'
pay for the embole in her dues for the somewhat by the meaning uttiib,,t.ã to the payments.to the
obligation accrued to the /ogos
that would have been;;;J;; t"..t this rou,. lÍ th.s. understãod only as rental profits, then they must be
she *ut liublt not only for the em- "r.
phorou.teT ln the next;;;; it;t"er' ,..kon.d along with the rents due to the monastery itself as constituent
These claims reduced the
bole butalso an i"."ut"î''ø 'y'ino åVlig^tion' p"r" the vaäe (as expressed in rental income) of the property set aside
count's share of h.' ;;;; it ái*tt' noihing' Perhaps that prompted a
^i¡.l*¿r i"r irt"ft"pport. OÀerwise, all payments recorded under the logos phorou
she cultivãted in the ninth indiction,
major readjusrment i" ãur, t"u. derived from lands-oi the count that were free of this special
reflected in the n.* "llot"tion of
her rent between the count and the
charge,2o2
nãgurdl.rs of the way rhe phoros payments are understood, in
every
monastery.iet , only| with
:-r- rents' -^* *L-
--^--^ not the Ileasing
Since the estate registers are concerned y.u, it',. rents from the lands assigned for the support of the monastery
inc.ome was derived' it is impos- by a very sig-
of the landea prop.,ti-i'om which this .xceeded those from the count's other lands, and usualiy
the variations in allocations of are at least
sible to say with ..,ti"'iîn"t "t¿ttf "y even an outside chance that nificant amount. Assuming that the figures in the registers
the dues of R--otlàï;'0t"t"""' Theré.is ,.fr.r.","r*e for this locaiit¡ and thaithe lands assigned to support the
device of the courlt's (that is'
the allocâtion was ";"-";;han a bookkeeping whose rent payments monastery were not tariffed at higher rents than other properties
from
;;";^;;;ùers, that is, a means of noting of wheat sent to the monastery'
ü"iir,"r. renrs give fair indications of the relative sizes of the properties
ih.î in. tt"--u'y donations on which they were paid), certain conclusions are possible'
"*.t"ui.a
The figures, then' would huut hud
no actual relationship to the patterns First, the registers .orrÁr- existing evidence that the foundation
and
against the'evidence of
"nì;;JThis' however' ofruns
of land tenure in e.pn'àJno'
the identity of its cultiva- -"inr.n"n.. oî " 1"rg. private -on'ittty
(the 400 artøbai provided an-
k;t*leclge to the orot *ould have fed thirty to forty monks) was a very
the monastery of npu nually
it is possibe. that arrangements
tors and the amount ."i, o*.d, though .rp.árir. undertaking.203 such a found.ation musr have been beyond the
*i-nì i,"". differed in the case of the oros of Aphrodito'
"'S;;;;;:.";h;
.. ' r ,.ro,rr.., of all but íhe wealthiest private benefactors' and even they
;;oi;;;;i;;i"' this phenomËnon' it is likelvorthat the
"mort- wouldhavehadtopledgeo,hypothecatethebestpartoftheirlanded
hypothecated
h;;^;;;p.rting the monastery were' at most'Sincã Or*.trt simply ,o ..r..ì op.'uting exp.enses' Apparently
this was be-
gaged" to the maint.t""tt c,f that institution' Justinian was in the
granted by reli- ."ur., ,rnlike péasant clerics who might be practically self-supporting on
in.i, i."r.nolàs, sixth-century monks were not expected to earn their
leases
process of -i"y-tn,''"o.i
restrictin;'th;;;;; "-phyttutic of personal property
gious institution, .tJ hypoihecation il;;s; i;.; thé land either åt Aphrodito or ar Oxyrhynchus. Monks,
would have offered " t"'iti^lt"ty iiy
fy benefactors to provide secure ,f,..."ør., must have required a cãnsiderable income from a landed
en-

ä;;;ilpfor, *f,if.îiro -"iát"ining indefinitely their economic con- do--eni or a large annual gift to allow them sufficient time to carry out
themselves' reluctant heirs
trol over the income-producing properties their spiritual responsibilitie"s. The puzzlingpicture of the
of the rents set aside
It remains ,o ¿.,.r'-ln. tnrït"tiue importance of Aphrodito in compar- oi-" *i"r".nt"ry ber,.fucror in n.ãd of legal compulsion to complete a
oros
(Uy-lvf,ut.u.r deice) io' tt't support of the registers. The promised foundation, which is portraye.d. in Justinian's contemporary
,n. count recorded in the
ison to the other ,..,i"i in.o-å àf that Am- -i.lo.,¿,'itbecomes entirely understandable'
iegislation,
other indications
relatively small yield of the latter supports is readily appreciable why the founder would insist on
some
(or less éncumbered) properties elsewhere of
monios owned -ott lut'"tive device for retaining .ijh* of economic exploitation "consecrated"
and Peto'200 Yet' at least for his it would have
in the town, of n,,iinot' Àntutopolis'. lands if he clid choãse ,"o donur. these to a monastery, for
period covered b] the registers to
Aohroclito oroo.*i.r,^it'å tttot¿t fot ihe of generosity for someone construct and
been an extraordinary act
," Ui.å-plttt for the important wheat accounts'201 monastery with ample lands and culti-
a completely ittdependent
"ít.- "nJo*
vators of its ãwn. It is no wonder, then, that many monasteries
were
1e7See Chart 5. thanks to these economic realities'
le8see chârt 6.
organized as proprietary institutions
',',]"Z11'Jnl;?î!,1.-if:Î';."nios, Employment or Revenues in wheat"; cr' P' cairo 2orThis is assumed in the construction o{ Chart 9. The former possibility would
yield
Ëì;iÏËt,idi;i;;'..;;;^ili.. u,ug. of this codex) and the nigfrat p.ti."t^ges of wheat revenues devoted to the supÞort of the oros'
Mastt.2.67138F1r.1-8,
rhe.alculaii.iài jã".r. Lil,lSZ,r¡^t ì0 to L3% artabai of wheat
could
e's''2'.671'38F2v'8-20' F3r'27-33' etc'
äiií;";ä;';i;;s;å"ä';;;;;;l';á'
oiijäätìË;;i;"å;iË"ltv which are in a much worse
20JBâsecl on
maintain a man for a Year.
201The same.^ttt' "ttountt'
state of Preservation'
 EVIDENCE FROM THE PAPYRI 97
96 CHAPTERTHREE

private institutions like the church itself stood in no danger of secularization.2lz Even an eighth-
Third, it is clear that even some undoubtedly century monastery did not hesitate to alienate an estate it had inherited
the monastery of Apa ÄS."î,
light well leaue iitile trace of the financial from a layman which included a share in a church.213 In another case,
their benefactors' even when (as
support they must h";;";;;;i";J"fto* the daughter of a cleric converted her share, inherited from her father,
in this instance) we fo"ttt fairly extensive fiscal records' into a prosphora donation to another local monastery'2ta
"tt';;;;;;o one ahernative to a division of rights of ownership by the heirs of a
founder was for the family to install one of their number as prior or as
CHURCHES IN COPTIC EGYPT
oiþonomos of the institution.2l5 This would facilitate hereditary succes-
At
less expensive to build and operate' sion to the office and family control of the foundation's resources. In such
Churches' of course, were inuch it is to find
common a case, the other metnbers of the family considered that they had a right
Thebes (Coptic Oie*")^j"'ifte eighth'century Yet given the
churches under the aïr..,ørl. of thãir clerical founders''oa to object to alienations of property undertaken without their consent.
in the ownership of churches' The owner of a private church might also elect to award simple visitation
traditional interest .i';;ì;;; l";;;;"t*
passage of time would bring about
an
rights (on -ajoife"st days) to one of his heirs in lieu of a share of own-
perhaps.it was inevitatle that the desire of mar-
erosion of the auton"-r cliifttt"
ù'tituiion'' The natural ersirip.216

ried clerics ,o prouliË'rfr"ìn"i, .rril¿ren, whether or not these offspring In these respects) coptic religious foundations anticipated or paral-
tÔ them
the clergy to deed their churches lelecl similar deuelopments in the contemporary Byzantine Empire, to
chose to take orders, o?"n ftd therefore'
substat;;î;;;t-ic asslel'o' lt is not unusual' which this study now turns'
as their most of a part
to find daughters tt;;;ià;;ghi"" tr:l::itt as the possessors
of women from
.rr.ir.i',.,*it i!'.."i"rt The exclusion
206
or the whole of not of prin-
" *t"" lt occurred' was a matter of choice'
legal succession,
tto+i.;"r,-Byzantine example of a
coptic.souret'.11'9 provide the first
in private tnÏt*::Ïis was a
division of inherited righis of ownership
thå prevailing conceptions of these
natural enough dt"ti;i;;;i' giutl't of owners' in-
institutions ..oto"'it ""ti'itt By the third gtntt"uon more so than
", Even
dividual shares .""iii: "ït-"il "'
ont-fiftttn"th'20e
came to be considered as
entire privat. .tttt"t"il tt*tt^ti."ttrt^:^h:"t cases *:.:: had
Yet in
mere ancillary p""'äïo;;;;;;""s'2Ú 1",*:rch
endowment or other economic perqulsltes' even a
"^rtUrr""ti"l'lånded be of considerable value'211
mere share of its worth might it'
enioyed the right of disposal over
The owner.f ,h;;;;lî .h,rr.h
whole institution'
" ownership of the
but since he or she held only a part
204I(RU 66176 (before749) anð70 (750)' ..- p'
¿0isee KRU zo,l¡nu'zL--iiz:;;;; V' -.. *E'b"thtliche
i' Till' untersuchungen"' 186'
of the monasterv of Apa Patemute
20oSusannâ, g."naau';"tnJi;iËì;;;' ;t;hjt"t"n
Ana Victor in KR U 70'
(cf. ST1 15) in KR U tuüät iuätUtt'
ã""äfl-tt' of
herself was a womãn'
2rKR u 66, lines ¡r-iiì r"nîiä' ri"ti zs.-¡ I I rh" testatrix Bvzanttne
208
KR u 18 ;ö:;:i:;i' ái*""" below' chapter 6' or late
(700-73;i,' ¿äi;, ,t2KRU 18, lines 38-42.
,trKiU iã, i" *fti.tt the priest Joannes sells the property with. annexed churcb share
e'ïl!'j'¡o Schenu:î,:19.::'Jl:lï3iiÎ"o
u 66176. Susanna's three.sons Hemai.
her one-
,t u, ti. -onur,ery had ,eceiued froin a layman Georgios(or more likel¡ his w^ife.Johanna
fifthsharein"thuttn'îätï""it"ul"tqt9tÎ'",*;;ihi'dotu,''tnt'seeLudwigStern'
sprache und Alter' aite, hi. death). The recipient was a cleric, Apa Victor. Note the comments of Stein\¡/enter,
..Zwei koptisch. u.r.,rn!în;;;'Th;b."," zr.¡trrøl¡n"fi, Agvptische
:iÉ!'ht"t'ltung"' 16-19' and "Rechtsstellung," 18, on this document.
thumsþunde 1 (1884)'iîò'-?ö: s"in*'n"'t
214KRU 70, lines 38-39.
;;ü.rÁög.n.t..hte," 17 are also important'
";l;J;;"
'?UKRU 18, lines 43-55.
,,Rechtsstellu 216KRU 76,lines 28-31' c|. Ps-Ath. 44 (Coptic version)'
ng;' 17 .
li:il öïy, i,i; s 26_27;cf. KR u 66, tine 2e,and Steinwenter'
 I

lr

99

.4 x. Leonidou 64a wheat þata to ethos

.4 mr. (Leonidou) 20a wheat katd to ethos

CHART ONE
P. Oxy. 1.6.191.1 (5th ind./557)

-r
ApionEstateDonationstoEcclesiasticallnstitutionsin .72 e. Apel\e 4a wheat 82 (an epoikion)
Oxyrhynchus (Sixth Century e'o') 1/2n less 1i2k
.72 e. Tarouthinou 1.12n less IlLk 93 (a ktema)
.73 e. Trigeou 4a wheat t60 (a þtema)
Abb 'll2n less 1lZk
73 e. Anra llZnless \l2k
Units of Measure 74 e. ....ou 4a wheat 116? (Loukiou)
an English bushel
a : artabe, a measure of grain, about314 of quart
'l.l2nless 1lZk
ch : choinix, a measure oigrain, about
an English llZnless Ll2k 82 (an epoikion)
74 e. Kissonou
d : dipla, a double measure of wine' vinegar' etc' 75 e. Kotuleeiou 4a wheat 9l (a ktema)

'ik : kàratiion, L122 of a solidus or nomislna 1l2n

1.l2nless llZk .31 (an epoikion)
: no*ir*a, the standard gold coin' the solidus of Constantine .75 e. Tarousebt
.92 mr. Hagiou Serenou 3 1.2a whear en ktemati
Taroutbinou
n tt
2n kata durean
Instituttons .94'
.1.47 m. Abba Andreou 1000a wheat kata to ethos
i. = ekþlesia,achurch tt tt
12a wheat "for the day of the
k. : koinobion, a coenobitical monastery .149 "
great man"
m, : nlonasterion, a monastery 150 " .100a wheat kata keleusin tou
fir,= martyrion, a martYr's shrine despotou
n. = noroiþomeion'a hosPital
house
t. = ,rrodocheion, a hostel or guest P. Oxy. 16.2912 (2nd ind./S84 or 599?) (all kata to ethos)

116 e. Papsau 4a wheat, 1l2n .18 (an epoikion)

Part One: ReciPient Instituttons 1,16 e. Piaa 3a wheat, 1l2n .31 (as part of Pap-
sau)
Grants er's 116 e. Kleonos 3a wheat, tl2n .53 (an epoikion)
Citation / Institutton 1.L7 e. Theou 3a wheat, 1/2n .33 (an epoikion)
Note/Estate
1.1.7 e. Hagios Appheu 3 llLa wheat, 4n
Reference
117 Thyesobtheos A' 3a wheat, .146 (a ktema)
e. -n
P. Oxy.7.1'053 (5th ind'/587 or 602?) 11.7 e. Thyesobtheos B' 3a wheat, -Ll2n .146 (a ktema)
118 e. Chenetorios 4a whear, .43 (an epoikion)
Hierakionos 3n 118 e. Samakionos 4a wheat, llLn .82 (an epoiÞion)
.23 e. Abba
1L8 e, Oualenos 4a whear, ll2n .66 (an epoikion?)
11.9 e. Hagios Michaelios 4a wheat, 3n
P. Oxy.16.1898 (6th ind'/S87) 119 e. (Petne?) 2 1.12a wheat,4n (cf. .98, a kome)
prosphora
.25 n. Abba Elias 37Ia ^s
P, Oxy. 1,6.1.91.3 (lst-3rd ind'/553-555)

P. Oxy. 16.191'0 (1lth ind'/S93 ?)

Apollos
.8 k. Abba 133 1/3a wheat ek þeleusis tou des'
9a wheat kata to etbos Potou
.3 e. Limeniados
6a wheat þata to ethos .58 m. Pruchtheos 20a wheat
.3 e. Flerakleias
 101
100
20a wheat P. Oxy. 19.2243A (9th ind.i590) (all kata to ethos)
.58 m. Bekru
.76 e. Trigott 6a wheat 83 (an epoikìon)
1n less 1k
P. OxY. t6.r993 (587)
.76 e. Notinou 4a wheat
ProsPhora less
.20 e. Hagias Theklas
4a wheat -1i4n -1l4k
^s ,77 e. Polernonos 6a wheat
1n less 1k
P. OxY.16.2024 (11th ind'/593?) .77 e. Archangelos Michael 2a wheat
1/4n less 1/4k
16a wheat hyper megdles ousias .78 e. Pesta 1/4n less 1/4k 20 (an epoikion)
,6 e" Nesos Leukadiou hyper dikaiou
ttl 6a wheat .78 e. Heraklea 4a wheat
.b I)iogenous

.7 e. Purgou
8 llLa wheat P. Oxy. 27.2480 (14th ind./S65)
32 1l2a wheat (total of the
.21 e. Nðsos Leukadiou preceding)
.44 x. Abba Apionos 80d vinegar logos eusebeias þata
to ethos
(all kata to ethos except '-t87) .46 k. Abba Herme 13d vinegar logos eusebeias kata
P. Oxy.18.ztgS (10th incl'/S76) to ethos
(cÍ. L916.28) .119 m. Orous 6d vinegar
6a wheat
.86 e. Euangeliou ll2k .120 k. Abba Pamoun 50d vinegar
1,l2nless
4a wheat .1 (an ePoikion) .282189 e.- 12d (vinegar)
.86 e. Tillionos
tl2nless 1l2k .283190 e._- 12d
6a wheat
.284191e.- t2d
.87 e. Erotos .285,92 e.- 4d
L/2n less 1/2k
20 (an ePoikion) .299 - --. Hagios Ioufstos?l
2a wheat
.87 e. Nekontheos
2n less 1 1/2k
.300 m.- -(d)
.303 20d
.88 e. Arorures
3'll2a,8 ch
wheat .304 6d
.30.t s2d
3112a,8 ch
.88 e. Archangelos Michael .306 16d
wheat
3a wheat 20 (an ePoikion) .307 x.-
.187 e. Nekontheos
1n less 4k
PSI 1.89 (9th ind./6th c.)
.1 k. Hagios Abba Herme 25a wheat as
P. Oxy. t8'2196 (5th ind'/586?) prosphora
þata to ethos
150 litrai of bread
.10 e. Matreu PSI 8.953 (1st ind./567)
17d of wine
50 (or 150?)
folleis oÍ 8 e. Papsau 20d wine
meats(?) 9 k. Abba Sarmatou 100d vinegarl
6 ll4 xestai oÍ oil 10 (e.) Hagios Serenos 20d wine
11 e. Abba Hierakionos 16d wine
12 m. Pela 360d wine, 60d
vinegart
P. OxY. t8.2L97 (6th c') 30 120d wine'
31 e. Hagia Euphemia 52d wine'
unsoecified num- 72d wine'
.11 e. Hagia Maria ' ber of bricks 82 e. Johannes ton Evange-
listes
lFor the fifteenth indiction.
2
As prosphora, þata keleusin tou despotou.
 103
102
P. Oxy.16.L917 (6th c.)
Part Two: Size of Wheat Donations

Ordinarv Donations &#ffi#ff.0'" .5 Herakleianos Apa Siriou

.5 Aphunchios, deacon
phrontis tou lbionos

2a two itrstitutions .12 Tittos, priest

one institution
25a k' Hagios Abba Herme
2llZa 37la n. Abba Elias .11 Tittos, monk
.L9 Pamoun, priest and oiþonomos of
3a six institutions Hagios Apa Tittos
3 tlZa two institutions .23 Joannes, priest
3ll2a,9ch two institutions .25 Georgios, priest ancl oil¿onomos
4a thirteen institutions of Hagios Apa Pamouthios
6a six institutions .29 Apuotes, priest
tt tl lt

8Il4a one institution .36 Menas, priest

illlll

9a one institution .78 Pamouthis, priest epoikion tou O straþinou

l6a one institution .1 16 Phoibammon, priest epoikion tou Sassou Katou
20a three institutions
64a one. x. Leonidou P. Oxy. L6.2019 (6th c.)
t331J3 a on., k. Abba APollo
tll2a one, m. Abba Andreou .13 Apa Horos, priest
.18 (same?) epoikion tou Terutheos

P. Oxy. 16.2036 (late 5th c.)

CHART TWO .3 [foan]nes, priest epoikion tou Tbelkel
.32 Apa (Pa)noute, priest epaikion tou Nìþeros
Peasant Clerics in OxYrhYnchus
P. Oxy.1.6.2037 (late 6th c.)
Location of Leasehold
räfiäffi,,,,, .19 Pambechios, priest
.23 (same?) mechane tes Patase
þtema tou Loukiou .34 Phoibammon, deacon mechane tes Kelechou
.12.5 Phoibammon, deacon
.125 Pamouthios, deacon
.131 Phoibammon Isak, deacon P. Oxy. 16.2038 (late 6th or 7th c.)
.133 Phoibammon Jakob, deacon
ep oikion tou Kotuleeiou
'-
.203 foannes, Priest .3-4 Origenes, pnest epoikion tou Orthfoniou]
rcf. .75 ekklesia tou Kotuleeiou) .19 Pek{s}usis, deacon
P. Oxy. t6.7912 (584 or 599?)
P. Oxy.1,6.2056 (5th c.) List of Prisoners
epo,ikion tou PaPsau
.20 Joseph, Priest
.22 Phoibammon' Prrest 14 Agathos, oiþonomos epoikion tou Terutbeos
.35 Paulos, Priest 1.6 Pekusios, priest
.36 .---.--, Priest
(cf. .116^ekklesia tou PaPsau)
apo Thuesobtheos P. Oxy. t8.2795 (s76)
Apa Horos
.47 -iãf.
.t tz ekklesia tou Thuesobtheos) enetorios .4 Petros, priest epoikion tou Tillonos
ep oikion tou Ch
""
.56 Apollos, Priest .12 Elias Petrou, priest
¡;f. .t l'8'ekklesia tou chenetorios) epoikion tou --u ' (cf. .86 ekklesia tou Tillonos)
.74 Anouthios, Priest
 105
104
Arrangement is by order of appearance in the registers
62. 64 Maximos Pekusios, Prtest
epoikion tou Erotos
(cÍ. .87 ekklesia tou Erotos) Eþþlesia tou Romanou (for which . cairo Masp . 3 .67283 , P. 2, line 10)
see P

l.l5 Aoa Horos, Priest
(ci. .ga ekkleiia tou Evangeliou)
.168 Kollouthos' Priest
. I 69 -7 O Phoibammon, Priest
.181 Abona, Priest
.183 Pinoute, lector
P. Oxy. t8.2197 (6th c') Bricks
77 Zachia, Priest
137 Psesios. oikonomos
140 Phib Isaak, oikonomos
141 Joseþh, Priest
epoikion tou Euangeliou
eÞ o,ikion tou Neþonth eos
38F1r.4 Logos tou Chrysikou,5th ind',.2n less 2. k
lgf et.z Lígos tott tou bypodektoa' 1.n less 3 k
'lpoltou
:sFå;.rs ibgot the 6th ind., for demosia,4 + n less 4 + k
"f
Oros (monastery) of Aphrodito (cÍ' P' Fouad l'87)
jSEt..tO Logos' tes Tsenuictoras, Sth ind., 7.2a whear
38F1r. 15
1t u " 9th ind., 21a wheat
liúr:.i"r.s.s ton ek¡tborion ton þíematon tou komitos, Sth ind.,.403a wl.reat
g.rh ind', 400 3i4a wheat
ã8iã;:1tñg os tes diakoni^s tes Aphrodites,
¡éFã".1 Lc$os tou sitou dothentoi eis ten diøkonian tou hagios Oros tes Aph'
rodites, Tth ind., 413a wheat
39F4r.3 (Duplicate entry of the preceeding)
áÇe+ïs'li{ot trt krithes ton þ.iematon tou komitos, Tth ind" 8.u b1$ty
ind', from the gkph-o\i1-9i the 6th ind'' to
,

I 62 Âpa'l-loi , georgos and Priest átFi;:9 l;ã;;;;"

"*ølomaton,5th
Apa"lsakios of the diakonia for oil,3n less 6k (cf' 39F5v'4)
.t93 Joannes, Priest and georgos
3gF5v.19 Logos ton analomaton, Tth ind., to Apa Isakios in rhe diakonia for
.208 Phoibammon' Prlest
vegetables,3n less 6k
P. Oxy. t9.2243A (590)
3%6r.9 íágis tou komitos, gth ind., 400 3l4awheat Convent(?) of Loukanos
lgllr:.ZZ L'r.os tou sitou, iith ind., to Chairernon, son(?) of Loukanos, 9a
epoikion tou Amatenes wheat
incl. to the daugh-
.15 Joannes, Priest
þ.tema Pesta 3W+r.9' lï[os ton ekpborion ton ktemdton tou komitos, Tth
.22 Joannes, Priest ters óf Loukanos, nuns' 16a wheat
(cf. .78 ekklesia Pesta) of l'oukanos' 20a
ktetna Heraþlø 291t6r.1,0 Logos tou komitos, 9th ind', to the cìaughters
.23 tos, priest wheat
(cf .'.78 ekklesia Herakla)
Oros of Hagios APa Patemous
pros-
PSl3.t79 (602?) J3iir.¡i Lãgos tou sitou, Brh ind., to Apollos the baker, on behalf of the
phora"oÍApa Patemous, 6a wheat (cf' P' Oxy' 1'6'1'949) .

.13 Aurelius Onnophrios, priest .

epoikion Apelle 38F2r.55 Logos tou sitou, Sth ind.' to Hagios. Patemous, 20a wheat
(cf . P. Oxy.16. l9 I I '72 ekklesia Apelte) á;F1;:.1t õii* r. the baker Apollos on béhalf of Apa Patemous, 4a wheat
ind., to the oros
ágp+r:ß- fl.:ii ton ekphorion ion þtematon tou þomitos, 7th
of Hãgios APa Patemous, 21a wheat
39F4r.6 Samé, but as Prosphora,45a wheat
39F6r.lI Logos tou komitou, gth ind', 20a wheat
39F6r.t2 Same, but as prosphora, 13a wheat
CHART THREE
Monastery of Peto
;gl;.g irl"s ton demosion tou komitos, gth ind., various sums, appârenrly
count Ammonios' Subventions to Ecclesiastical Institutions
-"- ilÀfhtodito naid in installments
(from P' Cairo Masp' 2'67138-39) 3uF2v.ì9 Same, but for 9th ind'' one installment pa vment
39F2v.14 Logo's tes emboles tou komitou, Tth ind', 22awheat
Sou Ab examples Oros oÍ Psinabla
eight
P. Cairo Masp 2.67L38, Folio Two, verso, line
(cf'
38F2v.8 :Si3r.f Logos tou sitou,Tthind., through Apa Pheib, monk, 100a wheat
39F6r.2: P. Cairo Masþ 2.671'39, Folio Six, recto, line two 39F4r.4)
:pr+r.í'iojos'ton ekphorion ton ktemhton tou komitos, Tth ind. (duplicate
a: drtabe k: þeration rr: nomtsma entry of the Preceeding)
from the e.kpho,ria of the-6th ind'' to
527 7th ind' : n'n' 529 9th ind' : A'D' 531 39F5r.10
"- -"^ Logos ton orolo*ítor,5t! in{'r
5th ind. : Àp;ù3 ,, hypodektet, on behalf of Apa Pheib for oil, 3n less 6k
6th ind. : A.D. 528 8th ind'
^.D. : A'D' 530
 107
1.06

PSI 8'933)
Monastery of Apa Agenios (for which see
iôilì.jl'ci"en'to Aþa Agenios' l00a w-heat
lJa.wheat Total Embole Misc. Balance Oros' I-ogos
39F3r.25 To Apa Agenios. for Easter' Peasant/
i; Ñ; a!'nios, for another holida¡ 15a wheat Dues in Deduc- Owed Share Phorou
áiFá;:.;\ Ind. Yr.
tou komitos' 7th ind. (duplicate
ils1ä:.i-'.àsår"r"üiiå)¡ü låi i,i*rton Wheat tions
entrv of the Preceeding)
wheat
39F4r.13 Logot trí hogias charas' 40a Henoch, son of Cholos
(35a)'z NR (5a)'
7th ind. (35a)'
NR 30a
Monastery(?) of APa Endios 27 ll2a
39F5r.23 Logos ton onoiàl*o'o''6th
ind'' from the cash of the 7th incl'' to Apa 8th ind. (44 7l6a) 76 2l3a NR
35a
Endios' through dttcl"'f'"t, for uesiments of the monks' 1n less 4k 9th ind. (52 Ll3a) 17 1l3a NR (35a)

see P' Cairo Masþ' 2'67133) Henoch Pankam

Monastery of Apa Sourous (for which on behalf of barlev (for/ (62a) 42a
8th ind. 20a NR (42a)
--
"-39F6v,2 Losos Menas' ;å;;;;ì;; 'á"'insoulo'l's' (61a) 61a NR
ãfil Ãpa Sorrous, for the 6th ind'' 2n less 4k 9th ind. NR NR (61.a)

Heraklios, son of Valantios

Miscellaneàus 42a 5a
to the oriest of Ama Maria (a 7th ind. (71213a) 24 2l3a NR (47a)
38F1v.8 Logos tou Apollou tou hy,po.dektotl' 43a 8a
Aphroå'iio,
church at t;t P' cairo iulasp' 3'67283' p' 2' line
f;;;lii;h 8th ind. (73 2l3a) (24 2l3a)' NR (5 1a)

6), for firewood 2n 9th ind. (72a) (20a)a NR (52a) 51a 1a

of Antinoe' 6a wheat
Yrer.ii' ïogor-tou poäios, 9th ind'' to the monks
iyiàarato",on behalf of the oil of the priest Joannes, son of Promaous
39F6r.2 Logos tou apoäål'i."" 7th ind. (40a) NR NR (40a) 40a NR
Hermios, 2n less 3 k' 8th ind. (40a) NR NR (40a) 40a NR
of David' Íor the demosia'2n ia
39F6v.l3logos of th" 6"tú'ind', to the daughters 9th ind. (25a) NR NR (25a) 22a
7k (cf. 39F4r'9)
less
1i4k
¡9pø".iïluà., ù", ttttouet' Solomon' 1/3n less
Joseph the Herdsman
l9a) l9a NR
9th ind. (l9a) NR NR (

Pekusios
(77a) NR 5a5 (72a) 26a 46a
7th ind.
(25a) NR NR (25a) 25a NR
8th ind.
(26a) NR NR (26a) 26a
CHART FOUR 9th ind.
Phoibammon' son of KarPos
\ü/heat Obligations of Peasants under Obligation to the 7th ind. (40a) 20a NR (20a) 20a NR
(43a) (23a) 23a NR
Oros of APhrodito 8th ind. 20a NR
(23 tlZa) 7 ll2a l6a
9th ind. (43ll2a) 20a NR

Tsenvictora
(94a) 22a
Total Embole Misc. Balance Oros' Logos 7th ind. (94a) NR NR 72a
Peasant/
Pbarou 8th ind. 93 2l3a 16 2l3a 4a" (73a) 72a la
Deduc- Owed Share
Ind. Yr. Dues in 9th ind. 93a 20a NR (73a) 21a 52a
\Vheat tions
Victor Pathalme
7th ind. (31a) NR NR (31a) 3la NR
Agnaton (235a) 752a 83a tModiì in the text converted here to artabai'
7th ind. (285a) 50 2l3a' NR
NR (235a) 193a 42a 2
$üheat paíd in exchange for seed'
8th ind. (283a) 50 2l3a'
NR (235a) 2tBa 17a 3See 38F3r.41.
9th ind. (285a) 50a' in the 9th ind. paid bv Heraklios' co-
"irã;ã; 18 2l3a in the 8th ind. and 20a
contributor, Talous,
Bessourous t5 tlT
(15 1i2a) NR NR (15 ll}a) a
'\Wheat paid to the oros of Psinabla'
7th ind. 7a 8a " Wheat þaid to meet chrysika
obligation'
8th ind. (15a) NR NR (15a)
(7 llZa) 7 llLa NR : No recorded entrY
(15 1/2a) NR 8az
9th ind.
 i
rl

1,09
108

CHART SEVEN
CHART FIVE

\Wheat Obligations Ekphoria from Properties of count Ammonios Given to the

Disposition of Tsenvictora's Diaþonia of the Oros of APhrodito

7th ind. 8th ind. 9th ind'

Tènant 7th ind. 8th ind. 9th ind.
NR 1,6 2l3a 20a
Embole ']",93a" 218 3l4a*
72a
a1^ 2la Agnaton l5*2a"
Oros of APhrodito NR 7a'n
NR 4a Bessourous
Chrysika 42a 43a* 51a
o
))a 1.a 52a Heraklios, son of Valantios
Logos Phorou 30ao
Henoch, son of Cholos
%^ 93 2l3a 93a Henoch Pankam 6l ll2a
Total Obligations 40a 40a 22a"
Joannes, son of Promaous
1.9a
Source: 38F1r.9-15 Joseph the Herdsman
Pekusios 26a* 25a
Phoibammon, son of KarPos 20a 23a 7 112a"
Tsenvictora 72a" 72a" 21ao
Victor Pathalme 3la
CHART SIX TOTALS 41.3a 403a 400 3l4a
No. of Contributors 8 7 7

Tsenvictora's Account oTenant also had a liability to Count Ammonios for phorosin this year'

7th ind. 8th ind. 9th ind.

Obligations: 93 ll2a
\lheat (941,12a) 93112a CHART EIGHT
17 1l2a 25 1l2a 25 ll2a
Barley 20k
1n less 2k ( = 20k)
Cash 22k Payments of Phoros to Count Ammonios by His Tenants
Deductions: 20a wheat
NR L6 2l3a whear
Embole
Oros 72a 72a wheat 21a wheat
Tenant 7th ind. 8th ind. 9th ind.
2 1/4k less 3 k 1n less 3k (19k)
Cbrysikø NR
(=a7k) Paid bY: 83a 42a 17a
Agnaton, georgos
1) Cash. ln less 2k Bessourous 15 1l2a 8a 7 1l2a
(:20k) Cholos the Potter NR 4a 4a
2) Barle¡ 25 |l2a Henoch, son of Cholos (5a) 271 l2a 35a
(worth 23k) NR 42a NR
Henoch Pankam
3) \X&reat, 4a Heraklios, son of Valantios 5a 8a 1.a
(worth 4k) NR NR 3a
Joannes, son of Promaous
Logos Phorou Kephalaios 15a NR NR
22 ll}a wheat 1a wheat 52a wheat NR 27112a
Kollouthos Psim NR
25 ll2abarleY NR la
Papnouthes NR
1k cash NR 261.12a
Pekusios 46 llZa
Pheib Psenthaesi NR 181.l2a 22112a
Phoibammon, son of KarPos NR NR t6a
Phoibammon Thakore 26 ll2a 25 llZa 22112a
Psachos t tlZa NR NR
up of 22 ketatia (instead of the standard
Note: The Alexandrian nomismawas ma<le Psaios, the priest's son 44 1l2a NR NR
24), and is so reckoned here'
110
NR NR 5 tl2a
Talous I06a NR
NR
"Those from Peto" NR tZ llZa
ToPos Pathakore
NR
22\lZa (1 a) 52a
Tsenvictora CHAPTER FOUR
NR 60a NR
Victor the Herdsman (2a) 2a
NR
Vicror, Pliest, and StePhen 344 llLa 249112a
Private Religious Foundations in Byzantium,
266112a
TOTALS

NR : No recor<led entrY 5 65-1025

CHART NINE rl-HE HISTORIAN of the internal development of the Byzantine

of Revenues in Wheatl I church musr conrend with a scarcity of evidence after leaving the
Count Ammonios' Employment well-clocumented sixth cenrury. The poorly documented interval that
8th ind. gth ind. lasts down to the eleventh century nevertheless was an era of consider-
7th ind.
4l3a 403a 400 3l4a able impor¡ance for the history of the empire's private religious founda-
Donations to the O/os
266ll2a 344 1l2a 2491124 tions båcause private benefactors were successful in undermining and
Phoros Revenues 747 llZa 650 tl4a
Total DisPosable Revenue
679112a finally in overthrowing Justinian's regulatory system'
Percentage of Revenue
devõted to the O''os 60.7% s3.9% 6t'6%
rLxcludes pãyments for taxes such as embole CHALLENGES TO JUSTINIAN'S LEGISLATION

Fortunately hagiography provides some important insights into private

foundatioás ,h. þublic churches in this obscure era' The life of St.
"nã
Theodore of Sykeon, bishop of Anastasiopolis in the late sixth century,
is particularly instructive.t Ás a youth, Theodore served in a rural church
dåicated to St. George and managed to eke out a living from the offer-
ings of parishioners. lt therefore, that euþteriø without provi-
"pp.ntt,
siJn for-clerical maintenarrce continued to exist despite Justinian's legis-
lation on the subject. when Theodore founded his own monaster¡ he
took advantage oÍ his acquaintance with Emperor Maurice (582-602)
to ask for a s"mall gift to help his institntion with its work of providing
for the nourishment of the local poor. Maurice responded generously
with an annual gift of 600 modii of wheat (the equivalent of 200 Egyp-
úan artabai), an irnperi a\ presbion annalion of the sort mentioned in
Justinian's legislation'2
Only wheã Theodore became bishop of Anastasiopolis was he freed
from ihe necessity to depend on local charity or imperial philanthropy.
tvita s. Theodofi syceotae ch. 15, ed. A.-J. Festugière, "vie de Théodore de Sykéôn,"
Subs;cliø-bagøgraphicá 48 0970), with Frank TrombL¡ "Monastic Fo)ndations
in Sixth-
C;;ö Â"ioriiá'"rã Theì. Roié in the Social and Economic Life of the Countrvside,"
GOTR 30 (1985), 45-59' esP' 45-51.
LVita,Ch.54.
 PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS' 565_1025 113
L1,Z
CHAPTER FOUR

of Justinian's regulations. This process occurred very slowl¡ and

several
He received a fixed salary of 365 sotidi a yeaÍ) derived.from the landed noi.l, of Empeior Heraclius (61,0-641) illustrate his attempts to shore
of th. t"ttåtal thu"h'' This episcop"
tn",t:l
lts ]tlt-:T::
for changed circumstances'7 In
endowments
to manage propertles up th. old system with some allowances
of nyrnntin" Egypt, relied upon local magnates which made up its à\Zpnt ¡^riL,,Sergius I (610-638) appealed to Heraclius for a law to set
and handle relations ;;h ;lit
oi the chori¿
peasants
and depo- g""ft for refulating the size of the complements of- cle^rgy in the
endowmenr. Th.odor"fliãgråph., d.emed his investigation ".*
.uth.är"t church ãf H"gi" Sophia and its dependencies.8 The figures that
sitionofonesuch*"nug.,"lwhoborethetitleofprotek.tor)anote- even the j"rii"l"" had set in his novel of 535 had proven to be unrealizably loq
ää;;;;ple of ,r,.-lirrròt intolerance for iniustice. Yet änJ ,fr. old problem of maintaining the financial well-being of
the great
in the face of an armed rebellion of
oious Theodo.. in,.'ut-ttá n"tt only .t-,,rr.t in the face of increasing salãry obligations persisted. Sergius also
iö;;;*";;;; ;;.
of the church's estates'
hoped rhe emperor would graÃt him more flexibility in order to_reward
his episcopal see and retire to the
Later on' Theodore detiãt¿ to resign *."trt,y ca.,didates with oidination as a return for substantial free-will
calmer life of Ht remaineã in touch with the imperial court' Jo.ru,ián, to the church. There seemed to be no reason to deny
these
"n "UUoì' Constantinople where he' obtained
and sometime after iqS ht visited these in- g.rr.rouu benefactors appointments simply because there were no exist-
designated
important privileges iát ftit monasteries'a -Maurice More important, he ing vacancies under the current
^--ï.;;;li6 quota system'
officials.
stitutions as places .t'"'rvir- Irom imperial complied with Sergius' requests and substantially increased
to the local bishop, Theo-
exempted them from inå ,rr"f suboråination of clergy' He also brought the
J";;;i;;'t quo,", for most calegoties (founded
dore,s successor ar A;;;;i;p.lis,
and placed them instead directly at Blachernai by Empress Pulcheria)
pariarch of Constantinople's
ift"..ft of the Theotokos
-'nr; Cyti^cus (595-206), the.notiuution behind Theodore's attempt to
"^ãr, under the quota system for the first time' Moreover, the emperor gave
,old ,fr. fu,luråh discretionary authority_ to promote wealthy benefactors
",,.;;, "borrr'ihe unreasonable to suppose that some
secure these privileges' but it is not ol'rrrid. of the ordinary quota system by setting a new quota for "super-
the founder and the new bishop of
sort of difficulty h"d;;;; U*tttt numerary" apPointments.
Anastasiopolls. tn exemption from local episcopal control
"t'iï"t",ittt This new ãrr"ng.-.nt failed ro satisfy many prospective benefactors
helped to set a p,..tátnt for a new
category of monasteries located out-
upon tht patriarch of Constanti- who feared challenges to their tenure of eþklesiastika offikia or disliked
side the capital Ut, A'ãi'iv dependent th.-n.."rr"ry pubücity associated with admission under the special
to thè canon of the Council
nople. This exemptio" *"' cleàrly opposed ;il. in"r. cånsiderations also concerned benefactors who wanted to
of all monasteries to
of Chalcedon that fruà åra.r.¿ tír. t.,botdi.tation J..or. places in the cathedral clergy for others. No one wished to appear
the Justinianic legislation enacted to
enforce
for
the local bishops
"rd "l;;; change of atti- to be bïying his way to special exemption from the ordinary quota
it. Maurice's .or,..rrìåî, ti"ttr*t, marks
a fundamental
clerical So the church simply lost the important donations
tude. "ppóint-.nts.
of prop"iiy that it had come to depend upon from these sources' Hera-
canonical procedure when he
Theodore himself had followed ordinary .ii* fi, constrained, therefore, to issue another law in 619 which per-
his nominee for the hegoumenate
founded his first *o.t""t'y by sending *itt.¿ the patriarch greater flexibility and less publicity in. cletermining
ro the local bishop ;;';;;;";i and"ordination.6 Exemptions like that its de-
who shoulá be admiñed to the staff of the cathedral church and
remove one of Justinian's most im-
accorded Theodore *ot'fd serve to pendencies.e
." p.iu"ru benefactors since the patriarch
p.;;.j
oåìîå"i.rr.lr., ,rri tht same.strict scrutiny as the local prel-
A mass of rural clergy in search of better livings was one of the factors
could harclly rlop. äJ"ttti" behind the insistent pi.rrur" for appointments in public churches' Justi-
tn the dismantling of Justinian's
ates. This was the first important step ,rl"n, of course, alreády had anempied to deal with the problems caused
regulatory system. -^,,. a^ f,,-+L-, ,,-.le
saw further undermining
The troubled times of the seventh century TSee ,,Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios," inFontes Minores, Vol.5, ed'
I. Konidaris,
Dieter Simon (Frankfurt, 1'982), pp' 33-106'
BHeraclius, D" ,u*rro-rlu:i'råïu* *ogro, ecclesiae (612), ed. Konidaris' "Die Novel-
3vita, ch.7g; cf. Justinian,s annuity of the same âmounr awarded to an elderly widow j
Franz-Dölge r, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des
rcn,': à)¿2,*i,h .o-rn.n,"il i+-lOO
(Munich-Berlin, 1925-65), No. 165; cf' Herman,
in Procopius' Historia arcana 29'25' ortrö*irrhá, uon 5'øS-l+55
Reiches
or "Niederklerr'rs," 3 82-83.
:y:Íä,tå"?å,ï:;jä:"i. i:ñ o.2zs,apauiar.ct\at stawopesioø issued to a church eHeraclius, De numero clericorum ma|nae ecclesiae (619),ed. Konidaris, 80-84 = Döl-
sr. Mîh*ìï-iìi.r"n¿" in'cã.ø by Patriárch cyriacus 95-606).
(5
ger, Regesten No. 175.
6Vita,Ch.41'.
1,1,4 CHAPTER FOUR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 115

whenclericsabandonedtheiroriginalappointments'ThePersianoccu- properties.12 This reenactment carried an additional clause condemning

have increased.the pres- àrryãn. who gave out monasteries to laymen. The reference of the clause
furio", of Anatolia ín 61,6 and 616 could onlyand other churches in the
lur., fo. clerical appointments in the cathedral is ãbs.'.rre, und irc correct interpretation was a matter of controversy
."plr"f . So-. .nt..prising clerics succeeded in gaining more than one of .u.n Byzantine canonists. Perhaps the practice that the synod
"*oig
.ondem.red was an extension to monasteries of Justinian's program of
,når. Since not only the €mperor and the patriarch but
"ppointments.
;ï; multitude of private patrons had rights of nomination to their granring out churches for the purposes of repair and beautification, or a
"
,årp..,*. churches located close proximity to one another, there were
in ão-pl.Lly new program not orherwise attested which anticipated the
ample opportunities for pluralism features of the late tenth-century charistike.
Ëu"" ìå the public churches, the authorities were unable ro prevenr The fathers of the synod also reaffirmed Justinian's restrictions on li-
upfoint-.nts tà clerical positions secured through bribes or the patron- turgies conducted in private dwellings.l3 They did not absolute.ly.forbid
i"nr.ntiai individuals. Private patrons hacl fewer scruples' and on the celebration of the holy liturgy in private chapels, but they did obligate
"ãã "i
oi.urion hired migratory clerics whose very ordi.ations were Question: the officiating clergy to obtain episcopal approval for the service before-
;bi;. i; the case oi the public churches, the principal concern of the au- hand. In anáther-canon, the synod reserved baptisms for the- public
thorities was the strain that the extra salaries (diaria) put on
the financial churches.la As was customary, these canons set penalties for disobedient
,.*"'."' of the cathedral church. In the case of private churches' clergy to assure enforcement, but now a sanction of excommunication
wherein finances were the business of their patrons, the authorities were against recalcitrant laymen appears as well'
would not be able to perform their duties ade-
,tiii.on..rned that clerics
quately with more than one assignment' PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE IN THE ERA AFTER JUSTINIAN
' ði.u.ty this problem could nãt be dealt with adequately simply by
imposinj admission quoras. So Heraclius issued a law in 617 that
en' As might be expected, the pace of private cclnstruction of churches and
ní"..ial penalties for patrons who received, appointed' or trans- monaieries slowed considãrabl¡ beginning with the difficult times that
".i.¿
i.rr.d .l.rgy *irhou, the appìoval of the patriarch.r0 He strictly forbade the empire endured toward the close of the sixth century. High officials
pfuofir-,înd he sought io enforce this prohibition by providing that of the couft remained the most important benefactors in constanti-
nople.15 The patrician Narses opened a church, a gerokomeion
(old age
pi"."iir,r'*ould lose a-ll of their positions along with their diaria for a
home), and a- xenon there in 571'.The patrician Smaragdus, an exarch of
period of three years. in
Ravenna, erected another philanthropic institution in Constantinople
AlthoughprivatepatronshadbeenobligedbyJustiniantosubmittheir parakoimomenos
candidateî fãr ordination to the patriarch or the local bishop
for his the reign of Tiberius II (578-5S2). Emperor Maurice's
Heraclius' law banning pluralism suggests that either this was StephJn erected a xenon and a gerokomeion in the capital during his
"ppttt"f,
n* dorr. or that the procedutt ttá¿ been reduced to a meaninglessa ma-for- tenure of office.
principle and also closed Justinian,s successors Justin lI (565-578), Tiberius
II (578-582), and
mality. The law ,.urr.ìt.d the Justinianic
patrons were now explicitly Mäurice erecred new imperial foundations and repaired some older
irt it"pntf. in the earlier legislation, forclergy from the countryside in ones.16 Patriarch Cyriacus (595-606) erected a rare pal.tiarchal founda-
pÀi,iUir.¿ to employ previously ordained
rion, a church dedicated to the Theotokos.lT The troubled reigns of Pho-
their city churches'
Sources remain scarce for the balance of the seventh centur¡
but the
met in 692, illustrate the continued 12C. Trull., c. 49 (R&P 2.423-24).
.";;;; of the Synod in Tiullo, which 13
C. Tiull.',c. 31 (R&P 2-371); cf. Herman, "Niederklerus," 407'
p..rrrrr., on th; regulatory system of Justinian'11 For instance' the synod taC.Trull., c.59 (RðcP 2.438-39).
p' 243)t Patria.Konstantinou-
of chalcedon a.m. 9063 (ed' De.Boor'
deemed it necessary ,o ,.n.* the old canon of the council "Tlr"opl,anes, Chronograpltia vol' 3, pp' 555,
of their prt""i i.ãi z:sl, s.li1pi.24g),3.197 (p.277); cf. Janin, Géographie,
that banned the seåularization of monasteries and the alienation
tp.
560.
--ìiTh.ophanes,
Chronographia a.m. 6062 (eð. Dr Boor, p.2a3)' a.m. 607^3
^(p.251');
l0Heraclius, De clerìcis constantinopolim uenientibus sine jussu pat.riarchae non reci' potrù iáLì,tto"tinoupoteoi 3'.23, 32, 35,36' 46, 17, 123, 147,164 (pp' 220' 227' 229'
p¡rràir'tZlil-,'rã. r."ii".ii 7i-ls,*¡l¡l'' comnentârv' 100-102 : Dölger' RegestenNo' 234-35,255,263,)øZ); cf.lanín, Géograpthie'Yol' 3,pp' 142,229,237'337-38'483'
272. s67.
--
du concile in Trullo (691-692)," REB 23 (1'965)' liTh.oph"n. s, Chronographia a.m. 6090 (ed. De Boor, p. 277); cf. Janin, Géographie,
u See V Laurent, "L',oeuvre canonique
7-41,. Vol.3, pp. 1.74-75.

1.16 CHAPTER FOUR
cas (602-610) and Heraclius, however, allowed no scope for expenstve
new foundations at a time when the very existence of the empire was at
stake. Only a great loan of the treasures of the public churches of Con-
stantinoplé a.iarrged by Patriarch Sergius provided Heraclius with the
money Ë" r-,..d.Jto field armies for the long war of national salvation
against the Avars and the Persians.ls
A few new foundations occurred in the reigns of Heraclius' succes-
sors.le Heraclius' grandson Severus converted his own house into a
ger-
oþomeion in the ieign of Constans lI (641,*668). Severus' wife, Anna,
built a church next to her husband's geroÞomeion'The patrician Karpi-
anos built a church dedicated to the Theotokos in the reign of Constan-
tine IV (668-685). Of course these were only modest contributions to
the ecclesiastical landscape of the empire when compared to the impres-
sive legacy of Justinian and his associates in the sixth century.
In tñis áru, as earlier in Byzantine Egypt, there was no sharp delim-
irrr,
itation between secular and religious life' The patroirs of this age were
often prominent participants in the political and military affairs of the
.-pirË. Some, as Apollos of Aphrodito had done, chose to withdraw
from secular life in order to lead their own foundations as hegoumenoi'
Other patrons took this step only under the cloud of imperial disfavor
or poliìical disgrace. Some ãf these reluctant abbots, given a favorable
.h"nge in the political climate, might even reconsicler their retirement
and return to active secular careers'
philippicus, Emperor Maurice's brother-in-law, led the Byzantine army
ug"insith" persians from 584 to 589.20 In 594, the same year that Mau-
r[e appointed him Count of the Excubitors, he founded a private mon-
äedicated to rhe Theotokos at Chrysopolis opposite Constanti-
"rr.ry
noplá on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus. When Phocas overthrew
Måurice ín 1¡Z,philippicus prudently withdrew to his monastery, where
he took clerical ordeis. As it turned out, Philippicus lived to see Hera-
clius' successful revolt against Phocas. The new emperor freed Philippi-
cus from his involuntary seclusion and reappointed him in 61.2 as
a gen-
eral. Yet Philippicus did not live long enough to renew his military career'
but dicd rh"rtþ after his recomissioning and was buried at chrysopolis'
After his death, his monastery became an imperial institution.
Theodotus, the abbot of a monastery at stenon in suburban constan-
lsNicephorus, Breuiarium,ed. K. De Boot,Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopol,itani
oouicula'historica (Leipzig,, iStiO¡, p. 15; Theophânes, Chronographia a.m. 6113
(ed. De
ãããi,óo ,ór_¡oj); Ê.di.nos, còmpendium historiarum, ed. I. Bekker, csHB (Bonn,
1,838-39), L.71.4.
,u patriá Konstantinoupoleos 3.49 (p. 235), 3.53 (p. 236), 3.108 (p' 251); cf .lanin, Géo-
graphie, Vol. 3, p. 187,556.
"-ãftL"p¡"n"i, Chr:onographia a.m. 6076-80 (ed. De Boor, pp. 254-262)' 6086 (p'
272),609'8 (p.293); Nicephorus, Breuiarium (ed' De Boor, p' 7)'
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS F'OUNDATIONS, 565_1025 1,1.7
tinople, also left his foundation in order to accept an offer from Emperor
tou genikou
Justinian II (685-695 , 705J1,i,) ro serve as his logothetes
him
lchief financial minister).2i His audacity and cruelty quickly made
one of the most hated ministers of Justinian II. He perished in the blood-
letting after Leontius' successful coup d'etat in 695. Gregor¡ a native of
Cappãdocia, began his career as a kleisurarchos (commander of a rnoun-
t"iniortr.rr).tt He later became hegoumenos of the monastery of Florus
in constantinople, an old privare foundation. He was a friend of Em-
peror Leontius (695-698), whose rise to the throne he foretold'
In contrast to these private patrons, the patriarchs of Constantinople
after the death of Justinian I were nearly all careerists in the public
church system who had advanced through the ranks of the patriarchal
bureaucracy or had served as directors of the public philanthropic insti-
tutions.23 This began to change toward the end of the seventh century.
Two patriarchs of Justinian II, Paul ll| (688-694), a layman and imperial
asekietis (personal secretary), and Cyrus (705-71.2), an abbot of a mon-
astery at Amastre who helped the emperor fecover his throne, were
selected from outside the ordinary avenues of promotion, as was
Germanus | (71,5-730), who had been bishop of cyzicus before his ele-
vation.
As the life of Theodore of sykeon demonsrrares, private foundations
dilfered from public churches in their means of financial support. Private
benefactors still preferred to support their foundations with revenues
from hypothecatcd personal properry.24 The rich cypriot landowner and
merchant Philentolos used hypothecated incomes to support his zoso-
þomeion founded neaf Constantia in the second quarter of the seventh
century, as did Andreq archbishop of Crete (ca. 71'2-740), when he
funded a new xenon in his diocese out of his personal resources. Even
Emperor Justin II, like his predecessor Justinian, preferred the use of
hypothecated
'Ànothe. revenues to formal landed endowments.25
emperor, Justinian II, was a notable benefactor of the basilica
of St. Demetrius, the cathedral church of the archbishop of Thessalonica.
A fragmentary inscription dated to 688 records his grant of tax-free salt
2lTlreoplranes, Chronographid a.m. 61.86 (ed. De Boor, p. 367)l Nicephorus, Breuiarìum
(ed. De Boor, pp. 37 39).
' '
,rTh.ophánés, Chron;ographia a.m. 61.87 þ. 368); Nicephorus, Breuiarium (p.38).
,3For the backgroundsif ìhe patriarchs of Constantinoplg i1 Ephraem,
thr¡^n^e¡io^{,^s-ee
De fatiiarchls,.di L B.kk.., CSHB (Bonn, 1840), lines 9780-85, 98O1-9905.Âccording
ã t'oui, Bréhiár, Le monde byzøntin,Vol. 2 (Paris, 1.948),483, forty-five.of the forty-seven
patriarchs thi. period wêre monks, providing a striking contras.t in,backgrounds.
' ,aF. Halkin,
^ft.. ,,La vision de Kaioumos et le sort éternel de Philentolos olympiou_," AB 63
(1.945), S6-64, esp. 62; Nicetas the Patrician, Vita S. Andreae, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kera-
Liierosolymitikes Støchylogias, Vol. 5 (St. Petersburg, 1898), L69-79, esp.
^eur,'Ánalrktâ
1.76,lines 16-26.
a.m. 6058 (ed. De Boor, p'242)'
'iTheophanes, Chronographia
 il

CHAPTER FOUR
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS,56s_1025 119
118

illumi- distancing from Constantinople was all that was necessary for the icon-
flats to this church for the diariaoÍ the officiating clergy and the
support public.church odules to obtain freedom for their religious practices.
nation of the building.26 His use of land grants to a
dona- Constantine V's more determined enforcement of iconoclasm revealed
was traditional, but"the tax-free status of this particular imperial
This was a break from the the extent of popular opposition as well as the location of its strong-
tion appears to be an important innovation.2T
properties should holds.30 He eaiily *on rhe assent of the bishops assembled at the Council
i.guf pr'ln.iple of the fourth cent*ry that ecclesiastical
the burden of government taxes even if clerics were granted
beai
of Hiereia (754) for his condemnation of the icons. with support from
"li;i; the hierarchy of the church assured, the resistance of the private foun-
personal immunities.
dations was all the more apparent. The imperial government became
aware that the private monastic communities formed the backbone of
FAI-EoFPRIVATERELIGIOUSFOUNDATIONSINTiIEFIRSTAGE opposition to iconoclasm.
'Sin..
oF ICONOCLASM (726-787) the ecclesiastical hierarchy lacked any effective control over these
institutions, the government had to undertake a systematic visitation of
Contrary to what one might expect, Emperor Leo lil (71"7-741') and
his
in Byzantine churches dicl not each foundation to compel adherence to the iconoclastic doctrine of
*0""i against the employment of icons
Hiereia. Stephen the Younger's hagiographic life preserves the instruc-
adu"^Ë effect on the empire's private religious foun-
h"uË
"n"i.rrrãediately had tions Constantine V gave to the patrician Kallistos on the occasion of his
dations.2s As the Arians, Montanists, and other sectarian dissidents visit to the monastery of St. Auxentius: "'when you come upon Mount
àor,. b.for. them' the íconodules found refuge in private foundations Auxentius , . . persuade the individual of the name of stephen who re-
of
after Leo III announced the government's new policy in730' The case sides there . . . io subscribe to the synod [of Hiereia], saying, 'In friend-
Patriarch Germanus I (7L5--730), who opposed iconoclasm' is instruc-
Chora ship to you, our pious and orthodox emperors constantine [V] and Leo
tive. After Leo had him deposed, Germanus simply retired to the
[IV], moved by tñe piety of your life, order you to subscribe to
the defi-
;.;;;;.ry on his family estate of Platanion outside Constantinople.2e
Give palm branches and- figs to
nition (horo.s) of our orthodox synod.'
Th; ;;;" of Stephen ih. Yo.r'g.r, also conscientious iconodules, like- him, and other things that are fitting for the support (trophe) of an as-
*ir.'a.p"rred witir their son from the capital at this time and settled cetic." 31

across the Bosphorus at Chalcedon' They decided to place the-

young
Auxentius, a private founda- At this point, far from being motivated by a passionate hatred of mo-
Stephen in the ïenerable monastery of St.
nasticism, Constantine V appears here offering symbolic gifts promising
tioå of the late fifth century. Heré Stephen rose through the ranks of imperial maintenance for monks who were willing to accept icono-
and
minor offices to achieve the Éegoumena¿ in the reign of Leo III's son clasm.rr Indeed, his conremporary Patriarch constantine II (754--766)
successor Constantine V (7 41--77 5)'
had been a monk and bishop of Pisidian sylaeum before his elevation,
The existence of numerous private religious foundations under
man-
hierarchy certainly made it and the prelate continued to wear monastic habit till nearly the end of
independent of the ecclesiastical
his patriårchare.33 Some monks, including Sergios, a member of Stephen's
"g;;;""
dîffi.ult for iconoclasm to gain quick and universal acceptance. Perhaps o*À .o--unit¡ followed the patriarch's example and accepted icono-
Leo III was misled into believing that he had won an easy victory
over
reign' a short clasm.3a Those who could not had to flee the hitherto safe areas outside
hit tp;.;"ts, for, during the first iconoclast emperor's
Constantinople on either side of the Bosphorus and the Propontis for
speculum 1'8..(1943)' 1-13; more distant refuges.
26A. A. Vasiliev, .,An Edict of the Emperor Justinian ,11,"
Byzantion 1.7
H.r;ic;¿gril,-;Û" ¿à" d" i.*p.r.u. ¡usti.,ien II, daté de septembre 688," 30For the course of Iconoclasm under Constantine V, see Stephen Geto, ByZantine lcon-
(1,944-45), 1I9-124a' oclasm during the Reign of constantine v, csco, vol.384, Subsidia,,vol.52.(Louvain,
27See George Ostrogorsk¡ ..Pour l'histoire de l'immunité à Byzance,,, Byzøntion 28
1977);8.l. M"arrin, e Ft;story of the lconoclastic Coiltrouersy (Lond¡n, 1930);.Alfred Lom-
(1958), 165-25 4, esP. 1'78' baÀi,,'Coistantin V, empereir des Romains (Paris, 1902); Kathryn Ringrose, "Monks and
2sForthecourseoflconoclasmunderLeolll,seeStephenGer.o,Byzantinelconoclasm 'Byzantium,"
Society in Iconoclastic Byzantine Studies 6 (1979), 130-51 (an important
au,iig Àï-nri|n of Leo llf Cs¿o Ùol' 346, Søásidia,Yot' Íl fl'î]1ii.: t"?73)'¿nd
Die-
Entøicklung bis in die study of the problem from the perspective of social history)'
trich Stein, Der Beginn ari'Alrorl*¡irøen Bilderstreites und seine
3tstephanus Diaconus, Vita (PG 100, col. 11,241-)'
"iiit.opr,rn.ri
Jahre des 8. Jihrhunderts
(Munich, 198q)'. I Cf. the contrary opinion of Gero, Constantine V, 249 '
40er
cnro"o{ripøiiÀ'^, - -
âz-z-t.(ed'-De,Boor' p' 409); vita s'^M-ichaelis svn'
33
For Patriarch ionitantine II, see Theopha nes, Cbronographia a.m. 6245 (ed' De Boor,
. Scimitt, "fifrii¿-ó1"-1," IRAj( 1.7 (1906)' 227-94, esp' ^251; Stephantts p.427), and Ephrem, De patriarchis (CSHB' lines 9915-30)'
õiåi.r"r,-v¡, s. strpøaø" ¡")øi.¡, tic 100,_cols. 1.069-11,86, esp. 108848); cf. Janin,
""tt¡,-êi.-ît ^ 3aStephanuó Diaconus, Vlla (PG 100, cols. 1125B; cf 11'208)'
Géographie,Vol.2, pp' 44-45 anð Vol' 3' p' 533'
 PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS' 565_1025 1.2L
1.20 CHAPTER FOUR

podrome in Constantinople. Four days later he uncovered a conspiracy

Theresistanceandflightofthesemonksaggravatedthetraditional
foundations' ägainst the throne which included nineteen high imp-erial officials.al Per-
,.nrlon, between the eccËsiastical hierarchy and the private
gave advice hãp, th. emperor's treatment of Stephen and the confiscation of the mon-
Stephen the Younger, the leader of the monastic opposition'
for FIe of St.iuxentius alarmed these officials, who may well have owned
;;ïlr;; p.rr..oi.á monasric commu'ities could flee including some
safety.3s
"uàry
p.iv"te foundations of their own that had not yet been affected by icon-
established contacts with lay opponents of the emperor'
turned bit- ã.lur*. Constantine V executed the ringleaders and exiled the rest.
of the most important miliiary governors'" Constantine V
ecclesiastical au- Shortly thereafter an informant implicated Patriarch Constantine II in
terly against his monastic opponJn* "nd supported the
the foundations to their proper state the consþiracy. The patriarch may also have been horrified at the new
thoritiãs in their affempts tá ieduce
anti-monastic bent oi the emperor's policy.a2 A monk himself for most of
of canonical submission. He got the populace of Constantinople to
his life, consranrine II declinec ro partiÇipate in the trial of Stephen the
pt"-it. that they would not accept communion from monks' a conces-
younger. The emperor deposed and exiled the patriarch for the time
iio" if,", ,.r..u.ã rhe sacrament ior the public churches.3T The bishops beingiln october 767 he brought him back to the capital for execution.
"n¿.t'.metropolitansgavetheemperor,siconoclasticpolicywlrole- Tñ. .-p..or chose an individual of an entirely different background
hearted support'
to as Constantine's successor. He was Nicetas I (766-780), rvho had spent
Eu.nttt"iiy Constantine V had to resort to more drastic measures
had done his whole career in the bureaucracy of the public church system.a3 He
crush the resisrance of the private foundations. As Justinian on
was archon of the patriarchal monasteries at the time of his elevation
with earlier sectaries, Consiantine V employed fiscal sa¡ctions
against
November 16,766.4o The new patriarch must have been quite familiar
h;;p;;".rts. The monastery of St. Auxentius had tax chief taxto col-
liabilities the
with the problematic relationship of the great monastic foundations to
g.i"r,i-.*. Kallistos enlisteá the services of Aulikalamos, the authorities of the patriarchate. Now he was to preside over the
i..to, fo. the district of Nicomedia, to bring suit against Stephen.3s Later
church during the mosisevere challenge ever launched against the exis-
À;"*;;,,'-rni.o.,fir."t.d the foundation. Constantine V then ordered tence of private foundations in the Byzantine Empire'
dispersed' .
' ilott"tt.ry destroyed and the community
itr.
to trial ío763 at the monastery of Orr.e i.,e had secured Nicetas' election as patriarch, Constantine V
iht._p.rl, had dtephen broug6t
turned his attention to crushing his opponents and enforcing iconoclasm
lhilippi.u, at Chrysopålis'3e Theodosios, metropolitan of Ephesus' andhi- throughout the empire. He announced his opposition to monastic voca-
ðà"iå"rir", "rchúirhop of Nicomedia, represented the ecclesiastical
the gov- tions,"appoint.d nå* iconoclastic strategoi (military governors) for the
presented
.-;h;;; the trial, while Kallistos and other officials p.ouín..r, and secularized or destroyed some of the oldest private mon-
ernment'ScaseagainstStephen.Constantine,whowasStephen,snominal
hierarchy for the lead- ãsteries in Constanrinople (767168).4s The emperor's governors, particu-
ecclesiastical superior, displayed the hatred of the
and larly Michael Lachonoàrakon, strategos of the Thrakesion theme, fol-
.r, oi rf',. stubbornly i.tdåp.ndtnt private foundations' Theodosiosmade on toú¿ ni, example zealously. Theophanes reports that in 77-1,p2 this
ü"ffir,or had to breák off å physical assault that the archbishop
the court sent him governor sold ali rhe monasreries in his jurisdiction and liquidated their
¡"ph;;. sirr.. st.ph.n refuìed to assent to Hiereia' him impris-
intå exile. Sometime larer, Constantine V himself ordered
lynched
Phiale. Finally u -ob, with the emperor's-acqultt!"1-t9: arTheophanes, chronographia a.m.6257 (ed. De Boor, pp.437-39); Nicephorus, Breu-
"rr¿ "t 28,765.4o
- iconodule leader in constantinople on November
the ' irso'Lo-b".
iarium (ed. De Boor, P.74).
rJ" constøntin v, 148; Martin, Iconoclastic controuersy, 66; and
Gero,
ii.pn.n,, death marked a turning point in the emperor's policy. Patri- C.ri*"-t¡ü i, tZl; rt. Constaátine il's abandonment of monastíc habit under pressure
arch consrantine ll put aside his mònastic habit. on August
21.,766' Ti.,eophane s, Chronographia a'm' 62.57 (ed' De Boor' p' 437); his
refusal
f;;;;h;;p.;o'
monks in the hip- ,fr" t¡"i ãi St.ph." the"You.,ge* Stephanus Diaconus, Vita (PG 100, col.
constantine v ,tug.á a theatrical humiliation of some ;;;;;;i;þ;å;,
1
- 1408).
-
rrFor Nicetas I, see Franz Fischer, De pattiarcharu.m Constantinopolitanorum catalogis
Vitø, cols. L11,3C, 1J17CD. ^*L^-) ..
p' 443); cf't rLombard' (L"ipag,l88;l;290; Eph..rn, De paíriarihis.(CSHB,-lines 9931'-37); Nicephorus Callistus'
3s
(ed' De Boor' constantt'l
ránolrojhio a'm' 6259
"iit.åp¡"tÃ, cø
Eiì'i"'ri" at iþitroþit ayro"i;i çrc 1'47 , cols' 449-68, at 460); Gero, Constantine V' 1'37 '
V, 146. a;d Martin. Iconoclastic Controuersy' 61'
3TStephanus oir.onur,il, (pC loo, col'-íttzø1; cf' Lombard' Constantin V' t50' n.102.
irro. this office, see Darrouzès, Recherches sur les offikia de l'église byzantine
Jean
Yita, col. 1'\25C.
38
(Paris, 1970), 312-13.
3eYita, col. 11408; cÍ. 1'1418'
Boor, p'.436); Breuiarium
'^ îiti.opt un. s, Chronographia a.m.6259 (ed. De Boor, pp.442-43); cf. Gero, Constan-
'ii;;å;h;';;, òøro"ogirpii)1a.m.6257.(ed'.De Ir:ephorus'
(.d. ó; Bä.;;' iz¡; St.pË"nut Diaconus, vita (PG 100' col' 1l77BC)'
tine V, 138-39 .

1,22 CHAPTER FOUR
interior furnishings and means of support.a6 A renegade abbot, Leo Kou-
loukes, carried o,.rt tlte confiscations and sent the proceeds to the em-
peror.
The iconoclastic sylnpathizers who purchased these former monaster-
ies retained possession of them until the Second Council of Nicaea com-
manded their restitution in 787.47 lWhile Constantine V certainly in-
tended to crush opposition to his religious polic¡ it is also possible that
he intended to puÃiih lay patrons who had proven disloyal and to reward
faithful followãrs who henceforth represented the imperial government
in the provinces.as
Patriarch Nicetas took advant age of the emperor's anti-monastic zeal
ro srrengthen the public church system. He permitted irnperial governori
to use tÈe nominaìion rights of dispossessed iconodules to promote cler-
ics sympathetic to iconoclasm. The Seconcl Council of Nicaea later chal-
l.ng.d ihe legitimacy of these appointments.ae He encouraged the fc¡un-
d"ii.n of ne* churches, perhaps to replace private monastic chapels that
perished in the secularizations. The Nicaean fathers criticized these foun-
àations since the public church authorities had consecrated them without
relics in deference to the emperor's opinions.50
ln 768 Nicetas initiated a program of restoring þ.atholiþai eþþlesiai
that had collapsed over the course of time.s1 After Constantine V's death
in 77 5, Nicetas even permitted the revival of monastic foundatio¡s. The-
oph"n., records thaf the new emperor, Leo lV (775-180), actually fa-
vãred abbots as his nominees for vacant metropolitan sees.52 Nicetas was
evidently a capable and conscientious patriarch, a staunch defender of
the interests oi the public churches and undeserving of the blackened
reputation accorded him by the iconodules at the council of Nicaea.
ïeo IV and patriarch Nicetas already had the support of the ecclesi-
astical hierarch¡ and they had now sponsored a revival of loyal icono-
clastic monasteries. The emperor felt confident enough in this loyalty to
impose monastic tonsure as a penalty upon some iconodule courtiers
-hos. sympathies became known after the elevation of Paul lv (780-'784)
to the pätriarchate.s3 By contrast, tonsure certainly would not have been
reign'
a feasil¡le punishment for iconodules as recently as Constantine V's
a6Theophanes, Chronogtaphia a.m.6263 (ed. De Boor, pp' a45-46\'
a7
C. Nicaen.ll, c. 13 (RE¿P 2.612).
a8Note the sale'of monasteries repárted by Nicephorus, Antirrheticus aduers,us Constan-
tinum Copronymum (PG 100, cols. 205-534, *.4ZgO), the circumstances of the liquida-
iiãä ár Áãr"ríeries in the Thiacesian theme as described by Theophanes, chronographia
a.m.6259(ed.DeBoor,pp.442-43),andthereferenceinthepreceedingnote'
as
C. Nicaen.ll, c. 3 (R&P 2.564).
s0C.Nicaen.ll, c. Z in8.p 2.580); cf. Nicephorus, Antirrheticus (PG 100. col.344).
srNicephorus, Breuiarium (ed. De Boor, p.79).,
_ s7 patria
a'm.6268 (ed' De Boor, p' 449)'
'2Theophanes, Chronographia
a.m' 6272 (ed' De Boor, p' 453)'
"Theophanes, Chronoþraphia
I
iì
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565_1025 123
REVIVAL OF PRIVATE RELIGIOTJS FOUNDATIONS
Leo IV's premarure death in 780 led to the rise of his wife, Irene, to
imperial po*.r as regenr for their son Constantine Vl (780-797). This
pråu.d crucial to the victory of the iconodules over the iconoclasts. The
n]onor,.ri., developed by Leo IV and Nicetas might well have remained
loyal to iconoclasm and subordinate to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, if
Iréne had not gained the throne and reconstituted the church on an en-
tirely different basis'
The career of Theophanes the confessor, wtrich bridged the reig¡s of
Leo IV and lrene, is particularly relevant. This important figure, whose
chronicle is our principal account of the first age of iconoclasm, began
his career in the servicã of Leo IV The emperor sponsored a marriage for
Theophanes with the daughter of a convinced iconoclast" Theophanes
treated his bride cooly as a fleshly distraction from his secret monâstic
vocation. He further aroused the ire of his father-in-law by liquidating
his spouse's dowry for charitable purposes. The vociferous protest of his
farhËr-in-law to Leo IV remains a stunning denunciation of the ideais
cherished by pious Byzantine philanthropists.5a
Theophanei had to await the deaths of Leo IV and his irate father-in-
law befåre he could pur his unfortunate spouse away and found the mon-
asteries he had long desired. These were Polychronion at Sigriana and
another on the island of Kalonymos located on a family estate.ss He was
only one of a number of private benefactors who took part in the revival
of ecclesiastical foundations under iconodule auspices. Empress Irene
herself, her patriarch Tärasius (784-806), and such important figures as
plato of sakioudion and his nephew Theodore the studite owned newly
founded private monasteries.56 Usually these patrons erected their foun-
dations ån patri-onial suburban estates (proasteia), as Rufinus had
done many centuries earlier'
Irene wäs also active in the construction of new imperial churches and
monasteries in Constantinople and its vicinity.sT One of these, a monas-
s4vita s.Tbeopbanis,ch. 8 (PG 115, cols. 1,6-1.7),with discussion byJ. B. Bury, Hlsfory
Later Roman Emþire {rom Arcadius to lrene (London, 1889)' Vol' Z, p' 524'
of the
-'"vitas.Theophanis,ch.
l2(lGtl5,col.22),andc.vandevorst,"unepanégyrique
a. a. 5-. ft eophá.r. l" Óhtonographe par S. Théodore Studite," AB 31 (1912)' Ch. 6' pp.
2t-22.
,iior' th.r. foundations, see Theophanes, Chronograpbia a.m.6295 (ed. De Boor, p.
478), Ignatius Diaconus, VitaTarasii,-ed. I. A. Heikel, Actd societLtis scientiarum Fennicae
f Z tff.ïrint i, IB91),390-439, esp. 404, 421; Paftia Konstantinoupoleos
3.1'60 (p.2f6)'
fr¡i.f.,".1 the'Monk,'Yita S. Thleoåori Ch. 6 (PG 109, col. 121C), and lanin, Géograpbie,
v"i. z, pp 6g,L7i_gt; vol.3, pp. 491-92. ForSt. Theodore, see charles Frazee, "St.
Th;.ã;;,; of Siudios and Ninth Öéntury Monasticism in Constantinople," Studia Monas-
tica 23 (1981.),27-58.
Konstantinoupoleos 3.17 (p.21.9),3.77 (p.243),3.85 (p.2a6),3.1'54
(p.265)\
cÍ.3.9 (p.216).
 !

I
ii
l
1,25
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS' 565-1025
1.24 CHAPTER FOUR

of Synadon. Later he worked on the restoration of deteriorating katho-

tery on the island of Prinkipo, became her place of exile after her
depo-
When Tär-
a favored place for settling retired liþaí ekþtesiai, a proiectthat Târasius inherited from Nicetas.
sition in 802. This institutiån became
in"ápttylact metropolitan of Nicomedia, the new bishop
.-p..rr., and princesses whose continued residence in constantinople "ri* "pp.i"t"a
Uuri.¿'t,l-telf with tíre erection of new parochial churches and a dioce-
*olld have caused embarrassment to the government' ,^Ã ,oropo*eion. Theophylact's friend Michael had already become
In the supportive environment of lrene's reign' the patrician Michael Lirnop of Synadon by rhe time the Council of Nicaea convenecl
in 787.
*ur-Jf. to Ëmploy all of his possessions for the establishment of a new Although hå received'his training (as Theophylact had done) in a private
monasrery in ionstantinople dedicated to the Theotokos of
Psicha' He philan-
monasteries' and
permission for St. the Psich_aite and forrndaîio.t, he was active in ereãting churches,
was even able to obtain lråne's John
of the imperial monastery of ?ege to thropic institutions in his cliocese'61
one of his brothers to transfer å'ot
serve as begoumenos and oiþonomos, respectively, of his own founda-
tion,58 SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Tu,",iu,, imperial protaseÞreti.s (chief personal Secretary) before lris
elevation tá the patriarch ate in 784, was an important private
benefactor The careers of Tärasius' protégés illustrate the irony that the representa-
in his own righi. \øhile still a layman, he founcled a private monasrery ,irr, the private fo.rnãations could not help but become invoived in
at Stenon outside Constaniinople"se As patri- "f thai aicled the rival public churches once they assumed respon-
ãr, ni, patrim"onial estate
arch, hã was consistently receptive to the needs and interests of private ,iUi. forlrions in the ecclesiãstical hierarchy. Nevertheless'. one. of the
".,ìui,i.,
founãations. He relied .rpo.r ih. hegoumenoi of iconodule monasteries prir.ip"r tasks of the second council of Nicaea, assembled under Tar-
äsius"presidency to restore the place of the holy icons in the
Byzantine
for support and furthered the careers of their protégés' His own monas- by Con-
i.ty ui Sr"non provided a training ground for two of his own protégés' .nut.tt, was to ,rdr.r, the damage done to private foundations
in'""fnyf"., Mi.h"el, whom he advanced to the bishoprics of Ni- stantine V's anti-monastic policies.62
.o-.ãiu "nd
--ih"nk,and Synadon respectively'60 ih. process of rebuilding destroyed _monasteries and founding new
of the private founda-
to l.ene, the icànodule representatives on., *ä, already well unde"r way even before 787 ' The hegoumenoi of
the institutions
tions had achieved what no other group of proscribed sectarians
had the monasteries of Dios, Kallistratos, and Floros, three of
that constantine V had destroyed or secularizedinT6T168, were
of the Arians triumphed at the among
ào.r. sirrc. the "orthodox" opponents
pious zeal outstripped
Council of Constanrinople ln-jgt, they had emerged from hiding and iir.-pãtii.ip"nts at the .ouncii.nt unfortunatel¡
persecution to assume cotttrol of the public church system'. Tärasius'
a if,. åu"if"Uf. capital in many cases, and the council had to revive Justi-
L"gn",. and private benefactor promoted from the ranks of the laity to ,riun', *urning à clerics, monks and laymen not to attempt construction
of the without adequate resources for completion'to
,-h."hrgh.t; ofä.. of rhe church, personally symbolized the victory
private foundations. It was .rror" difficult matter to attempt to recover monasteries and
"
Although Tärasius came from an entirely different background from .pir.opulpalaces(probablythoseoficonodulebishops)fromthebene-
the eccleîiastical careerist Nicetas, he nevertheless continued the fr.i"riË, oiCo.rrt"nìine V's secularizations. It was a source of embarrass-
ment to the council that not only laymen but even monks and
clerics
,t..ngth..ting of the public church system begun by his predecessor' Tar- l.n reaction
episkopeia.6s
protég? Theophylact began his career as his assistant during his were in possession of former monasteries and
ro this ,i"t. of affairs, the council ordered that henceforth the
"riuri bishops
t..* proíasekretii. fi6." Täiasius became patriarch in784, Theophy-
",
i"., fraó.¿ direct the monastery at Stenon with the assistance of Michael
6tïis Vitø remains unpublished, but K. Doukakis, Megas.S-ynaxl,rjsç'.vo]' 9' 2nd ed'
of Vogt' "S' Théophylacte"' 73'
Vcn, ..La vie grecque de S. Jean leÌsichaite, t.ctlt."t, tiäzi,-llq,pr"uiJ.. , .ul-"ty; cf' the commenti
58Vita S.
Joannis Psichaiae, ed, I' Van den (1'902),97- n.2.
"' -'i
rag,r. ¿. i¿on l'Arménien (s13-820)'" Le Museon n.s' 3
.onf.'r'r*.'r'our'l. C. Ni"aer. lI, c. 13 (R&P 2.612); cÍ' c' 12 (R&P 592-93)
125, esp. Ch' 5, at 110-11.
^-;;E:; 63Gregory of tt . -onÀ.rfol çäli.rtu,us, Antonius of the monastery of Dios, and
see V. Laurent, "La vie merveilleuse
,p"a., ãf Atroa, protégé of hegoumenoslaul: Eusrrarius of the monastery'ãí Vtu*i-ut, all mentioned in C. Nicaen. II, Acta (ed' Mansi'
(7956),Ch' 6, pp' 81-85; also Nicetas' 98'275-
d" Suinî Þi.r." d'At.o",; Subs¡ã¡ø Hagíographica 29
V;i.îj; ;i 152ACD). po', th... institutions, see Janin, Géogrøphie' Vol' 3' pp'
;;;;;i Ñt."pr'.*' "r iø.Jitii"ni"ãJinin, Géographie' Vol' 2' p' 166; and of course 76,323.
ih.oãot. o{ Studium, protége of Plato o{ Sakkoudion' 6aC. Nicaen' II, c. 17 (R&P 2'625)
^";'s*-Aib.;; 'iË;;;hvi;.,. de Nicomédie," AB 50 (1'932)' 67-82' with his
vog,,'¿s. 6s
C. Nicaen. lI, c. 13 (R&P 2'612)'
edition of the Vita at 71'-82.
 PRIVATË RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 127
126 CHAPTER FOUR

but would find promising careers in secular life when they came
of age.
of land to state
and abbots should not lease out even profitless tracts i.r, it trrrned o,rt, all were inspired to adopt monastic vocations' Leo
were to
ãm.iutr." The administrators of the churches and monasteries of
",
ãí.r"n,ty gave his tlessi.rg to their plans and decided to take monastic
..r.ru" ,t .r. lands for rental by lay or clerical peasants, an example
agrarian uo*s hi-sJlf. He put his wife and daughter in a local Bithynian monas-
imperial
,r..fe.e.,tial class discrimination which anticipated the ;;;l¿ J.pu.t.dïith his three so.rs fãr Constantinople. There they all
i.".tt The council also cautioned these admin-
iöì;;;;;i',n. century.
magnates who b..u-. -onk, in the imperial monastery of the Theotokos surnamed
iri'ru,o., that they should be on guard for unscrupulous pege (the Source) death, Patriarch Tärasius himself
(ca.78i). After Leo's
;,gh;;Ji..il, ä,rd husbandmei as fronrs in order to secure these lands orã"i".d John as a deacon. This was the beginning of an illustrious ca-
illegally.
were often the ,.., n..oåplishecl in spite of the canonical regulations-that would
have
fn. clerical administrators of the great foundarions from made Johnt rise ro prominence impossible had his father
been scrupu-
,".i"i"q""ft of the local landed magnátes' They were not immune
for their own lous enough to obeY them'
ifr" ,.."Ër"rlon to detach the propertres of these institutions The corincil's canon issuecl against migratory clerics demonstrates
that
this
or that of their ,.ìutiu"r. T'he council severely condemned õho no* controlled the church could not
",rri.n-.", endowmenr of even rhe iconodule magnares
;;ä;;;;;;;-and declared that the autourgion, the landed ignor. one of the rnost persistent p-roblems stemming from the existence
a church or monaster¡ should always remain
intad and inalienable' The Yet it was often in
by the o? friu",.ty directed anà funded tãligiout institutions.
*ffi fr.rrures for "íi.nutio., of these lands, probably stimulated of entire institu- Tärasius' interests to promote individuals like John the Psichaite' espe-
iconoîlastic secularizations, anticipate the donations ciaily since the episcoþal hierarchy hacl many iconoclastic sympathizers
which were to occur in subsequent cenruries.
iirrr,.
-- influential laymen
to grant out in its ranks as latelY as786.6e
f, i, unclear whetúer the council permitted foundations
as public churches The drain of clerical manpower to the capital had serious conse-
inJivid,ral properties for management by lay curators q'.n.., for both rural and u.ban ch,,,ches' The fathers of the Cour-rcil of
view of
i;;; .;r;.åurity aon.. fhe coincil ceriait iy did take a hostile (curatorship) ñi.".u acknowledged that pluralism was rampant,everywhere.T0 They
l<ouratoreia
clerics rermed meizoteroiwho held managerial ;;;ffiú reminded ,,ibon plui"lists that rhere were plenty of canonically
ttrhup, the council áttetnpted to dtuY.1 strict dis-
upp.o*¿ secular o..opu,io.r, available in constantinople if a single
of secular estates..T cler-
tinctionbetweensecularandecclesiasticalestatesbyprohibitin'gclerical for an incumbent,s needs. The shortage of
Indeed, it i.'"ì port could not provide
;;;;;;_;"i of the former and lay management of the latter. .lergy in the countryside may have played some pârt in- the closing of
,....t",ft^, the choice of the word autourgion' which literally means
institution that .f,riÉf,., by bishops, a practice thai tlre present council condemned.tt
"self-worked faÍm," implies internal management by the Ãpp"r."rfi f imte nåd-changed since Heraclius had addressed the problem
-
owned this land. ,ipir*iiti. a hundred ur,ã fif,y years eariier. This time the ecclesiastical
churches
ih. old problem of migratory clerics who left their assigned in ir.'."r.t ydecided to concentraté on eradicating urban pluralism while
for better paying on., ot"-ig'"i"d to Constantinople
to serve laymen
of
Council of tolerating it in the countryside, where there was a serious shortage
,fr.it pti""'*' ,rlþ.t"r¡i contiriued to plague the church' The clerical manpower.
these clerics. which
Nicaea issued another disapproving t"no" against
and
;;;;;ã ã u. u, ineffectual "r^th" ."ili.r condemnations of Justinian to
'rr.ru.il"u. Rppu."ntif ih.r. *r, little the aurhorities could do curb
of clergy. IMPERIAL POLICY AND PRIVATE RELIGIOUS
the flow of tt ii economically motivated migration FOUNDATIONS (802-813)
Even Byzantlu*', ,ãints abandoned miserably paid 9r- unendowed
life of St.'lohn at great cost
.l;i;i fJritior* fo, b.tt., opportunities elsewhere. The father was a priest
Irene's partiality toward religious benefactors was extended
I (802-
irr. pìi.ñ"i,. provides u good .*u-ple of this.68 John's to the imperialireasury. PerÈaps it is significant that Nicephorus
sometime in d'etat'
;;; Leo who abandJned a chuich in a Galatian village 811), hei successor *ito ."rnå to power afrcr a successful coup
the 770s or 780s in order to provide better support
for his.family' Leo f,rJ'ü.." her logotbetes tou genikou, the chief of imperial finances' Un-
wretched profession
iruã nop.a that his children would not follow his
6eTheophanes, Chronographia a m' 6278 (e<1' De Boor' p' a61)'
66
C. Nicaen. ll, c. 1'2 (RE¿P 2'592-93)' 70C. Nicaen.Il, c. 15 (R6{P 2.620)
67
C. Nìcaen.1I, c. 10 (R&P 2'587-88)' 7tC. Nicaen.I-1, c. 4 (RE¿P 2.566-67)'
p'¡"ø)ìài, õi' 24 Gd' van den Ven' pp' 104-5' 106-7' 108)'
"l;;- ;.-i;';;;i'
 -7
1.28 CHAPTER FOUR
willing as he wasto continue her policies, Nicephorus I aroused the ire
of the great benefactors, and Theophanes, their spokesman and principal
source for his reign, criticized the emperor severely.
The revolt in 803 of Vardanes, strategos of the Anatolic theme and
owner of an important private monastery on the island of Prote, made
Nicephorus I aware of the opposition to his rule amongst the great mag-
natei and their monastic supporters.T2 He would not allow the patrician
Niketas, strategos of Sicily under Irene, to leave court in order to em-
brace monastic life.73
'llhen Tärasius died in 806, the emperor passed
over Theodore the Studite and supported another layman, his protaseÞ-
refis Nicephofus, as the new patríarch.74 Ecclesiastical bitterness culmi-
nated in 808 when several bishops, monks, and three high officials of
Hagia Sophia were implicated in the revolt of the patrician Arsaver.Ts
ñot surprisingl¡ Nicephorus I treared the church harshly in his laws
of 810, which introduced considerable changes in the levying of taxation
in the Byzantine Empire .76 Of aft these laws, which Theophanes desig-
nated the "ten wickednesses," the fifth was the most injurious to ecclesi-
astical interests. This provision obligated the peasants of philanthropic
institutions, churches, and imperial monasteries to pay the kapnika
(hearth taxes) to the government.TT Moreover, Nicephorus made the lia-
bility for payment retroactive to the first year of his reign.
The lay dependents of these religious institutions did not ordinarily
enjoy immunity from taxation. Who had originally exempted these peas-
ants'from the kapniÞa? Irene, with her reputation as a friend to religious
foundations and private benefactors, is the most likely possibility.Ts It is
hard to believe that Constantine V would have enacted a measure of this
sort, although the exemption might have been part of his son Leo IV's
program of encouraging iconoclastic monasteries. It is possible that Ni-
i.phorur I himself may have made the concession early in his reìgn, but
thã emergence of monasteries with landed endowments during the reign
of Irene accords best with a grant made by her to encourage them. Be
that as it ma¡ Nicephorus I now discovered (as Theodosius I and his
successors had done with respect to Constantine's program of clerical
T2Theophanes, chronographia a.m. (,295 (ed. De Boor, pp. 478-80); for this founda-
tion, see Janin, G éogruphie, Yol. 2, 7 0-72.
,;Synãxarium,ed. D. papachryssanthou, "Un confesseur du second iconoclasme: La vie
du Pairice Nicétas (+ 836)," T6M 3 (1968)' 309-51, esp. Ch. 1, 325.
TaTheophanes, Chronographia a.m. 6298 (ed. De Boor, p. 481);.for Nicephorus I, see P.
(Oxford,,1958)'
J. Alexanáer, Tbe Patriarch Ñicephorus of Constantinople
T5Theophanes, Chronographia a.m.6300 (ed. De Boor, pp. 483-84)'
Dölger, Regesten N os. 37 2-7 9.
76
(ed. De Boor, pp. 486-87)..
'7Theóphaneì, Chronograpbia a.m. 6302
TsGeorge Ostrogorsk¡ Hiitory of the Byzantine Støle (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969), 188.
For anothãr vieq iee Pául spec( Kaiser Konstantin vl.,Yol. 1 (Munich, 1978), 383, with
n.392.
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 129
tax exemptions) that the costs in lost revenue due to this immunity were
simply too heavy for the government to accept'
Theophanes says that Nicephorus I also took into imperial curatorship
the better part of the properties of these religious foundations.Te This
meant that the government took over the management of their landed
endowments. Nicephorus I also doubled the property taxes paid by
many religious institutions and their peasants in order to increase the
government's share of revenue from those lands not under state manage-
ment.
Although the increased taxation seemed to Theophanes to be an out-
rageous burden for such benefactors as himself to bear, a conscientious
€Tovernment could not have acted otherwise. During the reign
of lrene,
private benefactors began to abandon the old practice of supporting their
religious foundations with hypothecated revenues in favor of formal
landed endowments. The favorable tax rates and the exemption from
ÞapniÞa served to encourage benefactors to make generous bequests of
their personal property.
As has been n<-rted, the patrician Michael donated all of his personal
property to his new monastery of the Theotokos of Psicha. Eustathios
and Niketas, the sons of St. Philaret the Merciful (d.792), granted their
proasteia to the family monastery of St' George the Praepositus in Paph-
lagonia.so This institution was probably among those founded by Philar-
et's widoq Theosebe, after his death. The practice of granting landed
endowments to private foundations became more and more common
during the first half of the ninth century. Therefore, the imperial govern-
ment simply could not allow the properties that made up these endow-
ments to escape taxation.
Nicephorus I resorted in the following year to even more drastic mea-
sures to exploit the wealth of the empire's religious institutions for the
benefit of the government.sl He ordered the quartering of military offi-
cers in monasteries and episkopeia and placed the resources of these in-
stitutions at the disposal of the boarders. He carried out secularizations
of consecrated vessels. IHis logothetes tou genikou, the patrician Niketas,
drew up a new tax register for the churches and monasteries and de-
manded eight years' back taxes from the magnates' households.
After Nicephorus I's death, Michael I (811-813) chose to follow a
different policy toward the empire's religious institutions'82 He gave large
TeTheophanes, Cbronographia a.m.6302; cÍ.6303 (ed. De Boor, pp.486-87,489).
s0Nicetàs of Amnia, V¡tu S. Philtrcti eleemosynatii, ed. M. H. Fourmy and M. Lero¡
" La vie de S. Philarète," Byzantion 9 (1934), 85-170 esp. 155, 1'57 1'65-67 .
slTheophanes, Chronographia a.m. 6303 (ed. De' Boor, p. 489)i ' cf. Dölger, Regesten
Nos. 370, 380.
8'?For Michael I's policS see Theophanes, Chronographia a.m.6304,6305 (ed. De Boor,
pp.493-94, 500).
 Y
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 131
130 CHAPTER FOUR

public churches' He vrs- dency condemned the Second Council of Nicaea and reaffirmed the
cash gifts to the patriarch and the clergy of the
authority of the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia (754).88 The new icono-
i,J ,fi. À"r"rt"iy of Tarasius and donãted a valuable silver votive offer- clastic emperor followed the lead of Nicephorus I and Michael I by main-
;
.[!,;;
i"g htt-, of tÍ',. deceased patriarch' According to Theophanes' in a
or duy, Michael I's generosity wiped our the evil effects
of Nice- taining the imperial government's role in the management of ecclesiasti-
The new emperor did retain his predeces- cal institutions and properties. A recently discovered inscription of 813
;il;;: it n,t",-,.iul ..o.,o-i.,. properties' The preserves the epitaph of Sisinnios, a basiliþos kourator (imperial curator)
lJ, frogrum of imperial curatorship of ecclesiastical courr favor- of Tzurulon, seat of a bishopric in Thrace near Adrianople.8e This im-
;;;;.:; uiro ,p.uk of hi, ^*u.ds of imperial Niketas toroundertake
monasteries
the perial official, who was probably one of those who adrninistered the ec-
iår- rnli.fr".i i not only peflnittecl the patrician
by Nicephorus I; he also put the monas- clesiastical properties in imperial kouratoreia, records the restoration of
-o.t"rti. career denieá to himGoiden Gãte in Constantinople) at his dis- a monastery of the Theotokos as his proudest accomplishment. This is
ãri (near the
^rChrysonike of this insritution, followed con- an interesting testimony to an otherwise unattested activity of imperial
;i"L;rñiÉ"r"r, .oàn¿.nt of his renure proasteion to it' The emperor also Çurators.
temporary practlce and donated a
son of the late emperor Ni- Leo V made full use of his powers of patronage and the resources of
induced ih"oph"no, the wife of Stauracius,
her a grant of the imperial financial assistance to reward his followers and punish his iconodule op-
..ffroru, I, to go into retirement by offering
ponents. Iconoclastic bishops and the priests of the public churches re-
-ànurr.ry of Hebraika in Constantiuople'8a ceived annona, a subsidy in kind, from the imperial treasury'e, Before
their iconodule sympathies were known, f.eo V lodged Michael the Syn-
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOI.]NDATIONS IN THE SECOND
AGE OF kellos and the Graptoi brothers at the Chora monastery, and provided
rcoNoCLASM (813-842) for their needs out of its resources.el He deprived the patrician Niketas,
a faithful iconodule, of his tenure of the imperial monastery of Chryson-
deposed Mi-
Leo the Armenian, strategos of the Anatolikon theme' ike.e'z Niketas had to seek refuge in the proasteion tbat he had earlier
g13. Michãel fled with his family ro the church of the
.n".r r in July and ac-
donated to this monastery. In similar fashion, the iconodule monks of the
Theotokos- tol ph"ro,, (probably founded by constantin. Yl ordered Chora monastery fled to Kastoreon, an outlying property owned by that
new emperor' Leo V (813-820)
cepted monastic ronru...'4, the institution.e3 Thus the endowment properties of these two insitutions en-
iÀã .-ur.utation of Michael's two sons and sent them
with their father abled some iconodules to defy the government and preserve their tradi-
(recently confiscated from Vardanes
io th. i*prrial monastery on Prote tional religious observances.
to her own private
;; Ñi.;pà.tus I).85 Michael's wife, Prokopia' retired The emperors of this era, Leo V, Michael ll (820-829), and Theophi-
One of Michael's sons' Niketas' later be-
monastery in Constantinople'86 lus (829-842), relied chiefly upon the hierarchy of the public churches
Ignatius (847-858' 867-877)'
.å-. p",ti"tch under his monastic name,
who erected
for support. Yet many hegoumenoi also supported the government's pol-
He was an important private benefactor iñ his own right icy in the second age of iconoclasm. Theodore the Studite, one of the
,"u.r"l .,.* ,.ìigious ioundations before his elevation to the patriar- leaders of the iconodule opposition until his death in 826, despaired over
chate.87 the iconoclastic sympathies of the monastery of Philippicus at Chryso-
by
Leo Vresolved to revive the iconoclastic religious policy favored polis.ea Iconoclastic abbots of monasteries in the Isaurian Decapolis de-
f,i, *ifii"ttfy srrccessful predecessors Leo III and Constantine V He had
the layman Theo- ssP.
J. Alexander, "The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and Its Definition
(Ho-
Patriarch Nicephorus depostd and replaced him with ros)," DO? 7 (L953),35-66.
n under the new patriarch's presi-
dotus Melissenus (81'5-SZf l' synod selhor Sevðenko, "lnscription Commemorating Sisinnios, 'Curator' of Tzurulon (n.o'
81,3)," Byzantion 3 5 (1965), 5 64 -7 4.
e0Glois on Ignatius Diaconus, VitaNicephori (PG i00, col.81), reported by Herman,
8\Stnaxarium Ch.2 (ed' Papachryssanthou. p' 325)'
,,íh;;thr;;', Chronographia a.m. 6304 (ed. De Boor, p.494).... "Béné6ces," co|.71.4.
erVita S. Michaelis Syncelli (ed. Schmitt, p.234); cf. Janin, Géographie, Vol. 3, p. 548.
t'it,.uirt"n.r, cnrorig;;pø'io n'ni' a¡os (ed' De Boor' p' 502)r'fheophanes continu- e2Synaxaûunt Ch. 2 (ed. Papachryssanthou, p. 325).
atus, ChronograPhia (CSHB 40-41)' e3Vita S. Micbaelìs Syncelli (ed. Schmitt, p.254).
see Jamn, Géographie,
s6patria Konstdntinorpãrài Z..lil þ.264); for this foundation, eaTheodoreof Studium, EpistolaeNos.41,79,ed..l'Cozza-Luzi,Nouapatrumbibliotb-
pp. 442-43.
"iliåiä.t"ilr,
Vol.3,
seeJanin, Géographie,Vol' 2' pp' 42'63'65'67'133'L35'1'73' eca,Yol.8 (Rome, 1.871.),34, 67.
 Y
CHAPTER FOUR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 133
132
bishops'es Thanks to a xenon.ee He employed both hypothecated revenues and a formal landed
fended the government's policy against iconodule
;h;;;"..p;ons' the gouË'n-én'ù struggle. to gain acceptance ofcorttest
icono- endowment to assure financial support. His wife relied entirely upon
in Constanti-
Jurrn in tËe early nint-h ..ttt"'y *u' -oit than
a straightforward landed property to support the monastery that she erected
nople in honor of St. Panteleimon. Theophilus' command to the dis-
betweentheecclesiasticalhierarchyarrdtheprivatefoundations,asithad
graced courtier Martiniakos that he should take monastic vows and con-
been in the time of Constantine V
of private into a further proof of the
Like Constantine V, Theophilus relied upon a visitation vert his house monastery gives emperor's

foundationr(begunin'829)toobtainfromthemrecognitionoftheau-his benevolence toward private foundations that were loyal to icono-

ããrit; of his pätriarch, Antonius I (821-834)' and' by extension'
his current ref-
clasm.loo
i.onoåf"rri. poiicy'tt The patrician Niketas had to leave

tJpress Niketas to r..ågni,. their authority' Finally he was able to pur- LEGISLATION OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (861)
which he com-
;#* "t uncompleted .Ét"th of St' Michael at Katesia'
his residence until shortly before his death in Theophilus proved to be the last of the iconoclastic emperors' however'
;ì;"d;;.._ploy.d ", Durirrg the reign of his son and successor Michael lll (842-867) the icon-
836.e7
Theophilus continued the policy of his predecessors.
with respect to odules recovered their losses. In 861 a council was held in Constanti-
gr;;i;;;;.rial foundations to fåvored courtiers of thepersonal
for their ex- nople to confirm the election of Photius (858-867) and the deposition of
philosopher received the church Fortv Mar- Ignatius (847-858) as patriarch.l01 Several of the canons issued by this
iioitatiän.rr'Leo the
i;;;; M.te (built bv Tibeiius II and Maurice) from the emperor as council provide the next opportunity to view internal developments in
a reward for offering'public instruction' Theophilus
also awarded the the Byzantine church. From the evidence provided' it is clear that lay
Caesar Alexios patrons were continuing to strengthen their control over individual cler-
Philippicus -o.r"rr.iy at Chrysopolis.to his son-in-law
life' '$ühen ics and monks. The fathers of the council had to condemn once again
Mousele in order to'facilitaté his retirement into
monastic
Tâ Anthemiou at chry- those clerics who conducted liturgies in the chapels of private dwellings
Alexios founded his own private monastery of
sopolis, the monastery of Þhilippicus.evidently
returned to.direct impe- without episcopal permission. According to the canon' these churches
son Mi- were breeding grounds for "discord, anarchy and scandal," consequences
.åi .årrr"f, since it 1"t., b..u-å the b'rial site for Theophilus'
remained an
chael III (g42_867). ihe chu.ch of the Forty
Martyrs also of their virtual independence from episcopal supervision.l02
became metropolitan of The divided allegiance of the monastic hierarchy in the second age of
imperial institution after Leo the Philosopher
ft,'.rrufoni.". Like the subsequent charistiþariol of the eleventh century' iconoclasm had brought about similar disturbances in monastic life. Mi-
chael the Synkellos, upon his appointment by Patriarch Methodius (843-
*. in."-u.nts of these grants held the status of temporary possessors
The
of their revenues. 847) as hegoumenos of the Chora monastery' recalled its refugee monks
of the foundations, *itt írlglrt to the exploitation
did not alter ihe consritutional srarus of these institutions from the church of St. Tiyphon at Kastoreon'103 Other iconodule monks
;;;;;;"ts
emperor retained the ultimate rights of ownership' preferred to stay in the homes of sympathetic laymen where they had
since the
"'-ii."pnir",
t,i, *if., Theodora, themselves played important roles found safety at the onset of persecution by the authorities.loa The Council
"rrd
as benefactors. The emperor' ecting on
a personal appeal by the residents of Constantinople now commanded them to return to their original as-
of Constantine VI' signments, though it did permit local bishops to regularize appointments
of a nunnery in Conrtå,'tináple fo"unded by the wife
converted it into
restored their structurally unsound building in
840 and
eePseudo-Symeon, Chronograpbia Ch.26, ed.l. Bekker, CSHB (Bonn' 1838) pp- 645-
o.FrancisDvornik,LauiedeSaintGrégoire.IeDeraooliteetlesslauesmøcedoniensau 46; Patria Koflstantinoupoleos 3.15 5 (p' 265); Janin, Géograpbie,YoL 3' pp. 55 8--59.
IXe siècle (paris, 1926), crr.i. ieä"HJri"".
Ânr*.'r.r' "The Geographv of the lconoclast 100Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia (CSHB 635); Patria Konstantinoupoleos 3.98 (p.

\üorld,,,inlconoclasm,"ålÃ.s.i.;"tJJ.Herrin.(Birmingham, 1977),21'-27'esp'27' 249.\; Janin, Géograpbie, Vol. 3, p. 340.

' "ã'lrno*or¡u* 101For this council, see Theodore Balsamon, Contmentaria ad C. Const. I e/ 11 (R&P
Ch. 4 (ed' Papachryssanthou.' p' 327)'
-i¡i" s. Ñïrrrå rot)ii¡'¡ bi l¿ì'"ã. p"p".hiyr.unthou. "La vie du Nicét11" R' 3J7). 2.648\ and Francis Dvornik, Tbe Photian Schism: Hìstory and Legend (Cambridge, 1948)'
j1 r¡u'n' (Berlin-Ncw York' 1973)' p' I03'
"r f ohn Skylitze ,, svr"i,i'i¡";;i;';"cÃ'
77.
l.l8 (CSHB 108-l0e)¡^[eo Gram- tjzC. Const. I et 11, c. 12 (R&P 2.687-88).
lines 45_48; Theophanesä;;;;;;r.'¿¿-nåsraphia
(Éonn' 1842)' p' 686; cÍ' Jantn' Géographie' t03
Vita S. Michaelis Syncelli (ed. Schmim, p. 254).
maticus, Chronographia, eã:ï' t;kktt; CSHB t}a C. Const. I et ll, c" 4 (R&P 2.658-59).
îäiãlip. ïi-rsi vor.:, pp 483-84 and Herman' "Ricerche"'349'
 PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 135
1.34 CHAPTER FOUR

restored the local bishop to his former role as the overseer of construc-
ofsomemonkstoprivateresidencesforthe..salvationoftheinhabi- tion and the approver of appointments to the hegoumenate. Moreover,
tants."
'.. they reinforced the old legislation with a new and momentous measure
monastic com-
ïh; council hoped to check the growth of clerical and
wheie the local hierarchy could not hope to secure some autonomy for privately founded monasteries and to pro-
munities in private residences tect their means of financial support'
however, hardly had any
to exercise effective supervision. The legislation, The council started by restating the basic principles of Zeno's original
was unwilling to ban the
chance of success sinå the council apparently law on private foundations. The really novel element was a requirement
plrii.ô"ii"" of clerics in the ecclesiasiical service of the laity for fear of for a specific record of properties for each foundation' Specificall¡ it
ãng.riåg these important providers of lay philanthropic
assistance'
centur¡ like their predecessors in pre- ordered that each founder should draw up a breuion (inventory) of the
M;;;;;".r, ;lerics oi the mid-ninth properties assigned for the support of his monastery and deposit it in the
management of lay
uio.r, ..nirrries, continued to take positi'ons in the árchives of the local bishop. Of course the practice of providing landed
households .r,",.r. iht p""ni council added its condemnation of endowments for private religious foundations had become popular as
"n¿ with a similar lack
i-frit pt""i* to those åf ."'lit' councils, apparently early as the eighth century, but the council's requirement of an inventory
- success in suPPressing it.1o5
of ,
gave a strong impetus to this practice which soon became nearly univer-
I, i" to the credit of"this council that it did not simply decry regu-
long-
sal. This change in the means of endowment ultimately permitted private
tr""i-g abuses. The participants also enacted the first important monasteries to enjoy more autonomy from their patrons and to approach
i"ri.", ãipriuut. fo.rrrã"iions since Heraclius' novels in the early sevenrh the independence of the public churches' which had always enioyed in-
century. These were necessary because." ;;t;ãt
l'o'ion.of Justilian's
had resulted in a comes from their own properties.
ãtigitáf regulations ou.. tht previous.three centuries The council also paid attention to another problem that had occupied
unlimited powers of
situation in which priuur. b."tf"tto" had virtually
Justinian and was once again becoming critical. This was the matter of
-'õ;rp* over their foundations'
disposition the repair and restoration of the older private religious foundations of
civil and canon law, a determined benefactor might now the empire.roT Conditions throughout much of the empire in the early
before un-
,i-piy'Jirp.nse with the requirement for episcopal approval bestowed ninth century were still very unsettled. The frontiers were still not secure,
some patrons-
dertaking construction. The'council notedìhat and armed conflict with the Arabs and Bulgars frequent' These condi-
on part of their personal property, but would
the name of rnon"rt.ïy tions undoubtedly played an important part in the disruption of many
part of their
,r."i i, no differently'after its dedication than any othermight become religious foundations. Proud families of benefactors may have seen to the
;r;;;.t. Even such inappropriate activities as innkeeping proper maintenance of some of these old foundations, but certainly many
with it. fnË ?ou"d.t might name himself as the heSoumenos)
"rrã.i"r.¿;".n, *outJt. sure ro ,.i.ru. for himself the right to make the others faced gradual deterioration and eventual collapse as their found-
;;;;t right to ap- ing families died out or turned their interests elsewhere'
upfoi,r,-.nt. He would ignore the local bishop's customary Some well-meaning bishops of the ninth century were concerned about
the properties ded-
prove and .onr..."rtrht-"b'go'*'nos' In somé cases
even be sold' in flagrant the plight of these troubled foundations and intervened to provide assist-
icated for the support of thã monastery might ance. They appropriated whatever incomes these foundations still pos-
of canon law.
.nuia.n,tybenefactorshadrecoveredthenearlyunlimitedpow€rsthat
violation sessed and even added diocesan funds to accomplish some restorations.
was Some overzealous bishops pursued these proiects so far that the eco-
thJ, had enjoyed before Justinian's regulatory iegislation
".,..rtors acted to pre- nomic well-being of their dioceses became endangered. The fathers of the
Jru*n up. The .o.,n.íl recognized ìhe mottal danger and into com- council decided that the risks were too great, and prohibited the use
from slippjng
vent the ecclesiastical foundalions of the empire of diocesan funds for any future restoration projects. Henceforth, if a
plete dependence upon their private p"t'on'' The council fathers turned
bishop were to undertake the restoration of a non-episcopal monastery
to renewed ,.inior.ed legislation ", "tt immediate remedy'106 They
"nd in violation of the canon, that institution would become diocesan prop-
I et II, c.1 t (R&P 2'686)'
to'C. Const. erty. This fateful decision postponed the problem of arranging for the
to6c.const.lr¿¡1,".ïtäüp 1..øis-csl,foran-example of^abreu-ion of anEgyptian
lEin Stü.k Klosterinventar auf
marturion. see p. Bad. ¿Si'tîr' li, *ith iulius-Kurth, to7
C. Const. I et II, c.7 (R&P 2.673-74)i cf. NJ 67.2 (538)
.i".tí Uvtä",i"ischen Papyrus," BN/ 1 (1920)' 1'42-47 '
 )1

CHAPTER FOUR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 1,37

136
(dedicated 881). The emperor, as the lay benefactor par excellence, made
restoration of deteriorating monasteries for another century. In the in-
the appointments to these positions himself and provided the necessary
terim, concerned clerics .ould only resort to ingenious circumventions of
financial support. A chief priest with the title of protopapas headed the
the council's legislation.
college of the imperial clergy. The emperor might choose to reserve some
of the positions for honorary appointments. For example, Leo VI al-
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS DURING THE REIGN OF lowed Theodore Santabarenos to draw a stipend from the Nea Basilika
BASIL I (867-886) as an appointee of this sort. The existence of independent clergy serving
in the private chapels of magnates in the reign of Basil I's successor Leo
The extant civil (as opposed to ecclesiastical) legislation practically
ceases after the Eiloga-of Leo III. The Epanagoge, Basil I's
brief intro- VI indicates that arrangements for private institr"rtions were similar to
law he was planning, those of imperial foundations, though naturally on a smaller scale. The
duction to the maioirecodification of Byzantine
conspicuous example of the independence of the imperial clergy doubt-
provides the most testimony from these sources since the novels of Her-
less made it difficult for the ecclesiastical hierarchy to insist that private
il¡¡.rr.'or photius, whose second patriarchate (878-886) occurred in the
patrons subordinate their own clerics to the local bishops.
latter half of Basil I,s reign, playãd an important part in the authorship
The Epanagoge also contains another condemnation of clerics and
of rt. Epanagoge's chapiers-o., religious affairs.loe These chapters' like
monks who entered private service as managers of estates and house-
the Epanagoge as a *hàle, conrain many simple recapitulations.of Jus-
holds.112 Among the prohibited occupations was now also service as a
tinian's fuidä..r.nt"l regulations, but also some original material which
government tax collector. It was easy enough for the authorities to con-
provides some valuable information at a time of considerable importance
demn the means chosen by many patrons to allow their clerics to earn a
ior the development of the Byzantine church'
much living. Nevertheless, unless the government or the ecclesiastical hierarchy
The persistËnt problems oi the institutional church are still very
stemmed from was willing to provide alternative sourçes of income (apparently a pro-
in evidence in tie Epanasoge. Many of these problems
foundations in Byzan- hibitively costly idea), these condemnations were going to continue to
the idiosync ratíc organization of private religious
fall on deaf
tium aná the consequences of their uneasy coexistence with the public
ears.113
Indeed, the Epanagos¿ indicates that the clerics of the late ninth cen-
churches of the empire. It is not surprising' then, to see yet another com-
plaint about liturgìes sponsored by_ laymen without episcopal consent' tury were as willing as their counterparts of the late eighth century to
desert poorly paid positions in their original churches for better paying
å.-onrtr"ting that this concern of the recent Council of Constantinople
ones elsewhere.lla The clergy showed little inclination to follow the ex-
was still current.llo
hortation of the Second Council of Nicaea to stay in their original posi-
The private patrons of the empire now had what amounted to their
tions and seek out "honorable" secular employments as supplements to
o*n .orp, of iletgy recruited largely from migrants from the country-
their incomes.l15 The coexistence of separately organized public and pri-
,1J.. er. all practital purposes, ihese clerics were independent of the
vate churches continued to encourage and facilitate a stream of uncanon-
ordinary diocesan autliorities. The clergy of a private church w€re not
ical transfers to the more remunerative positions.
beholden to the local bishop for their appointments' They might even
have received their ordinations from prelates in other localities' Even
in Vhich churches were the usual beneficiaries of these transfers? As a
upon their patrons general answer, the newer (and therefore, mainly private) foundations
the matter of financial support' these clerics depended
probably offered more dependable stipends, and urban churches (public
rather than their nominal ecclesiastical superiors'
A corps of imperial clergy also existed by the late ninth, century.11l or private) ordinarily compensated their appointees better than rural
ones.116 Perhaps some older yet well-endowed and maintained institu-
These clerics stalied such imperial foundations as Basil I's Nea Basilika

tosEpanagoge Basilii Leonis et Alexøndri, ed. K. E. zacharià von Lingenthal, collectìo

112
Epanagoge 9.3.
r13See Herman, "Professioni vietate," 23-44.
o r um ( Leipzi g, 1 8 5 2), 60 -217, esp. 67 - 68, 7
7-88.
t ¡ U r o r uï, j ä ¡ sï r a e co - Ro m an i in e dit tla
loeCf. Ostrogorsk¡ HBS, 240-41'. Epanagoge 9 .6.
ttsC. Nicaen..lI, c. 15 (R&P 2.620).
1'oEpanagoge 9 .18. 116Note the attractiveness of clerical appointments in the private chapels of the magnâtes
Chronographia (CSHB 325-31); Leo Grammatic.us,Chron-
"ri'¡ááp'h"'n.. Continuatus, byzantinae, and the inability of poorer proprietors to maintain clerics in their churches dr.rring the reign
.er"pïii16iHB 265,294); Cãnstantirie Popþrogenitus, De cerimon-iis au-lae pp' 361- of Leo VI (886-912), as evidenced below in connection with my discussion of this emper-
.ä. i. n.iiL.. CSHB (Boná, 1'829-40), Ch.'4i,693; Janin, Géographie, Vol' 3' or's novels on ecclesiastical affairs. See also Epanagoge 9.6.
64rÎerman, "Niederklerus." i79-8 l.
 PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565_1 O2-5 139
138 CHAPTER FOUR

Most older insti- old churches (some dating back to the days of Justinian), provided the
tions continued to attract candidates for appointment.
of time and, as already initial stimulus. The emperor quite naturally concentrated on imperial
;il^ h;;";.., ,,rff.i.¿ from the vicissiìudes
essential repairs without outside churches and monasteries for which he, as ruler of the day, had a special
seen, lacked even the funds to manage
responsibility. He also endowed Hagia Sophia with a special estate to
-"ötü.
assistance.
of assrlre an adequate supply of income for the illumination of the cathedral
from these traditional problems posed by the existence
public churches faced church.
i,raìp.na.n,ly dir..tJ p'iuutt founåations' the
".r¿e
endowmenrs were made up prepon- Perhaps the most important act of Basil's reign with respect to privâte
;;töñ;iå_, or theiiown. Their
properties'11? Civil foundations was his recognition of the patriarch's right to bestow his
ä..1"¡y agri.ultural .'i"'"' along with some urban stauropegion (charter of foundation) on churches outside the diocesan
"f
and canon tu* pru.ri."úf ptohibñtd sale
of these properties ancl im-
and exploita- boundaries of Constantinople.l23 Patriarchal "stauropegial" foundations
por.a ,.u.., li-it, on tnå åptlottt for their development had existed since the time of Maurice's concession to Theodore of Syk-
capital which would
tion. The result was " ft"i'itn' shortage of liquid eon, but henceforth they would become increasingly important as the
next centurv. The
;ìr; pñ.;r¡ur. ro,iJution, by the"middle of the means by which private benefactors escaped the supervisory and regula-
lacked enough capital to re-
;;;;;;;;; åor., ,nu, 'tte public chu'ches them fit for prof- tory powers of the local bishoPs'
,ñã'u"ildings ,h;i h;å inherited in order to make
"ãr. have sufficient cash to pay ln ium, the ecclesiastical policy of Basil I contained a number of prom-
itable rental.1i' 5o*. ¡n'titutions dicl not even
follows Justinian's ising initiatives such as the new regulations of leases and rentals of eccle-
their taxes to the ,,"i.. fn this case' the Epanag.oge siastical property, the rebuilding of damaged churches, and the recogni-
of property to
o"*pi. and allows an exception to the ban on alienation preferred that the pub- tion of pãtriarchal stauropeg,iø. These did not, however, attack the root
meet the obligation.'1'As a rule, the government
leases of their causes of the profound disorders in the internal organization of the Byz-
lic churches should '*ti io "nt"li ancl emphyteuticThe Epanagoge antine church. Strong-willed patrons and inexorable economic forces
properties to meet pressing.needs for cash'120
"n¿o*.¿ years' The ¡estrictions on combined with the basic weakness of the public church system to under-
ü-li, ,tr.r" ,.nt"l, to the tåditionãt thirtyapplied to private churches' mine existing legislation designed to protect their interests. The prelates
and the ,.guú,lon, of leases also
''-l;;Eir"agog"
alienations
shã*s that the gou.rn.n..ri ã.tcoutaged the
cathedral of the empire had never acquiesced in this developmenr, and Basil I's
to grant.out its properties gouern-.ttt lent its support to the hierarch¡ as the Epanagoge demon-
church of constantirrpr. and its dãpendencies
tititt' other ecclesiastical institu- strates.
;;;; ;p..or' the stäte treasu'y,
-or indicates the survival of
tions on two_year .åpnyr.",i. láus.r.tri This
of ecclesiastical proper-
Nicephorus l's program åf imperial curatorship
extensivel¡ the program LEO \4'S REVERSAL OF POLICY: CONCESSIONS TO THE MAGNATES
;_ íi;h. ;"blic ctiurches employed rhesefeases
landed magnares who had
would have worked ãïi" ãirã¿"antage of the
for the mãnagement of many of these prop- Suddenly, at the end of the ninth centufy, Basil I's son and successor Leo
fr.uiol.rrty been responsible vl (886-91.2) withdrew the official government support that the institu-
erties.
great predecessor Justinian by tional church had hitherto enioyed in this struggle. The new law code,
Basil I followed in the tradition of his
construction in known as the BasiliÞa, and the novels that Leo published during his reign
undertaking .onri¿.'"ble program of. ecclesiastical amply demonstrate the extent of the government's change of policy' Now
"
Constantinople.l" Th; Ñ.u É"'iiik", which
he began in 876 and com-
example of his labors' A it is a well-known fact that Leo's Basilika is not an original work of great
pletecl in 881' was only the most outstanding
or severely damaged many value as a historical source, but rather a translation and recodification of
severe earthquake ¡l'ízo, which destroyed
Justinian's law code.12a In most cases, Leo's lawyers simply
rearranged
rt1 Epanagoge 1,0.3-4. earlier legal materials in more logical and convenient categories' Justini-
rs Ebanapoge I0,4. an's novels, when they chose to employ them, appear in a new order, but
cf . N/ 46 (537)'
"" F.',oanisole 10.7;
cf' N/ 123'6 (546)'
with the texts unchanged for the most part. Naturally it is of great inter-
"op;'p6¡ig6þ¿ 10.2-3:
Konstantinoupoteos
ø,uor,orum (eð.rhurn, pp--l6l -ø5); Patria
zøzl':'isz tp.' 272.).'-3'186 (p' 274); cf' fanin' 123
Epanagoge 3.10 (p. 68).
3.2ea (p. zzs),3.86 tp. zq,ä1,'7.'i6z'7i' "Niederklerus"' 385' 12a
Ostrogorsky, HBS, 244.
"""uiliÏ(::Tr]1à!pr,,
c-¿åsà:ph;nàl. 3' pp. 361-'64'and Hirman'
 i

;
:

CHAPTER FOUR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 141, Ì,

1.40

The aim which those setting this safeguard had in mind, namely, I

esttoobservethefateofJustinian'sregulationofprivatereligiousfoun-
that they could take forethought by this means for the safeguard-
in this rearrangement and reediting'
i

-
dations
in the ing of the piety of the faith, is worthy of praise and approbation.
I

Z.r,o,, fundamentail"* on private foundations does appear

Basilika,butonlyinashort,mutilatedformthatdeprivesitofitssigniÊ
i."n.".'j' Leo's lawye* o-ítt.d Justinian's law regulating
Yet, contrary to their expectations, it does not appear that the
the sale' ex- safeguard provided by the law for this purpose has achieved and
law on runaway maintained its aim. On the contrary, the law appears opposed
l

his
.nung., and donatión of monasteries' They retained
provisiols gf his legis- to the pious property owners and to zeal for the divine liturgy. I

;i;;,*,'ú;;;itted all the rest of the imporranrlaws in which The unholy priest, chosen unknowingly, might thereby impart, at
lation'from the period 537-538. The series of
I

Justinian
545_546) fared better, some time or another, his own impious pollution to someone
,-u*-",i,.d his earlier legisiation (those iussued else. . . . For who is so complacent and indifferent about personal
soon gut the stricter provisions'126
-;; Leo's novels would
but
the opinion as to call upon a priest whom he does not know to offi-
more than the revisiJns to the Basilika, Leo VI's novels.on
unmistakably illus- ciate, choosing him in ignorance of his religious observance and
sacramental capacities of chapels in private dwellings
of the empire'127 personal conduct? On the contrary, the cherishers of apostasy and
trate his dispoiition to favoithe great lay benefactors
I (886-893) announce a those who officiate impiously will not wish to have dealings with
Th.r. rrou.l, fror,r the patriarchate of Stephen
which earlier em- those who are not their associates in impiety. Therefore, the law
.1.", thift of policy *iih ,.,pttt to these institutions
Leo's elaborate does not actually safeguard [the faith] in the way that it was in-
p.îrr^"r¿ .áon.iir had resiricted severely. Moreover, tended to do.
'irr*in.urio"t indicate that he was well aware of the controversial nature
"-i,the changes he was instituting'
of Actuall¡ private patrons had defied Justinian's law at least since the time
,fr. prãtace to the first of these novels, Leo VI acknowledges Iusti- of Heraclius. In arguing their cause, however, Leo VI fails to provide an
permit
ni"n', ini.n,ion (although he does not refer to him by name) to explanation for the unwillingness of patrons to rely upon diocesan clergy
employed clergy from
.n"p.ft it priuate dwellñrgs only when the patrons for the celebration of domestic liturgies as Justinian had directed.
of ancient timesthat re-
,mi"Ufi..hurches: "It Jeerneá better to those In order to draw attention away from the special interests for which
ought to
ii;ìil-;;;;t.., und assemblies in private dwellingschurch.es (Þatholikai be con-
he drew up this legislation, Leo VI maintains that Justinian's restriction
Ji.i.a only by the priests belonging to rhe public affected the poor people of the empire as well as the rich patrons of
who were ãttigned to a private dwelling and hap- private chapels: "Moreover, it is an obstacle to a Sfeat advantage for the
"ütir,¡o¡),fut'oth.rr'
p"".i ,. f. living ií a private conditio¡ of life' were not to conduct a orthodox. Although by divine grace oratories (eukterioi oiÞoi) have been
128.
iitotgy or any other religious service'" erected to God in nearly every dwelling, not only of the eminent but also
of-
a.; VI correctly atrri"butes the restriction to the fear that diocesanper- of the more lowl¡ the salaries (choregiai) and maintenance (tberapeia)
clergy stationed
ficials could not ensure the orthodoxy of household of priests cannot be assured by all in an equal manner. Those who lack
*""."riy i" these chapels' The emperor brushes this concern aside' even resources for the private acquisition of priests very often remain without
,},;.,;h á, ,....rtly as 861 the fathers of the Council of Constantinople a share in the divine mysteries, and the holy sanctuaries are deprived
all.sorts of evils'
had ãeno'.rnced these churches as breeding grounds.for of the sacraments that ought to be celebrated in them." 130 In the course
AccordingtoLeoVl'Justinian,srestrictionsimplydenieddomesticlitur- of his argument, Leo VI testifies to the broad clissemination in his day of
were too scrupulous to employ a
;;;; ; o.ihodo* p.op.r,y owners.who private religious foundations as well as to how essential they had become
ãleric of dubious credentials and theological convictions:i2e for servicing the religious needs of the lower classes. He makes a partíc-
ular point of decrying the lapses that the inability of the poorly endowed
l2JCompare CJ 1.2.|5 to B 5.1.7,ed. H' J. Scheltema and H' Van der.!lal, Basilicorum churches to hire clerics caused in the celebration of endowed masses for
libri LX (Groningen, 1953-)' : : the dead.131
ra¡r1/ 123.16: n ll.íó-lt;NJ 1'23.1'7 B 3'1"32;N/ 123'18 B 3'1'33; N/ 131'7
- B 5.3.8; N/ 131.8 :B 5'3'9' The emperor's remedy for the plight of both rich and poor benefactors
r27LeoVI, Nouellae4,ii:'íi,ed.P.Noaillesand,A.Dain, LesnouellesdeLeonVlle was to decree that household priests, as well as those of the public
Son" lpuri.,-is¿4)t ,.. uÍ.å è-rg. Oi,togorsky,
"Observarions,n the Aristocracy irr By-
,aitium," DOP 25 (1971l,3-3),
-- 1tt¡¡or"¡¡o esp' 4' - - .. l30Nouella 4 (p.23,line 24-p.25,Líne 6)
4 (ed' Noailles and Dain, p' 23, lines 1-5)'. \3tNouella 4 (p.25,lines 7-10).
\2eNouella 4 (P.23,lines 9-24)'
1.42 CHAPTER FOUR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565_1025 t43

churches, should have permission to offer tnass in private chapels,

subject tinian's law and unfairly blamed it for the financial difficulties of rural
,"fy ," tíre approval oi the patrons themselves. This law meant that the churches in his own day.
diocesan authårities had to iecognire and regularize the status. of all the Perhaps some rural communal churches relied upon clergy hired from
household clergy, a measufe that surely would have horrified the consci- local þatholiþ.ai eþl<lesiøi on a part-time basis in order to economize, but
entious Photius, had he still been patriarch at this time'132 Justinian's law certainly did not forbid them to have their own residenr
This in itself was a severe blowìo diocesan discipline, as well as to the clergy. Occasional employment would at least help account for Leo VI's
prestige of the public clergy and their churches' Leo VI made matters confounding of rural private churches with the privare (and primarily
*orr."i' u ,".oir.l law thai overturned canon law and permitted house- urban) chapels of the magnates. Ironicall¡ it was the attraction of these
holJ.lrri., ro perform baptisms in private chapels.133 Since the patrons' chapels, with their generally well compensated positions, rhat made it
chapels now hacl expanded sacramental-capacities, the rnagnates
no clifficult for many rural churches, public and privare, to retain their
public churches or to respect the clergy.135 Leo VI, by regularizing the status of the household clergy and
lo.ri., had any ,."roå to patronize the
authority of the local hierarchy. removing the last suspicions of illegality from the magnates' private
hi- chapels, could only have worsened the relative position of rural churches.
Despiie the emperor's pretensions to the contrary, the ecclesiastical
.r"r.hy.o longei obliged the patrons of private chapels to resort to reg- Ihe emperor's concessions to the magnates could only have aggravatecl
,rlar diocesan .ì.rgy ea;h time they needed a priest for a liturgy- Canons the existing tensions between the public church system and private reli-
of the Second council of Nicaea and the more recent council of con- gious foundations. Yet even Leo VI could not overlook the problem of
stantinople demonsrrate that these chapels had had their own
resident private individuals who undertook to erect new ecclesiastical founda-
clerical staffs for at least a hundred years before Leo vl's laws.13a The tions without sufficient funds to complete the work. The emperor's con-
second council of Nicaea had even allowed lay patrons to receive migra- tribution to alleviating the problem was a modest one. He set a standard
,rry pri.r" if these clerics obtained the permission of their former bishop for the minimum size for a monastic foundation, specifically a building
nnã in. patriarch. The Council of Constantinople, for its part'
also ac- of proportions large enough for at least three monks.136 Especially since
clerics, whom the hierarchy ex- he passed up the opportunity to set minimum levels for endowments, Leo
knowledged the exisrence of household
ro control by reserving the choice of appointees for themselves. VI may actually have done more harm than good by permitting the pro-
f..,.a
' Th.r. were liberal and realistic provisions. The councils had gone as liferation of extremely small monastic foundations. The problem of ar-
far as conscientious ecclesiastics could toward accommodâting the ranging for the support of these tiny monasteries would become critical
wishes of private patrons without a complete breakdown of diocesan in another sixty years, until Basil II offered a better solution.
discipline ånd lost of control over appointments' That they were not The reign of Leo VI, then, marks a crucial turning point in the history
,uffiËi.nt for the special inrerests behind Leo VI's legislation indicates the of the relationship between public and private religious foundations in
determination of these patrons to make no concesssion to episcopal Byzantium. For at least the next two centuries, the ecclesiastical hier-
choice and supervision of their clerics'
archy was left to fight a losing battle as it tried to retain some semblance
It is not at ;ll clear how Justinian's legislation was responsible for the of unity and of its own authority over all the religious foundations of the
plight of the poor (and piesumably rural) benefactors who coulcl not empire.
äfãra to maintain their own clergy, nor how Leo's new law would help
,t on. Jurri"ian did not prevent the private churches of the countryside
THE TRIIJMPH OF PRIVATE BENEFACTORS
fro* huulng their own standing clergy, though he did insist that they
should be sribordinare ro rhe locãl bishops. These churches were
full par- The triumph of the private benefactors over the public church authorities
ticipants in the liturgical lives of their communities (as the papyrological
had a great impact on other aspects of the ecclesiastical life of Byzan-
eviàence from Byzantine Egypt demonstrates), and were
quite different
tium.137 By the tenth century the great processions that had characterized
in function, if not in o*n.rîhip, from the private chapels located in the
f.rrotut ,.rid.n.., of the -ugnuttt' Leo VI simply misinterpreted Jus- 13rCf. Heraclius, De clericis, ed. Konidaris, p.74; C. Nicaen. ll, c. 10; C. Const. I et II,
c. 12 (R&P 2.687-88)t Epanagoge 9.ó (p. 8 l).
116Leo VI, Nouella 14 (ed. Noailles and Dain, pp. 55-58), with lÌ. Granió,
82ForPhotius'opinions, seec.const. letll,c.12(R&P2.687-88)andEpanagoge9'6 "Das Kloster-
wesen in der Novellengesetzgebung Kaiser Leons des Weisen," BZ 31, (1,931),61,-69.
(p. 81).
" '::i.o Yl,Nouella 15 (ed. Noailles and Dain, pp' 59-61)' l37Thomas Mathews, "'Private' Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture: Toward a Re-
uo C,. Nicâen. ll, c. 10 (RðcP 2.5S7); C' Const' I et ll, c' 12 (RE¿P 2'687-88)' appraisal," Cabiers archéologìques 30 (1982), 125-38 Go¡dana Babié., Les chapelles an-

144 CHAPTER FOUR
the early Byzantine liturgy had been curtailed. A new style of ecclesias-
tical architecture was developed to suit the medieval liturg¡ and churches
became smaller than even the reduced populations of the times would
have seemed to require. Even major churches such as that of the Theo-
tokos erecte d in 902 by Constantine Lips, drungarios (admiral) of the
fleet under Leo VI, displayed characteristic architectural features of pri-
vate foundations such ;s mortuary chapels and other diminutive chapels
for the celebration of private liturgies.l38 This is not to suggest that all
these changes occurreá any more suddenly than the triumph of the pri-
vate benefictors themselves, for the erosion of the Justinianic system of
regulation had begun even in the sixth century. Yet from the tenth cen-
tui¡ private benelactors clearly held the upper hand in their struggle
*ith the.prblic authorities of the church, and their impress on ecclesias-
tical life is all the more evident.
Despite these developments, the public authorities continued to play
an important part in the administration of some religious foundations.
\üe know from the De administrando imperlo of Constantine VII that in
the Peloponnesus, in the reign of Romanus Lecapenus (91.9-944), there
1y.ra .ro less than six categories of monasteries: imperial, patriarchal,
archiepiscopal, metropolitan, episcopal, and independent (that is, pri-
u"t.¡ Ào'aiteries. 13e All of theie had to supply horses for the imperial
cavalry.
The possession of a separate landed endowment came to be one mark
of instiìutional autonomy for a religious foundation. In the early tenth
century, the cathedral church of Hagia Sophia and its dependencies con-
tinued io enjoy revenues derived from large estates worked by peasant
culrivators.lio Y.t it was the emperor who provided the rogai (salaties)
of the clergy of the cathedral church' in his capacity as the patron of
Hagia Sophia. That Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus (901-907,911-925)
h"J to ,.ql.r.r, an official of the treasury to resume payment of these
salaries afier an arbitrary suspension indicates the dependence of the
public churches on their ultimate patron and benefactor'1a1
This was an age when certain resourceful abbots led their monasteries
to positions of ånsiderable affluence and economic power. We hear of
nexes des églises byzantines (Paris' 1,969), esp. 47-58'
rir¡4"¡6!*5, ,,.Þrivate' Liturgy," 127-31,; for Constantine Lips.and his foundation, see
p"t ¡i Xiittiitin;oupoleos :.¡5'ip. 289) and Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia
(CSHB 371,), with Janin, Géographie, Vol. 3' pp. 307-10'
'-;;t¿o;s;;;tin. Ëo.phy.og.iitus' D¿ adminilttando iffiperio, Ch' 52, ed' R' J' H' Jenkins
and G. Moravcsik (BudaPest, 1949).
laoNicholas I Mysticui, Epistolae Nos' 164 (915-918) and 165 (9 1.4-918), ed. R. J. H.
of Constantinople: Letrers (Washington,
Jenkins and L. G. Vesterink, Nicholas I Patriarch
D.C.,1973).
l4l Nicholas l, Epistola No. 72 (91'4-918).
PRIVÄTE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565_1025 t45
their purchases of communal lands and their encouragement of individ-
ual gifrs and testaments in their fayor.'a2 Since at least the late eighth
century, it was common practice for prospective monks to donate part
or all of their property to a monastery upon entrance.la3 This also
strengthened monastic endowments considerably. Ultimately these activ-
ities helped to upset the delicate balance of property ownership in the
countryside. A favored monastery might even use its influence to obtain
stratiotiþ.a þtemata (soldiers' landholdings) in violation of the laws and
the intended purposes of these properties'r4a Emperor Romanus Leca-
penus had to take drastic action in his famous novel oÍ 934.14s He in-
cluded hegoumenoi, philanthropic administrators' archbishops, metro-
politans, and other ecclesiastical officials along with lay magnates in the
iist of individuals forbidden to obtain the property of peasants under any
circumstances. He did not abolish the traditional donations of monastic
postulants, but he did direct that a prospective monk should sell his land
io anothe. peasant and then give the proceeds to the monastery thât he
wished to join. Romanus' successor Constantine VII confirmed these re-
strictions in a law of his own dated to 947.146
As it happened, Romanus Lecapenus' behavior as a magnate and pri-
vate benefãctor was at odds with his public stance as the protector of the
independent peasantry against expansionary ecclesiastical institutions.
He allowed the imperial monastery of Lakape, located at the emperor's
birthplace, ro acquire stratiotiþa þtemata in Armenia by a special exemp-
tion from the provisions of his own law on property acquisition'l47
Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) subsequently ordered the monastery to
return these properties to their original possessors.
Under Romanus Lecapenus, the conservative spirit of Nicephorus I
and Basil I prevailed over the prodigality of Irene with respect to special
immunities for churches and their properties, clergies, and dependents.
Some monasteries did enioy tax immunities for their properties, but ap-
parently this occurred through special exemption. Most ecclesiastical in-
ra2Romanus Lecapenus, I'louella de potentibus ab acquìsitione praedìorum arcendis
(934), Ch. 1' (JGR3.245-47) :961frr,Regesten No.628'
' r+if1or¡¿¡us Lecapenus, Ñouella dé potentibus, Ch. S (/GR 3.251); I-ustinian-permitted
tlris practice in Nl Ii3.16.2; over rwo ientu¡ies later, C. Nicaen. II, c. 1.9 (R&P 2.630-31)
opotogii (entrance gifts) as an ordìnary requirement for prospective monks; Her-
"...pt.d
*"n, "Ar-ut,""43g-50, ptouid.. a detailed treatment of these compulsory "gifts.''
ioi¡.t., ¡6. ¡46nurt.iy of Lakape mentioned by Nic,ephorus Phocas, Nouella de fundß
militu; Ármen¡orum (963-969),-Ch. 1 (lGR 3'290.1'8-25) : Dölger, Reges,teø No' 720;
cf. commentary by Peter Charanis, "Monastic Properties and the State in the Byz-antine
Empire," DOP 4 (1948),53-118, at 59-60,1. 181t
irRá-"nurLecapenus, Nouelladepotentibus(934)(1GR3.241-52),withcommentary
by Ostrogorsky, HBS' 274--76.
' *rCoñstantíne VII Porphyrogenitus, Nouella de potentibus praedia pauperum øcquiren-
tibus (947) (JGR 3.252-56), esp. Ch. 2 : 1Dölger, Regesten No' 656)'
raTSee above, note 144.

146 CHAPTER FOUR
stitutions cotÌtinued to pay taxes in the tenth century.ra8 The acute need
for manpower during the dark days of the Bulgarian War (913-927) even
caused ih. gou.rn-ent to reconsider its traditional policy of allowing
clerics immunity Írom angareiø (compulsory labor services). Patriarch
Nicholas Mysticus complained of officials who allowed the impressment
of clerics and monks into military service despite all precedent to the
contrary.lae under the circumstances, the patriarch's attempt to extend
this traditional immunity to the non-clerical, agricultural dependents liv-
ing on ecclesiastical properties presumably failed, despite his bold asser-
tion that this too was a privilege granted by the earliest of the Christian
emperors.
The cathedral church of Hagia sophia was parricularly vulnerable to
confiscations of its resources in times of emergency since so many of its
propertids had originally been irnperial donarions or were now under
government management.l50 Nicholas Mysticus had to plead with one
gou..n*..rt official to fulfill his duty to forward wheat due the cathedral
ðhurch from a rural chorionthat had been obliged to supply it for con-
version into eucharistic bread. The church could demand greater ac-
countability from its stewards (kouratores) of internally managed es-
tates. It is uncertain whether these officials were laymen or clerics. It
appears that it was a lay þourator r¡'ho resigned his position as manager
ofìh. church's estates at Strongylizon in northern Greece because of a
dispute with the oikonomos of the cathedral church.151 .Nicholas Mysti-
cus hoped to persuade him to reconsider, and he wrote the strategos oÍ
the theme of Strymon requesting that he assist the þourator's efforts to
prevent illegal alienations of church property.
The early tenth-century sources have little to say about the endow-
ments and the management of private churches. Gross abuses perpe-
trated by the more unscrupulous patrons still occurred as in the mid-
ninth century. Nicholas Mysticus confessed his inability to do r-nuch to
prevent individuals from plundering churches and dissolving monasteries
in the diocese of Patras in Greece.152 The patriarch did not specifically
identify these individuals, but their conduct is similar to that of patrons
condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 861.
That same council had prevented bishops from spending diocesan
funcls to restore non-diocesan monasteries. Fifty years later Nicholas
Mysticus granted the pronoia (oversight) of a monastery of this sort in
1a8Cf. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio Ch. 52; for
tions, see Nicholas Mysticus, Epistola No. 73 (n.d.).
(915-918?), cf. 164 (915); Basil I's
'oñicholas Mystiius, Epistolae No. 37 and 150
confirmation of this exemption in Epanagoge 9
tsoEpistola No. 165 (914-918), cf. 59 (914-91'8?)
"16. and Epanagoge 1'0'5'
lst Ep istoløe Nos. 35-3 6 (9 1,4
-918).
ls2Epistolae Nos. 35 and 123 (91,4-918).
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS, 565-1025 1,47
epidosis (the technical term for the concession of an ecclesiastical insti-
tution from one ecclesiastical authority to another) to Bishop Andrew of
Patras.153 The monastery in question had apparently suffered from bad
management under its previous administrator. The patriarch, thel, ap-
p.urrio have been deteimined to take an active role in the restoration of
*ir-u.r"g.d institutions in spite of the existing canonical prohibition.
Actingìn this same spirit, Bishop Andrew of Patras expelled a monk
named G..go.y from a monastery that he had been governing by virtue
of his kinship ro the founder.l5a Andrew replaced him with a non-relative
whom he cleemed better qualified to look after the monastery's interests.
Gregor¡ apparently stunned by this affront to his patron's rights, took
his pr"iesiãirectly to the patriarch. Nicholas Mysticus then had to re-
solve the conflicting claims of personal property rights and the good re-
ligious order of the monastery. He ruled that if Gregory had committed
nã *ro.rg, rhere was no justification for depriving him of the hegoumen-
ate. If, on the other hand, Gregory was obviously unsuitable, Andrew
wâs to provide him with a paramythia) a monetary allowance derived
from ecclesiastical revenues. The bishop of Patras' in the latter case'
would have been buying our Gregory's rights of patronage in the mon-
astery.
on another occasion, the son of a patron became embroiled in a con-
flict with the current abbot of a monastery founded by his father.lss The
young man sought to reside in the monastery, receive maintenance, and
ãbt"in instruction in religious life. \When the abbot rebuffed him, he took
a complaint about the abbot's alleged lack of piety to the patriarch with
,.qu.r, for relief. Nicholas Mysticus found some confirmation of the
"bad ieport on the abbot and promised to investigate the mattef further.
He perkittecl the young man to become a novice, but left the election of
n.* abbot, if one was needed, to the brethren of the monastic com-
"munity. He reserved for himself approval of the nominee. This monastery
probafly had a patriarchal stauropegion which would have given Nich-
àlas Myiticus thè authority to hear this case and make these dispositions'
It is nóteworthy that the patron's son retained a vested interest in the
well-being of the institution, and obviously thought he was entitled to
special consideration.
It was more common for patrons to exercise untrammeled rights of
disposal over their institutions. An important legal case came before the
court of Basil II (976-1,025) a half century \ater; it illustrates the ease
exemp-
with which patrons in the ena oÍ Romanus Lecapenus could transfer
's'Epistola No. 123 (91,4-918).
ß4 Epistolø No. 119 (914-91.8),lines 17-23.
tt'Eþistola No. 105 (91'9-925), esp. lines 1-5
148 CHAPTER FOUR
ownership of a monastery.ls6 A certain layman donated his house to a
monk whì transformed it into the monastery of Piperatos (location un-
known). The monk later gave it to the young Romanus Lecapenus before
his accession to the thron e in 91,9. After he became emperor' Romanus
in turn gave it to the protouestiarlos Marinos. The monastery then be-
came th; personal proþ.rty of this courtier and his heirs. It would make
, ,."pp.år"nce ir- hiitory when Patriarch Nicholas II Chrysoberges
p7g:;9I) sought to claim patriarchal rights of overlordship in this mon-
astery.
Even in the time of Romanus Lecapenus, the ecclesiastical hierarchy
was finding the maintenance of unrestricted private property rights in
religious institutions to be an irritating limitation of its powers and re-
spo"nsibilities. Romanus Lecapenus and Constantine VII also had good
,.uron to wish to curtail the power of the great benefactors and their
foundations in order to further the government's pfogram of stabilizing
property ownership in the countryside. Yet for various reasons the natu-
."t ålU"n.. of the government and the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the
great magnates, broken since Leo VI, did not reform.
This *ä, p"rtly a result of the church's own uncertain attitude toward
private ptop"rty rights. The painful experiences of the Bulgarian war,
*n.n ttt. gåu.r'-*t sequestered the revenues of Hagia Sophia and can-
celled clerical immunity from military service, contributed to distrust be-
tween the old allies. A wary hierarchy might have seen Romanus' restric-
tions in the expansion of private foundations as a threât to the public
church's .o--ãn interest in the preservation of its endowed properties'
Even Nicholas Mysticus found it difficult on occasion to resolve the con-
flict between his desire for the well-being of all ecclesiastical institutions
and his respect for the private property rights of patrons'
The empìror was also not disposed to seize the moment and attempt
to resolve some of the longstanding difficulties between the interests of
the public churches and those of private foundations'-lndeed,..he re-
maiÅed a traditional private benefactor at heart. He had acted like any
other private patron in casually disposing of the monastery of Piperatos
as a rËward fãr a faithful friend. He had granted the special exemption
from his own legislation for his monastery of Lakape. Moreover,
weakened the refãrmist momentum established by Nicholas Mysticus by
appointing his young son Theophylact (933-956) as patriarch. The new
lË"d.t of ile Byzantine church did not generally take his responsibilities
seriousl¡ though he did restore at least one long decayed private mon-
astery. Significant reforms had to await his successor Polyeuctus (956-
970) and the energetic Emperor Nicephorus Phocas'
ls6Eustathios Rhomaios, Peira 15.4 (/GR 1.43).
CHAPTER FIVE
The Crisis of Private Religious Foundations
in Byzantium and Its Resolution
l\ TICEPHORUS Phocas (963-969) was not afraid to disregard estab-
I\ lishecl traditions govàrning the roles of the enrperor and the pri-
vate benefactor in the Byzantine church. It was he, for instance, who
took the unprecedented step (ca. 964) of reserving for himself the ap-
proval of all episcopal elections.l Like Romanus Lecapenus, Nicephorus
Phocas was a private benefactor in his own right. He was a friend of St.
Athanasios the Athonite. His gift of an imperial solemnioa (dedicatory
offering) of 244 nomismata made possible Athanasios' foundation of the
monastery of Lavra on Mount Athos.2 At Athanasios' suggestion' the
emperor granted a constitutionally independent form of government for
this monastery in his foundation charter (now lost, except for some brief
excerpts).3 This was an important change from the usual practice of both
private and imperial benefactors, who ordinarily imposed a proprietary
form of government on their foundations.
LEGISLATION OF NICEPHORUS PHOCAS
Like his predecessor Romanus I, Nicephorus Phocas was well aware of
the insatiable appetite of the great ecclesiastical foundations for new ac-
quisitions of property. He realized that this led to severe dislocations of
the traditional pattern of property ownership, which in turn threatened
he
1Dölger, Regesten No. 703; Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum (ed. Thurn, p. 285); Leo
Diaconùs, Historia6.4,ed.C. B. Hase, CSHB (Bonn, 1828),98-99;andZonaras,Epitome
historiørum 17.1, with my "The Crisis of Byzantine Ecclesiastical Foundations, 964-
1025," BF 9 (1985), 255-74.
tTtext not extant, but fragments preserved in the Typikon of St. Athanasios for the Lavra
Monasrery on Mount Athos, ed. Þh. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Gesch,ichte der
Atbosþlöiter (Leipzig, 1894), 102-22, with record of the solemnion at 11.5; cf. Dölger,
Regesten No. 704
JPreserved intheþpikon of St. Athanasios (ed. Meyer, p. 107, lines 11-16) = Dölger'
Regesten No. 704.

150 CHAPTER FIVE
the military strength of the empire.a unlike Romanus Lecapenus, Nice-
phorus phocas *ár pt.p"t.d to subordinate his personal interests as a
t.n.fa.to. ro rhe prèssing need for reform of the empire's private reli-
gious foundations.
The emperor took upon himself the formidable task of reversing tra-
ditional putt"r.r, of piivate philanthropy dating back to late Roman
times. Hå knew that p"rro.t"l vanity was an important element in the
morivarion of benefaitors who were willing to devote the large sums
necessary for the efection of the empire's private religious foundations.5
Most benefactors, therefore, would prefer to found a church or monas-
tery of their own rather than contribute toward the maintenance or re-
p"í of an existing foundation. That way the benefactor would gai' for
^hlmself
the prestigious title of Þtistes, the "founder," acclaimed by John
Chrysostom and Justinian in ages past. Because of this prevailing atti-
tudË, the empire L"-. to possess over the centuries an ever increasing
nu*t., of ,.ìigiou, foundåtions. Nicephorus Phocas thought that there
were now -otã in existence than could be justified:6
In times gone by when such institutions were not sufficient, the
establishment oi them was praiseworthy and very useful; surely
the good done by those who established them was more abiding,
fo, t"h.y wished io provide food and care for the bodies of men in
on. ."r., and in the other, to pay attention to the conduct of the
soul and the higher life. But when their numbei had increased
greatlyandhas-b..o.rr"disproportionatetotheneed'andpeople
Itill turn to the founding of monasteries, how is it possible not to
think that this good has not mixed with evil, that darnel has not
been added to the wheat?
while the newer foundations often enjoyed material prosperit¡ each year
many orher institutions fell into serious financial trouble or physical de-
,^y ior lack of capable management or sufficient funds for repairs:7
This is indeed obvious to anyone, for at a time when there are
thousands of other monasteries which have suffered by the lapse
of time and need much help, we show no zeal in spending money
for their rehabilitation, but turn our attention instead to the cre-
aSkylitzes, Synopsis historiarutn (ed. Thurn, p. 274)i Zonatas, Epitome historiarum
4.81.
ñi..pho.u, phocas, Nouella de monasteriis (96415) (lGR 3.292-96) : Dölger, Reg¿s-
tenNo.699.
6Nouella de monøsteriis (964) (lGR 3.294.8_1,9), trâns. Peter charanis,- "Monastic
p.op"rti., and the State in in" nyáutttine Empire," DoP 4 (1948),53-118, at 56-57, with
minor revisions bY the author'
ì ño,relta (964i UGR 3.294.25-34), trans. Charanis, "Monastic Properties," 57.
CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 151
tWe
do this in order that we
ation of new monasteries of our own.
may not only enjoy the name of having founded something neq
but also because we desire that our foundation should be clearly
in evidence and be apart by itself to the end that our name may
appear throughout the world and be celebrated in accordance
with the divine prophecy'
All previous attempts to deal with the problem of providing for the re-
paii of dilapidated religious foundations, including the program of Jus-
rinian and the efforts of the bishops of the mid' ninth century, were no
more than rescue operations. Now Nicephorus Phocas went to the root
of the problem by banning practically all new foundations of monaster-
ies and philanthropic institutions.
The emperor was pragmatic enough to realize that he could not com-
pletely haÍt the disposition of the laity to make pious donations. He did
presllme to think that he could channel these benefactions in new, more
iocially useful directions. Accordingly, he issued a law (96415) in which
he recommends that the wealthy should henceforth sell properties that
they would otherwise have donated to new foundations and give the pro-
ceeds to the poor.8 The law commands those benefactors who were not
attracted to this sort of income redistributive charity to turn their atten-
rion ro the ruined and dilapidated foundations that badly needed finan-
cial assistance for repairs and capital improvements.e These institutions
then were to use the benefactors' money to acquire field hands and live-
stock in order to put their current properties to better use. The law
strictly forbids benefactors to make direct grants of lands and buildings.
In the emperor's opinion, these troubled institutions could not hope to
maintain such gifts properly without adequate capital, much less operate
them at maximum efficiency.lo
Nicephorus Phocas made a special provision for those monasteries and
philanthropic institutions that actually had shortages of endowed.prop-
èrty due to careless administration and bad planning. He exempted these
institutions from the laws of Romanus Lecapenus and Constantine VII,
which effectively forbade religious foundations from purchasing peasant
properties.ll He proposed to provide the exemptions on a case-by-case
È"rir. th. emperor promised to investigate the need and confirm the
necessary purchases for these institutions so that they could build up
adequate endowments.
The situation portrayed by the law, in which many monasteries had
8
Nouella (9 64) ( I G R 3.29 5.5-11').
Nouella (964) ( I GR 3.29 S'1'2-1,8).
e
t0
Nouella (9 64) ( J G R 3.29 5.24 -37).
tl Nouella (9 64) ( G R 3'29 5.37-29 6.7)
I
152 CHAPTER FIVE
come to possess extensive properties yet were deficient in capital assets,
recalls the plight of the public churches described by the Epanagoge dut-
ing the reign of Basil Lr2 How did these monasteries lose their original
patrons and become effectively independent, yet capital deficient, insti-
iutions? Religious foundations that were tightly bound economically and
administratively to the estates of their patrons (as most were until the
late eighth century) usually shared the fate of these estates.l3 This was
nearlv always true for private churches, since they never had the benefit
of the institutional autonomy that private monasteries enjoyed at certain
times in Byzantine history. Until the switch to formal landed endow-
ments, private monasteries, like private churches" followed the rest of
a patron's property when he bequeatheel, donated, or sold it to a third
party. Yet occasions evidently arose when there was no one to assume
the traditional role of protector for a religious foundation.la
In some cases a responsible part¡ such as the ecclesiastical official
whose predecessor had granted the original stnuropegion for the foun-
dation, might step in and arrange the administration on a new basis as a
diocesan, metropolitan, or patriarchal institution.15 Other foundations
might be left to fend for themselves with whatever resources were at their
disposal. Especially since the Council of Constantinople's decision to pre-
vent bishops from restoring independent monasteries with diocesan
funds, such cases were likely to become more common'
Possibly many patrons bound by the council's regulation requiring a
formal list of consecrated properties had assigned only such lands as
made their foundations financially viable, but withheld cultivators and
livestock in order to ensure that they themselves would continue to ex-
ercise the management and exploitation of these properties. Private foun-
dations operating under an arrangement of this sort might well have been
left with plenty of land, but no means to exploit it, upon the demise of
their patrons' families. It is also possible that these institutions once had
both sufficient properties and the means to exploit them, but when they
lost their powerful patrons' protection' they could not prevent the loss
of their valuable cultivators and livestock to covetous neighboring land-
t2Epanagoge 10.3-4.
138.g., Eusiathios Boilas'churchesin the mid-eleventh century and Michael Attaliates'
ptocholropheìoø in the late eleventh century' both discussed below in Chapter 6..
' laE.g., ìh. .ur" of the Monastery of st. zacbary on the plain of Atroa at the foot of
Bithynian Olympus, which was abandoned until restored by Peter of Atroa' ca. 800, ac-
.o.ding to his Vita (ed. Laurent, p. 89) ; cf. Janin, G éograph ie, YoL 2, p., L 5 1'
15AJbishops and metropolitans did in the late tenth century, when the original peasant
proprietors of small monasteries died without providing for the future admillistration of
iheù foundations. See Basil ll, Peri ton dynaton (996\ Ch.3 (/GR 3.3 13-14); cf. C. Nicaen.
/1, c.4 (R&P 2.566-67) which condemned bishops who simply closed churches'
CR]SIS AND RESOLUTION i53
lords. Finally, it is possible that the monasteries (like the public churches
mentioned in the Epanagoge) gradually found themselves the recipients
of bequests of marginal lands and other dilapidated properties that
draineã away rheir capital reso'rces without adding appreciably to in-
come.
Whatever the real causes for their plight, the lot of these institutions
must have been extremely difficult. canon law prevented them from
alienating existing property in order to raise capital. The imperial agrar-
ian legislation of Rn*".tus Lecapenus and Constantine VII practically
forbaãe extensions of their endowments in order to secure increased rev-
enues. Standing without patrons, they no longer enjoyed the usual finan-
cial benefits oi private institutions in these relationships. The bishops
were under strict orders not to provide assistance. The traditions of pri-
vate philanthropy made it unlikely that any benefactors unrelated to the
original p"tro.ri would come to their rescue either. Until Nicephorus
Phãcas' law, it must have seemed that these institutions were doomed to
slow decay and ultimate dissolution.l6
The emperor's diagnosis of the causes for the problems facing private
religious ioundations was certainly very perceptive. His remedy was
draitic, and not a little presumptuous. Although he did not abolish pri-
vate monasteries, his law did prevent the endowment of any more new
foundations, with the exception oÍ þ.elliø (individual monastic cells) and
laurai (collections of keltia). The ban was doubtless a shock to the insti-
tutional church and to private benefactors alike. Ultimately it became
clear that it was not neiessary to pay the drastic price of foregoing all
new foundations in order to aid the existing monasteries and philan-
thropic organizations. The emperor's law was also flawed by his neglect
to include a financial incentive for the restorer of a foundation to replace
the rights and monetary compensations he would have obtained as the
p"troã of a new institution. Soon a new program would be developed
ihat would avoid these shortcomings of Nicephorus Phocas' legislation.
FATE OF NICEPHORUS PHOCAS' LEGISLATION
Nicephorus Phocas' successor John Tzimis ces (969-976) most likely not
only^maintained his predecessor's law but even used it as a guide for his
own philanthropic activities.lT He matched his predecessor's generous
donatìon to the Lavra monastery on Mount Athos with another imperial
16
Anastasius' Iaw, CJ 1,.2.17 , had allowed institutions to alienate property. to. raise funds
for structural restorati-ons, but the editors of the Basilika did not retain this law; it may
have been repealed as early asJustinian's codification (soJones, LRF 897): ^^
17See my ;A Disputed Novel of Emperor Basil II," GRBS 23 (1983),273-83'
1,54 CHAPTER FIVE
solemnion of 244 nomismata.ts He was especially concerned with the
restoration of old ecclesiastical institutions. The historian John Skylitzes
records his rebuilding of the monastery of Damideias in the Armeniac
theme, and Leo the Deacon mentions his restoration and enlargement of
the nosoþomeion oÍ Zoticus in Constantinople.le The emperor's greatest
philanthropic endeavor was his rebuilding and beautification of the
Church of Christ Chalke at Constantinople which Romanus Lecapenus
had founded earlier in the century.20 He also increased the number of
stipends for the clergy in this church to allor'*' an increase in manpower
from twelve to frfty clerics, although he had to grant some new esrates to
the church to supply the additional financial support. Except in this iast
instance, John Tzimisces faithfully adherecl to the spirit of the existing
legislation on permitted forms of ecclesiastical philanthropy.
The same cannot be said about Basil the Parakoirnomenos, regent for
the young Basil II from976 to 985. A man very much afflicted with the
vainglory and desire for fame denounced by Nicephorus Phocas in his
law, Basil erected a huge and costly new monastery dedicated to his pa-
tron saint, Basil the Great.21 \When Basil II took over the reins of govern-
ment for himself, he made a stunning demonstration of his opinion of
the validity of Nicephorus Phocas' law by ordering the demolition of this
foundation.
Eventually, however, Basil II saw fit to change his mind on this issue.
On April 4,988, faced with a most serious revolt by Bardas Phokas and
Bardas Skleros, he issued an extant novel. that repeals the law of his
predecessor aná calls back into effect prèvious lenient legislation govern-
ing the erection and endowment of religious institutions.22 In seeking an
explanation for this sudden reversal of polic¡ the novel can be inter-
preted as a significant but costless concession to the landed magnates just
then wavering in their loyalties to the crown. Alternativel¡ Basil II can
be accepted at his word, as he points to the suspension of new religious
foundations as the cause of divine displeasure, "an injustice not only to
the churches and the philanthropic institutions, but to God himself."
'Whatever
his motives may have been, this was not to be the only oc-
casion upon which Basil II would demonstrate his friendship to private
benefactors. At about the same time, Patriarch Nicholas II Chrysoberges
(980-992) attempted to assert control over the monastery of Piperatos
18
Dölger, Regesten No. 744, text not extant, but mentioned in the þpikon of St. Athan-
asios (ed. Meyer, p. 114).
teSkylitzes, Synopsis historiørum (ed. Thurn, p. 285); Leo Diaconus, Historia 6.5 (CSHB
ee).
20
Patria Konstantinoupoleo s 3.213 (p. 282\.
2lMichael Psellos,Chronographial..20,ed. EmileRenauld (París, 1.926-28).
"Basil II, Nouella quae legem Nicepbori de monasteriis tollit (988) ÇGR 3.303) : ùi¡to' nuthyit;l patriaï;hae CP, eã. Þatricia K_arlin-Hayter (Brussels, 1'970), 29; cf.
Dölger, Regesten No. 772.
CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 155
(once owned by Romanus Lecapenus), perhaps on the basis of a patriar-
chal stauropeg:ion.2l Slhen the dispute came to his court, the emperor
upheld the þrivate property rights of the owners of this monastery. The
dicision.onfor-, wellto Basil II's novel of 988, which called back into
effect the weak provisions of the Basiliþa and Leo VI's novels as the basis
for government regulation of private foundations'
Eärlier patriarcÈs had taken over old private monasteries in order to
rebuild thãm from ruins or to undertake restorations. Photius had taken
over the monastery of the magistros Manuel (d. 838) for rebuilding.2a
Patriarch Theophylact followed Photius' example by restoring the mon-
astery of Rufinus at Chrysopolis, one of the oldest private foundations.
Since ge t and the decree of the Co¡ncil of Constantinople, the patriarchs
and the bishops haci to find ways to circumvent the prohibition of the
expenditure oi dio..tutt funds for the restoration of private foundations.
Aåong the ways to achieve this were the employment of the prelate's
person"al ,.roui.., to meet the costs of renovation (in which case the
-onart.ry became his hereditary personal possession) and the transfor-
mation oi the resto.ed institution into a patriarchal or diocesan monas-
tery. Thus the monastery of Manuel became Photius' private property,
*hi.h passed after his death to his nephew Sergios, pelh¡rns^a relative of
the fuiure patriarch of that name. The monastery of Rufinus, on the
other hand, became a patriarchal institution from the time of its resto-
ration by TheoPhYlact.25
Whatáver Nicholas Chrysoberges plans were for the monastery of Pi-
peratos, he evidently had not counted on opposition from- its owners,
*ho ,,r...rrfully established that their institution was autodespoton (in'
dependent) and had never been conceded to an ecclesiastical overlord.
gaiil ltt unwillingness to allow Nicholas Chrysoberges to assume con-
trol over Piperatos undermined the patriarch's ability to gain clear title
to old priuate foundations (as the Council of Constantinople required)
before undertaking his own restorations.
Earlier .*p.roà had not always been so scrupulously respectful of
private propárty rights in ecclesiastical institutions. In 899 Leo VI was
p..puring tt rebuild a monastery that he had confiscated from the dis-
of his
it"ä.d cãurtier Leo Katokoilas in order to place it at the disposalas Leo
Jpiritual director, Euthymius.26 Euthymius, who would later serve
23Eustathios Rhomaios, Peìra 1'5.4 UGR 1.43)'
2aSee Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Const. I et Il, c' 7 (R&P 2'674-75)'
rrThis monasteiy was Theophylact's burial site, according to Michael Glykas, Annales,
ed. I. Bekker, CSHb 1Bonn, tsif), p.563; it became the residence of
Patriarch Eustratius
ðìrì¿ã, iioér-84) ifter his abdícätion, according to Theodore Skoutariotes, Svnopsis
-chronike, MB 7, p. 182; cf. Janin, Géographie, Vol' 2' p' 39'
Janín, Géograþhie,iol.2, p.23, and Vol. 3, pp' 285-89'
 -Y
CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 1,57
156 CHAPTER FIVE

rain metropolitans handed over some of these monasteries to their

de-
vl,s patriarch (907-91,2), was informed of the origins of this monastery to their financial
by Kãtokoilas, relarives. Euthymius then insisted that Leo VI should re- f.ndrnt bishoprics on a remporary basis bolster
oÍ989'
call Katokoilas from exile, pay him a just price for the monaster¡ and
;;;;.;r. Nicholas Chrysobergei himself in an extant document(mainte-
uråË.t.d his pronoia for the sustasis (support) and diamone
obtain clear title to tlìe property before he would consider accepting the monastery
nance) of monasteries, which led him to concede a dilapidated
emperor's gift of this institution. epidosls to the Lavra
,fr. Theotokos of Gomatou at Erissos under
ihere is no testimony on what legal mechanism, if any, was employed "i Epidosis, then' was one
monastery of St' Athanasios on Mount Athos'30
to permit private benefactors to undertake the restoration of ruined ec- way for the cbaristike'
cleiiastical foundations in accordance with Nicephorus Phocas' law of
;;;t" nu-b", of precedents that paved the
g64.Did these benefactors actually receive deeds to these properties, as
Euthyrnius had obliged Leo vl to do in 899? IÍ rransfers of ownership or DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHARISTIKE
rights of use over these institutions did occur, then the essential features
Thecharistiþewasapublicprogramsponsoredbytheemperorandthe
oi the cbaristike may have germinated as early as the reign of Nicephorus for the private management of religious institu-
Phocas. On the other hand, it seems more likely that it took contempo-
, ecclesiastical hierarchy
ulti-
raries some time to realize the need for a legal mechanism to respect the i ;t-"..; il-,. grant of á foundati,cn in cbaristiþ.e did not disturb the
I institution, but merely
conflicting claims of private property rights and the critical need for in- -"te rights ãf ownership over an ecclesiastical for a third
separatãd the rights of -ãrr"g.,r,ent and financial exploitation
stitutional restorations. The Piperatos case, then, probably provided the to one' two' or (rarely)
stimulus for the development of the charistike, because henceforth it was ót Áll gr"r,r, were temporary and limited ideally suited as a vehicle
i if,t.å ff"iÃe tenancies. Thus the program was
no longer possible for the ecclesiastical hierarchy to take over an old for restofation of
to overcome the legal difficultiei oi arranging the
institution without regard for the owner's property rights'
ruined ecclesiastical institutions'
Nicholas chrysoberges shared Nicephorus Phocas' concern for dilap- of
under thi, frogr"-, privare individuals obtained the management
idated and ruined monasteries. This patriarch (and possibly some of his who held the
an ecclesiasti."l fä.rnd"iion by appealing to the emperor,
immediate predecessors as well) subscribed to the policy of matching i of the
needy institutions with potential benefactors who possessed the neces-
;úÑ of ownership over imperiài foundations' or to the officeprivate
pitriarch, -.,ropoii,"n, o, bithop that had originally issued a
sary resources to undertake restorations. This is clear because it was t'Succeisful petitioners were to offer plans for
foundation's stairopegion
Nicholas, policy that his successor sisinnius ll (996-998) reversed when bãautification of their awards, but it was difficult to
the restoratio,r
he stopped donations of patriarchal monasteries to laymen (ín charistike) "nd
ensurethatthesecharistiþariolcarriedthemout.Someofthenewbene-
and to other ecclesiastical authorities (in epidosis).2?
The donation of monasteries in epidosis from one ecclesiastical au- r0St. Lazaros of Mount Galesion's difficulties with the-metropolitan of Ephesus.in
the

thority to another dates back at least to the first patriarchate of Nicholas mid-eleventh..*".yp.'i¿.agoodexampleofthisconflict.Seethediscussionbelowin
Mysticus (9L9-925).28 It appears that the program was originally in- Chapter 8.
3rThe principal source is the hostile John V of Antioch, Oratio de dìsciplina monastica
tended to assist institutions suffering from mismanagement. By the late ,t d" *orarterlis t)"¡i¡t-i."-tradendis,.d. pa"l Gautier, "Réquisitoire du patriarche l^ean
renth century, the ecclesiastical hierarchy was also employing epidosis t"o d'Antíoche -n*-iã'it .t u.i. ticariat," ir¿ :¡ (1975),77-1y"i.p'^9!' 10' lines 27'8-85)'
*o.t'äi includes, HÈrman,' "Ricerche," 31.6-29. and 'charisti-
arrange internal transfers of monasteries to compensate for significant Modern
""iiiìiJ¡it
i oa+z¡, cols.^øtt-l7;placide de Meester, De monachico statu
DDC, ü;ì.'äip;;ir;
caires,,,
differences in the endowments of episcopal, archiepiscopal, and metro- iuxta disciptina'*'Liriii¡iài, (Vatlcan_city, 1942), t01-8; J.-M.outzourès. "Ta charistika
politan sees. Diocesan monasteries had now become the principal means kai ele'thera .ã*:r,.rir."
';õ;f¡.; Thàologia 34 (t963), 536-69: J5 (1964). 87-123, 271-304.
Jean Darrouzèï, sur le Jharistic ariat,;; Irolychroni.on: .Festschrift Franz Dölger
ãf financial supporr for the hierarchy of the public churches. In the tenth I õàø1, paul Lcmerle, .,un asped du rôle des monastères à Byzance:
iio-esr
iH.id.lb.rg,
century the metropolitan sees had the best endowments of monasteries, Les -onastèresäärrãr"" ã;; í"ì;;.1.r
charisticairei," Académie des lnscriptions et-Belles-.
(Paris, 1967),9-28;and
perhaps because they were powerful and energetic enough to assert con- Leures. Compíe;"r;;'d;;rt"; t¿nncLs de I'année 1967,ianuier-mars
de fondatíons-pieuses.aux
irol over weak private foundations.2e Under ecclesiastical epidosis, cet- Hélène Ahrweiier, "Charisticariat et autres formes d'attribution of
, Xe-XIe siècles," zRvI10 (1967), 1-27, which provides the best constitutional analysis
the charistike. :
2TBalsamon, Comm. ad C. Nicaen. lI, c. 1'4 (R&P 2'613.30-614.5). 32Alexius Studites, Hyþomnerna A' (1027) (RECP 5.21.15-23) V. Grumel, Les regestes
105 (919-925). patriarches (Chalcedon'
'ZsNicholas Mysticus, Epistola No.
2eActes de Làura,yol.'1, No.8 (989), ed. Paul Lemerle (Archiues de I'Athos,YoI.5)
des actes a" priiìàåi'ãi Coitiint*optr, Vol. 1: Les actes des
1,932-47),Nà. S¡:; for imperial donations' see below' note 36'
(Paris, 1970).

158 CHAPTER FIVE
factors discharged their obligations satisfactoril¡ but as time passed on,
the charistikarioi of baser motives predominated. Since the administra-
tion of the program was so decentralized, there was no way to assure
uniformly meritorious charistiþarioi, so favoritism and widespread
abuse flourished.
The persistent petitions of influential laymen soon began to undermine
the original purposes of the charistiþ.e' The turning point occurred when
the authorities began to grant out well- endowed, financially stable insti-
tutions which did not require the restorations so urgently needed by
other, less financially remunerative foundations.33 A similar transforma-
tion in the use oÍ epidosis had already occurred by the tenth century' It
had always been more profitable for a patron to reap the financial re-
wards of a<lministering a wealthy private monastery than to commit the
capital and the property necessary to found a new monastery. Similarl¡
the rewards of administering a healthy monastery under the cbaristike
far surpassed those of restoring a ruined one'
The diversity of motives behind the creation oÍ the charistike contrib-
uted to the subversion of its original purposes. Patriarch Nicholas Chry-
soberges' use of the cbaristiþe represented an attempt to make the im-
provement (bettiosis) and mainten ance (sustasis) of existing ecclesiastical
institutions financially attractive to private benefactors no longer bound
by Nicephorus Phocas' restrictions on philanthropic donations.3a Per-
haps the patriarch hoped that the financial rewards possible under the
charistiþe would serve to narrow the perceived benefits of erecting a new
foundation and those of restoring an old one. Otherwise it would have
been unrealistic for him to suppose that private individuals, gratified by
the end of the ban on endowing new foundations, would continue to
divert their personal resources for the rebuilding of older institutions.
Symeon the New Theologian, appointed by Nicholas Mysticus as åe-
goumenos of the old imperial monastery of St. Mamas in Constanti-
nople, may have been one of these new benefactors' Symeon devoted
himself to rebuilding this monastery after his installation as its director
in 980.35 Local inhabitants had been using part of the site as a cemetery.
Symeon removed the obstructions and restored the entire facility. He also
replaced the furnishings in the monastery's church, a building that dated
back to the time of .f ustinian.
Although Basil II had diverted the patriarchate from its old methods
3rJohn of Antioch, De monasteriis Ch. 9, lines 257-63.
3aPatriarchal intentions are discernible from Alexius Studites, Hypotnnelna
s.20-24).
3rNiketas Stethatos, Vita Symeonis nouì theologi, ed' Irénée Hausherr, OC 12 (1928),
Chs. 30, 34, pp. 40-42, 46.
-7
CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 1159
of taking over independent ecclesiastical foundations, his role in the se-
lection iÍ the char¡itike as the preferred alternative is unclear. He himself
employed the charistiþe exteniively to the end of his long reign.36 ln do-
natìnj imperial monasteries under the program' he may sirnp-ly have
".ontirr.ring
b".r, the practice of such ninth-century emperors as Michael
l, Leo V, Theoþhil,.rs, and Leo VI. It is unlikel¡ however, that he was
aware of Justinian's similar program for churches. Basil II's grants were
like Justinian's in that they were conditional upon the incumb_ent's un-
d..tãking restorarions. The grants bore a closer resemblance, however,
ro those ãf the ninth-cenrury emperors, since Basil II disposed of them as
rewards for secular services to the state. In 999, for example' George
Tiachaniotes , the catapan (governor) of Byzantine Ital¡ granted a mol1-
asrery to a ceitai.t Chrìstopher as a reward for his services to the imperial
(evi-
ca,rsé against the Saraceni. Christopher was to hold the monastery
dently iÁ charistike, although the word itself is not used) as a lifetirne
grant, with the understanding that it would pass thereafter to his son,
it. -ont Theophilos. The two recipients were obliged to protect and
beautify the foundation. Tiachaniotes, for his part, promised to- write the
requesting a chrysobull that would confirm the award'
"-p.ro.
Iiasil II's intentions for the cbaristike, then, appear to have been differ-
enr from those of the church, even if he hoped that they could be recon-
cilecl with the tasks of institutional rebuilcling and restoration. His sub-
ordinate Tiachaniotes' use of the charistiþ.¿ as a personal reward shows
that the secular concerns of the imperial government influenced the pro-
gram from its beginnings. For the moment, the different intentions har-
Éo.ed for the program áid .rot appear incompatible. This was doubtless
because there haã already been a long history of imperial and private
exploitation of religious institutions. The ability of a private patron to
."ir".t a profit from the management (if admittedly not from the con-
struction) of a proprietary religious institution was widely known and
Even ìhe-public' churihes had often depended,upon- powerful
"..ept.d.
luy-rrr, either as nàminal employees or as tenants on fixed leases, for
the maÁagement and exploitation of their properties.-MoreoverJ the gov-
ernment ñself had been involved in the curatorship of much ecclesiastical
property since the early ninth century. So the new development o{ the
,øar¡rt¡it originated and flourished in the tolerant atmosphere of a so-
ciety long acc,rstomed to lay and government exploitation of ecclesiasti-
cal institutions and properties.
A' (R&P
(999)'
36Francisco Tiinchera, syllabus graecørummembranarøz (Naples, 1865),No. 1.0
,.Charistiáaiiat," 15", n. 82; Yahya ibn-Said, Hìstoria, ed. I. Kratchkovsky
.f. [t .*elt.r,
and A. A. Vasiliev PO 23 (1932),445.
1,60 CHAPTER FIVE
DISSENT OF PATRIAR.CH SISINNIUS II
Even at this early stage in the history of the charistike, there was a no-
table dissenter from the new policy for administration of ecclesiastical
foundations. Basil II's third patriarch, Sisin¡ius II, proved to be a deter-
mined opponent of both the charistiþe and epidosls. He issued a decree
that ordiiecl the return of all patriarchal monasteries alienated by his
predecessors, not only those entrusted to laymen through the charistike,
t,rt also those granted to other ecclesiastical authorities undet epidosis.3T
The new patrtarch was an extremely learned man renowned for his
knowledgá of medicine and law.rs He based his objections to these pro-
grams upon a conservative interpretation of the forty-ninth canon of the
Synod in Tlullo, which he interpreted as a ban on âll external exploita-
tion of the properties of ecelesiastical institutions.3e Sisinnius' action
would make-him a hero to the opponents of the charistiþe in the late
eleventh century, but in his own day he was unable to prevent Basil II
from continuing to grant out imperial monasteries under the program.
Sisinnius' decision to condemn not only the charistike but also epidosis,
which had benefited many in the ecclesiastical hierarch¡ probably weak-
ened his position within the church as well.
BASIL II'S LA\í PER/ TON DYNATON (996)
The strong-minded emperor was determined ro promote his own policy
in spite oisisinnius' unwillingness to cooperate. Basil II's famous novel
Peri ton dynaton, issued in January 996 before Sisinnius' elevation to the
patriarchate, illustrates the emperor's own perception of the issues.a0 It is
ih. *out forceful law in the long series of enactments against the insa-
tiable territorial ambitions of the magnates that goes back to the original
law on property speculation issued by Romanus Lecapenus in 922. \X/hile
the law;s bèaring on that problem has justly occupied scholarly attention'
it remains important also for the problem of private religious founda-
tions, specifically those of peasant communities.
Bound only by the lenient legislation of Leo vl, pious villagers often
built churches on their own land in the ninth and tenth centuries. Indi-
vidual villagers might be joined subsequently by fellow peasants who
rTGrumel, Regestes No. 809; recorded by Balsamon, comm. ad c. Nicøen. ll, c. 1'3
(R&P 2.612).
' ,i;oel, Chronographia (CSHB 60)i see also my "sisinnius II: A Reform Patriarch of the
Reign of Basil II," BSC 9 (1983), 54-55.
3eSee above, note27.
a0Basil II, Peri ton dynaton (966) (lGR 3.306-18), esp. Ch. 3; : Dölger' RegestenNo.
783.
CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 161
would all ernbrace monastic life. A crisis of administration occurred
when the original founders passed away. They had left their inheritances
to the institutions, and, according to canon law, it was necessary to pre-
serve the ecclesiastical character of these foundations. The local bishops
intervened at this point, annexed the foundations as diocesan monaster-
ies, and granted them out to wealthy magnates þata dorean (as a gift,
that is, ín chøristike). As a result, the magnates continued to gain com-
munal property in violation of the spirit of existing imperial legislation.al
It appears, then, that the operation of the cbaristiÞe, which Basil II hirn-
self would continue to promote over the objections of Sisinnius II, had
created a loophole in the laws that forbade transfers of land from the
peasants to the magnates.
The bishops had a motive besides personal greed and partiality toward
the magnates for their actions. They really had to step in and prop up
poorly endowed foundations in order to preserve their ecclesiastical
character. The fateful decision of the Council of Constantinople forbade
them to use diocesan funds for this purpose, and so the natural recourse
was to employ the cbaristiþ.¿ as a means of obtaining lay financial assist-
ance. Basil II orderecl that the lay charistikarioi shotld lose their rights
over these institutions and return them to the peasant villagers as com-
munal euþ.teria. The bishops and metropolitans were to enjoy their tra-
ditional rights of commemoration in the liturgy (anaphora), approval of
clerical nominations (sphragis), and correction of spiritual errors (dior-
thosis), but were not to receive anything else that might connote owner-
ship of these institutions.a2
Basil II wanted these monastic foundations to be considered as com-
munal proprietary churches râther than as diocesan monasteries liable to
being granted out under the charistik¿. This suggests that the old distinc-
tions between churches and monasteries had blurred considerably, per-
haps as a result of the atrophy of the public church system in the coun-
tryside. In any case, it was not at all unusual anymore for small monastic
chapels to fulfill the functions of parish churches just as Basil II's law
ordains in this instance.
The emperor's respect for private property rights in foundations in this
law is thoroughly consistent with his repeal of Nicephortts Phocas' novel
as well as his decision in the Piperatos case. He did allow some excep-
tions to his general rules for the treatment of communal churches. Those
euþteria that were under imperial pronoia, and had received solemnia
(dedicatory offerings) or photapsiai (allowances for the expense of illu-
at (/GR 3.313.14-31'4.1)
Peri ton dynaton (966) Ch. 3
a2Peri ton dynaton (/GR 3.314.1-18).
 -:-
162 CHAPTER FIVE
mination) were to remain integral parts of the public church system, but
Basil II would not permit the bishops and metropolitans to give them out
to third parties under the cbaristiþe.a3
Basil fl also excepted from the restriction of his law individually or
communally organized monasteries of a good size (a minimum of eight
to ten monks) and with proper endowment. The ecclesiastical authorities
could grant these institutions out to whomever they wished.aa Founda-
tions of this sort had to have an endowment sufficient to support their
inhabitants since Basil II, unlike Nicephorus Phocas, was unwilling to
granr waivers of the laws of Romanus Lecapenus and Constantine VII
iorbidding the acquisition of peasant properties by ecclesiastical institu-
tions. Thã emperor also providecl that the bishops and metropolitans
should not try to evade the general principle of his law by suddenly in-
creasing the number of monks at communal churches in order to qualifiT
for the exemption allowed for larger institutions.
Basil II's third and last category of exemptions concerned iarge mon-
asreries of ancient foundation.a5 He allowed the bishops and metropoli-
tans to grant out these institutions regardless of the number of monks
resident in them, even if they had become totally depopulated through
the hierarchy's neglect. Most likely Basil II refers here to the numerous
privately founded monasteries that had lost their original patrons over
ihe centuries. It is notable that he placed no restrictions on the bishops
with respect to granting these institutions out for repairs a4d renovations
to charistiþarioi and indeed seems to have censured the bishops for not
giving them attention earlier.
"
Staie policy with respect to private foundations had begun to conflict
with the government's struggle to reverse the patterns of land ownership
in the Byiantine countryside. Therefore, Basil II's regulation of land own-
ership and private religious foundations in the same novel was more than
fort.rìtous. His novel seeks to chart a careful course, allowing the bishops
sufficient latitude to arrange for the restoration of needy institutions
while insuring that these projects did not further disturb the imbalance
of land tenure in favor of the wealthy benefactors.
Basil II's law, then, attempted to preserve the independence of small
private churches in the face of the threat posed by the charistiþe' Other
a3
Per i ton dyn aton ( /GR 3.3 1 4. 1 S -24) ; Íor imperial s olemnia, see su d a, ed'
Anna Adler,
Suidae Lexicoî (Leipzíg, 1933-38), Pt. 4, p. 395, No. 768; the Marcian taxation treatise,
ed. Franz OAlgeì, Aàift-¿ige zur Geichicbte der byzantinischen Finanzuerøahung.besonders
âes fi. und 1i. Jøhrhunlderfs, repr. ed. (Hildesheim, 1960), 11.7 i the donation of Romanus
Lecaoenus to St. Panteleimon und thot. of Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimisces to the
Lavrà monasterv discussed elsewhere in this chapter.
aa
Peri ton dynaton (JGR 3.315.26-316.3).
as
Peri ton dynøton (/GR 3.315.13-19).
CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 163
sources confirm this picture of the continued existence of private
churches.a6 The imperiãl jurist Eustathios Rhornaios, for example, had
to judge a case (sometime before 1034) on the distribution of income
de.iueã from the private church of a village in the theme of Chaldia.aT It
seems rhar a number of individuals had come to join the original pro-
prietors in the ownership of this church dedicated to St. Auxentios
(which gave its name to the village). They all shared in the income from
pious okerings made at the church. The jurist had to establish a scheme
ior allocating the church's i¡come, apparently because the officiati'g
priest had challenged the proprietors' present arrangements'
Eustathios *adã a distinction between votive offerings, which served
as furnishi¡gs or decorations for the church, and all other forms of in-
corne. The fãrmer he reserved for the church itself. He divided the rest
into four shares. The church received one share' while the lay holders of
pronomia (privileges) obtained three shares to divide among themselves.
The jurist also took care to preserve the independence of tbe protoþapas
(head priest) by stipulating that the owners could remove him from
ihe finåncial adminiitration of the church only for misappropriation of
funds.
Eusrathios Rhomaios' decision, recorded in his lawbook which was
complied sometime after 1034, clearly reflects the legal thinking of Basil
II,s tìmes. The jurist shared this emperor's approval of private property
rights in ecclesíastical institutions. His neat distinction between the gifts
and revenues necessary for the operation of St. Auxentios on the one
hand and the surplus income that rightfully belonged to the proprietors
on the other parallels the contemporary allocation of ecclesiastical reve-
nues under tie cbaristike. Indeed, insofar as the arrangements at St. Aux-
entios were representative of traditional practices in private churches,
they demonrtr"t. o.t.. again that Byzantine society accepted the com-
patibiliry of an owner's private profit with the proper functioning of an
ecclesiastical institution.
RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT OVER THE CHARISTIKE
Despite this sentiment, Sisinnius II was able to stop patriarchal partici-
patiron in the charistiþ.e. He could hardly prevent its employment by
a6E.g., christopher Phagoura's private_oratory at chrysopolis.restored by Symeon the
N"* äåoiogi"n isee beloñ, Chapier 6), the Church of St. Auxentius
in the theme of Chal-
ãi" tr". Eustãthios Rhomaiôs, Peira 15.8 ÍJGR ].aal; and the Monastery 01 the protoues-
tiirìä Si^r"" on Bithynian'Oly-pur 1seè Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum, ed. Thurn, p'
396).
oiEustathios Rhomaios, Peira 15.8 (JGR LaÐ; cf. Ahrweiler, "Charisticariat," 7;Her'
l-nrn,
,,Cf,i... p rivate,,' 306-7 . For the Peira, see H. J. Scheltema, "Byzantine Law," ín The
Cambridge Màdieual'History,Yol. 4 (2nd ed.), Pt. 2, pp' 5 5-77 , at 7I-72'
 -T
1.64 CHAPTER FIVE CRISIS AND RESOLUTION 165

other authorities as long as the emperor, the metropolitans, and the bish-
ops thought that it was possibie to allow a lay administrator. a personal
piofit withour endangering a religious foundation's original purposes.
Yet the emperor was soon to anger the ecclesiastical hierarchy with a
-fhis
measure mãre clearly opposed to their inrerests. was his law of
1002, which required wealthy property owners to assume the burden of
the defaulted taxes of their poorer neighbors.as This obligation, the alle-
lengyon, had traditionally been vested collectively in the defaulters' fel-
low peasants in the fiscal commune. Sisinnius II's successor Sergius II
(ggg-1,01,9) led a delegation of bishops and abbots in protesting to tlìe
emperor against rhe severe burden that this shifting of the burden of
paiing the allelengyonhadplaced on ecclesiastical institutions.ae Basil II,
whosã scorn of learned advice was proverbial, refused to change his mind
and cancel the legislation.
The emperor was concerned with obtaining the cooperation of the
church in ihe use of the charistiþe. lHis law on the allelengyon, issued at
a time when the patriarchate was declining to participate in this pro-
gram, must have placed great pressure on all of the hierarchy for their
iooperation. It may well have been at this time that, faced with this bur-
den of increased taxation, the leaders of the church began to grant out
even wealthy institutions in order to escape the new fiscal obligations
which they could not easily pay by themselves.50
The new patriarch, Sergius II, came from a family that was familiar
with the problems of deteriorating institutions and the benefits of coop-
eration with the emperor.sl Long ago, Romanus Lecapenus had aided in
the restoration of his family's monastery oÍ the magislros Manuel, inher-
ited from Patriarch Photius. Another family religious foundation, the
church and monastery of St. Panteleimon in Constantinople, had also
been the beneficiary of imperial largess, for Romanus Lecapenus had
awarded it a solemnioz to provide for the living expenses of its resident
monks. Perhaps this appreciation prompted him in 1016 to issue a decree
a8Dölger, Regesten No. 793, recorded by Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum (ed. Thurn, p.
347, lines 76-80).
oiDespite Ostrogorsky, H85,307, Skylitzes says nothing about protests against this law
by lay magnates.
'toAccor"ding
to Epanagoge 10.7, the public churches had difficulty meeting their tax
obligations in"the late ninihlentur¡ even before they faced the additional burden imposed
by Basil II's law on the allelengyon.
srTheophanes Continuatus,'Chronographia 4.50 (CSHB 433-34);Joel,Chronographia
(CSHB 6d); Zonaras, Epitome historiãrum 17.8; and Nikephoros Kallistos,_Ezørratio de
àpiscopis iíyzantii (pG'147, col. 467). The identity of Sergius,_ nephew of Photius and
Patriaich Sárgius II, asserred by the sources, seems impossible unless he is conceded a lon-
gevity of n.^.ìy hundred years. For the monastery of Manuel, see Janin, Géographie,YoI.
3, pp. 320-22. "
reversing his predecessor's opposition to the cbaristiþe and epidosis.s2
Sergius advanced an alternative explanation of the forty-ninth canon of
Thullo, which he interpreted as prohibiting donations of monasteries only
when secularization of the facility resulted. He ruled that the grants were
canonical if the beneficiaries preserved the ecclesiastical character of the
donated institutions.
By this time it must have been as difficult for contemporaries as it has
been for historians today to determine the correct meaning of this Thullan
canon. The patriarchate certainly had at its disposal ample canonical
precedent with which to justify continued opposition to the charistike.s3
The decision to disregard this earlier legislation and to reinterpret the
Ti'ullan canon was a capitulation to contemporary pressures and the
wishes of the emperor. Perhaps the patriarch hoped to trade cooperation
in the charistìþe br a concession on the allelengyon. Basil II had prom-
ised to give the matter due consideration when he returned from the
Bulgarian War. The patriarch took the occasion of the emperor's trium-
phal return tû Constantinople in 1019 to press once again for its repeal.5a
Yet Basil II still turned a deaf ear to the request.
The patriarchate was actually hard pressed to defend the rights that it
already possessed. ln 998 Sisinnius II had allowed the metropolitan of
distant Alania to collect a small amount of personal provisions from the
patriarchal monastery of St. Epiphanios iu Kerasos whenever he had to
undertake the difficult journey to Constantinople.55 Upon the metropol-
itan's death, his clergy sought to represent this concession to Basil II as a
grant of full proprietary rights over this monastery. Sergius II feared that
Basil II would accept this usurpation of a patriarchal monastery as a
metropolitan institution. He managed to locate a copy of the original
concession of Sisinnius II and issued a hypomnema (memorandum) in
May 1,024, which set the record straight.s6
Ultimatel¡ the patriarch was no more successful than Sisinnius II in
cooperating with Basil II for the best interests of the church. If he had
hoped to trade patriarchal participation in the charistike Íor repeal of the
allelengyon, he miscalculated badly. Basil II never did repeal the allelen-
gyon, and the resumption of patriarchal grants under the charistiþe re-
s2Grumel, Regestes No. 821; reported by Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Nicaen. lI, c. L3
(RUP 2.614.s-24).
t'8.g., C. Nicaen. lI,c. 12, i3 (R&P 2.592-93,6'l'2),as well as C. Chølc.,c' 24 (R&P
2.271), which Balsamon himself cited in connection with Sisinnius II's original decree
against the charistiþe and epidosis.
saskylitzes, Synopsis historiølum (ed. Thurn, p' 365, lines 1-3).
s5Sisinnius ll, Typiþon (998), ed. Gerhard Ficker, "Das Epiphanios-Klostef in Kerasus
und der Metropolit Alaniens," BNJ 3 (L922),92-1'04, at 93.
s6Sergius lI, Hypomnema (1024), ed. Ficker, "Epiphanios-Kloster," 94-95.
 -

166 CHAPTER FIVE

hands of
opened another category of institution¡ fr1-ble to al¡use at the
rlnr.r,tpulous laymen" It was not until 1'027, safely after the death of
nãrilri that patriarch Alexius Studites (1025-43) was able to issue leg-
CHAPTF,R SIX
islatioí designed to curb rhe a6uses oÍ tl'rc charistiþe.1gis condemnation
;f ;rr; pru.ä.", indicates that the latter years of Basil II's reign had con-
,titut"d^" period of rampant abuses and reckless disregard for the origi-
nal ptrrpoies of institutional rebuilding and restoration'
Private Religious Foundations in the Ag.
Ii,; r.-ptation for the charistikøriol to exploit their temporally lim- of the Charistike
had
ited grants in wanton fashion was extremely strong. The author.ities
pr.frãúfy hoped that these new benefactors would pattern their behavior
patrons
àr, th"t åf conscientious founding farnilies, ttt the newly assigned
The c6urch already had
i;.[.J their piety and enlightenãd self-interest. its I) Y THE end of the eleventh century, we are toid that neariy all mon-
who recklessly abused
many unhappy experiencel with lay tenants I]) asteries, large or srnall, ancient or tnodern, had come into the hancls
,.,rrát propËrìies.rt'Now, instead of indiviclual properties, the instit'tions
of the charistiþariol.1 Reportedly the only exceptions were a few very
ihr*r"tu.u ancl all their landed estates s'ffered blatant misuse and even recent foundations, whose patrons would naturally have watltcd to di-
secularization.5s The seeming naivety of the patriarchate may
indicate
rect them personally. Many of the institutions that the emperors and the
rily ;h. intensity of the pressures brought to bear against it by the em-
ecclesiastical hierarchy let out in chøristike originated as private foun-
p.râ, the laity interested in gaining access to the wealth of the
dations, although they had now become public responsibilities. Thus,
church.
^na
wlrile the development of the charistiþe is important chiefly for the his-
tory of the public churches of the empire, it also had an important bear-
ing on the fate of the olcl private foundations. \X¡ith its development, a
new class of temporary beneficiaries replaced the traditional founding
families. Charistikarioi were chiefly laymen, but some religious, espe-
cially monks, also played an important part in restoring ecclesiastical
foundations out of their personal resources. Niketas Stethatos' life of
Symeon the New Theologian provides an early example of this activity.2
tX/hen Symeon had to leave the capital in 101'2 after a dispute with a
patriarchal official, the nobleman Christopher Phagouna gave him a
ruined oratory of St. Marina located on his personal property at Chry-
sopolis. Symeon spent the next few years restoring it as part of a new
monastic foundation. This is one small indieation that the grânting out
of a religious institution in charistiþ.e occasionally might have led to the
improvement of that institution's well-being. Indeed, it ought to be em-
phasized that the historical record of the charistil<e is derived ehiefly from
sources that differ only in the degree of liostility witli which they view it.
rX/hile it would be perverse to argue against the overwhelming evidence
that the charistike was a flawed institution, exploited by many unscru-
tJolrn of Antioch, De nonasteriis Ch. 9, line s 267--7 5 .
2Niketas Stethatos, Vita Ch. 100 (ed. Hausherr, p. 138): for Symeon, see A. Kazhdan,
"Predvaritelnie zarnecl.raniya o mirovozzrenii vizantiiskogo mistika x-xi vv. Simeona," By-
zantinoslauicrt 28 (1,967),1--38; for this foundation, see Janin, Céograpbie,Yol. 2, p.25,
57For these NJ 7.3.2 (535), N/-1.20'8 (544), and P' Cøìro Masp' 1'67087 arrd lean Darrouzès, "Le mouvement des fondations monastiques au XIe siècle," T(rM 6
problems, see
5sAlexius Studites, Hypomîlema A' (R&P 5'21"23-22'1')' (7976),pp.159-76, No. 11, p. 162.
 AGE OF THE CHARTSTIKE 1,69
168 CHAPTER SIX

protospøthuria Maria, daugirter of (Bardas?) skleros, and was unable to

that nothing in the way of
pulous individuals, it should not be forgoften ..p"y in. debt. panberios held the charistiþ¿ of the monastery of St. Ma-
and beneficiaries' That the
a defense for it survives from its promoters -ä. i,, Constantinople, and a courr decision directed that he could acquit
way as to tra¡.sfer the,admin-
cbaristiþeseems to tl"* opt'"ttd in such a his debt by transferiing the rights to administer this institution to Maria
istrationofmuchpropertyfromtheberrefactorfamtltesoftnepre-
rising political Sklerina. Þe.haps this monastery was the i'stitution of the sanìe name
irdi;iå;rs of more modest wearth but
Basilian nobility to which symeo,r ìh. New Theologian had workecl to restore under Patri-
ã-¡l.lrr, ."náo, but have earned it additional ill will from those ag- u.ln Niånolas Chrysoberges in ih. 980t.' Alexius Studites' decision of
its abolition at the end of the
;tt."; ;"gn",., *t o tttt 'o "'pport 1027 aimed to remove ,u.h .ur., as this from the iurisdiction of the
im-
eleventh centurY. p.ri"l .ou.,r, and to prevent a woman from ever again holdingthe char-
istiþe of a monastery.
REFORMS O}. PATRIARCH ALEXIUS STUDITES
(1025-43) The patriarch *as also concerned with the proper operation of epi-
dosls. foetropolitan sees rhat had let out their depenclent monasteries
OneoftheearlycriticsofthecharistiþewasAlexiusStudites,thelast
of Basil.ll' Not long under this piogrn- to subordinate bishoprics were now seeking them
natriarch of .Consta,ttinopi" "l"t"d during the reign back becauie the metropolita's were unable to meet their tax obligations
cleath, he took acrion ro curb abuses in the program"
;il;;ìr;;p.;;;b in November 1027' ro rhe state. Basil II's iaw imposing the payment of allelengyon upon
His first hypo*nr*o,;'ä;t;t"t issued in synod
ecclesiastical institutions was itill in effect, and it probably played
an
(dia'
the charistiþe for rhe maintenance
resrares the original plrpor., of important part in the financial difficulties of the metropolitan sees.
mone),well-being t and the enlargement Iø.tatlsyll^of eccle-
"tìtZ"iø;, misuse of the grants'3 Alåxius St.räites had not yet secured repeal of this law, so he supported
siastical foundations, and btiouns the scandalous the metropolitans by ordering the bishops to return these monasteries
to
principally by setting up
ih. putri"r.h proposed to remedy the abuses the clearing-house for their original overlords'
the office of his chancJlo., ,h. citartophytax,
ãs
A few"months larer, in January 1028, Alexius Studites issued his sec-
ond hypomnema) a clocument that supplernents and strengthens his
ear-
henceforth the own-
"*''""'andregistrationofallgrantsofecclesiasticalinstitutions're-
gãiáf"r, the dãno. or the recipiãnt. He hoped that tl., t.girt",ior-, oÁ th" charistiþe.6 Once again the patriarch decried the
"t
ers of these institutions would pay more
atténtion the character of the
to of the in-
them to post- security' He apparently
."pr.ñy of evil charistiþarioi, who appropriated the incomes
DrosDective ,..lpi.nt, stitutions that they were supposed to protect and drove away the monks
""a "q"i" or recipients'
är"."r"".d^;;r^;ñ;;ìi the righi to reiect unsuitable grants use of this who resided in them. Alexius ordered that the metropolitans should ex-
made
although it is not.uid..,tih"ut.ith.rie or
his successors
pel such evildoers, by force if necessary. He also directed that litigation
authoritY.
for controlling who ;;iri"; out of ,rr.h ."r., be tried only in the court of the patriarchal
To preserve the effectiveness of this mechanism ,ynod] and denied the competence of secular courts to deal with coun-
original recipients to
*ouri receive rhe grants, Alexius had to forbid the
tárr,.rií, brought by the proioetai (that is, the cbaristikarioi) of these
in-
ìã ãtntt parties' The success of the patriarchate in
transfer their rights stitutions. Tñe patriarch obliged all pronoetal to render accounts for
that the charistiþariol would never be-
;i;i;t,hi, .Jgutuiln .nrur.¿ institutions they managed' It was pos- their ecclesia stiial diaþoniai, tiereby subjecting the holders of charistiþe
come the de facto o*n"r, of the to the same constraints applicable to the administrators of individual
(usually' though not
sible to include ,..onÀ"ty or tertiary beneficiary tracts of ecclesiastical property.
" of iht otiginal recipient) in the original letter of dona-
;ì;;;; "-r.i"ri"" a perpetual, hereditary other provisions of the-s econd hypomnema reveal the extent to which
tion. yer no one .outl""p.it henceftrth to hold luy,r,.n had enlarged and consolidated their hold over the institutional
charistil<e. .h.,..h in the century thar had passecl since l-eo vl's concessions to the
AlexiusStuditesalsoforbadementoholdacbaristikeoveraconvent in the local magnates who ob-
A decision recorded -ugn",.r. One su.h provision condemns
of nuns, or women to hold one over a monastery' i"ií.¿ by petition the rights of public churches (þ.atholikai ekklesiai) for
were
EustathiosRhomaios'lawbookthePeirashowshowthissortofsituation
panberios owed 62litrai of gold to the their own þriuate foundations. By 1028 the ecclesiastical authorities
could come uuo.rt.oîh, fut.i.i"n
s
Janin,GéograPhie,Yol. 3, P' 34:
by Gru¡nel, ,'Ài.*ií.
3Alexius Studites, Hypomnema A' (|027).(R&P 5.20-24); commentary St.îdites, Hypo*ià*a B' (Rð¿P 5.25-32); commentary by Grumel,
Regestes,

R"s;rt;; Ñ.' s¡-1, aid ú'ttrn"n, "Ricerche"' 1L.0:21' 22' Vol. 1, No. 835.
aEustathios nfr"-ri..,ïr,ä'f S.ìãtJCrt 1.48); cf. Lemerle, "Charisticaires"'
 AGE OF THE CHARISTIKE 171.
170 CHAPTER SIX

charistiþe was probably not a feasible alternative to reform at the

time
in a very weak position to resist the aggrandizement of private churches,
ro rak; action, for Basil II's law on the allelengyon remained in
even those in private dwellings, because Leo VI had sanctioned these sites he chose
effect until after the accession of Romanus III Argyrus
(1028-34)'8 The
as places of regular worship and baptism. Alexius Studites hoped to re-
strict private institutions to a single service of the liturgy each feast day. hard-pressed public churches surely could not have taken back
^r*^¿y
all of the monãsteries granted out to laymen because they could
not hope
As his rneans of enforcement, he relied upon the traditional sanction of
deposition of the offending cleric. to rlreet their tax obligations.
The prevalence of the charistiþe in the eleventh century did not
mean
As we have seen, the metropolitans depended upon the revenues of
their monasteries to meet their tax obligations. Some of these monas- the totàl eclipse of traditional private institutions' The literary sources

teries had provisions in their charters of foundation which specified continue to mention private insiitutions in a most inciclental way' taking
a certain syneisphora (contribution) which they were to pay to their their existence for granted as commonplace in Byzantine society.e Sky-
metropolitans. Over the course of time, certain unspecified individuaìs iirr.r, f.t example,ielates that the protouestiarios Symeon, a courtier of
(charistikarioi?) had diverted these payments to themselves. Alexius now Constantine VIil (1025-28), fled to his private monastery on Mount
(1034-
ordered that they should return them to the metropolitans. olympus in Bithynia when he fell out of favor with Michael IV
+ri. rn 1,017 a courr omcial, the koubouklesios stephen, made dona- a
Certain mètropolitans and bishops had actually endangered the fi-
nancial stability of their sees by granting out their own monasteries to ,i;; i; despoteia of a monastery of the T6eotokos (located near the fa-
mous Lavra monastery on Mount Athos) to his daughter, the
nun Maria.
laymen under the charistiþe. Alexius ordered that these officials should
In the 1040s a series of private foundations came into existence in
Greece
select only the idioperiorista (self-determined, that is, independent, pri-
foun-
vately founded, non-diocesan) monasteries for future donations. He in- for which government ãffi.iulr served as benefactors. Some similar
structed the metropolitans and bishops to retain control over those insti- dations oñ Cyp.,r, in the 1090s parallel the earlier foundations in
tutions that served as their own residences (episkopeia), as well as those C."r... Mor.óu.r, the famous courtier and literary savant Michael Psel-
los mentions in passing several private hereditary monasteries
in his ex-
that provided essential financial support for the operation of their sees.
The þatriarch pronounced the annulment of all grants of monasteries i.nriu. .orr.rpon.l"rr.Jnf the mid-eleventh century.l0 By themselves these
incidental .eferences might suffice to dernonstfate the continued
exis-
that did not conform to these new regulations.
In a little over forty years since the charistiþe had begun during the i.n.e of traditional privale foundations in the age oÍ the charistiþ-e'There
is also documentary evidence, however, which presents a
more vivid view
reign of Basil II, the program had come to pose a Srave danger to its
ecclesiastical sponsors. If Alexius Studites had not taken such decisive of ,h.r" institutions than any other sources since the Egyptian papyri of
acrion in 1028, it might have been only a matter of time before laymen the sixth century'
controlled not only the church's institutions and properties, but its bish-
oprics as well.
Given the extent of lay control over the church, it is not surprising that
THE \íILL OF EUSTATHIOS BOILAS (1059)
the patriarch felt constrained to reamrm the basic principle that individ-
ual ilerics should be obedient ro rheir superiors, the metropolitans. In
The most important of these documents is the will of the provincial
mag-
this matter, too, Leo vl's concessions had aggravated long standing prob-
lems. Clerical insubordination before diocesan authorities had always nâte EustatÈios Boilas (1059), which makes provisions for three
been an undesirable accompaniment of the proliferation of privâte sSkylitzes, synopsis historiarum (ed. Thurn, p. 375, lines 54-55); cf. ostrogorsk¡ HBS,
churches in Byzantium, and now that laymen controlled nearly all the 322.
""lbkylirr.r, synopsis historiarum, p.326, lines_2g-32; Darrouzès, "Fondations,"
pp.
monasteries as well, the evils multiplied.
166-ãs;Ñ; h-á+, cz-+s,47; Ácies de íauta, vol' 1, No' 22 O017), ed' Lemerle'
It is easy, with the advantages of hindsight, to criticize Alexius Studites' --
ioMonurr..y of Nársou, *fti.ft Psellos was ephor: Michael Psellos, Epstola 135' ed'
response to the rampant abuses oÍ the charistiþe.7 He decided to attempt "i
K, A.3;;h;;,.nln S 1l"rir, tgZ,6), fo, this instituú-ou.see Paul Gautier, "Précisions
histo-
t-t 0; Monastery of Morochar-
to iefotm the program rather than to abolish it entirely. Abolition of the ;ì;;;. ,;; ñ;nastère de 1ä'N)rlràu,- nes 34 Os7s.). r0
lJ.8 (ed' Sathas)r
,^-1,ä,"pr.fi... Epistola ss t;i. irthr.lr Monastery.of Patrikios,.Eplsrola
N;;;;il;';'r"h; vã.à..n'J rrr.rio.,', Epistota ri1,.ed. Edu".d Kurtz and Franz Drexl,
'¡tliiiri,t;i pr"tti
7E.g., Charanis, "Monastic Properties," 78,but cf' Herman, "Ricerche," 321 and "Char- s,iptø *¡niio, vol. lMilan, 1.941); for all these instirutions, see Ahr-
i
isticaires," col.613. weiler, " Charis tícatiat," 25 -26.
 1,73
AGE OF THE CHAR/STIKE
172 CHAPTER SIX

were a church of the T'heo- inadditiontotheirnormalsalaries.Thewillmentionsonlyonecleric

the rest of the
churches that belonged to his family''1 These who received u gr",rt oi landed properry.lT Apparently monastic broth-
Barbara, which was
,.f..r-i[", Boilas nJ¿ t uitt himself, a church ofa St. clergy lived adjacent .ii-," .frr*n of in.
ih.o,òËor as a
;t;;;;;ttl.udltlo,rut place of interment' and church of St' Moclestos
erhood.
300 nomismata on the fur-
erectedbyBoilas,mother.',Thefirsttwoinstitutionswerelocatedatthe by
of lberia, annexed Boilas' will maintains that he had spent
...i., ,f'sril"s' lan,leJ f.rrr.rrion, in the theme Modestos was located ,irnìrg, of the Theotokos.ls The long list of sacrificial vessels, vestments'
iîriiIl ", the turn of ,h. åt"'u'y' The church of St'migration to.Iberia' ;;;;;k book, ,no*ï'thut Boilaî furnished his church generouslv,
ir ê"pp"¿".ia, Boilas' old homeland before his
^^'ifråi.rrisions ;ir.*na* fo.rnd"tio., of a private church was not always
so expensive'
will for his private churches are old fashioned of illuminating this
He provided tz ,o*),*otì ^nnually for the
of Boilas' costs
and traditional. The *,tt ¿."¿t propertìes
for the support oJ the founda- produces a figure.of at least
for Boilas' heirs' So' church which, added to the clerical salaries,
;;r;ilr-;r.tuins effective ton"ol of these lands the institution.lg At least
Bouzina to 38 nomisma¿o fo, tt,. "nn.,al cost of running
;ñt-;;;h .;.ly on the will bequeaths h'alf of his propertv ofdespoteiø," it fourorfiveclericssharedthe26nomismataallottedforsalaries,which
,f* .frír.f, of the Theotokos in "cotnplete and inalienable to be the lor*s a'd
to th. .i.ri."l rank of the individuals concerned.
,rl*qrì*fy srates rh;; his children åncl. heirs were Boilas therefore r"inri.l,r-,r.e of the four
"""îi.ã^"...rding traditional requirements of
on their fulfillment of his their omis-
masters of all his personal property' contlngent l^" on the iunàing of pr-ivate foundations, despite
ihe ,.,ppo" åf the.cltrgv and provision for commemo-
J;*;b The will does not make
;;;;;;;g".di'g -Boilas sion by Leo VI rro,r, ìtl.-i.å of th. Basilil<a.
;;ii;; .ìË"rty intended tñat the Theotokos should have a a significant omission in
-;r.s.,3 roätãå pr."ir-" for structural maintenance' private foun-
light of the contempot"ty ttlt¿ of ruined,and
,ratrimonialratherthananindependentadministration'lnasimilarvein' dilapidated
offerings,
ih;';ìü,o.-"kt rr r¡. f'rnishings of this church as consecrated ownership (des- ä;i;;t. Perhaps similar åmissions by benefactors over the ages were cru-
ü;; ;ilt;t Boilas' d"ugl*t' tiiht' of use (chresis) and ],]ï;nl;üing on th. ..tri, of priváte fou.ndations in the late tenth cen-
po-te¡A over them. Boilãs his descendants only from alienating
"'t'ui-ntd arrange- ,* ifr", lJd tã th. innovation of the cbaristiþe'
'-ioll;;
iorlr..."t.d offerings without the consent of the priests' These son in st. Bar-
great land- ir"l-"r..^a, ìui¿ . rest his mother, wife, and and
ments seem little changeJ the days of Justinian and the burial there, roo, for funeral
'intt bara,s. His will p.ouiá|, for his own yearly fot
owner benefactors of Roman EgYPt' allowed 12 nomismata
to foresee the needs of his services and memoriui--"tttt'" He
As a conscientious b"rr.f".toi, boilas tried rhese memori"t ,.ruiiår.-äl¿¿irion
to this specific gndo.wTent, Boilas
earmarked for the
.nuì.ft.r. The half of ,nt ptoptrty of Bouzina that he ;;;;;Jtr. Barbara's an annual income
of zoo modii of wheat' 1'000
26 nomismata
;;;;;; of the church orint Theotoþos was to provide of these
of fresh
l¡rri¡ otwine, and an unspecified amount p"'lh?::-!:,:1Ï fruit' These two sepa-
for the ,o[] 6úu'ies) of the.attending clergy' One ;;;; ;;; the distinction between
mortis
;i;;;; álro ,...iu.J o')o'o (wages in kind)'1aasBoilas
"n'nï"ffy encouraged one 'ecall Egypt' As in.the time of Leo Vl'
a calligrapher, but we causø and ¡ntr, ,¡roj tounJ in ny"untine for
l;;;, to supplement his incom.J.o- his skill the other clergy' Boilas ;h;;;;t;"t that churches receiued as a result of endowments com-
do not hear of no.,-...l.riustical employments
for for their financial well-
memorative masses .ãntirrrr.d to be important
staffed his church in part with freedmen
whom he encouraged to become
fourth century and perhaps being.
clerics.li The practicåãu,., u, least to the late of the Theotokos at the
in Byzan- Apparently Boilas had not yet built the church
."ul .o*-à., f.nt,rr. of the operation of private churches time of his relatives' deaths. Subsequentl¡
he preferred to continue to use
" g.ir", prouidrã special legacies for four of these freedmen clerics foi his family' Since burial in
iir"r.,. Sr. Barbara's as rhe ;;;;t resting-place
familv, it
limited to the founder's
ilEusrarhios Boilas, Diatypo.sis, reedited by Paul^Lemerle, cinq études sut le
xle siècle a church *", u ,p..åì-;;irii.g" ur,rälìy of
(paris, 1977), ZOijö, *iit ..ä,".náry. 29-35r Sp.ro'_úryo-ni'. Jr- "The \lill of is probable that St. Bartara's was a
private church iust like the church
Ityzanrin
a provincial Magnate, Irlå,i,i"i i¡à,r", ilojti,"
lt
ooi, (tssz), zøl-lz. provides an
theTheotokos,butwithseparatearrangementsforitsfinancialsupport'
English translatiõn arld some valt¡able commentary' of 3 nomismatø Íor his de-
t2DiatrDosis.fin.. CV-ïb3,ìt,ri.ft .f the Thebtokos; lines 103-8: church of
St' Bar- Boilas' will also ,.,,'tp ;:";h ""dot'itnt
b^ru; linát 23)-38: chrrrch of St' Modestos'
t\ Diarvþosis,lines 99-t03; cf. L17-19 t- Diatvþosis,lines 203-61 cf ' lc9'219-21
to p¡a¡y,posis,lines 9C-l03, 2 I5-l9. 18
D i atiP osis, lines 1 1 7-1 9'
: 2t -20'
o'¡ r1y'pá t i t', lines 2 0 1-2, io I -ø, zto -tz' cf ' 9
21 5
-19 P¡,l¡y'Posi s, lines 99-1 03'
",uE.g., polychroniu., ,nÍ'rä-l;;;*" ä¡ the consul caesarius, mentíoned above in '"
Didtyþosis, lines 103-8'
'zo
Chapter 1.
 AGE OF THE CHAR/STIKE 175
CHAPTER SIX
1.74
hinr
in Cappaclocia'21 He may also his sons and heirs John ancl Nicholas dici precisely that, r.eplacing
ceased mother's church of St' Modestos with another rnonk named Hilarion. The troubled times of the Norman
for its future administration' but the darn-
have made ,oro. of southern Italy made it impossible for Hilarion to fulfill the
"rru,tfttt-tt"tt
aged state of the tcxt uiihi, point
frustrares a clerermination of his plans. ".l"prii"r
such conee-rtr for a familv ter-s of the contract also, and he volu¡tarily turned over his admi¡istra-
Iloilas may have b..t';;;;dional in *ow.rlc tion to the brothers. Then the site reverted to wasteland in the absence
property. It is easy to de-
fo'ndation so far distJåt ii"- ,fr. bulk of hìs
foundations might have come oi n .np"ble developer. Finall¡ John succeeded in convinei'g the ab-
duce from thl, ."n-pit ho* -uny
private
instit'.rtions in the absence of such bot of th" -onur,.ry of St. Athanasios to take over the property with
to fend for themselv., "r'i.¿.p.nåent rights of "perpetual desPoteia'"
a conscientious ber.ref actor' i't-,. -otrt r Gerasimos and Hilario' helcl a responsibility similar to
shows seareely
Boilas's will, composed on the frontiers of the empire' tn"t or the laymen who received an ecclesiastical institution in charistil¿e
foundatìons
unî ,..ågni,ion of iftt ãt"sttt facing.ptivate
ccclesiastieal
showed a keener from tlre emperor or an ecclesiastical official. The charistiåe, however,
,,' irri *,i-.ì"ï.trr, .*i"tyl otl'e' piiuate benefactors
was always associated .¡¡ith an institution already in existence,
whereas
spiritual healt'
awareness of the perils ,i rfr. chørisiil<e
for the fiscal and the
the contráct drawn up by Calones is a private document envisioning
to the inde-
of their foundations' il;.;t founders who wished preserve-
there were
them out of the hands oÍ char- cfeation of a nev¿ foundation as a conelition of tenure. Perhaps
o.tä.t..-rf tl.,"i, b.ntiälont u"¿ keep
without protectors and similar written or verbal agreements between the proprietors oi
private
istikarioirealize¿ th";;;;; t;t'ltl no' låve them sort of financial
for long. The problem was pârticu- .llu..h., and their .l-,or.n1l..gymen to provide some
exnecr trrem to ..,"i,, *ãápendence suppoft in exchange for the performance of liturgical services.-It
is note-
ii,.ligiou'lire who did not have naturalheirs
i;"t"i"H;r;"';i;;ã;; *åi,fry that in Calones' .o,rtr".t the proprietor was able to dismiss his
I f"äiiÏro toot after the foundation after his death' withont interfere'ce from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Only
"r .l;rg;;""
aft.î't1vo failures to secure suitable clerics capable of fulfilling the terms
of the colttract under the traditional arrangements did calones' heirs
EVIDENCE FROM MONASTIC CARTULARIES
turn the chrrrch over to an indepenclent monastery as an unconditional
Thesurvivalofsomeeleventh-centurymonasticcartulariesfromMount donation.
A;ñ;;ti Byzantine i'^ry ptt-its. aáditional study of the construction' A docurnent from Byzantine Italy shows a monk and his son granting
monasteries' Laymen of this a castrum (fortified setilement) in 1015 to the abbot of the
monastery of
management' and ,,""'-låion of private
clerics, particularly-monks,
era charaderistically ;;lì;ã;p;I] iniividual St.Arrania,onceagainontheconditionthattherecipientwoulderecta
the protos
of new foundations' In turn' ,1ew chu.cÍr on th; site.2a Another clocument, of 996, shows
to take the initiative in the cot'strt'ction
granting the
these clerics f..qu.ntlf "-pfáytã othe-r
laymen to carry out the actual of the Athonite monasteries and the other begoumenoi
initiative, however, did not to Athanasios' abbot of
labor of erecting ,fr.r.'inrrii"tíons.t, Clerical r"i""¿ *on"rr.ry of Monoxyletou in despoteia
once they were the imperial -onnrt.ry of Tä Melana with a view to its restoration'2s
r.u¿"ro .t..i.ui o*n..rlrlp of the foundarions to
".*r*rriy
cornpleted. Àtrho"gn a simple prop.rty transaction is concluded here according
i.rg-.åUfirh.d .,o.-t for the transmission of private ecclesiastical
Anltaliandocunrentofl'061'makesthispointclear"2.AcertainCa-
lones, who was a taxiarch (military co*ttlaidet¡'
had granted a small ptoi.",u, there is eviclence of the strong contemporary concern with the
oiece of land to a nronk nanred Gerasimos'
along with a clla¡ter granting ,.rårn,ion of ruined monasteries which was being pursued concurrently
hí' or a ehurch and a
ilii';'.';i",;;;n] ;;;ãi¡"'"rCalãnes ""1ion
"po" to expel Gerasimos,if he rlid not
under the charistiþe.
ln of the theme of Hellas, ar-
1024 Tornikios Kontoleon, strdtegos
monastery' The charter allowed
ranged to purchase the monastery of Pithara, a small monastery
Sometime after Calones' death' on
fulfill the terms of ,h. ;;; 'nti'àt'"tlty' for the sum of 2I0 nom-
Moînt Athäs, from the monk George Charzana
D iatYPosis, lines 232-35'
21 ismata.26 Tornikios planned to become a monk himself and was entitled
see AndreGuillort. "La
22,frjnchera, sGM No. i"s tlots),.ø. monasric propricrors.Economia
x-xi). e dtrrtto canon- Uf u" oru"t bill oi sale to transmit it to his chosen successor and his
.l"rr;^å;ì ;;;"chi-proprieàri'nelt'lialia bizantina.(sec.
pe.t il Medio Euo B2 (1970)' 1s9-72'
ico:' Bulletino d"tt'trt¡tutá iiåiiià' i'ü¡o'"' zaTrinchera, 5GM No. l5 (t015)'
23Gertrude Robinson, 'lifi;;;;;;Jt#;^tv of õreek Mon"ttttv of St' F'lias ancl No' 12 (996), ed' Lernerle'
-the Doc' No' 8
2s Actes de Laura,Yol' 1'
st. Anastasius or crruo.,.,ä;'T;; ðili;ú" oc 1's (reze)' 118-27s' 16 Actes de Laura',Yol. 1, No. 25 (1024), ed' Lemerle'
(1061 ).
 177
AGE OF THE CHARISTIKE
176 CHAPTER SIX

as.the owner or administrator of

All of these documents lncorpo- Blasios of Armentum, portrays l-ris role
disciples, btlt not to sell it to outsiders' willed two of these' a monastery
oi-inrri*,ional subordination to the proprietor ;;;;;;i ecclesiastical institutions'2e He
rare rhe old principl. of the Archistrategos tSi. ftlitt-t"tf) and another of the Theotokos' to his
enioy full proprietary rights
whichwasderivedf'o-tf-'ttraditionalpracticeoflayownersofreligious
those foundations erected by mon- surviving brother Sergios. sergios.was to
institutions. Tltis rt'le go;ntd tutt' monas- over these institutioni ina"aiig the capacity to. dispose of them as he
asteries themselves .'nf;l idea of independent' self-governing had been a priest' The ca-
'h' tltutnth century' Laymen also turned saw fit. Basil-Blasios' àittt' b'ot"ltt', Blaìios'
teries becam. popt''t"''i"itt itt 'ftt Ital¡ had gìven him,an es-
of ;;;;;;, ilt" Byr"ntine governors of southern
to the clergy ,o ,.,,o'iîlì"-g p't*t
foundations' In a document
apparently on this land.that he
brorhers donate their hereditarv tate, confirmed by imp?rial seals' !.*lt
;;;i; ilË'fro-"r.f,ãr-".á f.tî'rfrtee to the abbot of the Holv ilill ;t;;t",o.y åf Hågia Sophia' Blasios' sons and heirs were minors at
;;#" ;;;^r,*v 'ratît' ;;;';' rn calabria
administered the property for them.
Kaua't'The family monastery had been
deserted his creath, so their un.i.'suritlglasios Lati-
Trinity monastery since the bulk of Basil-Blasios' property was in the eparchy -of
since the Norman invasions early
in the centurg and the lay owners ap- the Adriatic coast, he chose
uuuot oi rtotv Tiinitv woulcl have the
necessarv nianum, while the o.uiå.¡*", nËo, Bu.i'o.,
;;;;üi.p;à thnt trtt oiÞonomos' to
îh' incident recalls the work Sy- to administer his trusteeship through an ecclesiastical
resources ao n,r.-pt^il--"'io'utio''' Basil-Blasios para-
restoring christopher
phagoura's ora- *n.- h. gou. a writren .o.,,ru., oiresponsibilities.
meon rhe New Theologi"" did in phrased this documenii" hi' testament: "I gave all into his lthe oiÞono-
torv of St. Marina at ChrYsoPolis'
-Tr";;;;;;;.;;;;;'ã"ång th. f.,,ni'h"'gs of the chylch ãnd all the [consecratedl ves-
f.o- the second quarter of the eleventh ä"Ji f*tt¿t, changed with regard
monastery might pass from one pri- sels with the outlying fffittitt' Nothing is to be
century illustrates how a hereditary to their improvement (eis bel-
of an Aihonit. -ott"tt.ty, a monk to such properties ."åtpi with respect
vate owner to another.zJit.-ø"ná.r until the end of his life, and when
in his institution to Theodore' tiosin).He shall *"irrt-ui'n-thir,.,rur.
named Theodosios, ft"¿ J¿ a hallshare without my
Jtt;ment' Theodosios gave the other half to ;;;l;;,ìh.te shall be no lack of someone to undertake this
uncle of the author ;ã; it to the Theoto- One oikonomos,a priest named Constantine'
30 had already
ordering it."
his disciple ,utt"'*r Basil, who in turn dedicated Mi- i,rcrrlnbent oÍ t04l was chrysillos christodoulos, a priest
"nd
kos (that is, to the ;;;;; itself )' Bv the date of the docurnent' ä1.J,
",i¿irrc in his tenure in the document
on Mount Athos' had gained of Orvieto, whom S"'il-Sl"'lo' confirmed
chael, proestos of the Lavra monastery
of the monasterv of the late Theodosios' The under examination here'
control of this second share Thiscontractinuitt'-to-parisonwiththecharterofCalonesthetax'
proestos sought ,o *'ftt this latter
institution a metocbion (dependent performing func-
irr.,l¡ä.¿i.ate officeholders were
The author of the document' a monk iarch. Inboth cases
monastery) of trt. uuiilon""tty' authority derived
the first share from his uncle tions analogous ro ,rrår" ár the charistil<arioi,buttheir
named Sabas, -"""*nJt ft"ã ini"'itt¿ a residence' a from purely private tá"'*ctt' Calones' charter
was a specialized variant
imfroved the property bv establishing performance of services in
Theodore. Sabas
o*n é"ptn'e' W.hen Sabas became of a landlord', ugr..*tn' *i'tt u cleric for the
church, and some vineyards, all at ìooks instead to standard
his.
to.looi after the propert¡ so he his proprietury .nu.n-.--Basil-Blasios' charrer
old and infirm, h.;;;;ítnger able trusteeship ugr..*"'ìi'' f* l" model'3'
'lhe cbaristiåe' as employed by
decided to reunite hir-;h;;.-;iitt
,tt"t held presentlv b¡ t\e proestos }/'i'
pto*i'Ë from Michael that he would ;;;"r*;;"r"and thl ecclesiastical authorities, musr have drawn upon
chael. Sabas received in exchange "
of the Lavra monastery' .;;;.it of both types for its format and terminology'"
Lu., ufl.n"te the propetty froà the possessions ln yet anothr r,"fiãt ãtt"-tn" of 1'049'the
proprietress Gemma be-
and an assurance of iii"i-t support
for himself and two of his disciples as a "consecrated ancl
clisposal o{ his monastery queaths a garden unJ'ott surrounding Property
in Lavra. The founder-it "o¿orios' arbitrary g;ritìol"mew'33
st' designated
Gernma
indicates how lay u,*r"..,, must
have bee'' frèe to divicle ownership ;ï;;;i'f;;;;;';il;;;i'u"r.
,,rppJ* of itt"
"r
ttttgy in this church' Her three nephews'
their heirs' We have alreadv seen the gift for the
in their proprietarv;;;;i;;t;mong
tÉe Coptic churches of Egvpt in the
this development in;;;;;;;bt with (l04l)'
2""Carbone," No' 2
tttfilrï:'iillli"n Bas*- Ñå. z,'tin.' il-s7, t'u"u' Gertrude Robinson'
¿o.u-ent of 1041, the testament of a certain ""õ;;b;;;1" Kirchenuermögensrecbt' 5l-52'
jì. i5r cf. Knecht.'Basil-Bla.ius'
"SäÑiì
,rc()ru;âre tlr. nuordiìf ái conrracr as ouoted above with John of
Anti-

B' Korbarev (Actes de I'Atbos'Yot' ..h'. naráohras , ot ;;;;;' i n D' *o'oit"jis ch' l0' lines 278-85'
:'"';:i:n:;åIril"î,-.iit$iil;q9r:å K'l*:ind "";i"'C"ttion."'No' ^ 4't)'"¡'i¡'p;t;;i
(1049)' esp' lines l0-15'
q¡,iï n¡ttrørri, il (tsol),No 2 (1023 or 1038)'
 179
AGE OF THE CHARISTIKE
1.78
CHAPTER SIX

as his successors' still survives ancì dates to L007 '36 These testaments
as her legal heirs, retained ownership
of the church itself' In such a case' of the Epiphanig:. u1d Phoibarn-
;;.;äth;;;n.ti.é of tn' êopti.'
was strictly a technical o.ne' much "bbots
the church's ownership of the garden mon monasteries in r.u.,lthj"nd eighth-century Egypt' Like its predeces-
half the incorne derived from
like the church of tn.'rñ.orokãr' .lui* to sors, the more recent document dtmonst'atts
the prevalent conception
Both Gernma's and Boilas' pro-
Eustathios Boilas' property of Bouzina-' monasteries as a form of private property'
visions seelr to ,"R..,'itr. influence of
the council of constantinople's "-i;;;;;
of
chose to surren-
list of "consecrated" the eleventh ..nrui¡ somé private proprietors
iniunction that founde^ trr"tr¿ provide a formal d";;;;i;tld family foundatiáns asjn free grants to independent monaster-
of monastic foundations. of course documents dating
;,.r*j;';r;.ri.ã-i". irr. ,uppor, of churches' and Byznntine ;t. îil; i, f"r,i."r"tly 'lotittublt late ltalo-Greek
iir.'.ä"lt.ir said nothing "bolt tht support for those private frorn the period it"" of Byzantium's political co'trol of ltaly
cano'isrs n.u", ..quir.ã l'frr-^f
t"nã.¿ endowment "tt., 'tt-ise Tiotta cleclares that
Gernrna and Boilas chose to do so anywa¡
\n 1071.37In one ¿o.u-tn' of 1108, ihe p'op'ietress as a church she
i;ñ;. If founders like
practice with she ltas give' up -;;;;;ty
t*tttà irerself as well
this was a volì'rntary;;;;;';;'terned on contemporary " 'h' for a member of the laity to be an
i, *"t i-ótoper
restored because
of ecclesiastical property.3s Such
Drivate monastic foundations'
the requiremenrs fr¡r endowment meant overlord of a monast;;; ;; io ,åuk. ur.
"^ïi; i_ìr.*"i ¿ifference i' from a Greek philanthropist of Byz-
huut a very close economic and senriments corrrd hardií have come
that private .hur.h.' *ouiã to'ltintt" à antine times' The of the Greek language
-"id
tlt traditional
patrons' families' while privately "t"nå'l'ìtt
adrninistrative relationshìf *i'ft their technical vocabulary do not obscure
the influence of the Gregorian re-
prepared to become independent renunciation of proprietary
founded monasteries *ot'td be better form movement in ,..,ptt' to voluntary
institutions over the tou"t "f time' The
fait that private monasteries had
century als1 have rights in ecclesiastical institutions'
had specific .n¿o*-tnt'- since the mid-ninth l-r¡stcharis-
propositions to prospective
made them more attractive busi'ess
.";i;;;ht*t of churches being granted THE PTOCH ATROPHEION OF MICHAEL
ATTALIATES
tikarioi,and may '"åtvïtar
out in charistil¿e.3a
rights in ecclesiastical in- ltisfortunatethatthehistoriarrMiclraelAttaliatesdeeiclee]torleclicate
The tremendous respect for private property
dictated special precaurions thebulkofhismode,tp,.,on"lresoulcestofoundaprivateptochotro-
sritutions .haracterirt,. or nyrånrine society irr", his detaired typikon (regulato.ry foundation
rnfringe those rights,. A docu- ¡hpionrarmshouse),
whenever a transacrion might appear_to ;t tozi't","råthis institution is preserved.3e This document pro-
of 1050 from'B;r;;;r. tiály illurt.ures this
The hegou-
point.35 äffi;;;
ment
vides the most specific pl.r,.rr" of a
privaæ ecclesiastical institution in the
Theophylact as.his successor'
menosTheodore uppoi"ttd a priesi named actually comprised two insti-
Luke' for the directorship of Byzantine Empire' Attåli^tt'' foundation
deliberately passing clttt ftit åwn b'otht" was located in Rhaidestos on
is Luke's formal renunciation ;ffiä; ;:;;;b:rr;;p;;"'ion ítsetÍ, which
his monastery. The dot"-tnt in question tn Constantinople dedicated to
that his advanced age pre- the Sea of Marmara , and a monastery
äl*v tigftts to the ,u..tttio"' Luke claimed for himself' He accepted a Christ panoiktirmor,'rfr";"ff merciful.í'au
Attaliates had to purchase the
the hegoumenate
vented him from assuming
'-u-i-rrå"un."
iro- rhe mo'astery as compensation building that he *"tì;;;t;l; tà th{- pto'botropbeion' but he had alreadv
i;.r_. ;;.-lr. of Nicholas Mysticus' inlierited the properties he would consecrate for its support' He also ob-
for his exclusion fr;; ;-h; l,r...rrio.,. This
recalls
to compensation if it was ne-
.rii.g tft", the fo.,náer's heir was entitled of familv monastery'
¡¿..Carbone,',No'1(1007);cf.Guillou,'.Monaci.proprie^tari,',p'161.
;;;;; to .*.1,,d. him from the administration
-'îrr'.oJo..'s
a ,'f¡".ft..", SCM No.49 (t080)r *Carbone," No' 17 (1108)'
to transmit the hegoumenate.of his monastery
use of a will ,,.iôurbon.," No. t7 (l l0B), lincs 2l- 25.
l"ul Gar¡trer, REB.l9 (1981).5-l4Jr important com-
not unique. The spiritual directors of St. ,"Michael Attaliates, Oirr*¡.
Die
to his chosen successor was "ã.
rnentary bv Lemerle. c¡'i",?l''ïiiì'-å-fl
¿'"*ttitt.' it'gelv supersecles lualdemar Nissen'
Basil's, another -onur,.'y of Byzantine
Ital¡ also-employed testaments Diataxis àes Michael ,q,ritili'*- rà, t0l7:
Eitt Beitrai ,1, Aeschichte ,les Klosteruesens
im
¡r,"firt.r',ii.*. orr the chtrrch. see A' Kazhdan'
during the eleventh î*i"lr'" útqut'th boih the hegoumenate and the byzantinisrhen pr¡r¡,, ¡ilni,'"töü1. Éo,
ancl ftuelfth Cett!uries (carnbridge, 1984)'
choice' One of these docu- Studies on Byzatttine turr"'ii, ,i',:n)-Elrrrnth
institution itself to tft" i'í¿i¿"tes of their and Niketas
;;;;, ;f; \Mitt or hegoumenos Cosmas naming Theodore "l\"these institutions, see Lemerleüy' cinq as well as the ìmperial chryso-
.etudes',77-79 ' and by Nrcephorus tll (t079)'
Michael VJI r1074)
bulls accorded A,,rli^t..ì'fåì,,ã.ri.,r
ch. 8, lines 241-51, but for churches given in ed. P. Gautier, REB 3q tlöii"iõô-jl;
for the Mottastery of Christ Panoiktirmos' see
raSee
John of Antioch, De monasteriis
charistikb, see below, note 54' jinin, GéograPhie,YoL 3, PP' 526-27 '
SGM No' 37 (i050)'
'sTrinchera,
 AGE OF THE CHARISTIKE
181
180 CHAPTER SIX
grounds for removal of
foundation.a 6 The diataxls, therefore, establishes
tainedthemonasterybypurchasefromaprivateindividual'hissister-in- of funds intended for the operation
ro the new þtochotropheion. an unsuitable director: embezzlement
law Anastaso. He ioiú'ii "dmlnistrativeiy ãi *. r".ltities or the paymenr of salaries, failure to protecr the founda-
to share a common administrator
ij.t..itt,ft, the two institutions wer€ ecclesiastical founclation' tion's properties, or ,tàgí"tt of structual maintenance'
The founder did
draw on ioint revenues as a single
*^-Ãrrniiu,.r'
and ;;;*;."i that so dr"rti. a srep as the removal of one of his direct heirs
diataxis or "testament," is very
íypikon,*ti.t he terñed a
from his patrimony should bË undertaken lightly. The diataxis orders
of maintaining the independence of
much concerned with irr.-pr"ur.r" ;i;; ,ho,rÍ,l provide three writren warnings at three--month in-
threat posed by the char- ";.,,.r, to
the foundation in the Íace åfthe contemporary ;;;"i, for the benefii of an errant director. Attaliates was willing al-
from ever falling
istiþe. 'The cliataxis tit*fy pt"ftibits the foundation foundation if a suitable male
of a c'haristiþarios or any other. overseet''r
-lhe his iåi .u"r, a female clirector to head the
unwor-
under the authority
property' ."n¿l¿"r. could not be found among his relatives to replace the
;;;;;, viewed his foundation as an integral part of his personal ;h;il. ft mollify such a displaceã director, Attaliates allowed. him a
whichthetliataxisu.q*",r''tohiseld"estson,Theodore,a2Ttteproper. smallan.rr'ralpension,equivalenttoamonk'ssalar¡ascompensationfor
ties and revenues ,nuJ nt'uti"'es attached
to his foundation constituted
whole of it' iudging from a his loss of rights.
the better part of fti, io*"", though
no.t the
'lhe diøtalis does not make clear how or by whom such a challenge to
ä;;;;p;;n, th"t rt" *"t t"'"f"I to distinguish' He placed his son at occur'
and hoped that the succes- in.oãp"r.rrt or clishonest administration of the foundation would
the head of the found"tion ", ptochotrop.hos ü i, iiË.ry that the renure of heirs in family institutions such as this was
of h.irt in succeeding generations'
,i",' ;;ld follow tro* ttlr direct line that collateral heirs might unshakable. contemporary indulgence of lay direction of eccle-
He took precautions iå^r"r" out any claims "l-or,
siastical institutions and the foundation's status as
private property
heirs' He was prepared to
;;ì;;;"i;;i,r," ø""á"'-n and the directorship
hís direct
only if the clirect *ouldassureanheir'spositionpracticallybeyondchallenge.Yetthispar-
allow one of their ";;;;; ;, assume ticular founder ,".*, å have tried to curb the heir's authoriry
somewhat
line died out sometime in the future' Uy um.-l"g the immunity of both the.hegoumenos and the oiþonomos
Theoclore and the ;;;.¡ Attaliates' line
of direct heirs was to have the
By contrast' ilur., orlrlti"ry dismissal.ot Attaliates' descendants could not remove
¡gfri of Þyriotes (overlordship) over-the ptochotropheion' line to the status these officials except for an extremely serious
offense such as a lapse into
Attaliates limited ru*.. dlr..to, from the collateral
h.r.ry, sexual misconduct, or the display of "contempt or arrogance"
"nf of his de-
of an ephor.+: only iiilrh it. ¿ir.., and the collateral lines
his heir. The inclúsion of the last-named offense suggests that
was Attaliates-prepared to allow the ;;ã
scendants should .h;;.r;; die out p,ua."' administrators would still have to belrave with great deference
and autonomous in-
;;;;d"ri." to fend rrr *Jr as a truly independent in his son Thcodore io*"rd the real masters of the institution. Attaliates was less generous in
stitution' Attaliates àtpttttt¿ to"'piátt confidence accordingproprietor'srightstotheheirs.ofhiscollaterallines,Sucha
directors of the foundation
as his chosen heir. HË alone of the
furure
only forbade him to alienate the foun- ãi*o, lî, "[å*.d only iso modii of barley and two-monks'to salaries as

could not U, a.po,J''Àiãf*ttt .o.,rf.nr",ion.as He *ár, -o,.over, obliged by Attaliates share the
(for t9 a chyilt,iþarios)
dation to someone cl"tsl¿t the famiiy
example
' ;;;;;;;.tt of the foundation with thã hegoumenos and the olåo-
ortodisregardhisit*"t''.ttaslaiddowninthediataxis'aaThead- -"Áti^li"t.,
bring mate.rial rewards to its nomos.
minist'ation tf tn. it""Jation r'r'ould also employed the diataxis to outline in great detail the expend-
in the direct line were to
lay directors, since ihtodott and successors itures of his foundation.ae The support of the clergy
in both the ptocho-
receive two-thirds .i;h; left over after expenses and distribu- a.large share of the mandated dis-
'"utnu"' t-iijhrion and the monastery claimed
,øn, -un¿uted by the diataxis had been discharged'a one of his descend- ¡urr.-"n*. These clericr, *ho were all to ìake monastic vows, received
th"t
Attaliates, to hl, .'idit, foresaw the possibility b;;h-; roga (cash rnla,yj and a siteresion (an allowance- in grain)' the
cándidate ior the dir:ectorship of the Boilas for
ants might p.ou. ,o'f'.ìri "n*"t,fty ,u-. ,yrrã- of mixed á-ptn'"tion employed by Eustathios

alMichael Attaliates, Diataxis,ed. Gau-tier, lines"247-62, but cf'

398-423' a6Diataxìs,eci. Gautier, lines 295-301, 903-20; Lemerle' Cinq étildes'86'
iso-gt' 324-i0; Lemerle' cinq études' 80'
42Diataxis,.¿. c"",iãtlî*'' ôA--12' *li¡ioto,*¡i,ed. Gautier, lines 669-76; cf' Lemerle' Cinq études'84'
102-3. .,-Diataxis,ecl. Cailtier. lineq l6l-7cl Lemerìe, Cina etudes'80'
Cinq études,^8-0_8 1. oosee Lemerle, cnq ,t)å:ì."t1-s¡. rbs-s for detaiis of the expenditures that
Attaliates
43
iatax is,ed. Gautier, tines 3 98-423 ; Lemer|e,
D
c"utltt, iines s26-a^0; Lemerle' Cinq études'85'
"6';o;;;t',"à. mandated for his foundation'
oti),iì'ataxií, ed. Gautier, lines 602-18'
 183
AGE OF THE CHARIST/KE
182 CHAPTER SIX
and Attaliates'
joyed a share in any surplus revenue.s''r Under'Iheodore
of total surplus' Unde.r.the acl-
theclergyofhischurchoftheTheotokosinlberia.Attaliatesrecognized
of clergy would. place. on the direct heirs' this was a'U"l"t-'nird the
the burden that an *t"Sni"i"¿ itrcreas_e ministration of an heii i-- tri, collateral line, Attaliares envis.ioned a

ftit ?á"t¿ation' Therefore' he strictly limited

the
(as mentioned above) for the
limited resources
"f to p-ermit an increase different scheme, ,.,,i,tglSát an allowance.
.,r-U.t of clerical positions, though he was willingshould permit it'50 ;pî;;^il ã;iárrg tt." balance berween the foundation's rreasurv and
;;; fr;t; if gro*th in the founãation's income the absence of any heir from the
component of the man- charitable distribution;;;l,. poor. In
were another important all surplus revenues'
Liturgical expenses
funds for holiday *îr* f"-it¡ ttt. founclation would claim
i"t"à.tt
datecl disbursements .;;i; àiataxis.
These included the rental income from some proPertres
i;t:ror"¡) inThrace and and two houses)
servicesandfeasts,aswellasforcommeinorativemassesfortherepose
provision for structural in Constantinople linlfttaing a bakery' a perfumergoperations and dis-
of the founder,s sour. since he made no specific formed the relatively ;ì;;t; financial basé
fot the
was olle of the grounds for.depos-
maintenance 1.u.n ttlo"gú its neglect bursementsofthefoundation.saTheseincomesalsohelpedtopaythe
expected that his heirs would pro- of St' George oi the Cypresses' the
;;;ä;;;r), Rttutiutä must huve By showing some salaries of the .t.rgy ìn ,nt church
vide for this expense out of their personal
resources' in the southwestern sector
than rnany of i"*iiy1t.i"l site."'îhis church was located
concern, Attâliates *"' -o" consiientious
and farsighted century' Attaliates estab-
of the capital und dut.J f'ulft 'o the late ninth
his predecessors and contemporaries' . for his own soul' those of
of-Attaliates' foun- lished a memorial .rldo*-tnt at this church
A seemingly tniquãï"i"" of th" fiscal operation il;';;;;;, rutã tpo"ttt' He beqr'reathed the building
and his
to his heirs
iti revenues for other, needier
dation was his p.ouirìon of subsidies from as a proPrietarY Possession'
;nd th'"t churches shared a small annual certain sources of income al-
institutions.5l Four -;;;;; Attaliates *uu ,.'ofulous in ruling out
program. one of rhe monaster- He would not counte-
distribution of i3 noà¡smata under this charistiþarios l.;;d bt;rher founåe's for their fóundations'
prot opios, whåre Ãttaliates was
from prospective monks,_pa,rticularly
ies was the nunnery oiS1. nance the exaction of anar"n.. fees
against a male serving bv ihe postulant'56 The found-
i^ uiolution of Át""iut Studites' decree obiecting to the apota;;,"-; gtr;oi ptopt*y
"pp"r.t, rebuilt this institu-
as the director of a t;;1" institution.
had iá the ìwelfth centurv shared
ers of the grr"t i,tat;;;Jtil ;;;"Jt'it'
Attaliates
of the founda-
tion from r''rins after î äi¿ t'^st¿ by the
Tirrks' Another it is probable that earlier
of St' George' where Attaliates' scruples in rejecting the apotage'but
tions aided under this program was a monastery p"ir"r, .f priuät. lnrrìiíiionr"had founJit a lucrative source of income'
charistikarios'
Ãii"fi","r' son and successor was serving as Attaliatesdidrequirearatherhightonsurefeeofl0nomismata,butthat
participation in the cbar- inaugural service and feast at the
These cases a.-oir-,rurlinu, un individual's was earmarked for ,ftt t"pttt"t tf the
endeavors of founding
istil<e was,",ot in.omiä¡ùf" *lrfr the traditionál oostulant's installation'
t7
in this it was revenue from outside income which he
and directing pri.'u,.^iÀìliuiion'' Indeed'
case
""i*"f;;;;;ää'o"rmit two sources of provision of an annuity in
iudged harmless. o"i
aprivateinstitution,r'".--"¿"thefamily'scbaristik.eovertheolderfoun- *u, the foundation's
dations possible, t;;-Ã;;Ji"itu nott'
that these monasteries had no donation of a
were beneficiaries under this kind, termed ,it,":'io'',to a layman in excúange for the
incomes of their t*tl' fitt churches that ;i; ;i p'opt"y'" Ano'lt"' doc.ument of the mid-eleventh cen-
^
i"tdtd
monasteries's2 Perhaps these
program received t*"fftt- g*tts. than the tury, the l.g"l t.."tl,J Meditatio de nudis
pactis'.speaks-of an indepen-
of Attaliates or local þøtholi' ln some cases
were either private ,hur.t,.î on the esrates ;;;;;;.;ery that sold annuities of this sort to laymen'5e
a church of St'. Michael' ap-
þai eþ.þlesia, rf Rh;id.;s. one of these, (that is' an episþo-
pears once to h"u"'b.tn the bishop's
own church Lemerle, Cinq ^é.tudes, 83.
Studites ought not 53
Diat.lxis,ed. Gautier, lines 6 10_I3,, 621-24 ; etudes'II'
the legiiation of Alexius Gautier, iines a2a-5a; Lertretle' Cina
peion),which "6i¡ttrrit',ed. Gtiographie.Yot'
"..orai"gì"
to have b."n gr"ntJ åit und"' íhe charistike'
A similar conversion to ,. Diataxis,ed. Gautier, il;:: äg-;;;1"':''"rir. è¡,ä iinttes,' 8t Janin,
"
here' another result' perhaps' t'''å31)ro*,r,ed. étutles' 84; c' Nicaen' II (787)' c'
private administrati'Jn -uy n"ut.o::u:ttd Gautier, lines 779-91;^Lemerle' Cinq
by the Turkish invasions' j.szi-573), cf. c. 1c (RE(P 2'63 t)'
åf th" diro.der caused s rn¡rl
After the puyrn.ni oi âll rnunduttd expenses'
the foundation itself en- " ;l;r; ð;'*;;
;í; r',,ã. tìn.i zos-r z ; Le me rle' .c:r s é tu d I s' 8^4
sBDiataxis,ed. Gautier, iines 7S2-8al Lemerle' Cina études'84'"
reuue historique
5"H. Monnier c. ìlrlrä".":í^ uì)aii,¡i aà nudis oactis;' Nouuelle 38 (lel4-
""¿ 474-s10'624-53
de droit français r,,,'"iiâi"ä tiçrji'l]s-as'-Jll-36' rt913)' 334-36' with commentarv tn
l5).285-342, 709-59,t"tt'ttptii'fly îitle
50f)idtaxis.ed.Gautier,lines6sl_703;Lemer|e,Cinqétudes,^g4. 8 in 37
c;;;t;;; iines 506-2e; Lemerte.' cinq études'13' (rer4_ls),2e8_323,ï;.'#tì;['".;';;;;";;d in'H. Mãnnier'Ettudes de droit bvzantin
38
"iliol,""1i,',;ä:
j,The ,r;;i;;íl"r;;'¡r*i ruh;*ó of ,h. fout monasteries received 2
three churches (London, 1974).
*trile rwo others received 3 each'
"o-it*oii,
 185
AGE OF THE CHÁRISTIKE
1.84 CHAPTER SIX
best plan-
illustrates the limitations of the
been a way of providing a fate is unknown. The outcolre for his founda-
the paymen t oÍ siteresion may simply have devise
ning that even a tor"ti*'ious benefactor-couldAttaliates composed his
property was desired by a
lifetime compensatio; ¡;t ; í"yt"å whose tion. In 1083, a ,."t':ì;";;t ;f it Michael
tl't. foundation to solicit GreeorY Pakourianos' drew
religious foundation. ¡.riuriu,.r'also perrnitt.d diataxis,another By'";;;¿ fhilunth'opist'. a' i'åependent and self-
of funding
ãîtîiiá"t from tire laity for the purposeback at least to commelnorâtive
the late sixth np his own tv.piko"ïññ^'il";foi^ttâ rejection of the
governing constrtutton f;;Ñ foundåtion'u3 (aibeit with reservations) bv
góes
masses for the ¿.u¿.tJînt f'ottitå Pakourianos'
;.;;;ty and the prosphord donations of Byzantine Egypt'had no claims to the old proprietary torm;i;;;;;';tion
chosen
In both fund-raising schemes, the lay contributors since a vigorous reform movement
held contractr"ral Attaliates was not ,r-ity ?or,uitous,
of the b.;;fi;;t *'titution', but sirnplv of eãclesiastical property had
";;;hÞ In the case o{ the sitere' against lay influence iîi'h" u.l*lnistration
;g;;;;;;,t that thcy could enforce in court'or
monastery's distribu- begnn in the interirn
råi,lù. r"v-.n *t,o-ttJ pu"tt"ttd.thares ininthe Reform-
il';i;;;in *.r. ¡-.rriir.. bondholclers a corporation.
annuities in
minded clerics tuy pltrons had traditionally relied upon
"nd heirs whom considerations of
the form of p"nrionu't;;;;;t;t"te legal. pa-
from their inherited
sood relieious order..r.p.[å¿ them tJdisplace
unre-
ffi;;ä i.rn"pt ,rtt gtnt'ul sale .f shares of siteresia to laymen
of that practice' T'hose,laymen
i;;J; the founder', ?u-ily grew out of memorial masses
lh;h^d established .não*-.i,t for the celebration by the recipient institu-
also had a claim or, ,t. performance
of services
why the suspensiott of services in a church or
tions. f his helps to this
"*ptuin from the inconvenience
monastery *", u ,.,ioi' -"""', quite åside
caused Parishioners'
his foundation
Attaliates also strove to maintain the inclependelce. gf
that abounded in the age of the
from the host of
"ll;g;;-,,;;;tecrors,'
when he was composing his d.iataxis' the
charistike. At the
"öii-i
charistikehad come ,i .rr.ornf "ts nearly all of tlìe monasteries and phil-
that had always plagued
anthropic institutionsï'rrr. .,"pr*. Thé abuses
clerics
point where conscientious
the charistiþe wete äpptt"tftitig the
them and demanding reforms'
would shortly U. ,päling out"againit to his per-
;;;;;f".tâ, \¡/hå Jiá nã, bind"his foundation very closely
of a "protector-" over it after
sonal estate might weil fear the imposition off the
might well stave
his death. Although I tfott family assoc-iation
foun-
could be no guarantee that a
i-p;;l*" ti u rËo,¡'t¡lu,thisalone
dationwouldr",."ny--u.tterunderanunscrupulousheir'Forcedto
his foundation to fend for
choose between th. ui.riuinties of allowing
it, for better or worse, to his
itself in these troubleã ti-., and linking
Attaliates chose the latter' more
ã.r*t¿"*t as their personal propert¡ his beloved son Theo-
traditional option.
gå.."f¿ nåt häu. fo..r..n that
short time after his own death in
dore would di. *itr,ãut ã.r..ndu.,,, a
lts subsequent
1085. The foundation then did become independent.62

60Dìataxis,ed. Gautier, lines 785-86; I emerle, Cinq étud.es,84'.

õrlusr as ,t-r. jrotospathario., ut,..pr.á to do in the case recorded by the
document follows below in Chapter
8
¡
"nony^åu.'
¡1, ì¡ü i ¿ i ïrã'ir- pá' t i t,title a'e' 1ed'
Monnier and Pl aton)' 63
A more detailecl discussion of this
62 "
Lemerle, Cinq études, 11]_L2'
 187
THE REFORM MOVEMENT

really did not require outside financial assistance.

At this point the mag-
of administrators of the institu-
nates' role as restorers gave way to that
"'J.f*and their endowed properties'
tions
cleric who
CIIAPTER SEVEN of Antlo.h crediæd Þatriarch Sisinnius Il as the only
of the chøristike, even rlìough the full
*å"iJ no, rolerate th.-innou"tion sketchy narrâtive
exrent of its evils was nor yet eviclent in his day.a John's
monastery except the
The Reform Movem ent. against the ,fitpr rp to his own Juy"*ntn .nr.a9tic.all1. every
"protector" under the charis'
smallest and most ,.."niíy fot'ndtd had a
Charistiþ"e of the charistike' then' has some
,iir. fli" account of the äeuelopment
;;;;õ;d.nce with u.tuul tuËttt', but John was ignorant of' or else
be so helpful
áriiu.i""ry omirted, the detailed information that would if lohn was
;;^;ì;;fy;s the roie of Basil II and his patriarchs. Even
IOHN OF ANTIOCH infor*.à than he gives thË appearance tf this
Ï1.t,^inwhtle
that had suffered so ".,rîfìv'u.".,
;il^il *.rfá n"u. br.n a difficult"task to condemn the charistiþe
';";hmonasreries and pliilanthropic institutions
TtU¡,
s cbaristikarroi founcl their sparing the memory of many otherwise conscientious
emperors and pa-
I ;;;;;;;¡t.; h;nã'
"r "n"'upulou from ca. tiiarchi who had Promoted it'
strongest champion in John v the oxite, patriarch of Antioch -^ its original
10B9"to 1100.1 He denounced the whole program oÍ the charistiþ-e in a eff t i, part, John *lã.i.¿ the use oÍ.the charistike even for these
He considered
bold tract known as the oratio de monasteriis laicis non tradendls.'z This b.õ;;;;ãt* .r reconstruction and renovation'
and
orofessed aims ro u. ì. Á.*
institu- than a cloak for horrible abuses,
document presents a wealth of information on the controversial a single institution existed that had actuallv
;;; indirectly sheds light on the operation of earlier private foun- å;ö'ffir.i'*r*rn.r there were
";i
dations as well. ¡ã".nt.a from the charistiþe's Às a matter of fact, however' that thev
tonk seriously the intere.sts of the institutions
From his vantage point in the early l0g0s, John could not accrrately ;;;;;;;¡,o can be cited among the
d;;; the origini of the charistike,but his narrative is still of interest held in charistiþe. fufi.fr".f Aitaliates and Psellos
out aDparentlv .onr.i.ntiou s charistiþarioi'6 ln the
main' however' the evi-
for its indicatijn of the beliefs of contemporaries.3 His tract singles of the charistikarioi was wett-
the iconoclastic Emperor constantine v as the originator of the prâctice ä:i; ;äï.;; ,h;;i;h.,s condemnation
of disregarding the ìestaments of the founders and granting out "l;il;.ttecl
monas- deserved'
Though this is simplistic, a telling point by asking why well-endowed institutions
ã*, ,ía philãnthropic institutions to laymen. "tåtn"
to tt given our in preference to. those that
there is atleast some factual basis for seeing this unpopular
emperor as with surplus ,.lr..l'r.,
needed rebuilding and had no inðomes.7
Charistiþ.arioi defended this
g
one of the forerunners of Basil II in initiatin fhe charistike' According
after the triumph of p,".,i.,byassert"ingthatbytakingoveftheiradministrations,theyre-this
; Jrt- of Antioch, rhe use of the charistiÞe lapsed dismissed
thJ orthodox parry in B4Z. Later an insidious revival occurred, spon- lieved these ,i.n ir,rtit,riiáns of th.ñ tax obligations. John
claiming that the mâgnates had it in their power to alleviate
tã..¿ Uy ,rnnurr-r"d'..rrperors and patriarchs under the pretext of aiding "rgu-.nr, n..d for formal exemption (exk'ous-
;;ir; á,rd destroyed institutions. At first, the magnates obtained these the burden of t"""tion without t"h.
had validity in the days
institutions for the specific purposes oÍ phitokalia (restoration) ,
kalliergia seia).8 Yetperhaps ,tt. -ugn^tts' defense.once
law on the allelengyon'
i.-U.ffitft*ent), anã psycbike ophelia (spititual benefit)' Yet the passage "-il; the iepeaf of Basil II's Antioch's
t.fátt
tract is devoted to rhe condemna-
ài ,i_. broughf humãn greed into pla¡ and the magnates began ro re- ,.*"i.rd.. of of
John
charisti-
all appearan:tt'.th.t
ceive the oiþonomia (aãministratiån) also of those founclatio's that "irr¡i¡of ,p..ific ab.rsËs oÍ the charistiþ"e'To
,-n in full title of the institu-
t rn^"ed as if ih.y *.r. actually owners
rFor the career of this reformer, see V. Grumel, "Les patriarches grecs d'Antioche du
esp' z!!-ra1¡¡d.Paul Gautier'
nom de Jean (XIe et XIle tt¿.l.tl,;;Éo :z (L933.),279-99'
aDe monasterii's Ch' 9, lines 264-67 '
i:"1.;';vi:ö;ì;;, p*i¡"*r'.iuniioche' Notice biographique," REB ?2 (1e64)' t28-s7' 'l)e monasteriis Ch' 13, lines 357-61'
,Ed. paul Gautier, "t.q*riiãìt.;l nÈn "¡¡ (197:)"91-131, which replaces the old edi- ,"" ";; ';tåáã charistikarios," see Herman, "Ricerche"' 325'
pC 132, cols. ttli-Cg; toÁ-tn'"ty by Herman' "Ricerche"' 3,?2-23' 7
De monãsrcriis Ch' 13, lines 361-69'
"" of
tion
De monasteriis Ch. 13, lines 369-72'
'lãilrãf ãt iioch, De -oroitt,iit Chs' 8-9 (ed' Gautier' lines 241'-77) ' 8
 THE REFORM MOVEMENT 189
188 CHAPTER SEVEN

on x ternporary basis' excuse the imposition of a radically different form of administration'

tions they were supposed to protect and. improve it .r. -onurte.ies could not easily accommodate cha.ges in tl'reir
gover-
a limited':n.t't: of thesc
Technicall¡ of .ourr., thty lt"t1 receivcd.only n"n.. *lthout conflict with estaúlished practices. According to John of
(pronom.ia)'.dependent
i;;;;";ir;;, with theiriisht' (dikaia), p'ivileges
A¡houg¡ legally. rhe charisti- Àntioch, these charistiþarioioften took iiupon themselves to redistribute
of ircome."
;;il;rt.r;'tl othe*ou"..., ownership' they had become the ih. in.o-., of the institutions that they administered in order to assure
þarioi did,not enjoy .þht' t'f outright
;t;r;il financial compensation.12 In extreme cases, they di-
institutions'
ã; l;.r; ou.rlorár'of ih.r. monasteries and philanthropicof these insti- "dequate
verted all the income for their own purposes' cutting
off monastic sala-
.,benefacrors,, who undertook the administration
ih;;.* (diamone) certainly ri.r, the buildings to detetìo'áte, and suspending the celebra-
tutions for conserva tion (sustasi.s) and maintenance tion "fiá.i"g
of enclowed memorial masses'
for the founders and ---nvidently
;;;i;.J;any of tt. ,ignr, oráinarily re.served
had characterizecl the ad- some charistikarioi could not conterlt themselves with the
their families. Often th.-uã'y 'u'nt ubuut' that financial compensations traditionaily reserved for the patron and his
i"r_iy. r., them the operarion of a religious foundation had
-inirrr",ionsofsomeofthemoreunscrupulousprivateproprietorsnow become
under the charistiþariol who assumed their
places'
;;;;t;J
'"äi;;;;;"iion l".g.íy a business proposition' This was an important difference from
of the charistike, rherefore, can provide some.indication foundation, for whom
inherent in the administration of ordinary private
foun- ,fr.'""i*¿. of u tàdiiional patro' of a private
.f ;h; firur.*, f.rron"l profit was only a sufsidiary consideration'
a socially condoned
dations and the to which they were liable. Like private fotrnders, necessary to create a mon-
"b,rr* the right to make nominations or appoint-
enioyed
lo-p.rlrátion for the real financial sacrifice
tie charistiþarioi urr.ry o, philanthropic institution in the first place'
menrs to the clerical påriri"n, *ñhin their
institutions.
John of Antioch -"J;ú..f
prostagma) to Antioch ålro .o-pl"ined.that.the appointment. of a charisti-
lamenteci their trse oi a *'itttn mandate (an engraphon institu-
þirios had a pe'ricious effect on discipline within a religious
orderahegoumenostoacceptcandidatesfortonsure.loThemorepre- rion.13 The higoumenos and his oikoiomos lost control of the daily
and simply
,r_prr"rr" iaristikarioi ignàred the hegoumezos altogether This aJminist.ation"of the monastefy, including the important
ove.rsight of
i"i"i_.¿ their local ug.n*"of n"* chosen by themselves.
some control over the
"ppoir,teesin atte*rpts to reconcile pa- il;;,t¡.r. Tiaditional patrons presumably exerciseel
reminds us of earlier ãifficulties encountered their.institutions, but the chari,stiþarioi
ironr, ,ignr, to nominate clergy for their foundations
with effective epis- frop"r,y endo*mentì grrnt"à to the funds
ãUur.a ih"i. u,rtho.ity"by cutting back or totally eliminating
copal supervision' properly. maintains that
practice of that the monasreries ""á.d to iunction John
Charistiþariol also availed themselves of the contemporary p.'..p.i* monks rea|ized who was really in control of their destinies,
they held ín charis-
enrolling laymen on À. payrolls of the monasteries and turned their attention to pleasing the charistiþarios
rather than their
to monasteries'
tiþe.11 Thepra*ice ,;;.;rr'to have been closely related
,"i. rr sh*r., of s¡tires¡a to interested laymen. ordinaril¡ the laymen begoumenos.La
religious
(exomonitai¡ resided outside the monastery, The mere presence of a higher authority tended to undermine
.*olled under this program the in- discipline, since monks whã thought they had been treated
unfairly by
to take up residence.within
but in time some ("io'åou¡oì¡) came
theii hegoumenos could appeal to the cbaristiþarios.
Two hostile parties
patriarchs had also come
stitution also. Eventually the emperors and the oii.n among the brothers in monasreries where the hegoumenos
;;i;t right, to plu.. iuy-t" in monasteries given out under rhe char- they gave ;;;1;á"år.;"ougt
"to
stand up to the charistikarios.ls Since John con-
ìrräi.irrti^pr ru.'h rights were reserved by these officials when prevailed when
Here, too, we trasted this situation to the gàod order that he claimed
out inrti,o,iåns unde."their wardship tolay charistikarioi. the monasteries stood t¡nder"the regulations of their
founders, it may be
see the exercise .f a' old privilege ànc.
enjoyed by private founders of
iir"i f.rrJi.g families under the óld tytt.- of private- administratiou
religious institutions. werelesspronetoexploittheirpositionsofauthoritytothedisadvantage
Thecharistiþarioiofthelarge,well.endowedmonasteriesinthelater of the hegoumenoi.
religious institu- --ürrlikJ_uny
,t"ç, of the charistiþe were rJceiving fully operational of t6e founding families, who might reside near, rerire ro,
in their founclers'
;i;;; ,r,' in accorda.,ce with the priÀciples laid do*trwhose plight might
,-iilir. U"lrUe those ,uin.d o. insolveni institutions t2
De monasterüs Ch. 14, lines 414-25 '
11[)e monasterils Ch. 14, lines 425-28'
eDe monastetiis Ch. 10, lines 278-85' taDe monasterils Ch. 15, lines 483-94'
toDe monasterils Ch. 14' lines 443-53' 1s
De monasterils Ch. 15, lines 495-512'
11De monasterils Ch. 14, lines 471-78'
 =..-r

THE REFORM MOVEMENT 1,91

190 CHAPTER SEVEN

a monastery might come near to exceeding the monastic communlty

lt-
and be buried in their own monasteries, the charistikariol often spent
admin-
most of their time at court in Constantinople far away from their
self.21
Deprived of their ordinary sources of incotne, some monastic com-
irrr"riu. responsibilities. Indeed, the holder of more than one cbaristiþe
m,rniiies hacl to turn to the sordid alternative of innkeeping, for which
could hardþ expecr to administer each institution in person. Michael
psellos, *ná n.tã úte charistiþe ín at least twelve institutions' is an ex- their facilities were structurall¡ if not conceptuall¡ well-suited'22 church
councils had long ago legislated against lay patrons who used their mon-
of one courtier whose administrative responsibilities perhaps out- now the abuse returned under the charisti-
"-pl.
*.,gh.¿ his financial gains.16 As an individual of some scruple' and with
asteries for this f,ttþor.,
"nd
gou.rn*ent officials, Psellos was much in demand karioi. Tlre fiscal exactions of the charistiþariol' the residence of large
access to the court
^ni pow- numbers of laymen, anel the need to find new sources of income might
for service as a charistiþarios of unattached monasteries seeking a and drive sorne monasteries under the
offer (a reminder .o-pound
.riuf purton.17 He had to turn down one monastery's ""iuting-diffi.culties
chaiistilze to the ultimate indignity of complete secularization'23
that a charistiþe was not always imposed involuntarily on an institution
Now it is very important to realize that John of Antioch was not
{rom above), and he transferred the burden of another charistiþe to
when he saw minded to incluie the pious laity and their labors in founding and sup-
someone elsé. psellos knew a good business proposition of the charis-
án., ho*"u.r, and it is amusing to read a letter expresssing his indigna- fo.ting private religious institutions in his condemnation
t¡por¡i¡ änd the chiristiþe.Indeed, he commended, at least by inference,
tion on an occasion when he faìled to obtain a coveted charistiþe.18 prevailed in the times before his own, when
tt . gooa order that he claims
A man of Psellos' prominence necessarily had to rely upon agents to dominated the religious landscape.of the
t.u.litionul privare foundationì
,up"ruir. the administration of the many institutions he held in charis- toward private religious
for empire.2a ño b.rr., proof of John's benevolence
tike.Theseagents were known as pronoetai, a traditional designation
E-Sflt' One of institutions is forthcãming than the fact that he considered himself to be
prrp.try -"ã"gr., which can be iraced back to Byzantine of
find him promot- the legal owner of a priváte monastery outside his own patriarchate
þr.ilor"l.tt.rs árentions a pronoetes, and in others we Rntioãh. The institution *"r the monastery of Theotokos ton Hodegon
pronoetai'1e ln
ing u"rio", candidates for monastic appointments to his
no.ri- in Constantinople, an imperial founclation that John Tzimisces granted
ãri" ,f these, he deplores a hegoumenos' resistance to one of his
but also demonstrat- in the tenth ..rìu.y to the patriarch of Antioch as his official residence in
nees, thus confirming John of Antioch's complaints,
could make a stand for good reli- the capital.2t Aftei John's expulsion from Antioch by the Latin Prince
ing in", conr.i.nti"oï s hegoumenos
Bohemund in 1099, he returned to constantinople, resigned his patriar-
gião, o.d.. in defiance of a powerful charistika¡os. Here again, it is
"
.hut", retired to this monastery.26 While serving as its director, John
iik.ly th"t by their use of pronoetai, the charistiþ.ariol adopted one of the got iáuolu.d in a serious quarrel with the monastic community. At the
".rd
f."tú.., of the administrations of some of the traditional private patrons' ñeight of the difficulties, he fled rhe monastery in the middle of the night.
The distance of absente e cbaristiþarioi fram their charges must
have
of their com- In ã' e"tant document, John explains the circumstances that led him to
diminished their understanding of the traditions and needs
this action, alleging thatìhe monastery stood in his personal despoteia.2T
munities. Yet John of Antioch thought that charistiþarioi of lesser
means,
took up residence in their monasteries' happened to pose It appears thãt;ãhn confused this institution's status as the monastery
*ho of the Àntiochean patriarchare in Constantinople with the notion that it
".tu"lly
the greatest threat tã monastic discipline.'zo Patriarch Alexius Studites
a protector b.lorrg.d to him hi, p..ro.ral property. Despite his misrnderstanding,
had ãlready attempted to ban the granting of a monastery to ",
but when a char- i, ,".å, clear that John himself liad "o straightforward objections to the
of the sex áppporiì. to that of theiesident community, of
monastery, the idea of private ownership of religious institutions. The focus of John
istikariostott up residence with his whole family inside a
increased. The presence of numerous
fossibilities for iexual misconduct 2t De monasterüs Ch. 14' lines 472-74'
iay brethren as pensioners in the monasteries aggravated the problem' 22De monasterils Ch. 15, lines 510-12'
jãhn urr..r.d that in some cases the number of non-religious resident in 23
De monasterüs Ch. 14, lines 477-78 '
2aDe monasterìis Ch, 14, lines 414-25.
historical con-
25For this monastery, seá ¡anin, Géographie, Vol. 3, pp. 208-12;..for,its
16On Psellos'role as a charistikarios,see Lemerle, "charisticaires," 22. n..,iã*lï¡ tftã p",.¡*.ttr of Antio.h, ãee'Gautier, "¡ean V l'Oxite," 113 and 115, n' 13'
ttl..tior,fp;rf olae 1,49, iSO (.4. Saihas); cf. Herman, "Charisticaires," col' 615' ^-"llÈot
the chronology of these events' see Gautier, "Jean V I'oxite"' 132'
rsPsellos. Epistola 178 (ed. Sathas)'- ,jot n àt entio ch,îeri tes phuges (eá. Gautíer, ,,Jean V l'Oxite," 146-56,esp. 154, lines
FPsellos. Epistolae 95,'164,205 (ed' Kurtz-Drex-l)'
12-1.7).
n;ohn o? Antioch, De monasteriis Ch' 15, lines 516-27 '
 THE REFORM MOVEMENT 193
192 CHAPTER SEVEN

of prince Robert Guiscarcl.32 At the time of Guiscard's capture of Dyrrach-

Antioch's ob¡ection to the charistike was not' then, the involvement
p.J",t i"¿itíduals in the foundation, direction, or ownership of monas- iu- in the fall of 1081, the Byzantine government found itself without
i.ri"r, Uu, rather their exaction of personal profit from these activities'28 ih. n...rr".y financial resources to pay a badly demoralized army and
ro recruit nei soldiers. The emperor sent an urgent appeal to his mother,
Anna Dalassena, and his brother the sebastoþrator lsaaq33 who were
LEO OI.'CHALCEDON go;..nirrg the capital on his behalf, asking for whatever funds they could
i-,"n"g. ä ,ais. to ,hort norice. They decided upon expropriating valu-
Historians have long recognized the significance of John
of Antioch's
Ãnsecrated vessels and works of art in the capital's churches and
about dernise of the "ble
ir*, i, stimulating Ih. .h;'l"rrge that brought the.
of rnelting them down in oriler to obtain gold and silver bullion.3a
,iii¡rt¡p,r," but a iundamentaliejection of the traditional acceptance Alexius' regents searched diligently for some legal or canonical
th. d.riu"tion of private profits from the direction of religious institu- grounds to allãw the confiscation. Appare'tly unaware of.Heraclius' re-
circles
tion, hud already gained a considerable following in ecclesiastical ior, ,o the wealth of the city's churches in a similar hour of extreme peril
is traceable ultimately
t;;h.-,t-. of its iublication.30 This reevaluation for the stare, rhey decided to justify their action on a provision of a novel
a I-.o, metropôliàn of Chalcedorl in the 1080s, who aclvocated the pro- His
of Justi'ian ihat'per-itted the sale of consecrated vessels to ransom pris-
tectioí of all ecclesiastical property from exploitation by. laymen.31 onärs of war.r, the government could hardly claim that the terms of
initial opposition to gou.rÅ-.n,"1 requisitions of þeimelia
(sacrecl ves- justinlant law condo-ned a requisition of ecclesiastical property for the
sels) anå tr.uru"res of the churches aud monasteries of Constanti-
tth., 'purpor.
of fielding an army, but the circumstances in which the state
to-
nãpt. obtig.d contemporaries to reexamine their permissive attitudes iound itr.lf must have seemed dire enough to justify a very broad inter-
property and led them eventually to
*r"J .m.i"l use of Ëcclesiastical pr.t"tion. A considerable number of laymen were benefiting from eccle-
ecclesiasticai institutions as
l,r.rtion other forms of lay exploitation of stimulus for the growth of
siastical property at that very moment through the charistiþe, certainly
.ir.tt. fn.r, Leo can b. .onrid.råd the original fo. -,r.Ë leås e"alted purposes. Moreover, the emperor's uncle, Isaac I
cornrrenus (1057^59), had managed a generatiorì earlier to carry out
a.nightyreformmovementthatultimatelytransformedtraditionalatti- a
of ecclesiastical
t,rd.r"on the proper role of the laity in the administration much more extensive confiscation of ecclesiastical incomes without sub-
property. stantial opPosition.'
' Early'in the reign of Alexius Comnenus (1081-111S)' the empire
faced
This tiåre the sebastokrator lsaac took the precaution of summoning
gr^uL threat tJits exisrence from the invading forces
of the Norman
the patriarchal synod under Eustratius Garidas (1081-84), and pre-
^ sentËd to it the government's case for the expropriation._ The _p_atriarch
28See the subtitle of De monasteriis (ed' Gautier, p' 91)' could be counteã upon not to oppose the government's plans' He was a
.ol . 61'4, and "Riceiche," 324; Lemerle, "Charisticaires,"
I
"fi*."r,-;õfra.i.ti."i...;; 2l'
8; Ahrweiler, "Charisticariat," favorite of Anna D-ul"rr.nu, *tro h"¿ engineered his elevation to office
:0V. Tiftixoglu, "C*pp.rUììa"ngen innerhalb des konstantinopolitanischen Klerus wäh-
after she forced the abdication of his pious predecessor, cosmas I
(1075-
rend der Kommenenzeir ," à1-(t'iø,g),25--72tand K. Th. Polyzoides, Ho uasileus þai hoi
sz
i;;krl;;r^i; ;; grnni aiá;kriion'ergon'tes ekþiesias eni Alexiou Komnenou (1081-1118)
of eåclesiastical politics during the reign
32Anna Comne na, Alexiad 4-6, ed. Bernard Leib (Paris, 1937-45); Ferdinand chalan-
(Thessalonica, tgzsl pr"iidîgr"ã.ãiãt.t*i.r,, a"",'nri"¡ ,ü ¡;-;;;"" d'Alexis lár Comnène (1081-1118) (Paris, 1900); Glavinas, E¡ls,
oi Alexius Comnenus.
"^
liü Ciu-.t laid the foundations for the study of Leo of Chalcedon in "L'affaire de Léon 39-54; P. Stephanou, "Procès," 39-57'
"-,iCiurìnn.,
ir"Á.io-r' d'Alexis Ier Comnène (1086)," EO 39 (1941- pl¡,5+=øq;ÍãtlsaacComnenus,seeSkoulatos,Personnages,124-30,and
¿. Ci.i.¿ãáin., L. dé...i oo
D. p^p;h;t;;thâ.,,
,,Lu ã"t. de la mort du sébastocraror Isaac comnène, frère d'Alexis
c.hrvsobulle d'.11::l'I: objets
iãl]ïlãjr;';i.';tr"i.. .t; i¿.;;; Ch,l.édoi"''andLe'Les ï:^les
documents athonrtes concernant ler," REB
"^1,À.,n" 2l (1963). 250-55.
tlrlitj; nr"årt byzantines 2 (1944), tz!-zJ.; Giouanni Mercati (Vatican cit¡ 1946)' Co- nenà, Alexiad 5.2; Polyzoides, Vasileus,53-69 and Gautier, "Blachernes,"
ü ¡vt¡""lla"ea
i,"fi;. ã; i¿." â. p.crr¡.¿ã"ìr.,",,Le 213,';itl;r.i,."pl"in tl.t. origini of ti.,..goo..nn'..,t\ financial difficulties'
_¡s. chalcédoine," ocP 9 (1943), 5- -^r;ff,ã
p...éd.n, (contra Gäutier, "Blãchernes," ,,13) was undoubtedþ N/ 120.9-10
Léon de
ï;î.i,6: rre sr.pr,"".r, procès de
but without the advantage of Gru-
¿.åii.ãäouniof
ä; öiá"; ,h. Ãor, ,,Doîuìrr..,t.itttonir.t")
Leo,s career, 'g
(544) ( - S.Z. t l-l Z), see Leo of Chalcedon, Epistole pros ,lMarianl ten,Protou,cstidrisatt'
åå,i ,.¿"ri.g (i., hi. of seveial important doc.uments.laul Gau- Alexiou
ed. Alexandros Lauriotes, "Historikon zetema ekkleiiastikon epi tes
'Etude basile¡¿s
tier- .,1.e svnode des st^.h.r-n; (nn 1094): prosopographique," REB 29 (1971')'
important events in the con- l;;;.;¡; EA 20 Q90;0),404-5, esp' 4054, lines 21-23 (see Grumel' "Documents
Ïi_8a, ;fr;;.";";; ;di;i;;i ,;;estions.fo¡ the áatinsof
(Louvain, 1'980) 172- ati',ánites,"'327-28 for the identity of the recipient o-f this letter)'
t,-'lii pir:íå"*ges byzantins de i Alexiade --^liirli.ún.t
rroversv. Basile Skoulato '
He epi. Alexiou Attaliates, Historia,'ed.l. Bekkår, CSHB (Bonn' 1853), pp- .60-62; Psellos,
;r""i;;ffi';;;;;;i;"úì"*"ptv .f ,r,-. ..for*.r. Apostolos clavinas,
hagion eikonon eris (1081- Cør."ålr"pn¡à 7 .60, eá. E. Renauld (Paris, 1926-28); Zonaras, Epitome historiarum '5.
1'8
tirrilirä"ttbsi:]1|al piri'iii,o,, ,kruon., keine.liõn kai
j OlliiÍ¡.rà-f" nica, tgii), provides a useful narrative of the controversy. critical ãisiussion by Ahrweiler, "Charisticariat," 20-21'
L94 CHAPTER SEVE,N THEREFORMMOVEMENT 195

A courageous patriarchal official named John Metaxas did

step senting members of the home synod such as Basil, the metropolitan of
10BL).3?
precedent.3s Eucha-ita, and some high government officials such as George Palaeolo-
for*ár,l to challenge Isåac and object to his use of canonical
gus, the emperor's confidant and one of his generals.a3 Leo's ecclesiastical
ñot*ithrt"ndi'g ùs opposition, the sebøstokrator succeeded in getting
synod's approval for the requisition'
Juppo.r"r, constituted for the moment only a minority in the synod, yet
"'^i;J;pp"iåntly
the
thåy vehemently denounced the supporters of the government as "the
.l..ided to make the requisitions in those institutions
to which ih" puiri"r.hate had undisputed title, Iimiting the seizures, flatterers."
i¡,.r"ior., ,o p.-rbli. institutions and st.rdio.tsly avoiding private
founda- In the summer or 1,082 Leo wrote directly to the emperor to urge a
the proestotes formal investigation of the requisitions that would examine the founder's
iirìr.rr í*o y.u., later Alexius Comnenus could summon
of the breuia breuia of the monasteries to determine precisely what losses hacl been
of the capitaÍ', *onurrr.ies and prove' by careful checking
had not touched sustained.44 At the same time, he pressed the emperor for the deposition
ãi ,ft.it Ëonsecrated possessions, that the government
l. å"ál.urions of their benefactors.ao Ordinarilg the privatecircum-
pressing of Eustratius Garidas and the restoration of the former patriarch Cos-
respect for prop- mas.45 The pressure that the Chalcedonians brought to bear against the
stances and Isaac's precautions, particularly his
;;;;, ;""1d hav. s.rfficed ro ensure an uneventful requisition ir-r a society gnu.rn-"rri soon forced Alexius Comnenus to make concessions. In a
iåíg à.."r,omed to rourine lay exploitation of ecclesiastical resources' ãhrysobull of August S, 1.082, he promised that neither he nor his suc-
-"i;;; gold and ..rio6 would ever again resort to requisitions of ecclesiastical prop-
the sight of the sebastokrator's workmen prying_the
ton Chal- He also pledged, as Heraclius had done, to repay all that the gov-
,itu!, o.nu-.nis off the doors of the church of the Theotokos erty.46
of the empire improved'
the impe.tus for .rn-"nt had seized when the fortunes
;;;;;.t"r ;Àat shocked Leo of chalcedon and provided
the eyes of Alexius These concessions did not suffice to quiet the emperor's critics' During
the reform movemenr.4l we know Leo best through
the princess and historian Anna Comnena' Al- the winter of 1083-84 Alexius found it necessary to hold a meeting of
ðo*n.nrlr' daughter,
though she was ãn ..,thutl"ìtic partis-an of her father'
she could not sup- the senate, the leaders of the armies, and dignitaries of the church to
metropolitan of defend once again the government's resort to conÊscation.47 He hoped to
;;;rr";."""1n grudging admiration for the redoubtable
man who showed put to resr th; ex"ggeiated Íurnors of the exrent of the confiscation by
Chalcedon"'Fle was," she <leclares, "a free-speaking
àcceding to Leo's dðmand and calling ín the breuia of the monasteries for
hrimselftobeinspiritthetrueimageofabishop.,'a2Anna.criticizeshis
in*m.i..,, knowledge of canon law, and complains that his la.ck ofclearly. train- examinãtion. He also took the occasion to announce specific plans for
ing i,, ror.nnl logic Ãade it difficult for him ro express
his ideas repayment to those institutions that the investigation proved to have suf-
i.î Rnnn admits that he lived virtuously and had a reputationprotests for abso- f.i"á lorr.r. He tried to make amends for the initial affront to Leo's
lut" in.or.uptibility. From the moment of his first vehement
to sensibilities by allotting an annuity from the treasury as compensation
th.e sebastokrator,he became a persistent
opponent of the government's for damages to Theotokos ton Chalkoprateion. These actions temporar-
use of ecclesiastical ProPerty' ily relieveã the emperor of the brunt of hostile criticism which the Chal-
--L.o cedonians now directed against the patriarch.
qul.6y gatheied a party of supporrers to his side. These followers,
some dis- Eustratius Garidas proved to be an easy target. All of our sources' even
whom Anna Comn.n" dib, "the CÈalcedonians," included
those hostile to the cause of Leo of Chalcedon' agree that Eustratius was
37For this patriarch, see Anna Comnena, Alexiad 3,2;7'onaras, Epitome h.istoriarum
chronike unsuitable for his high office. The emperor, preoccupied with the Nor-
18.21; Michael Glykas, n)ä, tCiun àoô1; Th.odore Skoutariotes, Syttopsis
(MB a, p. I 82)l Skoulatos. Personnages, 87-89' man 'war, was annoyed that the patriarch could not keep the church in
' 'i¡"il. Cornn.n^, ,qlri¡)a 5.2; ci'. Acta cuiusdam synodi Constantinopoli co.ngregatde
wit¡ Gautier, "Blachernes"' 275-76; ,rFor the term, see Anna cornnena, Alexiad 5.2; for Basil of Euchaita, see Sakkélion,
sub Alexio Comneno OOéil Úi tiZ, col.973D); ,,Décret," 116, line 13; for George Palaeologus, see Alexiad 7.4 and Skoulatos, Persoz-
"^;ïr;ilä-gPersonnages,l'98-99'
Skoulatos, t -:-- !-^*:.-its origins
. .
tn
i¡.oiot ãriån Chalkoprateion, an imnerial foundation from nagcs,99-105.
?ii-.o of Chalcedon, Epistole pros ton basilea Alexiott ton Komnenoz (ed. Lauriotes,
the mid_6fth cenrury, Ë;;;;Äi;r"àr, ,'.r.,r-n'in the patriarchal palace
.(see Janin,
""d loises in the reqursitions {see l' "Historikon Zetema," 403 -404), with Glavinas, Eris, 6 5-67'
Geopraþhie,Vol. 3, p. Zl' ïlti.¡ l-t" claimed had suffered de chal-
-
JL.o of Chalcedån, Epistole,404, lines 12-17; cf. Grumel, "Documents athonites,"
äf¿trå;;:rd;.¿,'J¡r.j"i. öã.ãJn. p"i,"", déposition de Léon, Metropolitain 126.
cédoine,"'BCH Z (1878),'l'02-28, at 1L8' line 15' a6Alexius Comnenus, Nouella de sacris uasibus itt publicum usum non coflueftendis
aoAnna Comnena, Alexiad 6'3'
;y "A Byzantine Ecclesiastical Reform Moveme't"' MH trosli tjcn 3.355_358) : Dölger, Rs*¿s/¿n No. 1085; polyzoides,va.sileus_70-78; Glav-
at Alexiad5.2; see ..;;i;
ìn"., É^, 73-78; Íor the dating of this novel, see Grumel, "Chrysobulle," 130-33'
n.s. 12 (1984),1-1,6. oíAnna Comnena, Alexiad 6.3' with Polyzoides, Vasileus,TS-81'
a2
Alexiød,7 .4; cf . 5 .2
 THE REFORM MOVE,MENT 1,97
196 CHAPTER SEVEN

deposition'a8 Leo of card's death on July 1,7, 1085,the emperor returned to learn of this new
good order, but he resisted demands for Eustratius'
source of discord within the church. Exasperated by Leo's intransigence,
ChalcedonnowwentdirectlytotheemperortoaccuseEustratiusofsac-
of the he initiatecl legal proceedings against him on November 30, 1085'55
;i"g" i;-;;a.onically alienating holy icons and other rreasuresrealized
must have Leo' shortcomings, so aptly noted by Anna comnena, became evident
church during the recáni requisiJons'io Tl". emperor
indirect attack on his own gov- when he found himself so suddenly obliged to defend his belligerent con-
ifr"iif,. ir¿iri*rn, of Eustràtius was an
;;;;;, which had actually carried out the expropr_iation. Eustratius de- duct. A pro-government pamphlet presents the emperor's case against
Leo and ttot.ã th. *.tropõlit"n's frequent changes of position during the
-"'¿.¿aformalinquestinordertoclearhimselfoftheaccusations.The the highest legal proceedings.s6 Leo vacillated from a militant stand at one point,
;;;;;, ..rsented ånd formed a commission thar included
officials of the patriar.À"" and Basil of Euchaita
as a token member of *ìr",r 1.,. demanded rhe removal from the diptychs of the names of many
theopposition'-sometimeinearlyl084thiscommissionexorreratedthe former patriarchs, to abject surrender, when he agreed to reestablish
patriarch.5o .o-.n,rnion with the patriarch on the eve of what was to be the conclud-
''und.r.r."d by this setback, Leo,s followers continued to harass the ing session of the inquest.sT The hostile account bears out Anna com-
'Ihe govern-
..nbuitl.d patriárch. They finálly drove Eustratius to abdication
in.fr'rly neia's contention that Leo was no rhetorician or canonist.
1084'51 Alexius Com,'.nus tlren permitted the
election of Nicholas III ment's case against Leo was actually rather weak, but Leo did not have
Grammaticus (1084-1111)' He appears to have
been a reformer' or at at hancl the aþpropriare canonical citations that might have greatly em-
to demonstrate his reformist sympathies.e barrassed the imperor. A scholiast on the government pamphlet who was
r."ri
-ït \Mu, soon
. reformers of the Chalcedonian party had forced Alexius to a might
series well disposed to Leo notes with exasperation his hero's unpreparecl-
The emperor ness.is i.o *or also unwilling to name the individuals who had wit-
of humiliating concessions and teue"al' of policy'
bur ar nessed the patriarch's participation in the requisitions, doubtless to pro-
;h;il; thoîght that he had finally bought peace in the.church, Both
;ili; ;;*.rt tËe chalcedonians chose to escalate their demands. tect his confidential informants.
begun a program By the day of the final session, in January 1086, Leo had recovered his
Eustratius ancl his newly chosen successor hacl already
of reasserting control over ecclesiastical properties lost . t<.r layrl'lert .o,riug" and resolution. After cletailirrg some fechnieal rcasons why he
;ilüh ;h;
"charistiþe.
This patriarchal. reform' about which we will shoulã nor have to celebrate the liturgy with the patriarch, he stunned
to the assembly with a neq extreme statement of belief on the alienation of
il;;;tt. to say shortly, was ue'y much in the same spirit of hostility
own pro- ecclesiastical property. He declared flatly that all alienations of conse-
i"y ..pf.y-.r,i of consecrated property as the Chaledonians'
refused
grr-. i-.o' however' was still bent on avenging past wrorìgs' andchurch crated p.op.it¡ regardless of the circumstances, were evident cases
to celebrate the liturgf with the new patriaich in the
cathedral of of impiãty. The only permitted rransformarions, according to Leo, were
Hagia Sophia.53
from ãne'sacred emp[oyment to another (thus apparently permitting the
Leo was not moved by personal hostility to the new-patriarch'
but conrinued employment of epidosis, but clearly not the cbaristike).se
the liturgy as a Leo had taken the critical step of broadening his specific condemnation
.nrh., by the mention Qnåphora) of Eustratius during
puri pu,ri"r.h in good ,t"nåi"g' Leo wanted a formal
condemnation of of the government's expropriation into an inflexible principle, which
'Eurr.",iur, euen ttough he haã been cleared by the emperor's commis- would Ãake impossible any sort of alienation of ecclesiastical property
sion of the charge of iacrilege'sa The new dispute
arose during another to laymen. Alexius, who was present, immediately rcalized the revolu-
oiit . r-p.ror's"absences o'-'"ta-paign against the Normans' After Guis- tionary nature of such a doctrine, ancl denounced it as having the ap-
p.u."n.. of piety, but the force of a denial of truth. How, he asked, could
asAnna Comnena, Alexiad 5'8-9' rrsakkélion, ,,Décret,,, 119, with Glavinas, Etis,104-B,Grumel, "Semeion.ra," 336, and
arsakkélion, ,,Décret," rTð ìit*. 1-7; Glavinas, Eris,93-95; Grumel, "Semeioma"'
Polvzoides. Va si leu s, 84 -90.
334. í.Sr*rio*o epi íe Þatbairesei tou Chalkedonos, ed. Sakkélion, "Décret," 113-28; com-
so"Décret," 116, lines 14-20'
5lTheodore Skoutariotes, ii,noprit chtoniþe (MB 7, p' 182), wrth Glavinas' Etis' 96- mentâry by Grumel' "Semeiotna," 334*38.
"Sakkélion, "Décret," 120; cf. Grumel, "Semeiorna"' 336'
'-'rrln,
98.
(MB 7, p' 182), John zonatas' 58Sakkélion,,,Décret," 1.23,n.3,and127,n.2,wherethescholiastciresc'const. Iet
this patriarch, see Skoutariote s, Synopsis ¿ltroniþe
I-1, c. 10 (RUP 2.684-686); cf. Glavinas, E¡ls, 108-'15'
histàriarum 18.2 1, and Skoulatos' l'ersonnages' ¿5J-56' 'ieSakÈélion, ,,Décret,"
*lil^tt¿iion,
F.hil()ffie
i. tZ:, lin. 23-p. 1,24,line 6, with general discussion by Glavi-
"Décret." I17. with Glav-inas' E¡¡s' l0^0-104'
t ô-r-u-.I,';Semeioma," 3 3 6 ; Polyzoides, Va s il e u s' 81 -84' nas, Erls, 1 17-26.
 THE REFORM MOVEMENT 199
198 CHAPTER SEVEN

all those Christians who' relying on It is impossible to discount the influence of Leo's spectacular defiance
Leo implicitly condemn as impious of the emperor or of the effect of his ideas on reform-minded contem-
his doctrine?
,fr. ptiti.ipf.s of laws und tu"ån', had violated poraries. Leo had become an almost legendary figure of righteousness.65
the technical grounds of
Alexius quickly ,".uttã tnt ttn""' of I 'eo on
Eustra- G.org. Palaeologus believed that it was a miraculous appearance of the
il;;;;diliion,'h. h"J-uro"gl.,t a complaint against Patriarch famous metropolitan who provided him with the horse that he used to
tius directly to the .-[t- *]thot't fi"i having recourse. to an ecclesi-
to accept the imperial commission's make his escape from the battlefield of Dristra. The Patzinak victoly
astical tribunal, and hË had refused there in 1087 over a Byzantine army financed by the second round of
sitdng as a court'
ilñ;;r.*o.,.ration of the patriarch.60 Theyetsynod, endorsed rhe emperor's requisitions must have seemed to pious contemporaries the iudgment
also confirmed the r"e;iiry ãrit.,"qultitions of God.
resolution not to resolt to it again'
ro reconcile himself with
Leo refused t" rou.ï1nlÇ"oa" directive
also made some incautious
,h.";;*";;; "r,¿ ,r,, tltt ãr 't''t church' I{e requisitions .to the icono- THE BEGINNINGS OF PATRIARCHAL REFORM ACTIVITY
statements .o*p"r,,,g iht "'ppo"'rs
of the
trap him with a charge
J";;;te;å of heresy based
clasts. His enemies vhile public atention fìxed upon the activities of Leo of chalcedon, the
insultio an icon was an affront nct only to the
image
on his view that an patriarchs of Constantinople were working quietly to effect a compre-
opinion, his.opponents
;i;À; r"in, ¡,r, to the holy rnan himself..l This(latieia) to an icon rather i,ensive limitation of the powers of the charistiþariol over ecclesiastical
worship institutions.rc The work of the patriarchs of Alexius Comnenus' reign,
charged, led to the
"t;;í "ttátai"e or çpioskynesis)'.The synod then
than merely ,r,. upproi'i"t" ttttotlán particularly Nicholas III Grammaticus, ultimately proved more signifi-
reassembled, proUuUiy'initU*"ty
or March 1086' and issued a tome of iant than ânything Leo and the Chalcedonians were able to achieve by
deposition against L.t, tÉ charge of heresy to the earlier one of themselves. The patriarchal reform oÍ the charistike ptoceeded indepen-
"J¿-g
insubordination.62 , .r,r-^. dently of Leo's battle against the requisitions, yet hardly without influ-
attention had not the beginning
Leo might well have faded from public ence and inspiration from the more radical reformers.
in 10g6 forced rhe emperor, in spite
of the patzinuk (p.t.h-.n.giinu"ri""r Indeed, it was the much-maligned Eustratius Garidas who actually ini-
ofallhispromises,toanewrequisitionofecclesiasticalproperty.This tiated this program of limitation, although admittedly only toward the
not only the loss of orna-
time the churches ""iïtt""tå"' 'ufft"d very end of his reign when the pressure from the Chalcedonians for his
also of landed propertv'63 Leo and
menrs, icons, and r";;J;;;;;ls, but removal was clearly very intense. Perhaps to show that he, too, was con-
üiä;;;r, ú.n.n*¿ from a sudden rejuvenarion of public s.upport. cerned about recovering the lost property of the church, Eustratius ob-
The government in iurn Àãut¿ quickly
to secure another synodal con- tained the cooperation of the emperor in repealing some unwise grants
banishment to remote Sozo-
demnation, which tüt tl-t *t"nt Leo's made by his piedecessors in offi.e¡l Alexius issued an order on March
polis.6a At last it app.u,.d that the
government had rid itself of a persis-
1.g, 1.084, thãt required the return of all properties that had once be-
tent, insufferable oPPonent' longed to patriarchal monasteries but had subsequently been given out
to such non-patriarchal institutions as imperial or private monasteries.
"0Sakkélion, "Décret,"
I24-26"cf' Grumel' "semeioma"''JI8-40''
ltrr¡íìi'.ír'ià"-.fCfr"i.. don. Eoisiole pros lMarianl
ten Protoues- The restoration of the endowments of patriarchal monasteries accom-
^rAnna Comne
^^, "ili;.;ik;;;.tema," 404). *itir comrnentary by Grumel, "Docu- plished by this acr was a necessary preliminary srep to a plan to hold the
tiarisan (ed.Lauriores. ,log,roton ton hinethenton,ed'T'
ments arhonires,., l29r Ñfi åiã. èirã""t.r.
iyropr,, tà-n
iharistikariol of these institutions responsible for their territorial integ-
h'istori(lm g'o"õ'u'' ecclesiasticam seculi
XI et
L. F. Tafel, Arno, co*n,.üi"i'ppt'*'*o "semeioma"' 340- 4 l' rity.
X I I sþ e c tan t a lrubingtn, Iãi-l'
)l:'i Ë cf ' Grumel'
i i-u Doctrine de Léon de Chalcedoine
n^, O,rr')i'Sl .2. *iif, S*phrno^u,
p.
"2 Ànna Comne
er de ses adversaires r",f i"iå"i'ï;: oci'ii tt2igl' üt-ss; for the date' see Grumel' 6rNote his appearance to George Palaeologus in the vision recorded by AnnaComnena'
;i.;;';;; Ñ;.;;î:ú; ;r. Gautiei' 'iBrachernes"' zt4' n' e' Alexiad 7.a; anã rhe miraculous-vision of Tho-"r in Leo's church of St. Euphemia, ed.
ì'For th....ond "quitiøn' ttt ¡nnu Comnena' Alex¡att 5'2¡ M' Coudas"'Byzantiaka Lauriotes,
,,iTistorikon zetema," 3658, with commentary by Grumel, "Documents athon-
engrapha tes Hieras *""ij'iÏi'o'ifi'; ËEBll iì s26)' t134;4'Doc' No' 4' at 128-31r iotes,', 1,ú); see also a dialogue by Eustratius, metropolitan of Nicaea, ed. A. Demetrako-
(.d. l-^unät.., p. 403); cf. Gautier. "Blach-
Leo of chalced
"^. '"i1,¡i.'"ití-t'' "ä;;;ã:
op,riàiiïåi,årî"r¡tli *chrysobulle"' 133' and stephanou' poulos, EåAlesiøstike bibtiolheke (Leipzig, 1866), 127-51, a piece of governrnent propa-
ernes," 2l 4, Glavinas. ganda intended to discredit Leo.
"t::i'"ï;ä;lrn^, 955r cf' Gautier' "Blach-
66Documentary evidence published by Jean Darrouzès, "Dossier," 150-65'
Alrx¡o,ts.2 (p. 15.e); Grumel, Regesres No' 6TDarrouzès, "Dossier," 159, with editor's commentary, 152, L56.
nn' 10-11' a;d Glavinas' Erìs' 138-46'
.rt;;;^ii5l;;*itú
 --

THE REFORM MOVEME,NT 201

200 CHAPTER SEVEN

Dristra. The patriarch held a steady course and did not allow himself to
NICHOLAS III GRAMMATICUS (1084_1111)
become embroiled in the renewed controversy over the legality of the
temporary halt to the pa-
Eustratius' abdication in Jul¡ L084 brought a government's requisitioning powers.
triarchate's program of uá-íÁltttative refãrm
of the charis¿låe' The new In May 1087 Nicholas Grammaticus decided to make his property
again later' prob-
p"ttãrrft, Ñi.nätu, Cr"-Àutittts, took up the matter problem of
registration requirement effective for beneficiaries who held unregistered
gravity of.the l)ypomnemata granted (either by himself or his predecessors) before
ãüiv rt^*,ime in 108i. Ht tttoinized the
out bv unscrupulous 1086, the date of the routine insertion of the clause of nullity.Tl These
;i;åti;it"*iio,t, of ecclesiasticallroperty carried
was the most patent evil
charistiþørior' u. upp"t.ntly deciáedihai this beneficiaries had to obtain a new patriarchal prostaxis (codicil), in which
these alien-
of the charistike.lt*u, nt"'iy impossible' however' to detectrequirement the chancellery was free to insert new restrictions, before they could ob-
Studites'
ãri.., b.l"ur. the charistiþàrioi ignored Alexius tain registry of their old hypomnemata. The patriarch's officials were still
thatallbeneficiariesshouldregiste.theirgrantsalongwithinventories trying to enforce this requirement as of January 18, 1090.
preced-
of dependent properti;;in tn" ãffitt of the chartophylax'68In.the The patriarch's reforms had the effect of encouraging vocal opposition
demonstrated the useful- to the charistike for the first time in over sixty years. Niketas, the met-
i.rf*inr., of tOS-l-Sa' the Ch"lt"donians had their lead' Nicholas
oi breuia io, d.t..ti"g alienations' Following ropolitan of Athens, took advantage of the growing official hostility to-
".î,
Gramrnaticus instructed hii chartophylax to
insert a clause in all docu- ward the charistikariol to bring an important case before the patriarchal
institutions that would nullify the grant au- synod on April 20, 1.089.7'z Greedy laymen and subordinate bishops had
-..ì, à"r"ring ecclesiastical a list of
iãr""ii."ffy ii It. U.n.?.iury did not submit within six months taken advantage oÍ the senility of Niketas' predecessor John, encourag-
pt^"p*f., ,tt".h.d to túe foundation he had received'ue ing hirn to disperse the see's churches, monasteries, and landed property
"^Vã;:;after
ifr. trial, at
the crucial final session of Leo of Chalcedon's on the favorable terms customarily accorded to charistiþarioi. Niketas
whichhehadannouncedhisoppositiontoallek.poies'eis(alienations)of sought the synod's authorization to overturn his predecessor's grants and
ecclesiasticat prop.r,y, Ñi.holas Grammaticus
took the next step in the to compel restorations. He appealed for justification to existing legisla-
saþþelar'
,.gir",,*, .r iyr- ,hoí'¡rt¡,t¿. The patriar_ch ordered his megalos tion of Alexius Studites, specifically the first hypomnema of 1'027 , rather
any g.rants of
ios (great rreasurer) tãi ,t u...pr, as of l-anuary than (as one might have expected) the second of 1028. This decree held
28,1'086-,
an attached praktikon en-
...t.îiurri.ul institutions fo. ,.gittty without properties'70
that wealthy bishoprics should return the monasteries they had received
gro.pøo, (written inventory) of lhe foundation's
immovable in epidosis from their metropolitans if the latter had need of their reve-
Leo of Chalcedon's
Nicholas Gru-mut,.u'''ht" declined to endorse nues,73
property' He preferred to Patriarch Nicholas Grammaticus and his fellow bishops were eager to
rig.titil"tition on th. i""ti"tt"Uility of church reliance on
*årf. ," corre* rhe worst problemi inherent in the church's do all that they could to assist Niketas in his difficulties. They ordered
and exploitation of its institutions and prop- that the metropolitan had the right to expel those who had misused the
l"y*.n for the
-"nug.-.ni
oî obtaining "" ittutntory of .the,Prtlt"l"t-,of reli-
erties. By insisting oratories and monasteries, particularly if they had driven away the
extended to the
gious institu,lon, g.;niJ in ciaristiþe' the patriarch- monks who as parish priests had performed the liturgical services and
charistiþariolacontrolthathadboundthetraditionalprivateproprie-of managed the estates.Ta The synod had a copy macle of the relevant pas-
g61. The idea of a formal registration sage from Alexius Studites' hypomnema so that Niketas could bring it to
tors of these institution"rin..
endowedpropertiesh"d*o't."dwellinthisfirstinstance'sothepatri- the local thematic court and obtain the assistance of the government in
;ùhl ,àronuutf t ave hoped for similar success in the case of the enforcing the decision.Ts Niketas had the option of retaining some of the
"*h incumbents for a year or two, provided that they made provision for the
-
cbaristiþarioi.
we have seen,
Á ;õ troubled period followed this latest decree. As officiating monks and compensation for any diminution in the value of
l0s6' The Patzinak
th. r.rid.nt rynoa a.poted l-eo of Chalcedon in early TlDarrouzès, "Dossier," 153, 156.
to the seconcl rouncl of
invasions began, aniAle"i,rs comnenus resorted 72Grumel, Regestes No. 952; text edited by Th. lJspenskii, "Mneniya i postanovleniya
konstantinopolskikh pomestnikh sobo¡ov XI i XII vv. o razdache tserkovnikh imuschchesrv
'.q"i'i,i'"'."tnthespringofl'}sTdisasterStrucktheByzantinearmyat (charistikarii)," IRAIK 5 (1900), 1-48: Doc. No. 2, pp. 30-37.
TsUspenskii, "Mneniya," p. 39, line 14-p. 40, line 11.
6s
Darrouzès, "Dossier," L56, paraphrased in.15
8-59' TaUspenskii, "Mneniya," 34, lines 3-11.
"Dossier," iss-5s, *ith tditot't commentary' 153' 156' TsUspenskii, "Mneniya," p. 34, line 11-p. 35, line 5.
"ó"iiã"r¿t, 60;, with commentar¡ 1 5 3, 1 5 6'
to
órrro,,,rèr, "f)ossier,"
59 1,
-
 THE REFORM MOVEMENT 203
202 CHAPTF,R SEVËN

emperor.Ts He followed up this protest with a memorandum that restated

ecclesiastical property. With respect to
the grants of land to laymen' the
that they had no rights his objections to the emperor's intentions.Te
svnod declared that the tenantrìn.rst underit"nd from this period. His-
but had ro observe rhe usual canonical John's famous traü De monasteriis also dates
i:ï*^il;;"'rh;r;;;p..ri.r, toii"n, have not been able to assign a specific date to this document, yet
prescriptions for the rental of church property' r ,--. -^-^r *to rule it must have been composed after a great earthquake that occurred on
was-prepared
The decision ¿.*ontit"ttd that Niihoias' syttod December 6 (perhaps in the year 1090) since John alludes to the calarnity
by unscrupulous
f";;;;bt;; cases of abuse of ecclesiastical propertyto rediscover old ca- in the text.80 joh"'s opposition to the requisitions, and his acceptance of
i;;;;.'Mor.ou.., the reformers were beginning
Leo's doctrine co.tde*ning all alienations of ecclesiastical propert¡ led
;J;ï;i;;ä;,nu, ,t,.y could employ to ove.th.ow rhe charistike.
him naturally to his extremely hostile view of the charistiþe. His strict
Thedecisionshowstnesynodtakinganactiveroleindissemirratingthe definition of the consecrated status of monasteries and all their properties
contempt or com-
il;t;;";r legislation of Alexius Studites long held inThe rediscovery of was also a logical extension of Leo's campaign against profane employ-
oletelv forqotten d"t;9;h. age of the chiristil<¿' ment of consãcrated vessels, icons, ornaments, and lancled possessions.8l
and contributed to the
ffiÏ #ä;i;".d rrr?."el"r täe twelfth centurv revision in the co'sti- It is equally important not to discount the influence of Nicholas Gram-
;î;;äì;i"g of rhe charistit<i as well as to a radical m¿rticus' reforrns-of the charistike upon the thinking of the patriarch of
i"iiå""r
-- stiucture of privately founded religious institutions' Antioch. As a moderate reformer himself, Nicholas had taken advantage
Grammaticus was un-
Fo, th. time being, ho*'uå', Patriarch Nicholas of the growing hostility roward the role of the laity in the economic
charistike. The Athens
*iilirg iá ",r..,rp, îú. ,rrrtgú, abolition of the exploitation oi the church to curb the truculent charistiþ.ariol. His ex-
the reason for this disinclina-
decision of 10gg *"f prouiã. the clue to ample surely suggested to John the next problem that deserved the atten-
tion. The patriarchate', lacking the resources to restore thousands of
to compel tlte charistiþarioi tion of the refoimers. Yet insofar as John's own program exceeded the
ruinecl foundations itr.lf, -"y"have hoped patriarch's plans by calling for the complete abolition of the charistike,
during strictly supervised
to make amends frt.;i;il;n depredãtions
*. *ur, not. th. iadical ideas which he probably received from Leo of
continuances of their tenures of office'
Athens de- Chalcedon.
In Septembe, f oSy, ti;ttly after the announcement of the
of charistik'e' During Leo's exile (1.086-94), the deposed metropolitan's prestige in-
cision, John, soon rott f"-ous as the great opponent .the
creased substantially.s2 Eventually the climate of opinion was to change
of the resident synod in
;;;;;;;ã ;r'f atriarch of Antioch at a meerin¿ The exact date further so as to allow not only his return from exile, but also his rein-
ðJ*un,lnoil. on ttr. q.r.rtion of church reunification'76 statement as metropolitan of Chalcedon. Tensions, moreover, relaxed ap-
see of Antioch (then still
and the circumstanc., åf hi, elevation to rhe preciably after Alexius crushed the Patzinaks at the battle of Levunion
under Muslim rule) are unknown'77 It is
not certain' therefore' whether
of his selection. In any än Aptií 29,1091.83 Pressures mounted for Leo's recall. Such influential
[i, *r.rr.irt symparhies were known at the timethat John had assumed the persoìalities as Empress Irene and her mother, the protouestiaria Maria,
case, it soon becam.-itut to contemporaries
As patriarch of
exiled Leo,s role as õát.r,,,un fo, ih. Chalcedonians.
influence' He did not
Antioch, John's opi,'ion' gained commensurate 78John of Antioch, Logos eis ton basilea kyr,Alexion ton Komnenon (ed. Gautier, "Dia-
old campaign of opposition
hesitate ro use his pr.rtig. tä champion Leo's tribe's,"
"" pp. 19-49);.f. .õ--.nt".y by Grumel, "f)ocuments athonites," 132*34'
prot io, basilea (ed. Gautier, "Diatribes," pp' 49-55); cf'
to the government requisitions' ';jàfritiinr uaih, Symboul, athonites," 134'
an alliance of the Pat- .o-rn.nt"ty
--^;;î.. by Grumel, "Documents
In the dark days of-Ftb'uary and March 1091' iái"b'aiusion io the eartllq.,ake, see_De m-onasteriis Ch.18' lines 588-90; for the
posed anothtl g:1u" threat to
zinaks and Tzachas, the emir of S-y'nu' .u.thqu;k. itself, see Michael Glykàs, Annales (CSHB 620), and John Zonaras, .Epitome
to decide on appro- ;;;t";;;;; iS.j). C.u-"t, La chronologie (Paris, 1958), 480, proposes toindate the earth-
i
,h..-pi.r. Alexius Comnenus summoned a council council would permit him see Gaútier, "Réquisitoire," 80-86, for the difficulties
;;"1;;; 1090, but monasteriis. determining a
priate responr.r. Fl.ãppurently hoped that the precise date for De
property.' John of Anti- ' ;¡ãn"of Antioch, DemonasteriisCh. 11, lines306-15; cf.lines322-24,andcomments
'
t,
i
to undertake another'råquisitiån o? ecclesiastical
j

ù;1ã1t oppor"d-this'plan in an impassioned

tract addressecl to the Gautier, "Réquisitoire," 78.
-' tiA,
by
lr
ti
;:h inái.rt.á by L.o-of Chalcedon, Epistole pros lMarianl ten Protouestìatisan (eð.
I
l"urìåt.., pp. +O+jSl and Nicholas, metropolitan of Adrianople, Epistole (ed. Lauriotes,
p. if ji, Jf.'å."r-..rráry by Glavinai, nris,i46-50, and Grumel, "f)ocuments athonites"'
76Grumel, "Patriarehes grecs," 294'.
^ REB 28 (1'970)'
77paul Gautier, ,,Diatribìs de Jean I'Oxite.contre Alexis ler comnène,"
"Patriarthtl g'tttt.'' 283-84' the patriarch of L18-21.
5-55, esp. 6. n. 7. A*tJ;;ìå-ðrttmel' srAnna Comnena, Alexiad 8'3.
1.,"a .onr.Jråi?iifr. ".*iy .f.cte,J patriañlrs of Antioch since 996'
Constantinople
 THE REFORM MOVEMENT 205
204 CHAPTER SEVEN

emperor h-imself coulcl not the decade. In the presence of these and many other dignitaries of the
were now amollg Leo's sttpporters'8a Even the
court and the church, Leo renounced his doctrinal errors and was rec-
;;;;;;t a grudiing admiiation for his irrepressiblea rival' oncilecl with Basil of Euchaita. Soon afterwards Leo regained his metro-
'Ihere are in.li.ntlon, ihat this period alio s"w growing rapproche-
the new group of reform- politan see.eo
ment between the origi.ral Chalceàonia's and
patriarch Nicholas Grammaticus The synod at Blachernai marks the triumph of the chalcedonian re-
;;;^ì;.-,h, p"i.lur.hui"dministration. form party, although in a context that preserved appearances for the etn-
hadneverbeencentraltothecontroversyovertherequisitions,andhis
demonstrated his enthu- peror^and-the patriarch. The synod enabled the emperor to commit him-
recenr labors for the ràgulation of the charistiåe
tolerance (and perhaps also self gracefullyìo moderare reform.el As the union of all parties that had
siasm for moderate ."f;;' The hierarchy's
worf,ed for an end to lay exploitation of ecelesiastical propert¡ the synod
of John of Antioch also indicates that they would
rolerare
iö;;;;,1"") 'opinion that all parties resolved pureiy personal differences and allowed concentration on the
diu.rrity of on the pace and extent of reforms
";;;;ú"*leåged were necessary. Leo a_lso had important supporters grearest ó,rtrt"náitrg problem, the reform of the cltaristike.e2 The recon-
of Adria- iiliation reached here between the reformers and the emperor was soon
in the hierar.hg notubly his nephew Nicholas' metropolitan
to prove of great value toward that goal.
nople,whowereworkingeffectivelyonhisbehalfatthecourt'8sLeo's
had disassociated Iì is not hard to imagine the uproar that Nicholas Grammaticus' reg-
;õi;* ,"ported to rri, í".r" that'Basil of Euchaitahad become a sup- istration requirement and his aunulment of the grants at Athens in 1089
again
himself from the ,.*.^ti¿"p.,sitiott ancl once
caused in the ranks of the charistiþarioi, whose economic status was
porter of the Chalcedonians'86
Leo's exile only if bound up with the traditional acceptance of the inviolability of private
At first Alexius Comnenus would agree to an end to
monastic vóws'" Leo' however' was adamant
i"k" properrtrights in ecclesiastical institutions. Some beneficiaries, upset at
he would promise to
The emperor even- whåt they saw as abrogations of their traditional rights, took their cases
.nulrr,aining his claims to his see of Chalcedon'
I eo must to the emperor himself'e3
,r"ffy l"pirtlateJand dropped all preconditions except that-
"bou,
This did not The emperor did not allow himself to be swayed by their appeals. In a
,.ir"'., rri" allegedly h.r.ti.äiuiews ón the worship of icons.renoullce atly critical ,lecisicrn of May 1,6, 1"094, hc ruled that even charistikarioi who
pt.". a be an inruperable-difficult¡ for Leo agreed to
'uno.,tto¿o" views he might have propounded in the past'88 had received imperial prostagmata (diplomas) could not use these as pre-
- a memorable texts for defying the patriarch's registration requirement.ea Encouraged
ih. great reconciliaiiå" that ?ollàwed took place in- of Many by the t,tpport, Nicholas Grammaticus moved six days later
,y"ái Blachernai in constantinople in the latter haif 1094.8e
"-p"rotl
tó set a deadline of ihree months within which the reluctant charistiþa-
"î
whohadplayedl-p-t,ntpartsinthecontroversiesofthepastdecade
sebastoþrator rioi had to fulfill the requirements of his previous legislation'es These
;;r; ;róti, th. å-p.'o', th" patriarch Nicholas'thethemetropolitan of individuals, who for six years had managed to fight the patriarchal re-
Isaac, Basil ,t. *.,tãpofiã" of Ëuchaita-' Niketas
promi- forms, now faced the most serious challenge yet to their dorninance of
Ã;i;t, George Palaeålogus, and John l\1[etaxas' The continued the con- the empire's ecclesiastical institutions.
r.t.t ãf M.tã*ur, the veiy á"t t'itit of the requisitions' shows
throughout At this point the patriarch decided upon the bold project of a visitation
tinuity of Leo,s ,oppå., *ihin the patriarchal administration
arrd ,enru, of all of the nominally patriarchal monasteries managed by
pros lMarianl.ten Protouestiarisan
Leo of Chalcedon, Epistole,iDo.u,n.nr,
soSo \ed' Lauriotes'
e0Grumel, Regestes No. 968; cf. Niketas Choniates, Synopsis ton dogmaton (ed. Täfel,
õffi;i, aihonites"' 127-30; cf. Anna comnena,
404A), with .o-rn.nr".y'b| p. 7, lines 1,2-1"3).
Alexiad 5.2. (ed' '' ,iNor" Goudas, ,,Byzantiaka engrapha," Doc.4,p" 128, Alexius Comnenus'reversal of
8'Nicholas of Adrianople, Epistole (ed' Lauriotes' p' 413)' and Leo's repl¡ Eprstole
E¡is' I5 l-55 and Crttmel' "Docu- un .".1i., con6scation of monastiJproperty carried out by his government; also this em-
Laurjotes, pp. 414-16).;i;h;å;;;"ì'rv bv Glavinás' p..or', nou.l of 1106 reforming the.lergy of the public churches, ed. Paul Gautier, "L'édit
ments athonites," 1 18-23' by Grumel' ã ¡i.*ii ier Comnène sur la réiorme duilergé," Rff :f 0973),165-201, esp. lines 325-
s6Nicholas of Adrianople, Epistole (ed. Lauriotes, p. 413), with commentary
42; on this novel see also Dölger, Regesteît No. 1236- .
"f)ocuments athonites," 1 19' irNot" the work of subsequent patriarchs such as John IX Agapetus (1111-34), Cosmas
sTLeoofChalcedon, nTiír.t,proslMarianltenProtouestilrisan(eð'Lauriotes,p'4041ì'
II Atiicus (1146-47),Nicholas IV Muzalon (L147-51), and Luke Chrysoberges (1 1s7-70)
lines 37-40). discussed below in Chapters 7 and 8.
88Grumel, Regestes No' 967'
(pG I27,cols. 972-84). with clavirras' E¡is.
er
Darrouzès, "Dossier," 157 , cited at 1"59.
so
Acta s,vnotli corrtoiiiràpolitanae (10941 eaDarrouzès, 153-5 4, L 57.
,roii"^ili'oå;ä:;;:."i;:;ï,1,.îsl, à,-a^'í1s gqqlorgd here. see Gaurier. "Blachernes," erDarrouzès, 157, with commentâry' 154-55
;80-81in p."f.r.n." to Grumel, Regestes' Vol' 1' No' 968'
 THE REFORM MOVEMENT 207
206 CHAPTER SEVEN

by patriarchal function- sessed entitling them to appoint monks and nuns as well as to cofrect
laymen under the charistiþ'e'e6 A direct visitation their spiritual faults could be considered valid in spite of contrary pro-
the veracity of the inventories
aries would enable Nicholas to establish visions in canon law.
those charistiþariol who had
that had been submiti"ã "r¿ to deal with
refused to register their grants'
The census upp."rtrãhave begun in L095
or early in1'0,96' The pa- ALEXIUS COMNENUS AS REFORMER
nu¿ instructioris to visit each patriarchal monaster¡
"tlno,tå in the presence of its Alexius Comnenus provided detailed responses to these inquiries in his
"i"r.l"i
enroll it in a register, and examine its operation novel of December 1096, De ìure patriarchae circa monasteriø.e8 He up-
resistance from many of the
charistikarios' The u..t on' met with fierie hel<l the patriarch's rights of epiteresis (oversight) and diorthosls (correc-
denied enrrançe to the pa-
cbaristikario¡. some ;i ;h. lay beneficiaries tion) in áll ttto.tnut"ties within his jurisdictional boundaries regardless of
documents of donation
triarchal archons' u,,t'ting túat their original In some the status of their foundation or their current form of administration.ee
|,ïl g";".,..d tir.- fr.eio- from ecclesiasticalgaininterference.
admittance, the ar- The law specifically includes independent (eleuthera), imperial (basiliÞa),
of those institutions *h;;. they did mana_ge
to
public (demo s ia), private (k o smi ka), and patriarchal ( patr i ar c h i ka) mon'
chons discou"r"d g,^ut such as the secularization of monastic
"bt"t' the for- ãsteries as well as those granted oü in epidosis, dorea (that is, in charis-
iliåt"gt;;i ,tt. î"1" of to""t'"ted propertv' co¡fronted by tike), and ephoreia as being among those institutions properly subject to
by the charistikarioi' the
midable array of ¿.*t"tt" b'ought forward the patriarch's oversight and correction.
census as the patriarch had
archons were unabl. ìo .o-pf.õ their Ai far as visitation rights were concerned, the patriarch was to have
of inquiry ad-
planned. They comfosed, thËtefore'- a memorandum an unrestricted right to enter all of his own patriarchal monasteries ex-
the actual extent of the
dressed to the .*p.iot - order to determine cept for those that had been given to other ecclesiastical authorities in
patriarch's rights over these institutions'e7 epidosis.too Monasteries granted to laymen in charistike, therefore, were
hypomrrr¡, ofint probabþ dates to tof!,¡¡ltiintv Ue
Thís
"ttttont subject to parriarchal visitation. In the case of free (eleuthera) and self-
foreDecemb"rofthuty."t,*ftt"AlexiusComnenuscomposedhisreply' governing (autexousia) monasteries, the patriarch could make a visita-
most fundamental ques-
i;,ht, document th. "i.hon, posed some.of the insrirutions held in cbar- tion only when he had learned of a spiritual fault occurring in one of
rions concerning the Jgn,, áf ihe patriarch
over
have needed these deter- these institutions.l0l No patriarchal or imperial document could prevent
istiþe.Thatthe patriar'chal bt"tuttt'uty should a visitation for the purpose of spiritual correction, but the patriarch
,lit",i."t no*, ãfr", the charistil<e had been in existence for a century' had could not exploit the occasion to alter established customs or to exact
i,+r-", ,"¿"rí"nd h;;;;il abuses that characterized this program
money for his own expenses (dapane).102
been able to flourish. In the case of monasteries granted out irl epidosis, those granted to
whether the patriarch and
First of all, the archons asked the emperor laymen (as ephors) for epboreia or (as charistikarioi) for oiþ.onomia, and
his officials hud n ,igh;*., uny of th. *onasreries no longer directly
had in mind here both the independent monasteries, the patriarch could compel the possessors
administered Uy rf',.'^puttl""t'"'""The archons to makeìestitution for dimunition of their properties, or to restore build-
and those given to
those institution, gránt"d to laymen in charistiþe ings if they had been ruined or completely destroyed under their admi¡-
Second, if they did have a
other ecclesiastical ¡urirdi.tlont in epidosis. istrations.l03 The possessors could not claim their own improvements
right to make visitation', archons wanted to know if they could in-
and enlargements of the foundations as credits against the damages they
;;ïtg;;.;h" .on¿itiãn oi 'ht these institutions' denounce abuses' and
com-
had inflicted.
p.î"r?rtn"iitns for *it"¿ dispersed properties' Third' the archons
The emperor absolutely forbade the exaction oÍ apotagai or bequests
asked the emperor tt.tt"t¿
legality of t'he charis'.iþ"-i:i::::elling pos-
"tout monastic communities' Finally'
tulants to pay apotagaion receptlon lnto pos-
esDe jure Patriarchae (lGR 3.407-4L0); Dölger, Regesten No. 1076; commentary by
in" urk"d 'ih"th" thã documents that rhe chøristikarioi Lemerle, "Charisticaires, " 20, n.3, and by Herman, "Ricerche," 324-29.
"r.ft.tt ,,
JGR 3.408.7-1,4.
1m/cR 3.408.14_18.
of Alexius comnenus'reply
s6The only firmly dated event in this sequence is the issuance
jure patriarchae chca monasteria
tot
JGR 3.409.L8_24; for these institutions, see
discussion below in Chapter 8.
novel D¿
to the inquiry "f ,t. p.,iår.t.i'..ifì*il'ìfs to2JGR 3.408.29_33.
l0e6'
ìiosãl i lÌri'3. 407-410),issued in December kai archonton,ed' J' Darrouzès' "Dossier"' 'ß/cR 3.408.33-409.8; for ephors andtl'te ephorelø' see the discussion below in Chap-
oj
Hrbomnes¡r r., ,øiåii¡iiì,üà;à*i;;", ter 8.
160-6 i, esP. 160, lines I0-t3'
 I

ir
rl

THE REFORM MOVEMENT 209

208 CHAPTER SEVEN

appre- The emperor did not take up the matter of the right of charistiþarioi
of land from postulants to monastic vocations'104 A hegoumenos to appoini exomonitai, but his strict prohibition of a role for the patri-
while a charistiþailos would
-u.-*p.ri.¿
l.rended in this practice would be deposed,
in these appointments must have left them to the discretion of the
f.o- his office. Alexiu, *", willing to permit the traditional "r.h
lay directors. dverall, however, the law strengthened the position of the
he directed that they
free-will offerings (prosenexeis) of postulants' but pátriarch as the ultimate overlord of all patriarchal institutions held in
,ho.rld b. ,e.orã.d'in the brruion of th. -on"stery with a notice of the iharistiþ.e, and as the spiritual overseer of all foundations (including pri-
gifts then being supplied to the patriarch'105-
vate monasteries) regardless of origin or cufrent administrative status.
the right to make
The emperor next took up the matter of who had In its precise definitions of the rights of the patriarch, the emperor's
ts to adelphata', the Byzantine equivalent of monastic pre- rhe variety of legal jurisdiction_s that con-
law inciäentally illustrates
"p;;i";;"
bends.106 \ùle have ,..n ."rli", how some monasteries employed the sale
trolled the monasteries of the Byzantine Empire in the late eleventh cen-
a means of gaining supplementary in-
ãi shares oÍ siteresia as
tury. Although there are no figures to indicate the significance of each
"""urf
.år".. Wn.t the charistikarioi tookover monasteries' they assumed con-
category, it ãppears that private foundations of the traditional sort no
laymen'1'7
;i ;t;. the sale of siteresia to exomonitai, non-resídent the awarding of longir. ú.la ,f.t. overwhelming position of dominance once observable in
Somehow the patriarch had also come to depend upon
of Byzanìine Empire. Yet, in spite of the mu_ltiplicity
as an important the"early history the
the monasteries'
;;ti,i";t, both within and without in the case of overíords cúaracteristic of the eleventh century' Iaymen still held a
ãour.. oíp",rorr"g..ro8 Perhaps the patriarch (or the emp€ror' predominant position as the administrators of institutions and their an-
of imperiål monaiteries) would "it'ut a certain number of appoint-
nexed properties thanks to the charistike.
a monastery to a charistika-
ments for his own ur. b.fo'" turning over
rights in _this instance'
rios. .ùíhatever the actual origin of the patriarch's
hlr-irrrirt.r,.e on the exercise"of his peiquisites led to conflicts with the
CONSOLIDATION OF THE REFORM MOVEMENT
source of income for
ciaristiþarior, who *irtt.d to ""'ut
this lucrative
Another important test case of the conflicting claims oÍ the charist.iþarioi
"^'ih;;ñ.ror
themselves.
upheld the patriarch's right to make appoinrments
of and the ecciesiastical hierarchy arose in 1116 during the patriarchate of
individuals as esomonitai who were going to embrace monastic life'10e Nicholas Grammaticus' successor, John IX Agapetus (1 1 1 1-34).112 con-
The cbaristiþarioi could also exercise the right
of making monastic ap- ,tantirr., the metropolitan of Kyzikos, appealed to the patriarchal synod
ooinr-.nrr,butonlyiftheyhadamemorandumfromthepatriarchspe- for assistance in regaining monasteries once dependent upon his cathe-
:äiil;îã"¡rg írrrt authority."o The emperor would not allow the dral church but preiently under the administration of charistikarioi'Un-
p"iri"år, ,oil^r"'r*oàonitaion rhe payroll of " *on*t.ry in like Niketas of Athens' case before Nicholas Grammaticus in 1089, Con-
charistike,
;hi.h *.u.ri that the patriarch coulà not granr an adelphatonto alay- stantine did not attempt to prove that the charistiþariol had obtained
o'dets' or to a monk transferred to rhese monasteries through illegal means. He did follow Niketas' example
;;; ;h. was not taki.tg monastic
ihis institution from ano"ther under direct patriarchal administration'111 in appealing to the legislation of Alexius studites, alleging that his see's
decided such appoinrments would place an unfair
ii;;;.r"r'..ro.rr.., burden loss^of thesã source, o.-f in.o*. made it impossible for him to restore his
.. ,ft" of the -o"å'tt'itt in charistiþe' If such monasteries own church, meet the expenses of its operation' or pay government
under the burden of paying an excessive number
oÍ adel- taxes.
"ir."ãyi"urred
pbata'to various exomonitai, the emperor enjoined the patriarch to re- The quarter century that had elapsed since the Athens decision had
frain from exercising his usuál right tò appoint esomonitai
in these insti- been chåracterizedby official hostility to the cltaristiþe.lt is not surpris-
iltions. ing, then, that the patriarch's synod rendered a decision as unfavorable
to"íhe cb'øristikarioi as the earlier decision of 1089. Basing its resolution
to4
JGR 3.409.'t 6-20. strictly on the hypomnemørz of Alexius studites, the synod ruled-that the
tos
JGR 3.409.20-27 .
*,i"e H.rm"n, "Armut," 439-49i Lemerle' "Charisticaires"' 20' n' 3' -.tropolit"r, .o.rld t..l"i* any monasteries that chøristiþariol had ille-
toTSee Hypomnesís (ed' Darrouzes, p' 161)'
na [f1Pe7n2¿5$, l(Q. 112Grumel, Regestes No. 1000 (1116); text ediæd b-y:lh. gspenskii, "Mneníya," L5-29;
jurc patriarchae UCR 3.409'29-33)' C-.r.i. thì. ãà.r,',.n,'io Patriarch ¡'ohn lX Àg"p.tut is a correction of
'ooDb'
3.409.33-35. Uspenskii's"*iU"iion
"f
original attribution to John VIII Xiphilinus (1064-1075)'
"o/GR
rI jcR 3.409.35-410.1.
 Y
CHAPTË,R SEVEN
21.0
gally converred ilto þosmiþa katagogid (secular dwellings).113 The synocl
ãlso allowed Constantine to reclaim the monasteries whose revenues had
previously supported the metropolitan's see as well as any other institu-
,io.r, g."nt.d io bishops, monasreries, or private individuals if he ¡ow
had need of them. According to a venerable canon of the Second Council
of Nicaea (787), itwas illegal for a bishop to alienate part of the essential
property (the autourgion) meant for the support of his diocese.lla The
iynãd .it.d this canon in coniunction with Alexius Studites' legislation
tå allow Constantine maximurn latitucle in reciaiming monasteries and
diocesan properties currently in the hands of various laymen'
The canop cited had allowed the ecclesiastical hierarchy to grant out
certain unprofitable lancls to clerics and neighboring peasants., Perhaps
this provision became, over the course of time, an important loophole
that mitigated the effectiveness of the prohibition on alienation of an
institution's autourgion.lls The need to support the rural clergy also
probably helped to encourage a broad interpretation of the canon'
An inevitabl. .otrr.quence of supporting clerics with grants of church
land was that the tracts would sometimes fall into the hands of lay de-
scendants who would not themselves seek ordination.l16 In the twelfth
century these laymen resisted the efforts of the metropolitans of Athens
and lr.iese-bria to oust them and appoint new renants who would be
clerics as originally intended.117 The present tenants, however, claimed
the right to propor. clerics who would perform religious duties for them
while they themselves retained possession of their traditional family
leases. In their attempts to revive the ancient rights of episcopal appoint-
ment of clerics, the metropolitans discovered that centuries of lay domi-
nation of the church had reduced these rights to meaningless formalities.
The right of the private patrons to nominate candidates for the clerical
posts in ih.ir foundations dated back to late Roman times. Eventually
ihis right of nomination became tantamount to actual appqintment. The
holdeà of these appointments, particularly in the case of rural private
churches, came to. constitute a hereditary clergy.118 Finall¡ the clerical
families assimilated the founder's right of nomination to themselves'
Confusion between mere possession of property and outright ownership
llrUspenskii, "Mneniya," p. 17, line 1l-p. 18, line 7'
laC.'Nicøen. II (7g7),.. iZ lROcn 2.59t-93); Niketas the metropolitan of Athens also
cited this canon in di. case before the patriarchal synod in 1089 (see Uspenskii, "Mneniya,"
p. 36, line 19).
' trr¡o¡. the canonist Theodore Balsamon's insistence on a strict limitation of the types
of ecclesiastical property that could be leased to laymen under the provisions of C. Nicaen.
ll, c. 1.2 (as discussed below in Chapter 8)'
116Cf. rhe inheritance of shares in churches by the lay descendants of clerics in Coptic
Egypt as discussed above in Chapter 3. -.
'iizg"1r"-on, Commentaria ad C. Trull., c. 33 (R&P 2'380, lines 19-26)'
ussee the diicussion above in Chapter 4; cf . C. Nicaen. ll (787), c. 14 (R&P 2.615).
THE REFORM MOVEMË,NT 21,1,
of it, as well as an inability to clistinguish an individual's tenancy of an
office from the hereditary enjoyment of its perquisites, was characteristic
of the attitudes of these old clerical families. Had they chosen to rescue
the ailing private religious foundations directly in the late tenth centur¡
the ecclesiastical authorities would have had to deal with the problern of
the loss of control of clerical appointments much earlier. As it was, the
resort to the charistiþe obscured the problem for another century. Only
with the demise of the charistil<e did the hierarchy come to realize how
powerless it had become in the face of graelual lay incursions of its tra-
ditional rights.
T'he probiem was not limited to rural churches' The late twelfth-
century canonist Theodore Balsamon observed that laymen held þleri'
l<ata offikia, the later Byzantine equivalent of ecclesiastical benefices, in
various churches and monasteries of Constantinople in his clay'tt' 61-
though such traditional practices as the sale of shares of siteresia to lay-
men and tlre award of adelphata to non-resident exomonitai musthave
helped to prepare the way for this development, it stands, nevertheless'
as another indication of the confounding of tenancy of office with hered-
itary rights.
Niketas, the metropolitan of Athens, had already called the attentiorr
of the patriarchate to the problem of regulating the leases of lay renters
of church property as part of his appeal against the charistikat'ioi in
1089.120 This was a long-standing problem, but it was Constantine of
Kyzikos who first associated it with the special difficulties posed by ten-
ancies held by lay descendants of the clergy' As part of its decision, the
patriarchal court determined that Constantine could revoke such leases
after two consecutive tenancies of the usual duration.121 This meant that
a cleric could pass a tenancy down to an heir' even a layman' but that
(theoretically at least) the family of a cleric did not have a hereditary
right to rent his former landholding. As Balsamon's testimony from the
end of the twelfth century shows, this safeguard did not always prove
effective.
DEMISE OF THE CHARISTIKE
The decisions of the patriarchal synods of 1089 and 1116 did not go
beyond providing the metropolitans of Athens and Kyzikos with the au-
thority to abolish the charistik"¿ within their respective spiritual jurisdi-
cations. Unfortunately the sources do not indicate how the institution
lleBalsamon, Commentaria ød C. Trull., c. 33 (RE¿P 2.380-81).
l20Uspenskii, "Mneniya," 36-38.
12t
Uspenskii, " Mneniy a," 26-27 .
 7
CHAPTER SEVEN THE REFORM MOVEMENT 213
21,2

that had dominated the Byzantine church for more than a century met charters of founclation (a legacy of an earlier age when the original pri-
its final demise outsicle of these particular localities. Neither the emper- vate benefactors sought exemption from scrupulous local episcopal con-
ors nor the church ever formally abolished the chatistike throughout the trol), a reliably friendly court could be assumed as well.
empire.i22 Perhaps zealous reforming metropolitans suppressed it as they Yet even in the twelfth century, the charistiþ¿ had some defenders
gained authorizåtion to do so frotn patriarchal decisions like the ones among conservative ecclesiastics. Perhaps a continued appreciation for
the benefits that might accrue from a properly supervised tenure of a
ir.o..u.d for Athens and Kyzikos. It is also possible that warypositions
charisti-
Larioi averted the loss of all of their rights by redefining their charistiþe caused such a respected authority as the canonist Balsamon to
as ephors.123 Then again, since the office of chøristiþarios was
never fully hesitate to condemn the institution outright. Still, the conservative view-
h.rËditary, and rhe gtuntr had now become distinctly unpopular, the em- point that Balsamon espoused was a distinct minority opinion by the
peror aná-the hieraichy may simply have stopped making new donatit¡ns twelfth century. The charismatic leadership of Leo of Chalcedon, the ad-
ihile allowing existing grants to lapse without renewal' ministrative reforms of Nicholas Grammaticus, and the devastating cri-
The case oithe famo"s monastery of St. Mamas in Constantinople is tique of John of Antioch had accomplished the considerable task of com-
instructive in this respect.l24 originally a private foundation, this insti- pletely reversing the government's and the ecclesiastical hierarchy's
tution had become an imperial monastery under Emperor Maurice (582-- attitude toward lay exploitation of property. Henceforth, the institu-
602). By the late tenth ientury it was in need of extensive repairs' Sy- tional church had no patience with lay "benefactors" who exploited their
,rr.on ,ú. New Theologian devoted himself to meeting these needs, but, positions to appropriate the incomes of religious foundations or sought
after his departure in t005, the monastery fell under the control of char' to detach them from their proper subordination to the ecclesiastical hi-
istiþarioi. The monastery lacked a disinterested patron in the tradition erarchy,125 In this sort of climate the charistiþ¿ could hardiy flourish, and
of Symeon |¡núl 1.147, when the mystic George of Cappadocia obtained in fact it soon withers away from the view of our sources'
perÅirrion from patriarch Cosmas II Atticus (L1.46-47) to rebuild it'
ih. ,opa.ity of the charistikarioi had deprived the institution of its prop-
erties, ìo i.orgr 6ac1 to work to restore its economic base. When his
labors at last proued successful, he petitioned Patriarch Nicholas IV Mu-
zalon (11,47*jf ) to grant an independent constitution for the monastery
so thai it would never again be subject to such "benefactors" as fhe
char-
istiþ.arioi of recent -ã*oty. Upon obtaining the patriarch's assent'
George appointed Athanasios, thè oikonomos of the monastery of Christ
philaãthiopenos, as the hegoumenos. Ãthanasios composed an extant
typikon in 11,59 for the reionstituted foundation which announced its
I
I
I

i
status as an independent monastery.
Thus did one monastery escape the charistik¿. This particular case
I

i
makes ir even less likely that there was a systematic attempt by the patri-
archs to stamp out the cbaristiþe throughout the empire' Now that the
I
patriarchal synod had established grounds for abolishingthe charistiÞe
lt
in individual cases, reformers could apparently rely on the patriarchate
for support for suppression whenever there was evidence of abuse. Since
I

many'institutions under the charistiþe appear to have had patriarchal

i

122This seems clear from a judicial decision of 1169 regulating charistikarioì; see discus-
i
I sion below in ChaPter 8.
---ilrpo, and
I the transition ftom charistiþe to epboreia, see Herman, "Ricerche," 33-8-39,
¿¡iurrion
¡.,.-veTypikon below in Chapter 8, but therê is need for more work on this-problem.
F'ustra-
tes Mones tou bagiou mcgalomartyros Mamantos, ed. Sophronios
rtades,'íIetletnika I (1928),245-314, up. 256-57; Íor the history of this foundation,
see J'
': i"rgoit., "Les Saini-Mamas de Constantinople," IRAIK 9 (1'904)'304-1'2'
1'zr
Cf . Uspenski i, " Mneniy a," 23-24.

CHAPTER EIGFIT
The Rise of the Great IndePendent
Nlonasteries
TìRlvATE churches and monasteries administered by their founding
t] families as fully proprietary institutions contirrued to exist through-
out the duration of'th. Byt"ntine Empire. rVhile lay participation in the
foundation and support of religious institutions remained critically im-
porrant, the old próprietary form of organization never regained the pop-
,rlurity it had .";oy.a before the charistiþe. By the end of the eleventh
."n,,rry, private ú.rr"fu.tott, reacting to the abuses of the cbaristike, be-
g"n ,o ,å"r.h for an alternative form of institutional organization that
iould be more conducive to the religious purposes of their foundations.
They had nor far t<-r seek. As in the medieval
'\)fest, a slowly developing
mo.rastic reform based on new forms of organization ac¡ually preceded
the more broadly based ecclesiastical reform of the late eleventh century
and anticipated ihe needs of these new conscientious benefactors.
HISTORICALDEVELOPMENToFINDEPENDENTMONASTERIES
As we have seen, the charistiþ.e had an important impact on individuals
like Eustathios Éoilas and Michael Attaliates who erected private foun-
dations in the third quarter of the eleventh century. The most astute ben-
efactors realized thai only a radícal break with the traditions of private
philanthropy would solve the old dilemma of assuring protection for
ih.ir founáátions from outside predators while simultaneously insuring 'I'he
against subsequent financial exploitation by their own descendants.
(and
sãl.rtion was tò set up monart"rirr that were intended from the start
family line) to be independent
not lust in the eventif the decease of
I
the
i i
;r
(auto de sp ot a) and self - governin g (autex ou siø) institutions'
L
The road ro this inno-vation wás neither easy nor self-evident' although
j rFor these monasteries, see Herman, "Ricerche," 361-72;J, Moutzourès' "Ta charistika
Rise
i kai eleuthera monasteria,;' Theologìa iS OgøS),87-123,271.-87 and rny own."Tl-re
;ru;;.dà;;; ;;¡ é.lf-gou".iing lr4onastéries as Reflected in the Monastic þpika,"
i GOTR 30 (1985), 21-30.
i
ri
lt
RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 21,5
the independent monastery as such was not an entirely new feature of
the orgaìizational structure of the Byzantine church. The earliest mon-
asteriei of Christian Egypt and elsewhere in the Orient were, in a sense,
the "independent" founclations of their monastic directors. Yet, as we
have seen, a monastery might be both "independent" and also the pri-
vate, transmittable property of íts hegoumenos. only strict precautions
co.rlã .nrure that pótential heirs not themselves in religious life would be
excluded from the ownership of these monasteries'
The council of chalcedont decision that every monastery should be
subject to the authority of the local bishop brought all monaste_ries under
theáretical episcopal control. Justinian consistently upheld the local bish-
op's powers of oversight and spiritual correction in his laws on private
fåu,rãations. Despite thit trrppott, the powers of the episcopacy over the
monasteries locaied in their jurisdictions became more nominal than
real. As early as the reign of Maurice (582-602), the emperors had
granted individual monasieries exemption from episcopal sup_ervision by
Iubordinating them directly to the patriarch of Constantinople'
For the next three hundred and fifty years, private monasteries and
churches were in pracrice, if not in theory, largely independent of the
ecclesiasrical hieraichy. Yet when the Council of Constantinople (861)
imposed a more rigorous subordination of monasteries to the local bish-
op, laid clown a requirement for property registration, it must have
"nd
b..o.rrc somewhat more difficult for private benefactors to maintain their
old independence. The sudden renewal of interest on the part of these
benefactãrs in obtaining patriarchal stauropegia to assure the indepen-
dence of their foundationi from the local hierarchy thus was hardly dis-
interested or concidental. This time the benefactors confronted an ener-
getic episcopacy especially interested in playing a role as the resto_rers of
äil"piá"t.dþriu"t. -on"steries. As we know, the fathers of the Council
of io.,rtunti.rople refused to allow these bishops to spend diocesan funds
ro restore thesá institutions. Though this was a considerable obstacle to
arranging for structural renovations, enterprising bishops found ways to
.ir.urãu"|t the prohibition. Other bishops, motivated'by the example
though not the spirit of their colleagues' activities, sought to impose a
,"r .ãll.d the kaionihon on all of the monasteries in their dioceses. They
also required special offerings called the synetheiai for their consecfation
of hegiumenoi. I.r ,o-. cases these bishops even seized control of mon-
to which they had no legal title. Patriarch Sisinnius ll (996-998)
"rt.ri",
had to restrain them from these practices in a special clecree'2
private benefadors who sought to ward off
Among the influential
,Ecl. Sp. Troianos, "Ein Synodalakt des sisinios zu den bischöfìíchen Einkünften," in
Vol. 3, ed. Diete. Simon (Frankfu:t, 1979),21,1,-20 : Grumel, Regestes
Forii, Iriiror"t,
No. 808.
 Y_
21,6 CHAPTER EIGHT
tlrese episcopal incursions by securing patriarchal stauropegia fot ùteir
*onurii. founclations was John Lampardopoulos, a relative of Nicepho-
rus phocas" In his charter Patriarch Polyeuctus (956-970) specifically ex-
empted Lampardopoulos' monastery of the Theotokos in the Pelopon-
,r"rì, f.o* iaxes þaid to rhe local metropolita' or to the bishop of
Lacedaemon (964).3 The revival of interest in patriarchal støuropegia
was an important step in the development of truly independent _and self-
governi.tg monasteries. As things actually transpired, however, the- essen-
ä"1 .rncãptual innovation occurred within the mileu of imperial mon-
asrefies. The p....d.nt was the chrysobull that Nicephorus Phocas had
given to St. Àthanasios for the monastety c>f Lavra on Mount Athos
ile+¡.^ According to Athanasios, it was at his own request that
the em-
peror inserted inio the charter language that exempted Lavra frorn pa-
iriarchal control ancl gave it the claim to be the earliest monastery to
hold the actual title (as opposed to the de facto status) of an independent
and self-governing foundaìion. By freeing the Lavra monastery not only
from epiicopal coitrol but also from that of the patriarch as well, Nice-
phoro, Phocas made a further break from the principle of hierarchical
iubordination established by the Council of Chalcedon'
The innovation was timel¡ for the peril to the well-being of private
foundations increased signiûcantly with the institution of the charistiþe
in the late tenth celltufy. Ostensibly designcd to rescue deteriorating and
ruined monasteries (many of which were doubtless private in origin), the
charistiþ.e soon came to encompass wealthg well-managed institutions
as well. Sisinnius II's opposition to the aggressive policies of the local
hierarchy was quite .oniitt.nt with his opposition to the charistiþe.This
*u, b..á.rr., by his time, any private monasteries taken over by the bish-
ops were probably destined for the cbaristike, as Basil II's novel of 996
demonstrates.
Subsequent emperors followed the lead of Nicephorus Phocas, in the
p"tron"ç of the Lavra monastery and of .the other monasteries that de-
u.lop.d*on Mount Athos in the course of the tenth and eleventh centu-
ries.i In 978 Basil II and his brother Constantine VIII made a donation
to Lavra of an annual income (called an adiahopton, that is, an "unin-
rerrupted" siteresion) of 10 talents of silver in consideration of their be-
3MM 5.250-2 52 (964), esp. 251..24-30; cf. Alexius studites, Llyponnema B', (1028)
(R&P 5.31.26-32.5).
'- iio, thir foundatíon, see Paul Lemerle, Actes de LauraYol.1 (Paris, 1970), 13-55, esp.
33-J9; Denise Papachryssanthou, Actes du Ptôtaton (Paris, 1975), 69-133; \'-lì Manra-
ll¡.*,|i n"S¡or'Ororiethos¡ día mesou tou aionon (Thessalonica, L971),48-63; Her-
"man, "Ricerche," 361.
i ¿,"irt d" LaLra,yol.l, No. 7 (978), No. 32 (1,057), ed. Lemerle; Actes de PrôtatonNo.
7 (972), No. S (í04i), and No. g ('1.046), ed. Denise Papachryssanthot (Archiues de
I'Athos, Vol.7) (Paris' 1975).
RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 21'7
lief that the prayers of the monks were effìcacious for the ernpire
in its strugglei with barbarian peoples. ¡i 1057 Emperor Michael VI
(1,056-57l made another annual income available to Lavra, in addition
to rhe gifts made by his predecessors. Nor was this imperial patronage
limited to financial assistance, for both John Tzimisces (972) and Con-
sranrine IX Monomachus (1045) intervened to settle serious disciplinary
disputes among the Athonite monks.
iome founders, such as St' Lazaros of Mount Galesion (d' 1043), con-
tinued to try to follow the old principle of Chalcedon by subordinating
rheir monasteries to local episcopai control, but they found that individ-
ual jealousies and the meddlesomeness of the bishops made cooperation
impossible.6 Now, however, there was a suitable alternative model of or-
ganization available. St. Lazaros finally appealed to Constantine IX
l4onorr1ach.,s (1042-55) for exemption from episcopal control. The em-
peror granred the request, but followed the example of Nicephorus Pho-
cas in prefe.ence to that of Maurice by rnaking St. Lazaros' monasteries
eornpletely independent foundations.
After Sergius II had reversed his predecessor Sisinnius'opposition to
tlte cbaristike in 1016, even a patriarchal stauropegion was no guarantee
that a monastery would escape donation to a charistik"arios at some time
in the future.? This no doubt provided an additional stimulus for found-
ers to make their monasteries independent not only of the local episco-
as well'
^ but of the patriarchate
pac¡
The concept of truly independent and self-governing monas_teries was
hardly pleasing to rhe unreformed hierarchy of the eleventh century.
These prelates could hope neither to exact taxes from these monasteries
nor to grant them out to personal favorites in charistike. The concept
was also irreconcilable with many of the traditional perquisites' espe-
cially financial ones, that patrons hacl come to expect as their due from
theii foundations. An independent monastery had to have its o',¡/n en-
dowment, mananged by its own officials without interference from mem-
bers of the founder's family. The financial sacrifice involved in the erec-
tion of a monastery, which had always been considerable, now increased
grearly. vhile it would still be possible for founders to insist on such
iraditio.ral rights as memorial -ãtt.u, burial sites, and consideration for
family members as postulants, direct financial exploitation such as that
6De sancto Lazaro monacho in Monte Galesio, Ch. 238, AASS, November, Vol. 3 (Brus-
,.tr, isì0), with O. Lampsides, "Anekdoton keirnenon peri tou lragiou La.zarou_Galesi-
it"i,,' ft rotogia 53 (l,9|i),lsg-77. For St. Laz¿ros, see Rosemary Morris_, "The Political
saini of the Eieventh centur¡" ín The Byzantine saint, ed. sergei Hackel (Birmingham,
1981), 43-50.
tÑå,., for example, Nicholas III Grammaticus' grants of patriarchal monasteries under
the chariitike and his ieferences to earlier grants made by his predecessors.
 Y I
218 CHAPTER EIGHT
envisioned by Attaliates wâs not compatible witlì true institutional au-
tonomy.
THE CONCEPI' OF EPHOREIA
Patrons who set up monastic foundations with self-managed endow-
ments freed these institutions from dependence upon the goodwill of
their heirs and the continuance o{ their family lines. Yet in this troubled
age no institution could be entirely without protectors, so it was still
necessary to designate some sort of guardian who could look after the
interests of the monastery without becoming involved in its day-to-day
administration. Out of this need grew the epboreia.s
Some founders met this need by designating local strategoi and other
governmenì officials as ephors or epitropoi (trustees).e Toward the close
of the tenth century the monk Nikon Metanoites chose the strategos (mtl-
itary governor) and krites (iadge) of the Peloponnesus as the protectors
of his religious foundation at Lacedaemon. ln 1027 the monk Nikode-
mos would turn to the same officials to assume the ephoreia of his mon-
astery. Even St. Athanasios' faith in the ability of his Lavra monastery to
fend for itself after his death failed him, for in his diatyposis (testamen-
tary disposition) he designated the patrician Nikephoros, the epi tou ka-
nil<leiou of Basil ll, as epitropos (trustee), prostates (protector)' and an
tileptor (helper) of his foundation.l0 In 1052 Constantine IX would
confirm this arrangement under which Lavra stood under the prostasia
(guardianship) of the epi tou Þanikleiou, at that time the praepositos anð
epi tou koitionos John.11 In 1060 Emperor Constantine X Ducas (1059-
67) added his endorsement to the sponsorship of Lavra by the office of
the epi tou kaniþleiou; by this time the arrangement bore the formal title
oÍ ephoreia.lz
This marriage of the ephoreia to the independent monastery did not
prove an entirely satisfactory solution in every case. Some ephors be-
haved in practice little better than the worst of the charistikørioi, a risk
that might have been foreseen. lnhis diataxis of 1077, Attaliates damned
anyone who dared to impose either an ephor or a charistiþarlos on his
foundation, yet in the end it was the title of ephor that he bestowed on
his son Theodore as the foundation's protector.l3 The terminological
sFor the epboreia, Herman, "Ricerche," 335-39' and "Charisticaires," col' 616'
see
eS. P. Lampros, "Ho bios Nikonos tou metanoeite," Neos Hellenomnemon 3 (1906)'
1.29-228, esp'. 227; D. A. Zakythinos, "Kastron Lakedaimonos," Helleniþa 15 (1957) ' 97-
111, esp. 100.
l0Athanasios the Athonite, Diatyposis, ed. Meyer, Haupturkunden' 1'23-40' esp. 125.
11
Actes de Laura,Yol. 1, No. 31 (1052), ed. Lemerle'
\2
Actes de Laura,Yol. 1, No. 33 (1060), ed. Lemerle.
13
Michael Attaliates, Diataxis, ed. Gautier, lines 247-62' cf. 348-5 1'
RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTË,RIES 219
I
confusion evident in the writings of founders of religious institutions to-
L
I
I
ward the end of the eleventh century indicates the uneasy transition from
old forms oÍ organization to the new. Attaliates, who was aware of the
concept of the independent monâstery, chose, as we have seen, to adopt
the trãditional private form of organization instead. This choice did not
prevent him from calling his ptochotropheion (in occasional momenrs of
,,independent and self-governing," nor from providing that
confusion)
the foundation would become truly independent in the event of the de-
eease of his family line.la
unlike Attaliates, the famous ascetic christodoulos, founder of a mon-
astery of St. John on the island of Patmos, undoubtedly inte¡ded his
founàation to have an independent constitution under the direct rule of
its hegoumenos when he drew up his bypotyposis (constitution) for it in
1091J'Yet his diatheke (testament) of 1093, introduces Theodosios Kas-
trisiou, the epi tou þaniþleio¡¿ of Alexius Comnenus, as cbaristikarios'l;
In fact, this is not the bizarre combination of old and new forms of or-
ganization that it might appear to be, since the conditions imposed on
Íheodosios clearly limit him ro the status (if not the title) of ephor on the
analogy of existing arrangements with the Lavra monastery on Mount
Athos.l'
By the turn of the century, the concept of the independent monastery
marured under the impact of the Chalcedonian reform. The terminology
became more consistent and ideologically charged. For example, no re-
spectable ephor in the twelfth century would have wanted to bear the
title of cbàristikarios. This is not to say that the lines of distinction
among the various types of religious institutions were ever hard and
fast.ls In another era to come, a single monastery could accurately be
described as "imperial, patriarchal, and independent" in reference' re-
spectivelf to its principal patronage, its stauropegion, and its constitu-
tional oiganization. This is a refle6ion of the complex origins of the
independãnt monasrery in the Byzantine world. That independent mon-
aste;ies were in no sense public (that is, diocesan) institutions was well
understood (if not appreciated) by nearly everyone. That they were fun-
damentally different from traditional private foundations \¡/as a Point
less easy to grasp and subject to occasional confusion.
taDiataxis, ed. Gautier, línes 392-94, L61'7.
,rChristodãulos, Hypotyposis (1091), ed. MM, Vol. 6 (Vienna, 1890), 59-80, esp. Ch.
18, pp.71-72.
iåCh.i.todoutos, Diatheþe (1093), ed. MM, Vol. 6 (Vienna, 1890)' 81-85' esp' 84'
17For the ephoráia of the monastery of Christodoulos on Patmos, see M. G. Nystazopou-
los, ,,Ho epi tou kanikleiou kai he ephoreia tes en Patmo mones," symmeìkta I (1966),
76-94, and Ahrweiler, "Charisticariat," 5' n. 31.
,sSie Actes de Laura (= Archiues de I'Athos, Vol. 8), ed. Paul Lemerle (Paris, 1977), No.
70 (1240) in which a monastery is termed "independent, free, and ancestral"!
 r
CHAPTER EIGHT
RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 221
220

twelfth century is a surprising devel-

The revival oÍ the epboreiø ín 1he
opment that concluded the evolution of the independent monastery. It
that founders turned to it once
must haue been with some reluctance
again as an expedient for obtaining powerful pfotectors for in<lepenclent
nionasteries, but this time happier results were obtained. Perhaps this
of the foundations had been
was because the institutional autonomy
strengthened considerably since the early eleventh century and the threat
posed by the charistiþe had begun to wane.
INDEPENDENT MONASTËRIES AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL
REFORM MOVEMENT
So by the eârly twelfth century the essential features of the independent
out
-onârt..y weie in place. The new category of monasteries emerged 'Ihese
of more than a century and a half of creative experimentation'
foundations represent the response of private individuals to the evils of
the charistiþ¿ ànd the shortcomings in the proprietary form of organi-
zation that the charistiþe had failed to resolve. Thus the private benefac-
rors who developed the earliest of these foundations actually anticipated
many of the concerns of the reformers within the church, such as Leo of
Chaieedo', John of Antioch, and Nicholas Grammaticus. Their suceess-
,'easily counted, most recent koinobia.," which John
ful foundatiàns, the
of Antioch numbered among the few monasteries that had escaped the
charistike, demonstrated that it was possible for the church to enjoy the
benefits of lay financial assistance without risking the hazards of private
profiteering in these institutions. It is surely no coincidence that John of
Àntioch's De monaster¡is shows indebtedness to the magniÊcent library
of ascetic literature kept at one of these new independent institutions, the
monasrery of the Thèotokos Evergetis, founded in Constantinople in
i.049.le In due course a new generation of reformers would find ample
reason to criticize these foundations also, for by definition they were set
up to be as independent of clerical as of lay control. The future difficul-
ties, however, *ãr. nor apparent in the initial stages of the evolution of
independent monasteries; only the obvious and welcome contfast to the
clisciedited charistike impressed most of the reformers of the late elev-
enth century. A notable exception was Nikon of the Black Mountain,
founder of several monasteries and a contemporary of John of Antioch'
1eso Paul Gaurier, ,,Le typikon de la Théotokos Evergétis," REB 40 (1.982), 5.-101' at7,
n. 9. For this founclátion såå also J. Pargoire, "Constantinople: Le couvent de I'Evergétès,"
¡OS(rSOø),228-32,366-73,p'OtO(tSOl),1,5s-67,2s9-63,andJanin,Géographie'
Vol.3, pp. 178-83.
rJis Miþron tsiblion, dated to 1087/88, insists upon the subordination of
cites the relevant fourth
monasteries to the local bishop and actually
cânon of the Council of Chalcedon.20
TYP/KON OF GREGORY PAKOURIANOS
It is our good fortune that the independent and self-governing monaster-
ies are especially well documented.
\x/hile they were no longer proprie-
,ury *onãrreries, they continued to have their origi¡s in private acts of
foundation. Most of the survivin 8 typil<a (regulatory foundation docu-
rnents) for monasteries and philanthropic institutions adopted the new
form of organization.2l One of the eârliest and most instructive is the
'-Gr.gory
typikon of Pakourianos, dated to 1083, for the monastery of
Th.otoko, Petritzionitisse.22 Although Pakourianos was a Georgian by
birth who servecl as Grand Domestic of the East, he chose to found this
monastery at Stenimachos near Philippopolis, where he owned a number
of .stut.s. He built the monastery out of his personal resources without,
he claims, maltreatment or exploitation of his peasants' Pakourianos'
decision to employ an independent constitution for his founclation is a
clear indication of his sympathies with the sentiments of his reformist
contemporaries.
pakourianos, typikon sets up his fouirdation as an independent and
self-governing monastery in perpetuity.23 Thanks to the tax exemptions
that"Pakourianos had *u.tugèd to obtain, the monastery was freed of all
financial obligations to the emperor, the patriarch, and local ecclesiasti-
cal and gou.ir-".rtal authorities. The typikon also bars all relatives of
the founáer from financial privileges in the monastery.24 It explicitly cen-
sures Pakourianos' contemporaries who erected foundations of the tra-
ditional proprietary form of organization.2s From his personal experi-
20lrénée Doens, ,,Nicon de la Montagne Noire," Byzantion 24 (1954),1.31-40, at 137:'
V. Gr;;I, "Ñicor, de la Montagne Nóire et Jean IV (V) I'Oxite: Remarques chronolo-
giques," REB 21 (1'963)' 270-73'
"-5iá. iyþ;ni nìtt"riná, see K. A. Manaphes, Monasteriaka þ.pika-Diathefrøi (Athens,
pz6l;níí^i", .,Ricerche," 312-15; I. À4. Konidaris,Nomike theorese tofl monasteridþorl
t'ypiÞo, (Athens, 1,984); anð R. Janin, "Le monach-isme byzantin au moyen âge: Com-
,r1'.na..t typi., |X.-XV" siècle)i' REB 22 Q.964),5-44. The Byzantine nonastíc typiÞa
;;;;;;;r;l; being collected into a volume of English translations in a proiect under my
ãì;;i;t; ;párro.Jd by Dumbarron Oaks and the ñational Endowment for the Humanities.
,rEd. påul Gautier, ,,Le typikon du sébaste de Grégoire Pakourianos," REB 42 (1984),
5-145, with importait .o-n1"ntu.y by Lemerle, cinq études, 11'5-97; see also ostrogor-
*A.i.ro.r".V," -lO-¡t.
,k*'xTyþiko,t, For Pakòurianos' career, see Skoulatos, Personnages, ll2-15.
Ch. 28 (ed. Gautier, pp. 89-93)'
Michael Attaliates, Diataxis, ed. Gautier, lines 602-18'
'oif.
2sTypikon, Ch. 18 (ed. Gautier, p' 91)'
 r
RISF] OF THE INDEPENDENT' MONASTE,RIES 223
222 CHAPTER EIGHT

ence pakourianos observed that a founder who attempted to keep an GENERAL ACCEP]ANCE OI" THE CONCEPT OI- THE
INDEPENDENT MONASTERY
institution as an integral part of the family patrimony was condemning
his foundation to bitter liiigation among his heirs over the rights of own- pakourianos composed his farsighted typikon while serving Alexius
ership. The courts that resolve<l such disputes, moreover, could not be comnenus in the war against Robert Guiscard. I-le perished in battle
d.p.rrd.d upon to prefer worthy heirs to worthless ones, who might hap- against the patzinaks in i086, just at the time when the reformers from
p.n to have better legal claims to the foundation' r.Jithin the ecclesiastical hierarchy were beginning to deal with the abuses
pakourianos intenáed that the begoumenos was to be the real master
of lay control of the church for which he had already offered some solu-
of the monastery.26 He was to control the distribution of salaries (rogai) tions.3o The concept of the inclepenclent and self-governing monastery
to rhe monks in the community. Two monks with the title of epitropoi. thus had reached maturity at precisely the tirne when the reformers
who were stationed at the most important clusters of endowed proper- launched their ultimately successful challenge to the charistiþe.
ties, were to assist the hegounteøos with estate administration. This was In the twelfth century this new constitutional form of organization
an important break with the traditional reliance upon laymen as estate became the rule rather than the exception for the most important
foun-
security of tenu.re' He
-un"!.rr. The hegoum¿rlos' moreover' enjoyed dations of monasteries and philanthropic institutions. Even the members
couldinly be expeìled for failure to observe the typ'ikon or for embezzle- of the ruling Comnenian clynasty adopted the new form of organization
ment of funds. as tlrey abalndonecl the charistiþ¿ and other discredited practices
of the
Pakourianos reserved only a few traditional perquisites for himself as el.u"rrth century. Alexius comnenus' wife, Irene, already notable as a
founder's rights.27 He named the first hegoumenos, his friend Gregor¡ supporter of LeL of Chalcedon, drafted an independent constitution for
but he did nìt retain the right of appointment for his family. He and his h.riunn..y of Theotokos Kecharitomene in Constantinople'31 The em-
brother Aspasios were to receive the usual privilege of burial in the mon- press designated her daughter Eudokia as antilømbanomene (corrector)
astery,s church. Pakourianos also enjoined the monks to offer commemo- in th" ,ol."of an ephor. Her son, Emperor John II Comnenus (1118-43)'
rativá masses for his brother's soul and his own. He disapproved of the adopted the same form of organization for the monastery of the Pantok-
usual practice of soliciting endowments from the laity at large, ordering rator which he founded in Constantinople ín 1736.32 He ciesignateel ltis
that the monks should dã this only if it did not provide a pretext for son Alexius as overseer without title. Both Irene and John comnenus
innovation or harm to the monastery.2s Perhaps this traditional means of emphasized the independent status of these institutions by stating that
raising extra revenue had led to law suits like that over the payment of they were not to be ionsidered private or imperial monasteries by virtue
sitereiia recorded in the Meditatio de nudis pactis. Finally, Pakourianos of their own roles in the foundations.33
directed that the community should give preferential consideration to The use of the independent form of organization was not restricted to
relatives of his family who applied as postulants. Incidentallg the mon- new foundations. Athanasios, for example, had employed it in bis typi-
asrery was limited to Georgians, with Greeks explicitly excluded because þon for rhe monastery of St. Mamas in 1159 after the patriarchs had
Pakourianos feared that oiherwise they would seize control and make freed that institution Îrom the charistiþe. John Comnenus' in subordi-
the foundation their personal property.2e Always apprehensive of pos- nating six existing imperial monasteries to the new Pantokrator monas-
sible threats to his monastery, the founder made even the preferential ,..¡ ãlro added to tñ. number of institutions with independent gov-
rreatment for his relatives conditional on the understanding that they
would obey the hegoumenos as usual and not attemPt to attenuate the 30For Pakourianos' death, see Anna Comnena, Alexiad 6'14'
independence of the foundation. ,'ir*; ¿;;.; na, tus sebasmias mones tes hyperøgias-Tbeo.tokou tes Kechari'
þpikán REB 43 (1985)'
tômenes,ed. Paul Gauiièr, "Le typikon de la Theotokos Kécharitôrnenè,"
(pp. zi-lt);
iår Eudocia's.role as ephor, see Ch',80 (pp' 143-45); for
26For thehegoumenos'authorit¡ seetheþ,pikon, Ch. 5 (ed. Gautier, pp. 51-57); secu- s-ïãj,.jrp.Ch. 1
riry ;atenure, öt'. ts (p. 95); distri|ution of ihe rogai, Ch' 9 (pp' 67-69); epitropoì' Ch' 6 ihi, founá"tion, ,". i-. O..onå-os, La uie religieuse ians I'empire-byzantin-au temps des
Vol. pp. 188-91.
(p. se). ciir¿,r", et dós Anges (paris, 1g1fi), 169-82, andJanin, Géographie,
- ^3,
' ,tFär Pakourianos' appointment of Gregor¡ seeþpikon,.C\' 30 ç9. Gautier, p' 115); ,rjoln II Comneñus, ed, Peul Gautier,_"Le typikon du Christ S_auveur Panto-
þpikon,
..^rJr,; nin sz OSI+), íit+s, esp. 127; for this foundatiotr, r.. lanin, Géographie,Yol.
burial of the founder unä hit btoth.r, Ch. 1 (p.31) and Ch' 2 (p' 39); commemorative
services, Ch.21 (pp. 97-103). -3,' pp. 515-23.
,8þpikon, Ch. 20 (ed. Gautier, pp.95-97). lilr;; Comnena, Typikon Ch. 1 (ed. Gautier, pp. 29-31.); so also John II Comnenus,
__ p. 127, lines 1'613-20)'
(ed. Gautier,
zsTy'pikon, Chs.24-25 (ed' Gautier, pp' 105-7)' þpikon
 Y- I

ir
1,

CHAPTER EIGHT RISE OF THE INDËPENDENT MONASTERIES 225

224

the independent policy on rhe foundation of religious institutions by private individuals.

ernment.34 Even some reformist bishops embraced
constitution for their own foundations. Manuel, bishop of stroumitza This was to be the last time a Byzantine emperor would do so' After his
to Theotokos Ele- reign the patriarchate would stand unassisted in its efforts to regulate
iiO3i-lfOø), used it for the monastery he dedicated
what had become an exceedingly complex problem of balancing the
àusa.r, Manuel evidently had little confidence that his episcopal succes-

sors would share his piétg for he restricted the traditional rights
of the rights of patrons and religious foundations.
donation oÍ 3 nomismatd at the time of the Perhaps the emperor's greatest achievement was his judicious use of
iocal bishop to a uoluntary
enthronemånt of a new hegoumenos in the institution.3r Leo, bishop of tax immunities to ease the shortage of clergy in the countryside. The
Ñ"upllr, followed Manuel's example ín 1'143 by adopting an indepen- better endowed foundations in the cities had always attracted clerics
à.nt'.oirtiturion for his nunnery óf Theotokos tes Areias.37 Only in the from poorly paiel positions in rural churches. This development worked
late twelfth century did the hierarchy come to realize how inconsistent to the disadvantage of nearly all rural churches, whatever their origins
the idea of the independent monastery was with the maintenance
of their or current status. Since the time of Basil I (867-886), the emperors had
own episcopal rights. attempted to support certain favored institutions by granting their prop-
For the -o-.I.,t, the concept of the independent and self-governing erties tax exemption.3e These grants of irnmunity (exÞousseia) were in
effect indirect government subsidies' Until Manuel's reign, the emperors
nlon"r,.ry had found favor with the broad spectrum- o.f individuals who
iraditionálly founded the ecclesiastical institutions of the empire. A con- awarded immunity on a case-by-case basis, doubtless in response to ap-
of private resources' such as those of Gregory Pakour- peals of influential individuals. Now Manuel chose to use this tool in a
,lJ.r"bl.
i"nár, *.n,"-ou.r,
into the ioundation of these independent monasteries which more general way to deal with this problem.
The emperor's original concern was with the economic status of clergy
mighi otherwise have been devoted to traditional proprietary.institu-
tio"ns. of course, the extent to which strictly private foundations_declined
living on imperial estates serving in imperial proprietary churches. In
11,44 he decided to allow the demosiakoi, the clergy resident on these
in numbers in the twelfth and subsequent centuries cannot easily be de-
estates, personal exemptions from some services and taxation to make
rermined, but undoubtedly the popularity of independent monasteries
âmong benefactors occurred largely at their expense'38 their lot more bearable.ao 'fhese clerics no longer hacl to perform com-
ih."g..r.rous disposition of binefactors toward granting independent pulsory labor service s (demosiake epereia) or pay the cattle tax (the zeu-
gotogion). Later the emperor decided to extend the liberality of immu-
.h"rt.rî of foundation prevailed only in the erection of monasteries and
t"rity fro.n the demosiake epereia to clergy on the estates of public and
philanthropic institutions. No similarly drastic change occurred in the
private monasteries.al Thus the clergy of both public and traditional pri-
iorrstitotion al organization of churches and oratories. These continued
iheir traditionalli close association with the estates of their benefactors vate churches, as well as those belonging to the new independent mon-
asteries, came to join the imperial clergy in the enjoyment of the exemp-
in the twelfth and succeeding centuries'
tion.
Manuel was simply making general the exemption from compulsory
POLICY OF MANUEL COMNENUS TO\øARD PRIVATE labor services that many clerics already enjoyed as tenants of monasteries
RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS possessing imperial chrysobulls of tax immunity'a2 \lith an eye to his
òwn interests, Manuel restricted the number of clergy on imperial estates
This new phase in the institutional history of private religious founda-
who could benefit from the exemptions. He decided against placing a
tions procËeded with the blessings of the Comnenian dynasty, though one
similar restriction on the clergy of public and private churches.
lnor..-p".or, Manuel comnenus (1143-80) was to formulate his own The emperor's remisssion of these obligations led to a rapid increase
II Comnenus, 'þpikon (ed. Gautier, pp 6.?--73,lines 685-727)'
:+John in the number of clerics in the countryside. The numbers of the imperial
,r"Manuel of Stroumitia, Dtiatàxis, ed. t-. Þåtìt, "Le Monastère de Notre-Dame de Pitié
3eActes de Prôtaton No. 1 (883), with commentary by George OstrogroskS "Pour I'his-
-" Macédoine,"
en /RA/K 6 (1900).69-15ì'
ì'oiàiii¡t,'ch. t6 (ed. Petit. p.88); cf' Hernran, "Abgabenwesen"'455' toire I'immunité à Byzance," Byzantion 28 (1958)' 165-254' at L74-75'
cle
a0Dölger, Regesten No. 1334, preserved by Balsamon, Commentaria ad C' Nicaen. Il, c.
,lJo itñauplia, ilypo*iàko,.å. C. ¡,. Choias, He "Høgia mone" Areias Naupliou
(Athens, 197 5), 239-44, esP. 242-43. 4 (R&P 2.570); -- JGR 3.432.
'- ,ïÁ.ong,hÉ .uny .*",r!1.r, one 6nds the six monasteries thatJohn II Comnenus sub-
atDölger, Regesteft Nos. 133.5-36.
otE.g.lthe ex"emprions that Michael Attaliates obtained for his foundation from Michael
ordinated io his new the Pantokrator and the conversion of the
i-p..'iul -o.r".,.ry of
io an independent constitutionâl stâtus' VII (1074) and Nióephorus III (1079), ed. Gautier, REB 39 (1981)' 100-122'
-oÀ"*"ty o{ St. Mamas
 CHAPTER EIGHT
RISE OF THF, INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 227
226

and Patri- comedia and vicinity. This limited geographical area included many of
clergy soon rose beyond the statutory limits for exemptions'
(1.i.57-10) sought the emperor's permission for the empire's wealthiest monasteries, though not others, such as those on
Chrysobårges
"r.n"îrf.. supernumeraries should also enioy im- Mount Athos which were also of considerable importance.aT The law
hì, ,yr.J to dácide the
'ih.th.. forbade the monasteries in this area to acquire further property or peas-
;;ít from compulsory labor seivices'o' It seemecl unfair that these
of naval ants. To encourage these institutions to swallow this bitter medicine, the
clerics should have ,o ,.nd., such services as the reconditioning
of private institutions enjoyed exemption. emperor confirmed all of their present properties, even those for which
vessels when all the clergy
that these their title was uncertain or worse, and forbade government tax collectors
once it secured.the .-p.rä,, .onr"nt in 116g, the synod ruled
exemption from the labor services' to intrude on the lands of monasteries that enjoyed immunity.
clerics shoulcl also enjoy
of the Unlike Nicephorus Phocas, Manuel Comnenus did not impose an out-
The canonist Theodore Balsamon, commenting at the close
fifteenth canon of the Second Council of Nicaea right ban on the establishment of new monasteries' Instead, he held up a
,*.ifrf, century on the foundation of his own, the monastery of St. Michael at Kataskepe, as an
*tri.tt had tolerated rural pluralism, observed that a complete reversal example of the proper way for benefactors to provide financial support'48
grant of
of the eighth-century situation had occurred thanks to Manuel's
In Balsamon's day there were now more rural The emperor had chosen to provide a cash grant from the treasury to
the clergy.aa
"*þorrrî¡oto iá which they couid serve' making pluralism in the support the monastic community of this foundation instead of the usual
clerics than churches
Rarely had such a definitive solution to a per- endowment of fields and vineyards. trn so doing' he was attempting to
countryside unnecessary.
return to earlier endowment practices common before the Council of
,ir,."i'prr6lem ever been found in Byzantine history, and at small cost Co¡sranrinople (861), when many benefactors provided annuities and
,o ,h. ,tur., since the government did not have to undertake a program
cash subsidies to maintain their foundations. The emperor hoped once
of direct subsidization of rural clerics'
the ar- again to popularize this means of financing monasteries. Had he been
Manuel comnenus was less successful in attempting to reverse
foundations that had found fa- successfu! he would surely have dealt a severe blow to the flourishing
rangemenrs for organizing ecclesiastical.
the late eleventh century.as The em- system of independent, self-governing monasreries that had become so
*i,r, private b'enefacto.s since
popular among wealthy philanthropists since the late eleventh century.
".,
pãrol *"r'àistu.bed, as his distant predecessor Nicephorus
phocas had
mon- À generation later, Eustathios, metropolitan of Thessalonica (d. 1198)'
L..n, ,o find his wealthy subjects bestowing extensive properties on
the administradon of these properties agreed with Manuel Comnenus that the wealth of the monasteries was a
astic foundations. He considered
monastic piety and seclu- sJandal, and denounced their insatiable appetite for new acquisitions of
u Jirtru.ti.rg burden and an obstacle to a life of
II Comnenus, as well as his grandfather' Al- property.ae Protests of this sort demonstrate that the independent, self-
sion. That ñis father' John
in founding large' well-endowed governing monasteries had in fact achieved the goals of their originators.
oin, Co-nenus, had"set the example
judgment that sup- Íh.y had gained unparalleled financial security while unburdening them-
independent monasteries dicl not swãy Manuel's own
with landed properries was inappropriate. selves of lay control. So much had the balance of power changed that it
;.;;i"g religious institutions
'-it.".-pãror's chrysobull of 1158 embodies these attitudes in a new was now possible for a reactionary clergyman like Eustathios to com-
ment favoiably even on the thoroughly discredited cbaristike and to look
gou.r.t-..r, policy táward private foundations'a. The measure affected
and Ni- back with admiration on the era when laymen administered monasteries
all the monasteries of the capital, the islands of the Propontis'
directly for their personal profit.
a3
Grumel, Regestes No. 1082 (July 1168), mentioned by Balsamon,
Commentaria ad C. of course, in an empire of shrinking territorial resources, the prosper-
Nicaen.Il, c. 4 (R&P 2.571). ity of the monasteries came at the expense of classes (such as the military
toBalsamon, Òo**"ntorio ad C' Nicaen' II, c' 15 (R&P 2'261)' and the peasantry) whose services were rnore critical to the survival of
ajFor Manuel,s...r.ri"riiiuipãii.y, r." Niiolas Svoronos, "Les privìlèges del'Eglise à
ui ...åi, iíedrt de Manuel ler comnène," TÚM 1 (1965),325- the state. Property that came under the control of the independent mon-
l,ép.q* å;;¿omnènes,
9l¡ charanis, ..Mon"r,,.î.åp.rìì.i,; h-ssr Jean.Darrouzès. "Décret inédit.de
Manuel
Byzar.rtine HolyÀ4an in the
comnène,,,REB 31 A97;;,"í0i_1i; laul tvlagdalilo,,,Th_e aTon the limited scope of this legislation, see charanis, "Monastic Properties," 84.
l'';;ii;i''ð.';'; y," in rh, n)io"t;'" íøint, ed' Sergei Hackel (Birmingham' 198r)' sr-66' asFor this foundatioi, see Nikeìas choniates, Historia, ed. J. A. Van Dieten (Berlin,
esp.62-65. 1975), p.207i cf. John Kinnamos, Historia, ed. A. Meinke, CSHB (Bonn, L836)' p' 276;
a6Manuel Comnenus, Aurea bulla de possessionibus monasteriorum (1'158) UGR
G éograPh ie, Yol. 3, p. 342.
3.450-454) : Dölger, R;;;;t;;' Ño' r+rs, with commentarv bv
Svornos' "Privilèges"' "lanín,
(L176) : orÉustatäios of Thessalonica, De emendanda uita monachica (PG 135, cols. 729-910,
330-33. Cf. the more .*inþ, policy in his De possessionibus monasteriorum
esp. 825). On Eustathios, see Kazhdan, Studies,115-95' esp. 150-54.
Dölger, Regestez No. 1537'
 -r
I

228 CHAPTER EIGHT RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 229

asteries of the tr,velfth century lost much of its usefulness to the state, Since it is through Balsamon's eyes that we view a great deal of what
lrrt"inly to a much greater extent than in the time of Nicephorus Phocas' is known about the controversies concerning private religious founda-
*t-r.n ,n" immunitie^*s for individual monasteries were hardly known. tions in Byzantium, it is important to cletermine his own opinions and
ih.r. monasteries finally sec'recl the aclministrative ancl financial in- prejudices. Fortunatel¡ Balsamon does not distort the evidence to con-
¿.p.r¿rr.. that had been so conspicuously absent under the traditional form to his own biases, and he readily discloses his own views on impor-
p.ãp.ieta.y form of organization. Manuel Comnenus' attempt to return tant controversies. Therefore, once allowance is made for the consider-
io t'h" old -."n, of finãncing private foundations did not succeed, prob- able distance he stood from many of these controversies, there is much
oliy U..utte of the u.ry Jrr..",, that independent monasteries had to be learned from him about the attitudes of the ecclesiastical hierarchy
u.lri.u"d in less than a century of popular acceptance. The disappearance toward privatc foundations.
of Manuel's own foundation of kaiaskepe, probably in 1'204 with the Although he has nothing to say about the origin of private religious
irfl.f rn. imperial governmenr) was a vindication of the wisdom of pri- institutions in Byzantium, Balsamou was astute enough to realize the
vate benefactor, *ho preferred the independent form of organization' connectiorì between early oratories (eukterioi oikoi) and heretical sects.s2
Many of their foundations did survive the collapse of the government' I-Iis commentary on a canon of a council held at Antioch in 326 indicates
aideá in no small measure by their financial autonorny' that he trelieved that certain private chapels evolved from private resi-
dences of sectaries who had been expellecl from the public churches of
the empire.53
THEODOREBALSAMONANDHISVIEIíSoNTHEROLEoFPRIVATE Balsamon, who had followed in the sources the long controversy about
RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS IN THE BYZANTINE CHURCH the legality of chapels in private houses, was well aware of the distinc-
As it happened, Theodore Balsamon' the greatest of Byzantine canon tions between oratories and katboliþai ehklesiai, the public churches. He
i;il;;;,'å--á..d his ecclesiastical career early in the reign of.Manuel knew that the distinguishing marks of the latter were that they served as
ðorn".""t, iust as the conservative reaction to the growth of the inde- repositories of relics and continued to receive the episcopal cledications
pendent n1urrurt..i., was forming'to Thg canonist's owtr getlerally
con- that private benefactors had now dispensecl with for their oratories.sa
,.ruutiu, views thus were in keeping with the times. He held the post of Nevertheless, Balsamon upheld the right of patrons to have regular litur-
p"ìri"t.fr"f cbartophylax in 1,1.79, then served briefly as titular patriarch gies and baptisms, citing in support Leo VI's decision on the sacrarnental
of Antioch ,rnde, fsaac II Angelus (1185-95). Although he was
still living capacities of chapels in private houses.55 In Balsamon's opinion, the em-
in LL95, the date of his death is unknown' peror's verdict on this matter took precedence over the earlier canonical
Balsamon's greatest work, his canonical commentaries, were
com- legislation to the contrary.
posed in the last quarter of the twelfth century.sl They pr.ovide a thor- Not all of the canonists of the twelfth century shared this view. Alexios
ã,rgh ."pli.ation åf rhe canons of the ecumenical councils as well as Aristenos, who was perhaps nearer to the opinion of the reformist party
oth"er canons recognized as authentic and orthodox by these councils' on this issue, preferred to follow the canons of the Synod in Tlullo which
His commentaries quote or refer to many of the important, documents allowed the divine liturgy in these private chapels only with episcopal
already discussed inthis stud¡ such as Nicephorus Phocas'ban
on new consent and reserved all baptisms for public churches'56
religious foundations and gasil II's law repealing it, the decrees of Sisin- Balsamon was also interested in the question of what amount of
nlrilt and Sergius II on the charistike, Alexius Comnenus' De iure pa- money constituted the "sufficiency" that all prospective founders since
"Man,rel It
triarchae, and comnenus' laws on clerical tax exemptions. the time ofJustinian had been expected to have ready before undertaking
u,ould be nearly impossible to study the internal history of the Byzantine
church withoui the evidence Balsamon has preserved in his canonical j2Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Ant. (ca.326), c.2 (R6.P 3.1'27,lines L7-L6).
commentaries. 53Cf. Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Gang. (ca.362), c. 6 (RðcP 3.105).
raBalsanron, Responsa ad interrogationes Marci, ed. R&P 4 (Athens, 1854), No.4 (R&P
50For Balsamon's career and works, see G. P. Stevens, De Theodo,to Balsamone' Analysis 4.4s8-s9).
oprr)l*;;;;";;; iurl¡diroi ino-., tþes), and Emil Herman "Balsamon"' DDC'Yol' 2' 55See above, note 54, with Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Laod., c. 58 (R&P 3.224).
56Alexius Aristenus, Coffimentaria ød C. Laod., c. 58 (R&P 3.224); for this canonist,
cols.76-83.
slTheodore Balsamon, Cornmentalia in Cønones SS. Apostolorum Conciliotum et in see M. Krasnozhen, "Kommentarii Alekseya Aristina na kanonicheskii Sinopsis," VV 20
,p;ttãlit canonicas SS. Patrum' ed. R&P 2 and 3 (Athens' 1852-53)' (19"t 3), t8e-207.
 RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 231,
230 CHAPTER EIGHT

Balsamon did not think it in their foundations. They bitterly distrusted both the local hierarchy and
the construction of a church or monastery's7 the patriarchs. Considering the readiness with which the ecclesiastical
;el õ¡;, a b.nefaltor to spend thousands of nomismaÍa (as in the
to endow a monas- hierarchy had handed over the foundations of their ancestors as personal
.]]!-j-jih. grear independent monasteries) in order
of Leo VI' which en- favors during the century of the charistike, these benefactors had legiti-
to a novel
öïttp"tfi- H. ,"f.t.ed once again
that would support as mate grounds for their distrust. These new founders preferred, therefore,
couraged benefactors ,. ""Jtt'"ft"t foundations to exempt their independent monasteries from both episcopal and pa-
f.* ; three monks. It would be enough, then, Balsamon thought, to triarchal control. The extant founders' typika nearly always incorporate
havesufficien,-on"y_'ocompletetheconstructionofthebuildingand num- such an exemption or at least severely curtail the rights of the hierarchy.62
;; p;;;td; for its administrati'(on and the support of the minimum Balsamon wogld have none of this, cleclaring that the hierarchy should
ú.r'of monks. Balsarnon therefore gout 'ntòutagement to small
foun-
pay no heed to such provisions because they were simply uncanonical.63
ã"iir", i" an age when public opinion _favored the erection of larger The reformist hierarchy of the tu'elfth century must have thought that
independent monasteries.it Ht *^i even less specific
in his requirements
olåos. Balsamon the founders of the independent monasteries had unfairly associated
f;; ,'h. benefactor who wanted to erect an euþterios
did not apply in this case' them with their eleventh-century predecessors. 'While the benefactors had
held that Leo VI's law on monastic foundations
he had already reacted to the chøristike in a spirit of extreme distrust of the hierarch¡
,ã-fr.-ã"fy required the benefactor to advance the sum those bishops who considered themselves in the reformist tradition be-
åfr., .o,ir,tttation with the local bishop'se Balsamon ad-
"g*.a "ó""in actual pt"l,itt benefactors simpiy suited themselves' and came bitterly hostile to any lay preemptions of their authority.t4 That the
;ï;;¡ that founders routinely appointed begoumenoi and ephors without consult-
;;;;it.t." informed ihe local bishops of their plans' to warn ing them seemed particularly outrageous, a blatarlt disregard for their
Túe canonist drew from his own experience as chartophylan I

traditional rights.65
a. patriarchal
f*;; inlu-b.nt, "f ,f't", office that they should not grant
-tr;rtits¡;" control) to a bene- The reformers varied in the degree of their hostility to the founders'
(and thus an exemption from episcopal
they had received typika.66 The extremists went so far as to declare all typika invalid, even
factor for -on"rr.rf outtidt òonstantinople unless when they contained nothing uncanonical' According to their way of
"
;;;;;"ri"g of all tt e iu'd, d.uo,.d to the proposed foundation..''This
strict property
I
thinking, all the privately founded monasteries in any given diocese prop-
;;;;;il w"o.rld prevent benefactors from evading the
erly belonged to the bishop as an episcopal right. This group of reformers
registrarion ,.quir.--.rri ãlrt, council of constantinople (861) by ap-
therefore was antagonistic to the very idea of a private or independent
p""i-trt
ttt. a charter of foundation' The unscru-
;?il;ãi;tjy," al stauropegia by lay benefactors had
1t1 monastery. A second group approved only of those typika drawn up in
pulous employment oi f"t'i""h conformance with the canons and imperial laws. A third group accepted
;lt."dy U.Ëorn" a ,.rio.rs problem before Balsamon composed his canon- i

this premise, but required imperial ratification of each typikon. The ma-
1

ilal .om-.ntaries. yet Balsamon did not syrnpathize with the reformist
and patriarchs jority of the extant typika wouid not have met the approval of any of
bishops and metropolit"n, *ho petitioned thã t-pttott
l

these critics.
irt halt to the of patriarchal stauropegia'lnBalsa-
"ã-pfete "*"'d custom The reformers found their strongest support in the first canon of the
ãånt opinion' the awards were sanctioned by ancient unwritten Council of Constantinople (861), which enacted the property registra-
all monas-
*rri.r.l ou.rrod. the chalcedonian prescription subordinating tion requirement and restored the local bishop to his traditional role as
teries to their diocesan bishops'61
overseer of construction and as consecrator of the hegoumenos. In pre-
I Balsamon *",.nii"ly t'n'y*pathetic to the need for striking a
noi paring his commentary on this canon, Balsamon diligently searched the
of the local
p.ãp., U"frn., U.r*"* tt't tign" of the.founder and those
',1

Basiliþa to determine the legal basis for these episcopal rights' His dis-
[irh.p Many founders of relìgious institutions in the twelfth
all lay
century
interests
*.r. à".pty éommitted to .eformist principles excluding
,,1
62Janin, "Commende and Typica," 34-36.
ll
lr
63Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Chalc., c. 8 (REcP 2'236.1,5-24).
! 6aE.g., Theophylact of ochrida, Demetrios of Bothrotos, and Demetrios of Domokos,
i: sTBalsamon, Comm. ad C' Nicaen' Il, c' 77 ,(F.txP 2'626\' whose ieform activities are discussed below in this chapter.
i, 58ComÞare with .fohn ll èornnånut' Pantokrator monastery in Constantinople' which 6rFor founders' behavior in the late twelfth century see Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Const.
*r, iir.lf'.^.ter of six smaller dependent monasteries'
"ïä;Ë;;;; I et II, c. 1 (R&P 2.650.30-34); extant typika, e.g., those of Pakourianos and Irene Com-
ì
I
cá-*. od c. Nicàen' tI, c' 17 (F.uP 2'627 '13-16)' nena, confirm the complaint of the anonymous reformer quoted here by Balsamon'
16-26'
"oCà**' oà C'Niror,. lI,c' 1'7' lines 66Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Const. I et lI, c. 1 (R&P 2.65I.1-8).
,'B';i;;;;; cl*i. càioi" ap^'olorum, c' 13 (REcP 2'30'28-2'31'10)'
"¿
 Y
RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 233
232 CHAPTER EIGHT

law on private.foun- financial advantage. Nevertheless, he could easily appreciate the distinc-
covery of the mutilated extract of Zeno's original tion between a monastery that a bishop might erect out of diocesan funds
(if he had any doubts) of a
dations must have conuinced him indeed
and one paid for out of a bishop's personal fortune.T2 He knew, in other
typikon' Balsamon did not believe'
irtt¿-t legal right to draw up a permitted words, the difference between a diocesan institution erected in the bish-
t"gitt"t. for foundation
;;;;;r;iÀãl u fã""der's right io his
Moteover.' Balsa- op's official capacity and a proprietary institution founded by the bishop
t i- ,o set provisions that wire uncÃonical or illegal'
as a private individual. Although not antagonistic to the idea of private
mon,sresearchconvincedhimthatthebishopsdidindeedhavetheright institutions, Balsamon was certainly not immune to the spirit of his age,
iã-ou.rr.. these foundations' to expel the founders' nominees
if they
to replace those ex- which emphasized the consecrated status of an ecclesiastical foundation
p.ou.lìnt"itable, and to name new appointees
at the expense of the founder's claim to arbitrary employment of his
pelled."t Í-,..--^-^ on property.Tl
'-g"ir"*o' thus aligned himself with the moderare reformers - the
typika' He also reiected the claims It was in his attitude toward the traditional practices of the monaster-
ir*. rf the legality Jf the founders' ies to sell shares of siteresia or appointments as lay brothers (adelphata)
ãi,n. extremîsts ty maintaining thai'a local bishop did not hold an to non-resident laynìen that Balsamon showed himself most sympathetic
right of ownership (a kyriaÞo.n dikaion) over a monastery to the ideas of the extremist reformers. While some canonists defended
"utornati. (dikaia episko-
founded in h"is diocese..t He dehneã the bishop's rights the practices against charges of simony on the ground that the recipients
perqt'isites of inquiry (anakrisis) into spiritual
i¡î"¡ ^t the traditional administration, mention did not receive tonsure, Balsamon refused to grant rhat this distinction
?uut,r, oversight qepitereiis¡ åf the fo,rndatioir's
made any difference.Ta This common thinking notwithstanding, Balsa-
in the liturgy, and consecÌation (sphra-
7)nopiøo*l oî th. pr.l"te's name Balsamon main- mon's basic disagreement with the more radical reformers is evident in
anxious founders'
àiri tr the begoumenos. To assure his views on that touchstone of controversy' the charistik"e' Balsamon
tainedthatanindependentmonasteryshouldcontinuetoenjoyself- condemned John, his distant predecessor as patriarch of Antioch, for his
;;;;.* noi be liable to episcopal donation or lease to anyone opinion that the granting out of a monastery to private individuals was
"nd
else.
whose ipso facto impious and uncanonical.Ts Balsamon regarded the decree of
D.rpit. this understandable concern to reassure the benefactors Patriarch Sergius II as the definitive vindication of both the cbaristiþe and
p.rrorr"tgenerositymadethefoundationsofthelaterempirepossible' (more important for the hierarchy's own vested interests) its ecclesiastical
Balsamon was no reactionary supporter of private
benefactors' He
,iiht to overriãe a founder's typiÞon if counterpart, epidosis.
;h;úh, that the p"tri"r.h had a Balsamon's distance from the era of the worst abuses of the charistiþe
therefore approved Patri-
the eîistence of an institution was at stake. He is not in itself an adequate explanation for his defense of that embattled
;;;i i;L. chrysoberge s, (1.1.5740) decision ro appoint outsiders as /¡¿-
of monks' even though and now moribund institution. Some of his contemporaries evidently had
goumenoi in monaståi.s iith serious shortages
a sufficiently vivid knowledge of the evils of lay domination under the
from
?i, ty:pldo of these foundations ordered hegoumenoi.selected
of burials within cbaristiþ.e to lead them to oppose even the comparatively beneficent in-
;;";; the residents.øe Balsamon also disapproved
patrons dependent monasteries of their own day. Perhaps Balsamon, as a student
.t ur.ñ.r,even though both traditional and more reform-minded
fitting perquisites'70 Not of the historical development of canon law, recognized better than his
had cons-idered thesã interments as ordinary and conremporaries the requirements that had called the charistike into being
positions to
,u.priringl¡ he strongly condemned laymen who used their and the beneficial role that it had played on occasion. Balsamon affirms
make clerical aPPointments'71 that the granting out of monasteries under the charistiþe or epidosis stlll
hostile to the
It was characteristic of Balsamon's thinking that he was occurred on occasion in his own times.76 Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges
veryideaofanyoneemployingareligiousinstitutionforhispersonal had declared in a synodal decision of 1.1.69 that a charistiþarios could
Comm. ad C' Const. I et II, c' 1, R&P 2'651"8-27 '
67

Comm. ad C. Const' I et lI, c' 1, RE P 2'651'27-652'6'

68
I et Il' T2Balsamon, Comm. ad C. Const. I et Il,c.7 (R&P 2.675.29-2.676.7)
6eGrumel, RegestesN.. ióii t..ã.i i.po".¿ by Balsamon, Comm' ad C' Const' 73
Comm. ad C. Const. I et II, c. 7, R&P 2.67 5 .25-29.
c.4 (R&P 2.662). TaBalsamon, Comm. ad C. Nicaen. lI, c. 1'9 (REcP 2.633).
'obalsamon, Responsa
No' 41 (R&P 4'479)' TsBalsamon, Comm. ad C. Nicaen. II, c. 13 (P.UP 2'614'29-2.615.2).
TlBalsamon, co-rr.oiÑå*Lirii"¡lPs)'Photii,ed'R&P1(Athens, 1852),Title1'Ch' 76Comm. ad C. Nicaen. ll, c. 1'3,P.UP 2.614.24-29.
24 (Rs.P 1.63't4-L8).
 --r-
CHAPTER EIGHI' RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 235
234
dowry'77 Since this tolerant attitude, the conservative canonist and historian John Zonaras
not give away amonastery to his daughter for her
liká his pr.J..."ot John IX Ág"pttut and Balsamon himself' thought clerics should decline secular administrative positions as estate
fã*i"r.tl,
'*", ãpfur.ntly tradition initiated admiristrators (pronoetai) and accountants (logaristai).81 Balsamon'
*itt, the modãráte reform
"rio.ãi.J typically dicl not condemn the however, was willing to allow even monks to serve as administrators not
by Nicholas III Gramrnaticus, his decision
this faction was unwilling to join only of ecclesiasticai ptop.tty but also of private and govefnment lands,
,'bir¡,st¡k, outright. For the time being
influence in the direction of prouid.d that they diá so under episcopal supervision.s2 According to his
the extremists in a .u-puig" againstãll lay
ihinking, the emperor had even more of a right than the bishops to over-
ecclesiastical foundations.
the persistent ride exiiting canonical prohibitions in order to allow monks to assume
A more pressing concern in Balsamon's own times was
this time trnder new eir- government positions'
oi th. säularizati'n of monasteries,
".ofi.- ma'y laymen On this iisue Balsamon was at odds with Patriarch Luke Chryso-
:ifr;;.;;. iÀ. ...r.rl"stical authorities were discoveri'g
berges' decree of 1157 which condemned the heavy involvement of cer-
;;;;;t;;t of buildi,tg, that had once h.oused monastic communities'78
Seljuk Turks) for the de- tain" members of the secular clergy in secular affairs.s3 According to the
Balsamon blamed hr;ti"l. invaders (actually the
patriarch, clerics illegally held positions as kouratores and pronoetai in
nooulationofthesemonasteries'Thecurrentoccupantswerequickto
ï#;'rh" i_,.-,r,oror,"nes of the monasteries were hardly their fault" ih" ho,x"holcls and on the estates of lay magnates. Other clerics collected
in the late elev- taxes for the state, kept public records, and served in other government
iï. ø..., of Turkish invaders that flowed over Anatolia
century"Ihanks to offices. Luke Chrysobãrges tried to ban all such employment in the fu-
;ñ;;;ry had ebbed somewhat by the mid-twelfth
them- ture, bur the Byzantine clergy had long disregarded the canons, as the
if,. ."rty .r,tr"der, *¿ ,nt efforts of the Comnenian emperors
evidence from sixth-century Egypt makes clear. Even the canonists of the
a substantial portion of its
;;là ;í,. empire hoà -"n"g.d to recovermetropolitans had then been church clearly were nor of one mind in opposing outside employment for
lost Anatolian dominions. Some eastern
monasteries clerics, which economic pressures must have made both attractive and
,.t...rrfU in reclaiming their episcopal residences and some The suc-
in the interim. necessary.
il;;;i; laymen whoîacl o..upi.á these.sites
by the metropolitans Balsamon's tolerance of ecclesiastical employment in lay and govern-
;;r;fri ,..ou..y of monasreríes let out in charistike the claims mental service indicates that he appreciated the difficulties clerics might
;-Arh;, (10g'g) and Kyzikos (1116) could only have_assisted
in the latter half of the twelfth century' face in securing a livelihood solely from ecclesiastical sources. Given the
of the Anatolian metropolitans
gulr"-on neverrheless ihought that the generally recognized forty-year Byzantine ch,rrch's traditional commitment to the inalienability of eccle-
after. which innocent lay- siastical property and the new scruples against individual profiteering
srarute of limitation, on .l¡"i-r should apply,
from religious folndations, it is no wonder that clerics and monks turned
menshouldenjoyuncontestedownership-oftheseabandoneðepiskopeia
to the mãgnates and the state for supplementary employment' -
and monasteries.Te
property rights is also ev- The exaction of fees for the conferral of the sacraments and attempts
Balsamon,s characteristic respect for private
He mentions the case of to secure multiple clerical appointments were two other ways that enter-
ident in his pronoun..-.t" on clerical income-'
of laymen as children's tutors, calligra- prising clerics óf the twelfth ..nt,tty eased their financial difficulties' The
;î;;;; *h; int.r.a the service
Over the course of time' these clerics institu'tional church had fought for centuries to keep the distribution of
il;:J, unJ no,rr.t old secretaries'80 took the position that they the sacraments, particularly clerical ordination, free from mandatory
might acquire great wealth' but Balsamon
of it with their churches' \le fees. Noq late in Byzantine histor¡ Balsamon agreed to permit clergy-
\¡/.î" tt,
,rnd.åtrtlg"tion tá share any part
of secular service, es- men to accept voluntary "stole fees" upon conferral of baptism, com-
are remincled again ár ,n" continued attractiveness
members of the clergy. In contrasr to Balsamon's munion, ani ordination.8a In so doing, Balsamon was recognizing the
p".*rry for edrlcated

oudot, Patriarchatus con- 81John Zonaras, Comm. ad C. Nicaen. II' c. 10 (R&P 2'588)'
77Luke chrysob erges, semeioma synodikon.(L.169), ed. Jean
re4ì)' Doc' No' 5' p' 34 : Grumel' Regestes tt"Balsamon, Comm' ad C. Chalc., c. 4 (R&P 2.228-29)'
:
urrî¡iìi"l¡iài';;"¡"''rí;;;'(Y;ii'"ícn¡ rrLuke Chrysoberges, Semeioma (1,1,57) (RS.P 3.345-49, esp.346.28-347.4) Gru'
^No. 1086.
-i'B^lr"-on, mel, Regestes Ño. 1048; cf. Herman, "Professioni vietate," 37-38'
Comm. ad C. Nìcaen' II, c' 13 (R.UP 2'613'6-17)' iis"Ë"-on, Responía No.31 (R&P 4.471,-73); for details on these fees, see Herman,
"Balsamon, Conm. ad C' Nicaen' lI, c' L3 (Rð{P 2'613'17-30)'
toBalsamon, Comm. ad C' Carth' (41'9), c' 32 (RE P 3'389)' "Niederklerus," 429 -31.
 CHAPTER EIGHT
RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 237
236
"sacramental he took a very hard line against any layman's gaining a personal profit
established but unofficial custom of collecting eulogiai'
foi very valuable gifts that from these benefactions.
eifts," thougf, n. *",n.ã "guintt demands Balsamon would not tolerate the sale of ordinations, clerical appoint-
ãtigh, b. construed as simonY' ments, shares of siteresia, or lay brotherhoodships (adelphata). Never-
Balsamon *", *u.h--orá intol.r"nt
of clerical pluralism..This was
the centuries in the Byzan- theless, he supporte d the cbaristiþe in principle, although he did deny
;;;blem that had persisted through Thanks to the tax im- bishops the right to subordinate the new independent monasteries to lay-
"r;rh*
,i*".ftt.n, at least ,it'tt ttt" reign of Heiaclius'
was no longer the bane of men ú.,der this program. He favored episcopal rights of oversight in pri-
muniries of Manuel ¿;;;;;"t,;luralism The vare foundarioni, but he denied the bishops any claim to property rights
was now a surplus of clergy'
churches in the countryside where tkrere in these institutions. He was very strict on prohibiting the alienation of
p"tt..n h"i ro* ,.u.rr.d itself, and in the late twelfth century
;;ì;i;;"i church property, yet he favored a statute of limitations on episcopal ef-
there was a shortage åi.t.ri., in constantinople.s5 Balsamon attributed
of .n"r.f,", in the capital and the financial dis- fortu toi..i"im abandoned monasteries. He looked favorably upon cler-
il;;,h";.."i ",i-úå,ttttfttf inadequate tnJo**"ntt' He nevertheless ics in state and private employment, considering the income they earned
tress they suffered
"t " to warrant dispen- to be their o*n. H. even tolerated the collection of modest "stole fees."
did not consider these circumstances critical enough
pluralism' His own opinion Yet he abhorred clerical pluralism.
sation from the cur-,oni.ai legislation against In evaluating Balsamon's work, it is important to realize that the legal
general for,_ å-s he himself admitted, the clergy
äiJ ".."f.í".., and canonical tradition from which he drew his frequently ambiguous
"ri-ã"¿
e.".tutty ignãred the prohibition with
impunitv'
th. Éyr"ntine church that lay- conclusions was hardly a coherent and consistent unity. Some elements
Balsamon shared th'. gen.rul opinion oi
of church properties' Accord- of Justiniant regulatory legislation had managed to survive Leo VI's re-
men should not benefit'Ut "tt alìenations visions and found inclusion in the Basilikø. Yet the steady undermining
(protected earlier by legisla-
ingly, he ruled that rrriãiry ihe autourgion of Justinian's regulations, particularly with respect to the subordination
of Þatriarch Alexius Studites),
tion of the Second C.""lif'"f Nicaea "ãd of ã11 ecclesiastical foundations to local bishops, had also left its impact
should be withheld
;';;"ii;;;p**, y*ráì"ã-"n i,r.o-. (the euprosodø)
and not subject to lay exploi on the sources that Balsamon surveyed. The subsequent efforts of the
;;;,h;:tp'p"rt oithe e"äo*"d institution various reformers to curtail or surpress the cbaristik¿ resulted in the cre-
--il tntä"gh rental or outright donationi6
,"iio.t tried to steer a ation of a new body of canonical precedent, analogous to, but largely
;;*";y, then, it seems"fair to say that Balsamon that the independent of, Justinian's original legislation. The demise oÍ the char-
middle course U.,*.t" iht t"t"rnt refåtmets' who demanded
the traditionalists, who were istiþL itself left the church divided on what role, if any, laymen should
;il;î f,rrg. irr.lf ,i"1r^y influences., and
the continuance of the continue to play in the foundation and direction of religious institutions.
reluctant to do t'h"t might ieopardize
"nything Balsam.on's attempts to certain pioblems, such as institutional secularization, pluralism, cler-
..""¿.t"Uf. ben.fit, oi private philanthropy' of a skilled canonist not ical ernployment in the service of the magnates and the state, and lay
,rrif.. U"f"n.es on th; i"ut' giut the impression
exploitátion of ecclesiastical property, had plagued scrupulo-us âuthori-
position. Balsamon distinguished
easily led into orr._riiJ ,"ppî" oj any tiei within the church for centuries. Despite repeated condemnations,
the consecrated status
public from private i"u"áåtì"nt, but lmphasized
these problems periodically reemerged, often in new guises or under al-
ofallecclesiasticalin,tituti""'.Heheld.thatthefounders,typikawere tered iircumstances, to trouble a new generation of concerned authori-
bs;i ;;r;;ro.t."r'iï^.ã"..fr, u", allowed the patriarch to override
he thought.that a founder's ties. By the late twelfth century, canonists must have realized that neither
their provisions in critical cases' Moreover' the státe nor the church could eradicate these problems entirely. There-
typikon could not .;;; I ftun¿utølr,from episcopal control' He al-in fore, a certain âmount of compromise and toleration seemed to be in
of baptism
lowed the cerebratir. åi',t . liturgy and the administration
found- order.
the chapels ofpriu",. nou""b*ît deplored the independence of
He took a lenient po- The political circumstances of the empire at any given time na_turally
.ï, i" ."."i"g .ttuptft without episcopal. consent'private foundations, yet had an imporrant effecr on the policies that the government set for pri-
sition on minimum ..quir.*"nt, fot ãndo*ing
vate religious foundations. Even more than the policies of the church' the
legislatiãn introduced by the emperors lacked a consistent approach to
srBalsamon, Comm. ad C' Nicaen' I/' c' 15 (RUP-2'261"1'6-27)'
lI' c' 12 (RS¿P 2'594-95)' the problems spawned by the existence of these foundations. It is no
s6Balsamon, Comn. ad C' Nicaen'
 RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 2.]9
238 CHAPTER EIGHT
'rheophylact's wishes.87 The
that Theodore Balsamon found proceed with constmction in defiance of
wonder, then, given this diverse heritage' àrchbishop filed a formal proresr with Peter, the patriarchal chartopby-
it difficult to determint " ton"""'s of historical opinion on the impor-
is nonetheless remarkable in lax,but the outcome of the complaint is unknown'88
;;;;;f];-s of his a"f Ht, Michael lll (1,1,70-78) was the first patriarch to deal with the abuse of
^.nevement resoltttions to
,î*å".iri"g this heritage so well and in offering cogent stauropegiu. Constantine Spanopoulos, bishop of Pyrgion, brought a
its manY contradictions' .o*pt"itit to this patriarch in 1.L76 in which he claimed that the bene-
fu.tó., who had rËbullt churches in his diocese had obtained patriarchal
stauropegia for them under false pretexts.se Some bold benefactors ex-
p..,.i pãtriarchal stauropegia as their iust dues for undertaking the re-
FOUNDATIONS .onrtr,r.tion of these churches. If the patriarch recognized these stauro-
PRIVATE BENEFACTORS AND STAUROPEGIAL
pegia as valid charters of foundation, the bishop would stand to lose his
patriarchal stauropegia to es' t."dltlorr"l rights over these institutions. Whereas Theophylact of Och-
lncreasingl¡ benefactors' exploitation of rida had confronted the establishment of new patriachal monasteries
ö;;;'ïln*r, .f i;;"ibirhop, became,a troubling issue forEmperor the in-
over which he had no control, constantine faced an actual diminution
of Sykeon's.appeal to
,rlîr'r,ionut church' Ever since T'hãodore of his present authority in institutions restored by these benefactors. Mi-
irom episcopal_ control, the
Maurice for exemption io. his monasreries chael ill chose to side with Constantine against the interests of his own
employed for enabling benefac-
patriarchal stauropegionwas liable to be office in this case.
legislation, based as.it,was on
tors to circumvent Justinian's regulatory like Polyeuctus Twelfth-century benefactors accustomed to ig¡oring the local bishops
of patriarchs
ifr. ,igrf"r., of ,t.,. üiriõr. the iillingness benefac- when they undertook rhe consrruction of new churches evidently saw no
ear to requests by influential
(956-970) to lend u reason to consult them when they were restoring older fouldations. The
'y'np"thttic undt"ui the financial perquisites of
tors for grants local hierarch¡ for its part, still fought to bestow their own stauropegia,
.ouru. it is usually not possible to deter-
"r "";'^;;;;;;,-"1'o
their subordin"t. birhop'r.'Of
the avariciousness of the local occasionally *i,h ,u..esr.eo clearly the olcl attitude of benefactors who
mine whether it was inã ã"rlr. ro escape considered that what they chose to do with their religious foundations
lay benefactors themselves that
hierarchy or the *t,t;;;"i;;'nt" of.tË"
was their own business still prevailed in many areas of the empire un-
stauropegia'
i"v U.ftiá¿ these requesis for patriarchal touched by the spirit of the reform movement. Even the bishops were not
patriarchal oversight less
Consideratiors of Ariun.e nat,trally made immune fiom bãcksliding into the old ways of thinking, for Balsamon
and alert benefactors must have
effective than that tiì tätUy bishop' had to warn that a bishop who owned a monastery in another diocese in
in this respect. Indeed, as we
realized the weaknesr'oi ,rr. p"tri"r.h^t. the capacity of a private benefactor should not usurp the traditional
rights of visitation and spiritual cor-
have seen, the patriarchï rr"dltiorrul jursisdiction had rights of that institution's diocesan bishop.el
vast
recrion in all the i.riirrr"ir* iã."r.¿ïlrnin
his
of the eleventh century he ïh" gr"^, indepe'dent monasreries, richly endowed with vast lands by
suffered such severe .tc)l-itt tft"' by
the end
in institutions nominally their gäerous founders, also came to play a significant role inthe reduc-
was unable to insist ;;;h;t rights even
those
stauropegia). * tion ãf the spiritual jurisdiction of the local hierarchy. Mindful of the
under his direct coniãf-trf.,u, ii those
with patriarchal
traditional private bene-
should hardly U. ,*,ftti"ä, tnt"fott'
that tñe
s''fheophylact of ochrida, Epistola 27 (PG 126, cols. 416D-41,7^A), cf. Herman'
facrors of the ,*.1f,il';;;;ñy f..f.rréa
to seek patriarchal charters for ..Abgaberi*ásen 449, anð Paul tlautier, "Le chartophylax Nicéphore: Oeuvre canonique
episcopal hierarchy. The "" of this letter was
their foundation, ou.. ii,ãrl år the reformist ., nii., biographique,,, REB 27 (1,969),159-95, esp. 164; the addressee
monasteries would Michael, , tù..å..oi to Leo as metropolitan of-Chalcedon'
bishops who so uitt.'ìy ;tot:* the
new indepenàent
ssThiioffical \À/aspresentattheCouncil of Blachernai (1.094),Acta(PG_l27,col'973D).
patrons to direct their
not have been likely t; a free hand to prìvate ,rGrumel, Regestis No. 1131 (Aprll 1176), quoted by Chomatianos, De.monastcriis et
^ll'; n. Pitra, Analecia sacra ei,t ciassica spicilegio Solesmensi parata,Yol. T
foundations as they Pleased' Theophy-
,¡a1176pieg;1s,.a."¡.
189 l), J48' J49.
Ni.i,oí"'"ðommaticus' reformist patriarchate'
(Paris-Rome.
-.S.;"rt;il;;J;.r
As early ü1o; in this chapter and V. Laurent, "Charisticariat et co^mmende
r".i, ", or ötrt¡ã;; h"d raised protests against tT y of pa-
'^
à By;;.;, b;;x fondations patriarcales e1 ep_i1g aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles'" REB 1'2 (1'954)'
"r.rrfirrtop haå tried to pttu"nt an individual ioó_rr:, esp. L01, a stauropegion granted toNikephoros choiriosphaktes during the reign
triarchal ,touroprgii'îittãft¡ithop
but when the benefac- -- Manuel Comnenus.
of
from erecting -onu'itry within his ¡urisdiction' he was able to
i'Bulra-on, Comm' ød C. Const' I et ll, c' 7 (R&P 2'675'29-676'7)'
" i. "b;;;;ig pu"iu'Lhul
Ã
tor succeeded 'to"opegion'
 I

CHAPTER EIGHT RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 247

240
himself a patriarchal chartophylax in the 1180s, saw nothing inherently
spiritualneedsofthepeasantcultivatorsresidentontheirendowedprop-
erties, the monks undertook ambitious
programs of rebuilding ruined wrong with the granting of these stauropegia, provided the petitioner
They also took over the adminis- followed established procedures designed to protect the endowments of
,ip-tir¡à,¡ oikoilocated on these lands.
new ones as well wherever the foundations. Here again was an issue on which the reformist bishops
tration of functioning oratories and erected
monasteries were becom- differed with the moderates in the patriarchal administration. Those
;il;;.;; needed' ln tt'i' -uy tht independent had formerly imposed bishops who demanded a complete halt to the issuance of patriarchal
ine the successors ,o ,f,. t"'k' thut thË hierarchy
riti¡Lir¡t¡ looked to private benefactors to perform' stauropegia had the advantage of having the unanimous backing of ca-
""ilr'rir. üiô, "u.ìrt. tt."' became paùiar.h, George II Xiphilinus (11'91-
'ffil; nonical p.ecedent on their side.e6 Balsamon could not produce a single
ggl'h."ra--any birhop, .o*pl"in that the monasreries were denying canonicál citation to oppose them and weakly argued that the force of
churches that these institu- long-established custom ought to prevail over previous ecclesiastical leg-
Aä-;ú rr"¿l,io""f .iir.op"l rights in the The monasteries that held pa- islation.
tions were erecting or,-intit iropäties'"
by claiming that their own The calamity of the conquesr of constantinople by the crusaders in
triarchal stauropegia justifieå tËeir actions
to their dependencies as pro- 1.204 andtheir establishment of the Latin Empire had an important effect
."ã-pii"^ fro- .iir.ápal control extended
on this controversy. Political events increased the importance of the great
prietary churches.
' Sooi after he became patriarch, George II issued a decree on Novem- monasteries in the remaining areas under the control of the Greek suc-
^fì"*gy, bishops' FIe. reserved
for them the perquis- cessof states of Epirus and Nicaea by weakening the central authority of
ber 27 ,1 1 91 , supporiing
ä ;i 'or)pøLroi" ,fr. 'ttt the oidination of clergy, and the receipt of the patriarchate. The incumbents of the new patriarchal line at Nicaea
that to the grantor of an chose not to maintain George II's stand against the monasteries and
the þanonikon' an.;.i;;i;;ít"l tax
accrued
institution's staurop;;;;;'ij
gtfo" too long' Ge.orqe. lI.was forced to sometimes even helped to undermine it in rivalry with the Epirot arch-
complexities became appar- bishop of Ochrida.
this sweepingld..,"t as unforeseen
"-.nd an excepdon {or those Demetrios chomatianos, an eminent canonist and archbishop of och-
ent. A second decree oij"n"uty 8, 1L92'
made
churches that the *on"ri.ti.t úad'recently
acquired but that had been rida (frorn 1.217), judged an important case concerning stauropegia
natriarchal foundations from their origins.ea Tñe patriarch warned that which Demetrios, bishop of Bothrotos, brought against the monastery of
was not to serve Choteachobou. This monastery, which itself held a patriarchal staurope-
earlier decree
in;....p,i"n from the regulation of his episcopal control to all other gion, encovraged the Vlachs resident on one of its properties to forsake
as a pretext fo, .",.ndi"g Ë*t*ptio"
from
churches that the monasieries were currently rebuilding on.their prop- their village church and attend services in the monastery's own chapel
be subject to the spiritual instead.eT bemetrios of Bothrotos complained that his clerical appointees
erties. These and all future churches would
that the patriarchate would to the village church had not been able to exercise their proper authority
direction of the local iitft"ot, *nich implies proprie- over the p"ìithion..r. The bishop based his case on two points: namely,
rr"r..l"rrn refrain from issuing new stauropegia for monastic
that all laymen ought to be subject to the spiritual authority of their
--ïn.churches.
tary . r : r, -^^--^ rr when'
II ,,,r. in a bishop, and that it was inappropriate in any case to admit lay women
,piri, of these regulations continued to guide 9:9lqt
decision of February ïi,-11gì,¡rupheld
the rþht of Michael, uish.oy
3-l
into ã monastery's chapel for services. The proestos of the monastery
priest in a monastlc proprretary based his case on the property rights that his institution had over the
ä-r.,,o collect the þanonikon Írom a io' tht patriarch' since he stood village in which the parish was located. He claimed that the Vlachs had
church.es This was àlmt"i' ¿lscipline.
" of. the kanoniþon from any expan- services in the monastery for fifteen years prior to the bishop of
i,l.r.n, financially through receþt patriarchal stauropegia. Not "tt.ndrd
Bothrotos' complaint.
sion in the number ol irrr,iru,ions holding
p^itøt.tt"l official' 'h""d George II'sicruples' Theodore Balsamon' This was not the only difficulty that Demetrios of Bothrotos faced. In
"fi the village of Tzermenikon, also under the overlordship of the monastery
n2See Grumel, Regestes,P' 182'
e3Grumel, RegestesNä."irll: text quoted in oudot, Acta selecta,
No.8, Sect.2' p' of Chotãachobou, one of his distant predecessors had erected a church
54t cf. Herman,-"Abgabenwesen," 450' .\ - . - -,- --r--+^ rrr^ 8,
a (ec
Sections 1-6.
eaGeorge ll, syno¿¡k, )iàpiìr¡i(iigzl,.dì_oudot, ^Acta selecta, No.
451' t'L.g., C. Chalc., c.2,8,17 (as discussed above in Chapter 2)'
pp. s;-îå:'b;ï^¿, nií'ií,"Ñ'' ì rsot cf' Herman' "Absabenwesen"' -
Grumel, Regesfes No. ,rDãmetrios Chomatianos, De monasteriis, ed. Pitra, 339-43; cf. Herman, "Niederkle-
esGeorse ,.
prr, ,noriÍiåî¿'¡ì"¡iríli,iij ti¿cp s.ror-i02) =
1 185; cf. il.r-"n. "Abgabenwesen"' 45 l' rus," 409.
 RISE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONASTERIES 243
CHAPTER EIGHT
242
A cer- the holy canons. It is ordained by this present document that the attached
own episcopal stturoþe7'ion'e8
dedicated to St. Nicholas with his prop.rii.t and possessions of whatever sorr are to remain for all time
tain neighboring -ug;lt"; i;;;;;t'
*ho hud'dtsigns on the area' had inseparably [joined] to the episcopal monasrery of St. Demetrios. These
old episcopal foun-
t"* tt'"tttt very'ea'the
recently erected ar. io be managed and directed spiritually by the bishop of Domokos,
"t.t;;;i;
dation. Taronas' .t'u'it' "í'o bore
the name of St' Nicholas' aud he
man-
for it is not possible for either the founders (dometores) or anyone else
it' The bishop thought that
aged to obtain u pu,'iu"îoi to tear off a possession frorn an episeopal monastery and s¡biect it to a
"')'"ets¡"n.Íor his rights in the earlier loz
Täronas had uncano#;ii;õhr'to"und.r,oine patriarchal monastery or oratory (eukterios naos)."
.ï'.T;l,f:xtîå'åT,,^r"s Clearly the traditional disposition of patrons to regard their ecclesias-
sided wittr ttre bishop of Bothrotos on all
ll tical foundations as their personal property, subject to free and arbitrary
Doints. He cited
p*'iu"n Michael III's ruling of t-tlø and George disposal, had proven remarkably persistent. Yet the Byzantine reformers,
Íor his verdict. Chomatianos wâs not
iïiriilui giia.fir., ", precedenrsst(luropesia in anv case' since h'Ï1'"
though they did not achieve the stunning sgccesses of their contempora-
'Sfest, did manage
il¿:üäï";;;;h;ì;ñiarchal sarantenus (rzr7-zz), Patriarch of Ni- ries of the Gregorian reform movement in the medieval
determined oppon.n,ïf Michaer to reverse arbiirary disposals of consecrated property whenever a case of
to the ecumenical patriarehs of Con-
caea and self-p.oclaim"eï;;;;;t"t this sort came to trial.
the patriarchs of Nicaea did not
hes-
stantinople'e' trld."d' ültt"t 'f't"t find Even though canonical precedent was on the side of the reformers, the
itate to intervene ;';;ì;; ;;-;;;"t' theit stauro.ptsi:: y:".Ye ability of the bishops to exercise their episcopal rights of oversight and
an extant stauropegion in 1238
Patriarch Germanus i(iúl-+o)Issuing correction had become dependent upon obliging the institutions founded
for a church he had rebuilt in the to accept episcopal stauropegia. \When this had oc-
to a certain ø"gou*i)à'Bartholomew in their dioceses
vicinity of NicoPolis'1oo curred, the bishops could then build a very srrong case when their op-
the implications of ìrre.sponsible
In time even Nicaea came to realize ponents sought to disregard or circumvent these charters of foundation.
Patriárch Manuel ll (1243-54)
employment of p""åìtnul $auropegia' V.t *h"..uri patrons could make a successful appeal to the patriarch for
the course of hearing an appeal
was forced ,o .ont'#'";î;;;;;É*'in his stauropeglon, alocal bishop coulcl not hope to exercise even an effec-
(a titular see under tlte metropolitan tive oversight, much less actual overlordship of the foundations located
by Demetrior' bi'nop'åiöoi''oLot
*itt't some private patrons of a
oi Larissa).'0r The uitrttírt"ä q*'itt"a in his diocese.
the town of Pokobikon' Manuel's ac-
monastery .f St. lttttiiio' ntå' Here the matter stood, for the patriarchs were unwilling to abandon
the reasons for the conflict' but it
counr of the incident ääårìri ir¿icate their right to grant stauropegia, despite the clear record of its abuse. In
seems thar ,t.r. p",räü"ú;lá
;; old-fashioned view of their founders' the saÀe deciiion in which he announcecl his support of Demetrios of
rights that in.l,tdtd ?iå; J;p;;;l
of the monasterv's assets' Demetrios' Domokos, Patriarch Manuel II specifically allowed further petitions for
obstructed their nlan¡,)ot to be
acting in the best ttft;;;it"dition' patriarchal charters for monasteries or oratories, provided the founders
erecting an entirelv new
outdone, ,t .nt.'i'ì;;;;;;t;"' 'át "bout ãgreed to make a perperual and irrevocable donation of property to sup-
"
monastery with a pãtîãår'Lr stuuropegion
in order to escaPe the med-
pãrt their foundations.l03 As in the case of the challenge to the cbaristil<e,
wrttn attempted to transfer the prop-
dlesome bishop's 't't/ ihe patriarchate desired to avoid a sweeping condemnation of powerful
""iitåtity' consecrated for the support of the first
erties that th.i' nt'lt'tors had lay tenefactors in the church, preferring instead to correct individual
an endowment for the new foun-
monastery so that;ù;;;;iã;rovide ulr.rr., as concerned bishops brought these cases to court. Yet while the
patriarch'
ã;;;;., Demetrios tool hit case to the ùishop delivered cbaristiþe eventually disappeared under the attack of the reformers' pa-
Patriarch rrl","'"irìì;dtd ftt
the of D-omokos
'a'nd triarchal stauroþegia continued to exist in the Byzantine church. One
"Our humility wishes to
a stinging rebuke'oìi"ìn"tupulous.patroìs: must assume that the patriarchate's vested financial interest in staurope-
as entirely forbidden by
cut off ar the roor;;h;;tr*lc,rlatedìntention gia played an important part in accounting for this difference'

the Despotate or Epirus and the

il l:lT'.:TBv between
antion 22 (1'9 2)' 207 -28'
gdom o f Nicae
""ií'iã.'lr"..nt,
Kin a it'¡t"îättîz -Lzzs'" z
5

"i,?iß'::Å':K.j,1'"u1]",t^"i:ql
"Deux fondations"' 108:
,u,Mânuet ,,prr¡eåü*åir'à"¡i)'¡oro150)
.^ ^
-^. (RS{Ps.lle-20.esp' lle't-to) = v'Lau- to2Peri þtetoriþou dikaiou, RE¿P 5'1 19.16-25.
de co"'o'-t*ápù'Vol' l: ies actes des patriarcbes losPeri ktetoriþou dikaiou, lines 25-31; cf. Laurent, Regestes No' 1310
rent, Les regestes ";;;;;ioiriarcat
cr' Fi"-"n' "Ricerche"' 342'
iil;Ëï7ii;Ñ; ' '1"ß14;
 i1

r
l.
t,

LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 245 rj

sader army took the city a month later, they carried out
the terms of their
promptly, and so most ecclesiastical property fell prey to sec-
"gr..-.ni
ularization.
--
Th. .rur"ders, like the innovators of the charistiþe over two centuries
CHAPTER NINE that the churches and monasteries had more
earlier, evidently considered
other pur-
than sufficient revenues which could easily stand diversion for
of the institutions themselves. If
private Religious Foundations in the Last frr., *irn""t endangering the existence
there had been some ,ruih ,o this assumption at the beginning of the
Centuries of the BYzantine EmPire J.;;.;h century, it had ceased to have much validityby 1.204. Less than
too commonin
a decade eariiei Balsamon had decried the pluralism all
constantinople on account of the poverty of its churches. The charistiþe
f,"¿ ,..io"rli depleted rhe endowments of many of the_older ecclesiasti-
."t inrtitutiáns, ìho,rgh several rich independent foundations had been
i
^i]i;";*.n
'ÍHEorivatereligiousfoundationsof.Westernmedievalchristendom erected in the cours. of ,h. twelfth century and some
others had been
,i
I i""" with those of Byzantium in the later Roman
resrored and reendowed. still, it is likely that only a few of
foundations dominated the founda-
Emoire. As they did in Byzantium, these western
I

had been able to regain adequate landed

;#ä.Ë;r,Jti;;d..";. until the twelfth cenrury, when the Gregorian iøn, a"-"ged by the charistike
of St. Mamas had managed to do in the
ri

Pope. Alexander III àn¿o*-.ni, ih.

d reform movement ,ign'itd their gradual eclipse'r ", -on"stery
had alreadv begun the long 140s.
--It
iiü;:,ït".,J i,i, dîtiinguitlttd.cänonists
il 1

absolute authority of the private pa- is no wonder, then, that the crusaders'arrangements for the_support
Í
;;;tt;rttenuating the"formerly right".when the of the capital's religious institutions proved unsadsfactory' Pope
Innocent
{ trons of the western.tutÀtt intå a diluted "patron's for restitution of the lost properties'
Latincrusad.rr."p,u,.dConstantinopleint204'ThetraditionalByz- lll (1,1,98-1216) piessed complete
'Westerners certainly
would impossible-for the new Latin emperors to
but that policy wãs politically'negótiation
,.ligio* ioundations, *ttitn
T

antine private began instead, which led to an

earlier' now ."rry o.ri. A lãng process of
1 ñãr. lå"r¿ familLr and unobiectionable rwo centuriesof Constanti- tzii of o'e-eleventh of the properties of
:l
could hardly serve as the basís ior the new
Latin Empire ;;;il;;, in for
"n "rr.rr--.nt of the
I organization' tñe empire to reconstirute a landed endowment for the churches
nople's ecclesiastical cathedral church of
il i"ri, $""i"rchare of Constantinople.3 Thus, the used during
g"så !õhra and the rest of the foundations that the Latins
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS
IMPACT OF THE LATIN CONQUEST ON THE ii.i, o.."p"tion of Constantinople (including at least twenty
of support'a
churches
FOUNDATIONS OF BYZANTIUM and fourteen monasteries) received an entirely new basis
the crusader Althoughthestoryofthenegotiatingprocessthatledtothisagree-
The satisfaction of the greed of the various contingents -of of Ravennika in 1210
ârmv was the prime 1ãntiàtt"'io" in the immediate dispersal of the -.rrr, "nã a similar ån. ..ach.d at the Parlement
importanr for the history of
it
of Even before iã, ,i. rirgdom of rhessalonica, is nor
;äírh;irh;'.ñ;;;il;, ;;d monasteries constantinople.
the other crusaders had ;;;";;; ,.ligTou, foundations in Byzantium, the Latin sources do shed
,l
;l;ì; ;.;q;.rt of th.-.iry, the Venetians and text
property as part of the i"-. iignr ãn th. fate of these institutions in the Latin Empire.s.theTheLatins
I ;g.*i ;'M"r.h tzo+- tÁ'i"rlude ecclesiasticalmuch property as.would of the p"reliminary agreement of March 17, 1.206, reveals that
victors' booty.2 ffr. ,t.",f excepted only so
the cru- subordinated all monasteries, both within and without the
cit¡ directly
I of th.r. iistitoti,or,, an honorable living. when
.t.igy \ù(/hoever held jurisdiction over a monas-
"ir.lin. to the ecclesiastical hierarchy.6
Kirchliche
il tFor private religious foundations in Western Europe' see Hans Erich Feine' (Stuttgart' 3For details, see Wolff' "Politics," 256--74'
Abte und Laienäbte im Frankenreicå
J Rechtsgeschìchte, t29i!,r;ä^F;;'Ë.i;; n, aFor the foundations tftr,""p.å,Jtnder Latin rule, see-R' Janin' "Les^sanctuaires de
tr9gd. arteren Handels- und staatsges- By;;.-;;; i; Jommatiil rr',ir. iizo+-r 261)," Etudes byzantines 2 (1944), 134-84,
'lrl
li L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, r1rkunden zurp. 447; br a study of the problems *"ifo.
eso.135.
vrnrìigiî"ï"".'isiãl.v.r. r, 259-61"
ii ". Repubtik
cbicbte der
base of ,upp-o.i for the Latin patriarchate
and its *. Ravennika agreement' see Wolff, "Politics,"
encounrered in creating 6
ouoted in pope In"..."ïìlÏü .onfir-aíion ofAugust 5, t206 (ed. Tafel and Thomas'
"i'Ë.fnon-'i. ln-tnå-f-utin Patriarchate-of Constantinople'
il churches, see Robert L..'ï;itr,-"Pofiti.. Urpiiãrr,Vol. 2, p' 33, lines 3-4); cf' rù(/olff, "Politics"' 257'
ïvii-tîø1:' DoP 8 (1e54), 22s-e4, esp' 255J4'
I
It

I
I
 i

LAST CENTI]RIES OF THE EMPIRE 247

246 CHAPTER NINE

tery, be he the patriarch or the local bishop, had

to give his consent be- ments that were critical to the military security of the empire.1o He
fore the government could secularize it to serve as
a fortification' It agreed, however, not to generalize the award of ecclesiastical institutions
;;;;;, thãn, that the Latins swept aside the complicated Byzantine sys- ai the Byzantine emperors had done under the charistiþe.
institutions. All monasteries' including Emperor Robert also exceeded the piety and generosity of his Byzan-
i|,]f;i u*.árrhip of ecclesiastical
pr*rt. and indeþendent ones, became diocesan institutions' tine predecessors by promising to supplement the endowments of all
In the final agreement of 1'21'g,Emperor Robert
(1'21'9-28) and his monåsteries and churches whose present properties were worth less than
religious persons'. whether 1,00 hyperpera.ll This measure included even those foundations that
u"rr"t, declared" all churches, clerics,-and
ð;;k or Latin, to be free from all lay jurisdiction' along with their fam- were now no more than ruins. No Byzantine emperor, even those most
tf"t ho,rrehold servants'7 Only laymen resident in the monasteries concerned with the deteriorated condition of ecclesiastical foundations,
""¿ af esomonitai' as ín Byzantine had ever committed public funds in this way to such a substantial under-
ãf Conrt"ntinople (perhaps in the capacity
to escape their tax obli- taking.
,tr*ti .t"rJ ,,o, .-ptoy ìhi, gt""'"i-exemption
g-;;år. n..ording to iú.l"rrg"uage of the agreement, all monasteries and In ãffect, Emperor Robert's program constituted a mortgaging of the
ir'r.rr*, whethei rr"nJing ã' '"uitttd, *"it to be under the control of Latin Empire of Constantinople in the interests of the church. Its execu-
i ä. .l.t.ri"rtical hierarchy] "no matter to whom they belonged in the tion required the dispossession of both Latin and Greek magnates who,
all who presently possessed a monas- according to a report of Cardinal John Colonna, legate of Pope Honorius
fast." fh. document comÁanded unless III, still rãtained ecclesiastical property as of August 121.8.12 Grants made
,i
i.ry o, monastic property to return it tothe prelates of the church'
1
;#y h.iã i; (prob"Uty ", u fi.f ¡ by award from the late emperors Baldwin ."ili., by the emperors Baldwin and Henry were specifically exempted,
his vassals also promised to however. By dispãssessing the proprietors of all the other ecclesiastical
ttío+_sl o, H.nry ttios_tø1. itob.rt and
I

of Constantinople at foundations (at least above the parish level), the Latin rulers forsook one
I

I
try to restore properties t"ken f'om the churches
of the traditional supports of the state and abandoned all hope of private
¡

the fall of the citY in 1'204.

¡
rl
I
I
In the Ravennika of 121'0, the Latins of the Kingdom of philanthropic aid for the church'
"g,..-tnt
Thessalonica likewise"promised to restore all secularized
ecclesiastical On July 25,1261,, the forces of the Greek successor state of Nicaea
recapr;red Constantinople from the Latins. The Nicaean ruler, Michael
I

of consrantinople.s This served.as a partern for

;;;;;;;y; the patriarch Honorius
I

the settlement that Pofe III (1216-27) imposed on the Frank- VIII (1259-82), founded the Palaeologan dynast¡ Byzantium's last rul-
ing house, which held sway over a rapidly diminishing remnânt of the
.i
j
ir-f, pri..rp"lities of Aih"e" and Athens in 1,223. All of these agreements
as the support of cathedral clerg¡ olá empire until 1453. The last two hundred years of the restored em-
-"¿å provision for such mattersand regulaìions for the payment of
I
i
pire's existence saw Byzantium reduced to little more than a Balkan state
,"ï.".-piions for ti. t*"r clergy,
"fr"
ri
,t

il
the Latin tithe.n
ilttt ,h. intoxicating memory of former greatness. Yet, for the history of
Thankstohardnegotiating,InnocentlllandhissuccessorHonorius privare religious foundations, this period does have real importance,
¡r ïa¿ obliged E-p.io, Robät and his fellow Latin rulers
to establish since the bãtter-preserved patriarchal archives and monastic cartularies
...l.ri"rîical organization based on the principles of th.e, Gregorian of this era illustiate many of the traditional practices of earlier centu-
"n ries.13 This period also saw the ultimate triumph of the opinions_of the
reform.ThismeantthattheserulershadtoabandontheoldByzantine
'l.¡
of opportunities it would have offered for re- Chalcedoniãn reformers in their hostility to all lay exploitation of eccle-
I
t ;;;;t "td ,he plethoraand rãiruiting new supporrers amoxg.the indig- siastical property.
I
;;;ãi;g faithful'vassals
Earlier on, the Latin emperors Baldwin and
I
I

i enous Greek
"rir,o.r".y. by awarding some
I
ü.*t had exploit.d oppo'tt'nities for patronage to
Wolff, "Politics," 270.
rrÀg¡..-.nt oÍ ízts quoted in Pope Honorius III's confirmation oÍ 1222 (ed. Volff,
i
L

monasteries arrd monasiic propertie' to ìhtit vassals' These remained

"Politiis," 299, lines 33-37) ; cf. \ùüolff, "Politics," 269.
-
he could not dare to upset arrange- itnoU." Lee .Volff, "TÉe Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,
unáirr"rU.¿, for Robert rea[izedthat
i
I

=Ì
tZOCi,-tZøt, Social anã Adminisirative Consequences of the Latin Conquest," Traditio 6
(1948), 33-60, esp.42.
'I TQuotedinPopeHonoriuslll,sconÊrmationofMarch,l'7,1,222(ed.Volff,..Politics,', ' 13F; the roie oi the church and monastic foundations in particular in the last centuries
298-307, esP' 299).
I
sVolff, "Politics," 270. of the empire, see Anthony Bryer, "The Late_Byzantine Monastery in Town and country-,
i e\íolff, "Politics"' 260-67. side,,' SCH tá qtlZl¡, Zl\;-4i, Donald Nicol, Church and Society in the Last Centuries of
-tI
I
 LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 249
248 CHAPTER NINE

RENOVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL

Beforet26l'theecclesiasticalinstitutionsofMichaelVlll'srealmhad FOUNDATIONS DURING THE PALAEOLOGAN DYNASTY
had-been under Latin
ø*l q"l" ¿ifferently, depending on-whether they
In th. .-pi"t óf Nit"t" and Thessalonica' there was
- êrË.f. rule.developmeni Under the Palaeologi, the restoration and financial support of existing
fro* late Comnenian times of religious insti- ecclesiastical institutions naturally had to take precedence over the erec-
"-.*irroous mon-
iltions and their attendant problems' The growth of independent tion of new foundations. Nevertheless, a few new churches and monas-
the abuse oi p""i"tttt al stauripegia' the stubbornness of reries came into existence. Michael VIII himself took the lead with the
"ri.ri.r,
traditional l"y p"tronr,
philan-
time-honoréd reliance on private construction of a monastery dedicated to his namesake St. Michael on
",tdthe
'htthirteenth century were all developments
;h;õt that éhäracterized Mount Auxentios near Chalcedon. This iustitution, which dates from
.t*"í"ur. long before the Latin conquest of 1204 destroyed the empire. 12g0, had an independent and self-governing organization, a revival of
For those institutions under Latin t"l" f'o- 1'204 to L261" the period the form popularized by the reformist benefactors and retained now to
congregations remained the end of the empire.17 The emperor's wife, Theodora, built a new
was one of substantial change' Some monastic
timt, but in other cases Latin communities church dedicated to St. John the Baptist anð a xenon next to the ancient
in their houses, at least for "
displaced them'1a.Natu-
of Benedictines, Cistercians' and Franciscans church and monastery of Constantine Lips.ls Sometime in the first half
of ecclesiastical in-
t"fiy, ttt*. .".i;;i.t of laymen from the management of the fourteenth century, Michael's niece Theodora erected another new
foundations had
stitutions and the tos oi u,"onomy for the inãependent monastery dedicated to the Theotokos tes Bebaias Elpidos.le This was
.ãr"ffy
- drastic effects on these churches and monasteries' also an independent foundation despite its origin as an imperial benefac-
'unfârtunately it is rarely possible to derermine the impact of the Latin
tion. The prìn..tr designated her son as hereditary ephor in this foun-
In the diocese
o..tp"ri"t i., tire .are of indluidu"l churches or dioceses'
times immediately
dation while seve.ely restricting the patriarch to his minimal canonical
ãi-no.nrr."s on the Greek mainland, the turbulent rights.2o
followingtheLatinconquestleftthecatheclralchurchwithoutsufficient the patriarchate itself had never played an importanr part in the erec-
resources to support iit'Uitttop' In 1208 Innocent
III had to allow the tion oiecclesiastical foundations, and the patriarchs of the Palaeologan
1210 the dio-
.ááin",ion oirti, bishopricïith that of Calidonia. By age were no exceptions to this rule. Even their awards of patriarchal
cese could barely ruppor,ihr.e clerics
in the cathedral chapter.ls As we slauropegia ree- io have been less frequent and more responsible than
reconquest
t ,..", the néw Greek bishop installed after the Byzantine in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.2l They were not so uncommon'
"* ,h;, private b.n.{".to"ïere
f;;;J willing to reopen.their purses' but however, so as to put an end to all abuses. The enterprising monks of
wouldnotcountenanceepiscopalinterferencewiththeirfoundations.In one independent monastery in Epirus, for instance, alleged the existence
;;;;;i,"1, Michael VIII founã it necessaryfrom to meet.the basic needs of of a patrìarchal stauropegion for a church in order to avoid payment of
the imperial treasurv'16
;^h; ñ;t;t;h and the bishops with funds kanonikon to the bishop of Caesaropolis for this institution which they
Doubtless similar probl.-' ittu"td elsewhere as the government and
on a new
,fr. ..lt ri"rtical hierarchy struggled to reorganize the church 17Janin, Géographie, Vol. 2, p. 48; Michael VIII Palaeologus
llpikgn tes.bøsiliþes
financial basis. mon""s toi archistrategou Michaet, ed. A. Dmitrievsky, þpika,769-94, with independent
status affirmed at 773.
18Janin, Géographie,Vol. 3, pp. 307-10; Theodora Palaeologina, fltikgn tes ffiones tou
Libos, ed'. H. beiehaye, Deui'typica byzantins de l'époque des Paléologues (Brussels,
1.921),1,06-36, with independent status affirmed at 106-7 '
Palaeologina, Tlyikon tes mones tes
"jánin, Géographie,Vol.3, pp. 158-60; Theodora
Theåtoþou tes"Bebaias'Elp;doi,êd. Delehaye, Deux typica, pp. 18-105, with independent
starus affirmed at 27-29; îheodore Macrid¡ Cyril Mango, et al., "The Monastery of Lips
(Fenari Isa Camii) at Istanbul," DOP 18 (1'964)'249-3.15'
Mass., 1959). ,oTheodora paiaeologina, þpikon tes Bebaias Elpidos Ch. 16 (ed. Delehaye, p. 29).
rl|¿¡in, ..Sanctuaires,,' 134_38; Elizabeth R. Brown,..The Cistercians in thej atin Em- For the use of patriarchai stauropegia in the fourteenth century see Actes de Zogra'
I6 (l es8), o.i:1?9,.l9!"" L" 21

,ir. åî"ö.'n.ir.ììnopr" án¿ ä... ü,-t[oc-tzzø.' .Trad¡itìo ohou No. 39 ß57) (discussed immediãtely below), and No. 46 (1372); Actes de Diony-
i"::Ë, ,iffüil'ilfi;;f cãrriä.ã""pr. Francis cans," Traditio 2 (1e44),21,3-
aná the sioø No. 16 (ì389); ed. Nicolas Oikonomidès (Archiues del'Athos, Vol.4), (Paris, 1968);
37. Patriarch PhiiotheuÁ, Acta patriarchatøs No. 201 (1365) (MM 1.455-56) =.J. Darrouzès,
rr\lolff, "Organization," 44-45' Les ,"geste, des actbs du de Constantinople, Yol. L: Les actes des patriarches
þatriarcat
(Bonn, 1835)' Vol'
oe u¡cøaeiì ilio."otogo Ch.26, ed.I. Bekker, CSHB
16pachvmeres. (Paris, 1977-7 9), N o. 247 7.

1,,p.73i óf. H..-"n, "Niederklerus," 385-86'

 CHAPTER NINE LAST CENTURIES OF^fHE EMPIRE 251
250

had actually received as an episcopal grant tn epidosis.22 The- episcopal A legal handbook o{ the mid-thirteenth century, the Synopsis Minor, st1ll
role in the erection of new fàundations likewise appears to have been ,eq,rìred benefactors to obtain episcopal stauropegia for monastic foun-
minimal in Palaeologan times, at least on the basis of our surviving evi- daiions, though it may be doubted how seriously this obligation was now
dence.23
taken.2e
Beginning in the years of the Nicaean successof state, there is docu- The great independent monasteries founded from the mid-eleventh
monasteries founded and through the rnid-thirteenth centuries continued to enioy a predominant
-.nåry .uid.n.. once again of churches and these were family positión in the institutional church of the fourteenth century. Most of
o*n.d îy individual clerìcs and monks.2a Frequently
,.rponriúilities in which a son succeeded his father as the officiating cleric ihese institurions, already blessed with substantial endowments from
for the foundation. Perhaps because it was very difficult for a family of their founders, engagecl in vigorous territorial expansion. The cartularies
modest lneans to try to maintain a church or monastery on its own, of the independent monasteries frequently include documents recording
donations of these institutions to powerful independent monasteries oc- donations of landed property on which were located churches and mon-
.urr"d with some frequency.2s Sometimes the recipient monastery would asteries formerly owned by laymen, clerics, monks, or village com-
allow the donor's family to retain rights of usufruct in the institution that munes.30 Donated monasteries became metochia, dependent houses of
they once ôwned outright. the mother institution. The eþ.þlesiai and eukteria became private mon-
Ás in virtually every ãther age of Byzantine histor¡ privat€ benefactors astic churches. It appears that the great monasteries sometimes sought
provided the resources for mõst of the ecclesiastical foundations of Pa- such donations in return for memorial services for the dead.31 In other
i".ologan times. One of the outstanding patrons of the age was the pro' cases, the original proprietors were simply unable to maintain or repair
'Whatever the reasons for the donations in particular
tustraíor Michael Glabas, who erected the monastery of the Theotokos their foundations.
tes pammakaristou in constantinople during the reign of Andronicus
II cases, the changes in status amounted to a considerable curtailment of
(1,2g2-1,328).26 The church of this monastery still stands in modern the extent of individual private ownership of ecclesiastical institutions.
istanbul. An epigram of Manuel Philas commemorates Glabas' achieve- The growth of monastic proprietary churches also helped undermine
rreut as the tlàmiourgos (creator) of this monastery, recalling the dedi- the public sysrem of parochial churches uncler the local bishops. Even the
carory inscriptions oÍ the Anthologia Palatina which honored Juliana bishops themselves joined private proprietors in turning over churches to
Anicia's role as benefactress nearly nine hundred years earlier.2T other the great monasteries for sustasis and beltiosis.32 The bishops resorted to
i;ñ;, erected churches and monasteries in Constantinople and on the rhe ;ld institution of epidosis to transfer perpetual management of di-
isíands of Lemnos and Thasos throughout the mid-fourteenth century'28 ocesan churches to the wealthy independent monasteries. Both the laity
and the hierarchy had come to rely upon the great foundations to care
for the institutions formerly under their charge. The price paid by the
22Actes deZographou No. 39 (1357)'
¡ioachim. me"tropolitan of ZiÀnai, who refounded a monastery of St.John Prodromos bishops was a parrial dismemberment of an already weak diocesan
iü;;;;;lå;; r.,.*..píion, seettistypiÞon,ed. André Guillou,.Les archiues
".".Ë;;;'i;
d) Saint-lean prodràme ,u, l" moit Ménécée (páiis, 1SSS), 161.--76. So als. Theodore
endow a monastery of Christ Panto- '1eSynopsis minor,Letter
M', Sect. 114 UGR 1.L67-68)'
l;rr-;;,;;.hUir¡.p .t Thessalonica, who helpedbrother Nicholas and Emperor Michael ,oFtr examples oÍ donations of priests' and monks' churches and monasteries, see above,
ã;;;.. át Thessalonica *i;h ;h. assista.rce of hìs nore 24, also Àctus de Dionysiou No. 12 (before 1430) and No. 19 (1420); Actes de Kutlu-
Vlll, t.. de Laura,Yol.2, No.75 (t284)'
'";;c;;;;1";;
Actes
zøs No. 16 (1330); Actes ãe Laura,Yol.2, No. 78 (1285h Actes de Lau,ra, Vol' 3, No' 153
of Lembíotissa, .¿. urvr + i!9yi' l!21), No' 15 (1232) (MM 1:s6-s7)'
(1.392), ed. paul Lãmerle (Archiues de I'Atbos, Vol. 10) (Paris,1979); for a donation of a
N'. ú ¡MÀ,í+.ss-eo), No. ira 0'246) (MM4'203-20s), No' 40 (1254?) (MM4'e7- .o.*ln"l monâsrery, see Cartulary of Lembiotìssa No. 169 (n.d.) (MM 4.265-66); for
qg\
"'in.e., donations of layment private religious foundations, see Lembiotissa No. 35 (1231?) (MM
Cartulary of Lembiotissa, No' 40 (1'254,?) (MM 4'97' esp' lines 14-24)'
,6For this foundation, r." Hrnr Belting, Cyril M"ngo, D. lV{ouriki. T/¡e Mosaics and 4.91-92) with Ílerman, "Chiese private"' 303, and Actes de ZographouNo' L9 (1'321')'
197s); Janin' Géographie'YoL 3' ! ActLs de Kutlumui No. 24 (1362)t Actes de Laurø, Yol. 2, No. 117 (1.326); Actes de
Frescoes of St. Mary Pa*miþàrirtot (Wasñingion, D'C';
Dionysiou No. 12 (before 1430); Patriarch Matthew l, Actd pLtriarchatusNo..68.7 (1402)
"pp.208-13.
liM"nu.l Phlles, Carmina, ed. E. Miller (Paris, 1855-56), Vol' 2, p' 241'- (MM 2.551-56, esp. 551-52) : Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3253; cf' Herman, "Chiese pri-
rS (r¡zr); Actel de.Kutlumus No.24 (1362), ed. Paul Le- vate," 311-L2.
"'iititãr 2.eiapbou,Nå.
ã" i'Athor, vot. zi tpu.i., 1945); Actes du pantocrator, No. 4 (1363), ed.
,í Actes de Zographou No. 14 (1299), and No. 39 (1,357); Actes d'EsphigmenouNo.2S
^ulr'.-Ãi"äri, 10 (1e03); Patriarch Nilus' Acta (1387), ed. Jacqriesiefort (Archiues de I' Athos,Vot. 6) (Paris, L973); Actes de Laura,Yol.
fril Þ;;;;i;;ir-.^ ¿, reíø"', vot.'z), VV Pritozhenie No. 2787; P-atriarch ), No.-SZ (iZB9); Cartulary of the patriarchal monâstery oÍ Nea Petra,,ed. MM 4 (Vienna,
natriarchatusNo. 369 (l3SitiMM Z'.iO-Zt) = Darrouzès, Regestes
'¡,,täl¡rl 1, ert) patriarchatui No. s:: (1399) (MM 2'322-23) : Darrouzès' Regestes t'azt), No.39 (;.d.) (M\ 4.422_-23), No.41 (n.d.) (lv{M 4.424-26). For a patriarchal
i{.. jOAZ. ito. ."Ë.llent summaries of documents attesting private churche-s ând monaster- co.,..irion, see Actis de Laura Yol. 3, No. 144 (1.367), eð. Paul Lemerle (Archiues de
I' Athos, Vol. 10) (Paris, L979).
i.r"it,tt. i"ti..nturies of the empire, see Herman, "Chiese private"' 303-15'
 LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 253
252 CHAPTER NINE

counted themselves lucky if they could re- advance deserving individuals to the status of the original þtetores as
parochial structure. Bishops
'kanoniþ.on
from churches surrendered to the compensation foiworks of restoration that they promised to_undertake.
*t, ;il collection of the to fight The patriarchs often coupled a grant of lifetime ephoreia with ktetoreia,
,non"r*rl.t in epidosis.33 As we have seen, a bishop might have of
attempt to deprive him even that' tenditrg thereby to equate these once very distinct offices'38 Over time,
an ambitious monasti. community's
patriarch II Xiphilinus (1,1,91-11.98) which this had the effect of diluting the greater authority of the þtetor with that
ä;rp*;;;rtings of Gåorge
of a mere ephor, a policy that the patriarchs also promoted by other
had upheld this right'
by a layman in means.
Perhaps the most important reconstructlo n undertaken
restoration of the church
Palaeologan times was f.heodore Metochites,
Theodore' who was Andron-
of the Chora monastery in Constantinople' RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF BENEFACTORS OF ECCLESIASTICAL
on the proiect from 1315
;r;11ü;"d logothete' spent nearly six years
visibie since the Chora FOUNDATIONS
iálUo"if :Z1.ro:Ihe ..rrrlrc of his labors are still
mosqtle of Kariye Camii' Of par-
church stands in lstanbul today as the One of the most significant developments of the Palaeologan era was a
to the
il;l;t interest is the mosai. oït' the entrance from
Cirrist
the narthex
presenting him with cirastic curtailmentãf the once very extensive and arbitrary rights of lay
,ã". *frilf, depicts the patron kneeling before
parrons of ecclesiastical institutions. Simply stated, this meant the con-
-if,. of the restored church'tt
- model
a version of Þtetoreia, the traditional Byzantine concept of private owner-
an active part in orga-
f""i"rchs of the fourteenth century tookThroughout this centurl"
ship of an ecclesiastical institution, to þ.tetorikon dikaion (founder's
\ülest'
nizing the restoration of the capital's churches'
rigñt), just as had occurred earlier in the medieval
of the nobility' other lay- "thr'þ.ttror¡l<on
,fr.y î.r. receptive to petitions from members diaþ.aion Íormed the subject of the Austrian scholar
ephors or honorary
*.i, .l.ri.r, "nd *onË, who sought designation as
had distinct historical Josef von Zhishman's
"genländischen
excellent monograph, Das Stifterrecbt in der mor-
krrr,är* of needy institutíons''e The two offices Kircbe (Vienna, 1888). The. nature of the sources that
protector' an interested patron
.á.rt. ift. ephor had always been a mere Zhirh-"n had at his disposal shaped his historical perspective in the
theorètically did not have any rights
i. ,f.,. Ur""¿ sense of the term, who development of private religious insitutions in Byzantium' He did not
in the institutián that he supervised' The h.tetor' on the
oi o*n.rrlrip haue tte advantage of examining the Egyptian papyri, and intensive
otherhand,wasoriginallytheproprietaryownerofhisinstitution,either
By mak-
study of the Byzantine institutions was only just beginning when he
;;ì;; ;;ig;"I founà'er or'", on" oi the founder's descendanrs.3T could *rot., late in the ninereenth century. Above all, Zhishman relied on the
ing honorary grants oÍ ktetoreia, the patriarchs of this century
edited patriarchal documents of the fourteenth century'3e As is
newly
.ronu tl."r, theie documents were the culmination of nearly a miilennium
33E.g.,Actesd'EsphigmenouNo'28(1387);cf'ActesdeZographouNo'39(1357)'
of legislation of private foundations, and together with the well-known
3aFor Theodore Metochites, seelhor Sevðenko,.Etødes sur la polémique-entte Théodore con-
Metocbites et Nicriphore ëøåiàrà:ü t"- ,ii inrrit"rr.rrtle et politique à Bvzance sous les legislation of Jusiinian, formed the basis for Zhishman's essentially
(B;;i;"i;;;), f';J¡+ foundation' see Janin' Géographie'Yol' 3' sti"tutionally oriented study. By chance, the sixth and the fourteenth cen-
þremiers paléologues
ä"å p""ì uiå.rîàáá, 'iø e Kahr.iye Dìami. 4 vols. (New York-Princeton. the high-water marks in strict regulation of private relígious
ip."ï¡ r_.s01
nlá..f.tír.r, ih. Chora and the lntellectual turies were
tg66_75), esp. Ihor S*i,ä.,":i'f,*a.r" foundations. Not surprisingl¡ then, Zhishman tended to overestimate
Trends of bis ii..s," 19-55'
Vol' 4, pp''Kahriye
,illlustrated in Und..*oåål Diami,Yol. 1, frontispiece'.For.a study,of donor the powers that the civil and ecclesiastical authorities were able to exer-
His church'Model in Medieual Art from
p..rr"ìîr,,.. Ërir"rr.,¡ Lip;;;;;:'llr; oo'r* àn¿ period, diss. (Rutgers universit¡ 1981). cise over the patrons of these foundations during other periods of Byz-
*',78:;',;;;;i;r.r,
Eørly christian 11ffies to íøï^l'oli no*onesque
(1337) (YM 1116.8J. :^ Darrouzès' antine history.
Joi'n it|, ,o'"ii i,"¡o"hotu' No' 74 (1344) (MM 1.568-
nrs;å.'tIãläziip"rri*rii¡iio',t "or, Acta pa.triørchaføs
-iøZO;'p^t
No. 311 Zhishmanis account of the "founder's right" nevertheless remains the
569) : Darrourar, nrgrriJr'Nå. i^irh Callistus l, Acta patriarchatus No' L82
(MM L.423-25) =-b"tio*¿t,'Regestes No' 2433; PatriarchÀ4atthee'¡ l' Acta þa' :
11361)
: I)ar¡ouzès',R egestes No' 3243 ' 3s
Parriarch Nilus, Acfø patriarchatus No. 369 (13S5) (MM 2.70-7L) Darro-uzès, Reg-
i;i"",;í;;;';N;.'øn ti|otl ttøM 2,¿7-áÐ ¿slr, ño. 2787; pat'riarch Matthew l, Acta patridrchatus No. 579 (1400) (MM 2.395-99)
sTZhishman, sti¡trrrräi,iîrù; t_"-p., patrist.ìc Greek Lexicon, 782; Ostrogorsky,
.,Aristocracy.', 31 (..For the rich aristocrat' a man in the.publíc eye, it was, in.its wa¡ a ='b".rourè., ilegestes No. 3138; cf. Joachim of Zichnai,rvp,¡4tf 9\' 21.(ed' Jlgie)'
liiro porr¡orilratus Constantínopôlitani, Vols. 1 and 2 of F. Miklosich and J. Muller,
,fiil;;îä.íã'rårriî^ì.*;;. ;; bf it. ar¡¡o" and^rhe more magnificen_t the foun- now
Krumbacher"'Ktetor' Êin Acta et rliplomata graeca medii aeui sacra et profana,6 vols. (Vienna, 1860-90)'
ä",iài,,fr. gr."r.r,t. pr.riig. "titíng to the-founder"); Karl ;;;riiy'.õlr.;á (fã, tt'. years 1315-31) by H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des
h#;.;ñi*he; v.;;,i.hl'iF zliliõsi, 3e3-421,, wiiir review by August Heisenberg, Þatriarèhatl uon Konstantinopel,Yol. I (Vienna, 1981)'
BZ 1.9 (79'1,0), 5 8 8-89.
 LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 255
254 CHAPTER NINE

mosâic portraits commissioned at the þtetor's expense, such as the fa-

aurhorirarive description of the much diminished powers of
the þ.tetores
right that the mous mìsaic in the Chora church honoring Theodore Metochites, are
in the fourteenth century.a0 The most important remaining
clerics in private good examples of these concessions to tradition. The þ,tetor also had the
þt"toræ possessed was the appointment of officiating
ilght to buiial within his church, the ktetorik"on diþ.aion ensoriastheso-
churches'and of monks in priuate monasteries. It was now exceptional
for the ktetor to appoint hii own hegoumenos'a1 On the other hand'
the nlenon:'This honor, not generally allowed to ordinary laymen' could
itetor,s right to dismiss them at will be transmitted hereditarily or through marriage.
;;;r...il ..nrirtËr,tty upheld the Some þtetores retained ad- By contrast, rights of economic exploitation had suffered almost com-
io. nott ing more thai pËrso.,"l grievances.a2
and plete extinction by the fourteenth century.aT Under strictly regulated con-
ditior,"l riilrts of patronage, like ìhe authority to appoint eso.monitai
and previous patrons äitionr, a ktetor or ephor might possess the right to reside on consecrated
exomonitãi to aielphata, iusr as the cbaristikarioi
properry. ordinarily', the adminisrrarors of religious institutions had to
had done in earlier eras.a3
a few rp.na of the income from endowments for institutional needs and
The ktetor,like ephors of this and earlier centuries' had only "n
he happened to aggrandizement.4s strict legislation (for which see below) now forbade
circumscribeá administ.ative powers, unless perchance
of maintaining a tñJ personal profiteering that had been such a standard feature of the
b. in ..ligi"us life. A lay ktetor had the responsibility
admìnistration of private religious foundations until the reformist pro-
ioun¿",iåt typikon "nã of overseeing its administration. Theoreticall¡
tests of the late eleventh century.4e
theþtetor.o,riå .,ot introduce changes in the establish eð typihon or alter
might enjoy The patriarchs were careful to limit most grants of ephoreia and hon-
customary practices. A ktetor who ãid happen to be a monk
'tight spiritual eptsÞeps.is (inspection) of his foundations' or^ry kt"tor"la to lifetime tenures.s0 Yet individuals who possessed these
if,. ,p.liáf of
,"rponsiÛility left in the hands of the local offices by hereditary right, what contemporaries called diþaion tes goni-
but årdinaril| this *",
*
bishop or the patriarch.aa
" þotetos. continued to transmit their rights to their heirs or designated
successors without hindrance or prior approval by the ecclesiastical au-
Thå hororåry rights accor ded þtetores in previous ages remained
memor¡ thorities.sl Because of this practice, it was not unusual for private foun-
largely intact. Th. posthu-ous commemoration of the þtetor's
rights' and its dations to have multiple ktetores, as had been the case long ago in Coptic
the mnemosynon) was the most durable of all founder's
deemed a grave mat- Egypt." Priests also passed down their own private churches through
i"fr. d,r. toih. "i".tdonment of a foundation was great
,.ï.ti gittrops and private individuals who gave up-churchesto.the a6Zhishman, Stifterrecht,63; cf. the burial of the protouestiørios and Grand Logothete
,nonasteries undei epidosis or as outright gifts still reserved
this honor
in 1325 Theodore Mouzalón @. 1294) in rhe monastery of the Tornikios family at Nicaea as re-
for themselves in perpetuity. Patriarch Isaias (1'323-32) ruled
cordedbyPachymeres, DeAndronicoPalaeologoch.3l,ed.l.BekkercsHB(Bonn'1835),
was neverthe-
,nr, .u." the heir àf å þt"to, who had sold his monastery Vol.2, p. 193.
a'Zhishman, Stift errec h t, 6 3-64.
less entitled to his customary mnemosynon' a¡parriarch ioitn XIV Áctu pairiarcharøs No. 102 (1,342) (MM 1.231-232) = Dar-
other honorary rights constituted financially insignificant but
person-
rouzès,
- Regestes No. 2234.
ally gratifying r..ogñitions of the þtetor's services in the erection or res- ;il Hå;"n, ,,Niederklerus," 425, n. 1 observed, Zhishman (Stifterrecht,63).erred in
and elaborate -"int"irl.À thaí a ktetor *". .r.u., allowed_to profit financially þ- the offerinqs and
,oi"äon of a"religiãus institution. Dedicatory inscriptions .,ft.r'irl.ti"r of his foundation; Lemerle, "Charisticaires," 13, reaffirms the admissibility
aoZhishman, Stifterrecht, 47-64. ãil" l^yÃ"rt reception of a períonal profit from his administration of a religious founda-
ar Zhishman, Stifterrec h t, 5 9-60'
tiàn. Patriarch John XIV's ruling of i342 (A"to patriarchatus No. 102) was a landmark
.Áiti (1387); Patriarch-Isaias, Acta patriarch,atzs.No' 57' Pt' decision in this respect, which reversed previous practice and misled Zhishman into postu-
-=
¿'nipøig*"ror'Ño.28 lating a general rule for all periods of Byzantine history.
ø çlîÃ\- O"t¡r[ ì.iro-rrl
p"Àu"¿t,'Regestes No' 2116; Patriarch Matthew I' Acta
: Darrouzès' Regestes No' 3135' roË.g.lP"tri^r.hJohn XIv ActupatriarchatusN:.T4 (1337) (MM 1.168) :-D_arrouzès,
oo)tr¡or"irrìturNo. 576 (1400) (MM 391'-93) Regeslä No. 2'1.79;Patriarch Nilui, Ac¿¿ patriarchatus No. 369 (1385) (MM 2.70-71')
:
o3
Zhishman , Stifterrecht,60-61'
*P;rrr;;h jth Åxlv, eiti potiriarchatus No' 74 (1337) (MM 1'168) : l)arrouzès' Res- Dairouzès, Regestás No. 2787; Patriarch Matthew l, Acta patriarchatus No. 627 (L401?)
estes No. 2179.
""";;rì, 14 (1299);
' 5rE.B., patriaich: John
(MM2.467-68) Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3243'
XIV, Actã patriarchatøs No. 78 (133B) (MM 1.178-80).= Dar-
..*Á"tion after a donation in epidosis, see Actes de Zographou,No' rouzèsiilegestes Nó. 2182, and No. 1.02 (1342) (MM 1.231-32)
: Darrouzès, Regestes
for..re*ution out.ighiãon"tion, A,.t" de Kutlumus No' 24 (1362); for-retention
hu btctor,s heir"ft.,
desoite ."i;;f;; "i
inriitrtion, see Patriarch lsaías, Acta patriarchatus No' No.2234.
his mother,the ktetores of a church of St. Gerontius (see
z'."íi7i i13rii¡üi;l-1ii_i;l : D"'.o.,iè,, Regestes No. 2126.
12E.g., Andreas Aspietes and
rmporrance also as-
i, No. (1367): Darrouzès, R¿8-- Janii,'G'éograph;e,Vå1.3, pp. 68-69) mentioned by Patriarch Matthew I, Acta patriarcha-
;J"i'b; ì'äiiã1.ì,-iïlráäiu', eLt", de Laura,Vol. 144
irr Ño. siø'(tlis) (Mlvi 2.301-303) : Darrouzès, Regestes N9. :o!{'- cf' Herman,
:ï;:",i.1.'tiii'."Ä;,';; i;'ï;);;:i"¡. z, No.'zs (1187) expresses resret at cessation or i;õni.r. privaie," :ógì the claimanrs in the Makrodoukas case (MM 2.322-23), as dis-
memorial services.
 CHAPTER NINE
256
testamentary dispositions.s3 Even a layman could be the beneficiary of a
priest's testameni. A number of disputes among heirs arose which led to
complicated litigation over the rights to þ.tetoreia before the patriarchal
tribunal, tl.te syiodos endemousa (permanent synod).s These, cases pro-
vide a great deal of information on the extent of founders' rights and the
state oi private foundations in the fourteenth century'
Unlikå the chøristiþe of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a ktetoreia
over a religious institution could be transferred as part of a .l<tetor's
dowry.is Tñis probably was a survival of a traditional right of private
benefactors. Yet a ktetor of the fourteenth century' like the charistikarioi
and ephors of the eleventh cenrury, could no longer sell his church or
,oon"rr.ry to another party as had been done by his ancesto¡s. This was
an extreáely impo.tant curtailment of a practice that the hierarchy of
earlier centuries iad tolerated if not condoned.
'fhe change in policy is
further evidence of the institutional church's intent to place ktetores
under the same restraints as those that bound ephors. Naturally, the ec-
clesiastical hierarchy forbade secularization of religious foundations,
just
as it had always done throughout the ages.56
The clear definition of the duties of þtetores stood in sharp contrast to
their ambiguous and much curtailed rights in the fourteenth century.sT
Because oithe nature of the evidence, we are best informed about the
responsibiiities that the patriarchs imposed upon petitioners for.grants
oÍàphoreiaand honorarl ktetoreia. Incidental evidence indicates that the
cussed below in this chapter; the litigants in the suit over the ktetoreia o( the church of
Th;;;k;;À-ályntos gånin, G éogrãp h i Vol. 3, p' 157) (M¡'4 2'455-5 8 ),.also discussed
e,
b;i;;;;;à ;h" láy heiii of tú" p.iã'tîheodore Sisinnios in the case heard by Matthew I,
iito iot);ouøo¿øs No. 576 14OO) (MM 2.391.-93) : Darrouzès, Regestes No. 3135,
summarized by Herman, "Chiese private," 304.
--';;8.;::
¿aîí"tary of Lembio¿rsia No. t6 (1,233) (MM 4.58-60) and No. 40 (12s4?)
l, Acty pafiiarchatus No' 610 (1400) (MM 2'443-44)
t¡vt¡ul, í..52-.95¡; Píriarch Matthew
: D"rrourès, Regesres No. 31.70,cf. No. 576 (1400) (MM 2.391'-93) : Darrouzès' R¿8-
ør¿Ã ño.3135, s"ummarized by Éerman, "Chiese private," 304, a case of
inheritance by a
layman from a cleric.
'-';;î;r-;h; da,'s I'Eglise
;iãol.. "ndr*ousø, see Joseph Haiiar, "Le synode.permanent(1'962)'21'-43;
bvzanrine des orieines au xle siècle,"- orîentalia christiana Analecta 164
Þáril..*.1.,'iRãch.r.h., sur les institutions iudiciaires à l'époquedes Paléologues, II: Le
Vailé, "Le droit d'appel
;b;;i p"iria.chul ou synodal,', AB 68 (1950),318.-33; Siméon
.n Ori.ni et le Synode p..-".t.nt de Constantinople," EO 29 (1'921),129-46'
-^-
ip"ttir..tt tut"tttre* I, Acta patriørchaløs No. 583 (1400) (MM 2.494 !) - -Darrouzès,
Regestes No. 3142, summarizeä by Herman, "Chiese private," 314, cf.
Zhishman, Stifter'
,iåøt,sz-gg;xo.âzz (1401) (MM 2'551-56):. Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3239' summa-
^-;;8.g.,H.rÂ"r,, "Chiese private," 371-1'2, cf. Zhishman, Stifterrecht,TT:
rir.a'Uy -,
P"t.i"t.h ¡ohn XtlI, A'cta patri'rch,føs No' 42 (1317-18) (MM 1'76-79\ =
O"rÃuiå., i"g"rtrr"No. 2085; Patriarch Maahewì, Acta.patriarchatil.s No. 661 (1401)
z.sío-iz4) : DarrouzÉ s, Regestes No' 3222, which cites C' Chalc', c' 24 and C'
t}úrut
Trull., c. 49.
Zhishman, Stifterrecht,64-69'
"Éor the duties of ktetores, see
LAST CENTURIES OF THE È-,MPIRE 257
patriarchs based these requirements upon the duties customarily dis-
charged by hereditary ktetores and ephors.58
Ktetores mentioned in the patriarchal documents shouldered the re-
sponsibility for supporting all the liturgical functions of private churches.
Tha- þtrtorrt and ephors had to meet the expenses for the liturgy itself,
the daily hymnody, the annual feasts, and the mnemosyna of founders,
of the imperial family, of the patriarch' and of the Christian laity in gen-
eral.se The patrons were also responsible for the support of the officiating
clerics and the expense of lighting their churches. In a legal case adjudi-
catecl by Patriarch Matthew | (L397-1,41,0), the ktetores of a private
church had to support the cleric who officiated there either by paving
him a suffici ent roga (salary) or by allowing him all the eisodema (parish-
ioners' offerings).60'We may infer, then, that benefactors ordinarily made
their own arrangements to compensate the clergy who served in their
churches.6l
Beneficiaries of patriarchal concessions of ephoreia or honotary kte-
toreia had additional obligations.62 They had to meet the traditional
needs of aging institutions, namely, sustasis (maintenance) and beltiosis
(improvement). Some concessions also obliged the beneficiaries to pro-
vide for the enlargement (epaux,esls) of the donated foundations. In some
cases the new patrons hacl to continue paying an institution's þanoniþon
to the local bishop or the patriarch in accordance with established cus-
tom.
To all appearances, the hierarchy of the fourteenth century had finally
5sCompare the requirements for patriarchal appointees (as discussed below) with the
provisioni made voluntarily by Eustathios Boilas, Michael Attaliates, and Gregory Pakour-
ianos.
5ePatriarchJohny\lY,Actapatriarchatus No.311(1334) (MM 1.568-69).= Darrouzès,
Regestes N". itZf (summariied by Herman, "Chiese private," 310, cf. Thishman, Stifter-
reiht, 47) is a document conferring ktetorikon diþaion in a church of St. Demetrios in
Consiantlnople upon the layman Glorge Pepagomenos; it includes a brief description of
the incumbent's duties (MM 1.568.29-569.1'l).
60Patriarch Matthew I, Acta patriarchatus No. 576 (1400) (MM 2.391-93, esp. 393'1-
12) = Darrotzès, Regestes No. 3135.
6r
Herman, "Niederklerus," 425.
62For their usual obligations, see Patriarch Matthew I, Acta patiarchat,us No. 627
(1401?) (MM 2.467-681 : Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3243 (summarized by Herman,
:,Chi.." of
irivate,,' 309-10), a patriarchal coniession otlifetime.ephore.la_over a-church
St. Michael in tlonstantinoplè (for which see Janin, Géograpbie,Yol.3, p.431) to the
layman Hodegetrianos whici incorporates the new ephor's written acceptance of the obli-
gátions imposãd upon hirn by the þatriarch (M}y'r2.467.18-468.2). For the obligation for
Zpauxesis which b'ound somê conôessionaires, see Patriarch John XIV, Acta patriarchatus
Ño.7a (1337) (MM 1.168) = Darrouzès, RegestesNo.2L79, andNo' 78 (1338) (MM
1.173-80) :'Darrouzès, Regestes No. 2182, in which this obligation replaces.behiosis;
also Actei de Zographou No.:g (f :SZ); and Patriarch Matthew l, Acta patriarchatusNo.
648 (1402) (Mlà z'.495-96) : Darrouzès, Regestes No. 3259 (summarized try Herman,
"Chiese private," 309), in which it replaces sustasìs.
 -r
258 CHAPTER NINE
succeeded where their predecessors had failed in enforcing the strict re-
quirements of Justinian's legislation compelling benefactors to provide
adequate support for their foundations. Thanks to their efforts, the kte-
toreia oÍ the last decades of the empire was rvell on its way to becoming
a simple leitourgia (public service) instead of the patron's customary
right of ownership.
NEW RESTRAINTS ON BENEFACTORS OF ECCLESIASTICAL
FOUNDATIONS
The ktetores of the fourteenth century not only had to contend with well-
defined rights and obligations, but they also faced some severe restraints
on rhe exerçise of their patronage which had never bound their predeces-
sors. The most important of these new restraints was the prohibition of
a personal financial profit derived from the administration of a private
ecclesiastical institution.
\ùüell before a consensus had formed against all forms of lay profiteer-
ing, a decision of Patriarch Isaias dated to L325 prohibited the sale of
ecclesiastical foundations.63 The patriarch condemned the sale of a mon-
astery that belonged by hereditary right to the father of a kinsman of the
emperor. This man, a certain Monomachos, had donated the monastery
to the monk Barlaam, who sold it for 72 hyperpera to John Philanthro-
penos, another relative of the emperor. Monomachos' son, John Tiiakon-
taphyllos, sued for restitution of his founder's rights. The patriarch made
Barlaam return the money he had received from Philanthropenos, who
in turn was to withdraw all claims to the ephoreia of the institution.
Isaias turned the monastery over to the local bishop, and limited the
plaintiff Tliakontaphyllos to "the customary memorial (mnemosynon) of
þtetores."
The principle behind Isaias' decision had fairly recenr ideological ori-
gins. Lãss than fifty years before,in'!,276, a layman had sold a church
with its endowed properties to the imperial monastery of the Theotokos
at Lembos for 10 hyperpera.6a There was also a private church among
the assets of a very considerable piece of property which Maria Palaeo-
logina, a daughter of Michael vlll, had purchased (sometime in the late
thirteenth century) from Maria Akropolitissa and Demetrios Contoste-
phanos for 4,000 byperpera.6s Yet as early as the mid-thirteenth century-
ãate of the lawbook Synopsis Minor, there had been an opinion (ulti-
63
Patriarch lsaias, Acta patriarchatus No. 63, Pt. 5 (i325) (MM 1.138-39, esp' 1'38'22-
:
¡t..ourès, RegestesNo.2126; cf. Zhishman, Stiftenecht' 1'1'.
3L)
6a
Cartulary of Lembiotissa No. 97 (127 6) (MM 4.1,7 4, esp. 9-1 6)-
6sReporteá by Patriarch Callistus, Acta patriarchatøs No. 136 (1351) (MM 1.312.11-
28) :
P".tourès, Regestes No. 2330.
Ìi
I
li
:
LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 259
mately derived from Justini an's lnstitutes) which held that consecrated
religious foundations were not subject to valuation (adiatimeta) and
without master (adespota).66 This was the interpretation that Patriarch
Isaias put into practice with his decision of 1.325.
Henìeforth, the patriarchare was prepared to allow the sale of eccle-
siastical institutions only in exceptional cases, although sales both of in-
dividual properties and of shares of. ktetoreia continued to occur' for old
habits proved hard to eradicate. The patriarchs were quick to condemn
these lapses and compel restitution, particularly after the consensus
against ãll for*r of personal financial profit from ecclesiastical institu-
tions formed in the 1340s.67
The reformers of the eleventh century had advocated such a prohibi-
tion long before, but their ideas did not win immediate and unqualified
acceptance. Conservative opinions continued to be heard well into the
fourieenth century.6s Theodore Balsamon's immense prestige coupled
with his stubborn defense of the cbaris¿iå¿ doubtless made it easier for
the canonist Matthew Blastares to assert in his Syntagnø (published in
1335) that rhere was norhing improper about private profit obtained
from episcopal donation of monasteries. At the same time, the advocates
of the more radical reform tradition were rediscovering Justinian's orig-
inal regulations for private religious foundations, including those provi-
sions that Leo VI and his lawyers had decided to leave out of the Basiliþa'
An anonymous conservative canonist, commenting on Balsamon's own
canonical commentaries, smugly rejected the reformers' citation of Jus-
rinian's novel condemning the trafficking in monasteries practiced by the
Egyptians and others in the sixth century simply because this novel had
bãen omitted in the Basilika. The conservative canonist was technically
correct, but the reformers were marshaling the canonical and legal prec-
edents that would soon enable them to win the consensus of ecclesiastical
opinion.
Ir was Patriarch John XIV Calecas (1,334-47) who finally endorsed
the views of these reformers on the impropriety of obtaining a personal
66synopsis minor,Letter I" Sect. 1 (lGR2'1,1'1')'
,'E.g.,'patriarch Callistus, Acta patilarchaúøs No. 136 (1351) (MM 1..312-L7) : Dar'
,ourèsiilegest".sNo.2330; Patriarih Matthew I,ActapatriLlchatusNo.-5-33 ill::) (MM
2.322-23) = Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3082, discussed below; No' 576 (1400) (MM
2.576) : Darrouzès, RegesfeJNo. 3135, summarized by Herman, "Chiese private," 304;
No. ø2t (1401) (MM 2.455-58) : Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3182, discussed below; No'
661 $40:1)': $ø¡vl z.szo-24) : Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3222; No' 677 (1401)
(MM
2.55ì-56) Darrourès, Regestes No' 3239, summarized by Herman, "Chiese private,"
311-12.
--ãM"tth..
Blastares, Syntagma, Lemer E', Sect.22 (Rt¡-P 6.276-77); cf. the scholiast
on Balsamon, Comm. ád Ñorlocanoni fPs-l Photii, reported by J. B. Cotelerius,.Ecclesiae
prcrccae monumenta (Paris, 7677), Yol. 1, p. 747C (répr. in PG 132, col. 1115); for this
ãanonist see V. Grumel, "Blastarès (Mathieu)," Catholìcisme 2 (1949), 84-85 '
 -r
260 CHAPTER NINE
profit from a religious institution when he rendered a decision in a case
ih", ."-. before his synod in 1.342.6e The metropolitan of Chios had
brought a suit against a certain Constantine Prasinos' a hereditary þtetor
of a Jhurch and monastery on this island. The metropolitan charged Pra-
sinos with diverting the eisodemata oÍ these foundations for his personal
use. The validity of Prasinos' þtetorikon diþaion in the foundations was
not in question, but rather his use of the revenues derived from them.
The patiiarch's decision was a stunning rebuke to the þ.tetor: Prasinos
had no right to personal enjoyment of the parishioners' offerings (the
eisodemaÁnd kaìpophoria) of these foundations. One need only recall
the entirely oposite decision rendered (ca. 1025) by Eustathios Rhomaios
in the case oithe church of St. Auxentios to realize how completely Byz-
antine opinion had reversed itself on this issue since the reign of Basil II.
It seems that this change of opinion occurred at the highest level of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy Juring John XIV's tenure as patriarch, since he
had earlier made a concession of honorary l<tetoreia (1334) in which he
alluded without adverse comment to a lay woman who received a pen-
sion from a church's eisodema.To At the same time, Matthew Blastares
was still defending the propriety of donations of ecclesiastical institu-
tions for private profit. Less thatt a decade later, John XIV's landmark
decision reversed-the official attitude of the institutional church on this
important question.
Hencefotìh, the patriarchate upheld this attitude and vigorously con-
demned any lapses on rhe part of incorrigible patrons.Tl Indeed, when
the orphanåd minor sons of a priest arranged to sell their father's house
and a private church to the monastery of Christ Philanthropenos in Con-
stantinople in 1400, the monks did not neglect to bring the transaction
to the aitention of the patriarchal synod for its approval'72
The hostile artirude óf the patriarchate toward any sort of private prof-
iteering in religious foundaiions prevented ktetores from disposing of
these ilnstitutions in privately arranged business transactions, but they
could still transmit them to heirs or even unrelated individuals by acts of
donation.T3 The institutional church had always condemned the sale of
6epatriarch
John XIV, Acta patriarcbarzs No. 1O2
(1342) (MM 1.231-32, esp. 231.30-
232.2) : Dariouzès,
--iÞ"triatch R¿g¿st¿s No' 2234; cf . Zhishman, Stifterrecht, 40'
¡ohn ÍIV,1clø patriarchatus No. 311 (1334)
(MM 1'.568-69, esp. 569.17-
20) : Darrouzès,Regestes No.2171.
--'"t.i.,Patriaróh
Cäilistus, Actapatriarchatøs.No.-136 (1351) (MM l'31':-17-) = Dar-
,ourlriil"gtttts No. 2330, and Patriarch Matthew l, Acta patr¡archatusNo. 621 (1401)
(MM 2.455-58) : Darrouzès, Regestes No' 3182' -.
T2patriarch Matthew l, Acía pãtriarchatus No. 610 (1400) (MM 2.443-44) : Dar-
rouzès, Regeste.s No. 3170, summarized by He¡ma¡,."Chiese private," 304'
--;;rã,
á3.",io.r by þtLto, to an unreiated individual, see Leo Modas'.donation of a
" rouzès', Rigestes No. 3243, cf. No. 621 (1401) (MM 2.455-58)
share of hts þtetoreîa in a church at Lembos to the nobleman Astras and the Evergetis
Àonrr,.ry (MMz.3Z2-23), discussed below in connection with the Makrodoukas case.
lt
li
I
li
LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPTRE 261 ;
i
private foundations when secularization resulted, but it had previously
t..n .o.rt.rrt to allow all financial transactions that preserved the eccle-
siastical character of the foundations. Even Justinian's controversial
novel on the subject had left the door open for sales of the latter sort.
Now the patriarchs of the fourteenth century resolved to surpass even
Justinian in their regulatory rigor.
The disposition toward strict regulation of private foundations that
Isaias' ¡ohn XIV's decisions had initiated continued to characterize
"ná
the policies of subsequent patriarchs. Patriarch callistus (1350-53,
i35i-63), moreover, wâs to judge the most important case on private
foundations ever to reach the patriarchal synod. The case concerned the
convent of St. Mary of the Mongols, an institution that once had enjoyed
an independent constitution, but had lost its autonomy to a series of
ephors related to the imperial family.Ta One of these ephors, Isaac Palaeo-
lågus, the uncle of Emperor John V (1,34'1.-91.), had badly neglected the
co-nvent's endowed properties and had allowed the wineries, bakeries,
and rental units earmaked to support it to deteriorate. He also burdened
the convenr with lay appointees to adelphata to the amount of 2,000
hyperpera.. Moreover, he alienated certain dwellings and joined them to
his personal estate, then bequeathed what little was left of the convent's
endãw-ent to his daughter Irene Asania Philanthropena as his successor
in the ephoreia. Since the nuns of the convent had no confidence that
there would be any improvement under their new mistress, they brought
an appeal to the empeior, John V, who referred them to the patriarchal
synod.
Callistus' decision announced in 1351 abolished the ephoreia and re-
stored the convent's previous independent constitution. The patriarch
thereby made clear thãt he was determined to put the welfare of a reli-
gious institution above traditional concerns to preserYe private ploperty
iightr. His bold a6ion provided a precedent for a later patriarch, Mat-
th-ew I, who would not hesitate to threaten the deposition of an ephor or
even a hereditary þtetor for such offenses as non-fulfillment of duties or
illegal alienations of ecclesiastical property.Ts A ktetor of the fourteenth
..r,iu.y thus faced the ultimate sanction of dispossession, which would
have been unthinkable in previous centuries. Tiue, the reformist patri-
archs Nicholas III Grammaticus and John IX Agapetus had ventured to
depose chøristikariol, but there were no attempts in their day to interfere
TaPatriarch Callistus, Acta patriarcbaføsNo. 136 (1351) (MM 1.31'2-17, esp. 316.6-
by Herman, "Chiese private," 303' and
20) = Darrouzès,Regestes Nã. Z:¡0, mentioned
discussed by Janin, Géographie, Vol. 3, pp. 213*14.
t'Patriarch NlaitheilI,'Acta pati'rch¿løs No. 533 (1399) (MM 2'322r'3-l : o"t-
rotzès, Regestes No. 3082, discussed below; No. 627 (1401'?) (MM 2'467-68) .= Dar-
: Darrouzès, Regestes
No. 3182, discussed below.
 -Y
CHAPTER NINE
262
with the basic property rights of the owners of private religious institu-
tions.
persistent scrutiny by the patriarchs was not the only new development
that boded ill for patrons in the fourteenth century' The clergy officiating
in private churches, encouraged perhaps by the reformist attitudes of the
hieiarch¡ chose to make a bid for control of these churches. The uncer-
t"inty .r.ut.d by the death of a patron and resultant legal proceedings
befoie the confirmation of a new ktetor or ephor provided an ideal op-
portunity for clerics to assert their own claims or at least to demand fixed
salaries and security of tenure.
Here, however, tÍre patriarchate drew the line in its attempts to dimin-
ish lay ínfl,r.nc. in private churches. Patriarch Isaias, who would rule so
decisiely against the sale of private foundations, issued an earlier
judg-
ment in'1¡.1+ that. denied an officiating cleric any property rights in a
privately owned church.t6 Subsequent decisions followed this patriarchal
à..r... îh. .l..gy of a church thãt Joannikios, the bishop of Ezova, had
granted in epidosis ro rhe imperial monastery oÍzographou on^Mount
Átho, utt"-pted (with the connivance of a local government official) to
prevent the iransfer of administrarion to the monastery or, failing that,
,o ,..ur. for themselves tenure and half of the altar offerings.77 The
judge
in this case, Manuel Xenophon, logothete of the metropolitan of serres
and patriarchal representuìiu., chose to reject these claims ancl upholel
the rights of the monastic community.
patiiarch Matthew I (1,397-:14L0) also had no sympathy for officiating
jnstitu-
clerics who attempted to assert rights against the patrons of the
tions in which thËy served. In an important decision of 1400, Matthew
went so far as to state that an officiating cleric served at the pleasure of
the ktetores who could dismiss him for making a nuisance of himself.Ts
IMPENDING COLLAPSE OF THE EMPIRE
The importance of these decisions can distract us from the grim contem-
porary political situation of the Byzantine Empire. Like the þt.etores
ihrr.rr.lu.r, who were once its most illustrious and influential subjects,
the empire had now lost the power and prestige that once enabled it to
dominåte the eastern Mediterranean. By the 1350s the mighty Ottoman
Empire had crossed the Dardanelles and established itself firmly in Eu-
T6patriarch lsaias, Acta patriarchatus No. 57, sect.6 (1.324) (MM 1.110-11, esp. 1-12)
: Darrouzès, Regestes No. 2116.
77
Actes d' EsPhigmenou No. 28 (1'387).
Tspatriarch Mrt"th.* l, Acta paìriarchatusNo. 5T6 (1400) (MM2.391-93, esp. 3-12)
: Darrouzès, Regestes No.3135.
,t
I-AST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 263
rope. Encirclement threatened what remained of Byzantine possesstons
around Constantinople.
Emperor John v recognized the mortal danger and attempted to settle
soldieìs on ih. coast between the capital and Selymbria on lands belong-
ing to the patriarchare (1,367).?' Patriarch Philotheus (1364--76) rejected
thã emperãr's promise to compensate the church with other lands, and
declared that he had no authority to allow even a temporafy aljenation
of church properry of which he was only the official guardian. The patri-
arch was not even amenable to leasing out tlìe property in question since,
according to his interpretation of canon law, "the property of the church
should nãt be ,"nt.d to anyone among the powerful, not even to the
so
emperor."
fh. .ontr"rt with the permissive attitudes of the Byzantine ecclesias-
tical hierarchy in earlier eras is certainly striking. Fortified by reformist
scruples and iediscovered canon law, specifically the twelfth canon of the
Second Council of Nicaea, Philotheus was unwilling to make any accom-
modation, even to an emergency that threatened the existence of the
state. John v desisted from carrying our his plans, but only until the
ottomans crushed the serbians at Maritza on september 26, 1.371. He
then decided to seize half of the monastic properties of the empire and
distribute them as landholdings for soldiers.
NICHOLAS CABASILAS AND HIS CRITIQUE OF GOVERNMENT
REQUISITIONS OF MONASTIC PROPERTY
It appears that it was this action that stimulated the composition of one
of iit. most fascinating documents in all of Byzantine history, the dis-
course of Nicholas Cabasilas on the illegal exactions of the government
and the ecclesiastical hierarchy at the expense of the great monasteries'81
The author was a learned monk and partisan of the hesychast movement'
whose mystical doctrines had received the blessing of a church synod in
1351.s, ih. dir.outse preserves the arguments of those who defended
the government's confiscations, as well as cabasilas' own detailed legal
andlanonical refutations. Although the institutions that Cabasilas de-
fends in the discourse were not the traditional private monasteries but
rather the independent and autonomous foundations, the tract's argu-
TeFor details, see Charanis, "Monastic Properties," 114-16, and George Ostrogrosk¡
Pour I'histoite de la féodalité byzantine (Brussels, 1954),161'
s0parriarch philoiheus, Acti patriarchaløs No. 252 (1367) (MM 1.507-8, esp. 507.15-
21) :
--"tE¿.Darrouzès. R¿sestes No. 2534.
Iho. S.uÉenk"o, "Nicolas Cabasilas' 'Antí-Zealot'Discourse: A Reinterpretation,"
DOP11,(1957),80-171,wirhtexr at91-125;forthehistorical contextof thediscourse,
see Ostrosorskv. H85,474, n.8.
t'Forh'ís life, see Sevðenko, "Cabasilas," 85-87, with nn' 17-27'
 Y
CHAPTER NINE LAST CE,NTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 265
264

menrs for and against the propriety of lay exploitation of ecclesiastical without forfeiting his ultimate rights of ownership. The proper role of
property are still important for this study' the state is to ensure that the monks observe the founder's instructions
' Tï. iir.ourr., then, preserves the final statements of the parties to the and do not damage the economic prospects of the monastic community
disp"r.that hai trouûi.,1 Byzantium for_c.enturies. The views of Caba- through improvident management of the foundation's resources.8a
Cabasilas' discourse makes use of traditional arguments for the respect
silaì' opponents may be summarized as follows: The government is the
final ar'biter of whai is good for its subjects. It may even break its own of private property rights and the sanctity of a testator's will in order to
i"*s in order to advancJ the well-being of its subiects. It is fitting for the defend the great independent monasteries against the government's req-
government to confiscate part of the vast"properties of the monasteries' uisitions. This was possible only because the great monasteries had be-
for good purposes such as sup- come important private landowners themselves. Cabasilas echoes the ar-
irovided it employs the wealth obtained guments of the lay patrons for rvhom the cause of private property rights
porting the poàr, compensa/tng the clergy,. decorating churches' and de-
accomplished by the confiscations are was so dear,
?endir,! the state. 'Whán the ends
,,'o.. J, less in keeping with the intentions of the original donors of the A similar respect for private property rights had motivated the juclicial
be no complaint that the government decisions of Basil II and Eustathios Rhomaios. The charistikarioi prob-
monastic foqndatións, there can
h", dirr.g"ráed t.rt"-entary dispositions' Since the state has the soie ably brought up similar arguments in response to Nicholas III Gram-
validate private donãtions to ecclesiastical ioundations, it maticus' census takers ín 1096.It had never been an easy matter for the
"othorit/to for good cause' government or the church to override private property rights, no matter
-- overturn them subsequently
can
R..ording to this line áf argument, the monks who received the bene- how pressing the circumstances or desirable the benefits of doing so hap-
pened to be at various critical times in Byzantine history. Now, Iate in the
factors' doñations were not full masters over them because they were
empire's existence, Cabasilas could revive the old standard arguments to
onlf .utroaians and therefore lacked the capacity to dispose of them
resist yet another attempt to divert private ecclesiastical resources for
rre.ty 1.r. rhe argumentation of Patriarch Philotheus in his decision of
public purposes.
tSøi¡.the state must acr to circumvent this canonical disability. When
Cabasilas' arguments are rooted in a secular justification of private
ih..e.ipi.nts of these private donations mismanage them, the state ought
property rights. This distinguishes his ideological position from that of
io ,., åu*.rs straighi and carry out the wishes of the benefactors by
other means. The pro-government propagandists, therefore, based
their the eleventh-century Chalcedonian reformers and that of the patriarchs
case on the vaguely soáalist of the state's obligation to deter- of his own day. By contrast, the reform tradition began with the personal
"rg.,*int
mine the gr."õ, public good in preference to the traditional Byzantine opposition of Leo of Chalcedon and John of Antioch to what they saw
as profanation of consecrated propertg and turned increasingly to canon
respect for private property rights.83 -

ðabasilas' inge.rio.r, ,.iut"iio., of the government's position may be law for support.s5 Characteristicall¡ Patriarch Philotheus resorted to the
summarized as iollows: A government that breaks the laws it imposes
on canons when he prepared his response to the requisitions planned by
orh.rr, particularly with rãspect to private property' risks undermining John V
As the balance of his discourse amply demonstrates' Cabasilas was no
,h. p.rån"t liberiy that is the basis for its subjects' respect. The good
ur. ärgu-.nt is specious, for even if some benefits should chance to oc- friend of the bishops and metropolitans, nor of the reform principle so
.,r, Uyit. confisåtions, that would not_change their evil character. The dear to the hierarchy: the proper subordination of all monasteries to
donorc who make gifts of property to the monasteries have every
legal diocesan authorities.s6 He attacked the claims of metropolitans to hold
¡ãr,, ,. do so. The"acts of-donation remain legally binding, a fact that authority over dependent bishoprics, denounced the bishops who ex-
ihi ,rur. acknowledges by confirming these donations. Moreover, the acted fees for ordination, and challenged episcopal collection of the ka-
documents retain their validity in perpetuity' saFor Cabasilas'refutation, see.Discourse, Sects.4,10-13, 15-16' 20,22,24,26,28.
Alcording to this line of the .monks who administered the srNote the successful appeals of Demetrios of Bothrotos and Demetrios of Domokos.
"ig,t-.nt, of their revenues, even though
endowecl pioperties do in faci dispose The hierarchy even increased its claims in the mid-fourteenth century, or so Cabasilas,
canonical preicriptions regulate the use of these funds' Any property D iscour se,Sects. 32-48.
s6Cabasilas, Discourse, Sects. 32-47 (fees for ordination of clergy), 38 (alienations of
owner, -oi.ou.r' is free to allow subordinates to manage his property the property of deceased clerics), 39-41 (domination of subordinate bishops), 42-47 (col'
lection of k-anoniþon from the laity),48 (collection oÍ kanonìkon from monasteries); cf. 58
see the Discoutse, sects. 6, 11-14, 16' 2L, 32' (obligation to break communion with bishops who act uncanonically).
83
For the views of cabasilas' opponents,
 =7
266 CHAPTER NINE
nonikon from the monasteries. He boldly maintained that priests stood
under obligation to break communion with bishops who openly.trans-
gressed thJ canons. On most of these points, Cabasilas argued from a
Ëlghty parrisan viewpoint, with only the shakiest of canonical support'87
ih. ..ono*ic interests of the ecclesiastical hierarchy coincided with
their commitment to the canonically prescribed subordination of tradi-
tional private as well as independent monasteries. so cabasilas, opposed
with equal vehemence to boìh the extraordinary requisitions.of John V
and thË customary exactions of the ecclesiastical hierarch¡ had to fall
back on traditional arguments for non-interference with the rights of
private property. He and Philotheus could agree in their opposition to
ih. gouårnÀeni's plans for requisitions, but characteristically (and pre-
dictà'bly¡ the rationales of their arguments against these requistions were
entirely different.
PATRIARCHMATTHE\íI(1397-1410)ANDHISREGULATIONOF
PRIVATE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS
shortly before the complete collapse of the Byzantine Empire in 1453,
there ascended to the patriarchate a remarkable man whose achieve-
ments (in a much-resrriàted sphere of authority) deserve favorable com-
parison with those of rnany of his illustrious predecessors. He was Mat-
ih.* I, mentioned earlier in connection with the controvçrsy over the
righrs áf officiating clergy in private churches.ss The future patriarch be-
gä ni, career as the spiritual director of the monastery of Charsianites
in Constantinople. He tecame metropolitan of Kyzikos ín 1,387, then ten
register, which
f.u* l"t.r, patriurch of Constantinople. His patriarchal
í, .ornpl.t. fro* th. middle of 1399 to early 1.402, contains 161 docu-
and concern for a wide va-
-.nr, ", evidence of his prodigious energy
riety of ecclesiastical issues.se He took an âctive role in supporting the
restoration of deteriorating churches and welcomed the chance to adju-
dicate suits over þtetoreia.eo He employed his role as judge in these cases
to exert his influence for better management of private foundations.
st Sevðenko, "Cabasilas," 1'44 -5 1'.
trpãr thir pät.i"rch, ,ee H. Hunger, "Das Testament des Patriarchen Matthaios | (1-397-
1,410)," BZ 51 (1958)' 2-88-30e' esp. 290-94'
tnÁnalyzed by [ean Darrou zès,, Là registre synodal du patrìlrcal byzantin au XlVe siòcle:
Etude paiéographique et diplomatique (Paris' 1971)'-^-
-'-iJp"',ri".."t, i¿.,ih"* l,'Acta patrìaìchatusNo.533 (1399) (l./'}./.2.322-23)^: Dar-
No'
,outei,, n"'g:rrtas No. 308i; No.Zzz (1401?) (MM 2 '467-68) -- Regestes N-o'-3243;
i1ø tt'cooi (M]l/_2.391-93) = Resestes No' 31.35;.No':579 (1400) (MM 2'395-99) = l, Acta pøtriarchatus No. 533 (1399) (MM 2.322-23),
irärìr* Ñ.i:tr:s; l',1o. øio (r+oö) (MM2.443-4-4-) No-'-31]0;
Resestes No' 621
ti+îrl Wfn 2.455-5s) : Regestes No.3182;
No-.,653 (1401) (MM 2'50 -.-6)- =-Resestes
Ñ.. iiì¿;Ñ;- 661 (MM 2.si0-"24) = Resestes No' 3222; No' 677 (1401) (M-M 2'5s1-
iøi iz:9; No.648 (1402) (MM 2'49s-96) : Resestes No' 3259'
=-Br;ru;"'xo.
LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMPIRE 267
Two of these cases illustrate the problems of private foundations par-
ticularly well. The first of these, which came to trial in L399, concerned
a church that a certain Leo Modas had erected on the island of Lemnos.el
In his capacity as ktetor, Leo consigned a half share in the rights of own-
ership to a monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, most likely the famous
institution of that name in Constantinople.e2 Nicholas Makrodoukas, the
defendant in this case, inherited the other half share from Leo. Although
their monastery had once stood in the forefront of the reform tradition,
the monks of the Evergetis did not take their responsibilities toward the
church seriously so the building eventually came to the verge of complete
collapse. Makrodoukas became concerned and arranged to buy out the
monastery's share in the church from George Synadenos Astras, a mem-
ber of the imperial farnily who held the ktetoreia in the Evergetis mon-
astery. Makrodoukas, believing that he now held clear title to the prop-
ert¡ undertook a complete structural renovation of the building and was
able to place a priest in the church to conduct services. Astras, the plain-
tiff in the case, was suddenly affected by fashionable reformist scruples
when he observed the value of the considerable improvements that Ma-
krodoukas had made to the property. He sought the annulment of his
contract with Makrodoukas on the grounds that he had no right to sell
an ecclesiastical institution in the first place.
The patriarch and his fellow bishops in synod shrewdly saw through
Astras' stratagem. He was clearly posturing behind a principle dear to
the reformers, but for a venal purpose that was repugnant to them. Yet
the synod wâs now unwilling to go on record as approving of the pur-
chase of a church, no matter how salutary the transaction had proved to
be for its preservation. They resolved the difficulty by ruling that Astras
and the monks of Evergetis had so seriously neglected their pronoia oveÍ
this church that they had voided their rights. In the interpretation of the
synod, Makrodoukas had acquired not the church itself, for as the synod
declared "it is illegal and against the canons to alienate anything conse-
crated to God," but rather the þtetorika diþaia (founder's rights).e3
The patriarch and the bishops thus avoided breaking the canonical
prohibition that, according to the currently accepted interpretation,
banned all ekpoiesels (alienations) of consecrated property. The synod
then confirmed Makrodoukas' ktetoreia dikaia, with the right to trans-
mit the church to anyone he wished. He was warned, however, not to
attempt to alienate anything for his own benefit, nor to hold back a part
e'Patriarch Matthew :
Dar-
rouzès, Regestes No. 3082, summarized by Herman, "Chiese private," 304-5.
e2For this
foundation, see Janin, Géographie, Vol. 3, pp. 178-83.
esPatriarch Matthew l, Acta patriarchatusNo.533 (1399) (MM 2.323.10-24) : 9^r-
roùzès, Regestes No. 3082.
 Y I

268 CHAPTER NINE LAST CENTURIES OF THE EMP]RE 269

a sacrilege and remove her relatives from the l<tetoreia. He also rejected her plan to en-
of the church,s revenues for his personal use, "since this is
not a trivial sin before God."
ea trust the services in the church to a priest who happened to officiate in
bold con-
Matthew I and his synod thus embraced Leo of chalcedon's another of lrene's private churches. He decided instead to favor the plans
of consecrated propertf over three hundred of David and Andronicus, who had shown themselves more trustworthy,
demnation of all alienátions
the battle cry that ultimately led to and obliged them to support a priest of their own choice for the necessary
u."r, ufr., that prelate first souncled
il;^;r;*il.rr, if ,n. independence of many private religious_ founda-
The synod
services,
tions and their subordinatiån to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The case presents a rather dismal picture of the greed and contentious-
announcecl this principle with all the authority accorded a canonical ness of the Palaeologan nobility in contrast to the conscientious and
in question' They could hardly high-minded patriarch. As it turns out, this is also one of the last impor-
pt.*á"", that häd ,rever been serious
iuu. b..n aware of the striking novelty of Leo's position i' his own da¡ tant references to traditional private religious foundations in Byzantium.
it. it was a' idea 'Sle
p.rn"p, had no idea of hii role in formulating Yet must remember, however, that both the "founder's right" and, to a
"na
whose time had trulY come. lesser extent, private foundations themselves survived the fall of the em-
Thesecor¡dcaseworthparticularattentionconcernsthechurchof pire itself in 1,453.e6
T.heotokos Amolyntos in io'stantinople.e5 A princess of the imperial
Irour., the protoïesüaria Palaeologina, had granted some land.to the
.uno.-h Philialetes on rhe condition that he should erect a church
there
princess' children at his death. The eunuch
,h", h. would give back to the
."rri.a out hls"p"rt of the contract, and the two children of Palaeologina,
lyhen the
ä. -.rf. Daviä and his sister Theodora, inherited the church. and Irene
i",i., ai.¿ intesrare, her two children, Andronicus Palaeologus
l"L".ologinu, succeeded to shares oÍ the þtetoreia along with lrene's
son,
Alexius iàl"rolog,rs. At this point the ktetoreia became so divided that it
"to management for the
became difficult provide ã capable and unified
;hr;.À. The heirs fËtt to squabbling among rhemselves, and all appar-
.nilr à..i¿.d to exploit their positions to obtain whatever they could
from the resources of the church.
Irene Palaeologina brought suit before the patriarchal synod
in 1'401,
David and brother Andronicus from the
,..t i"g the remoîal of her"uncle
ktenrãia on the grounds that they had neglected to care for the church'
of illumination. The shrewd
p"y ,1,. priest,s ,ãl"r¡ or meer the expenses
p"íri"r.t decided to's.rrd his own investigators to the church to deter-
'-irr. th. accuracy of lrene's accusations. The investigators showed that
the church clid have an endowment sufficient to provide for
its religious
then took the offensive and charged their
services. David and Andronicus
usurping a patt,of the property of the ch.urch to
.rir"ng.a relation with
ur. garden. The patiiarih condemned this alienation of conse-

.r"r.ã"Jn..
fropitr¡ and ordered lrene to make restitution for the damage
suffered by the church.
to
Matthew's inquiries did not dispose him to grant Irene's request

Acta patrialchøløs No. 533, lines 24-30'

e4
--
Matthew l, Ãcta'patriarchatus No' 621 (1401) (MM 2'455-58ì
: Il^'- e6Û.g., Actes du Pantocrutor No. 21 (1602), a confirmation by Patriarch Neophytus of a
'i;"iilá-ft ,uÁ.i".ir.d by Herman, "chiese private," 305, and by Zhish- donation of a monastery at Adrianople made by two brothers, the institution's ktetores, to
,ourf,r,'Ãi{"ui, No. 31Så,
the monastery of the Pantokrator on Mount Athos (see esp. lines 12-17).
man, Stifterrecht, 87-88.
 =Y
GLOSSARY 27r

caþitatio LRE: head tax

castrum NB: fortified settlement
cataþan MB: provincial governor
chaiistike MIi: (1) p.ogi"- for the concession of ecclesiastical institutions to
Glossary of Technical Terms benefactors unrelat.d to the original founders; (2) an individual conces-
sion under this program
charistikarios, -ol MB: possessor(s) of a charistike (q.v.)
chartophylax MB: keeper of archives
chartoularios BE: keeper of archives
EC: Early Christian choregion, -ø LRE, MB: salarY (-ies)
LRE: Later Roman EmPire chorion, -a LRE, MB: estate(s)
chresis MB: (rights of ) use
BE: Byzantine EgyPt chrysika BE: government head tax payable in cash
MB: Middle Byzantine (602-1204) ciuitas LRE: city
LB: Late Byzantine (1'204-1453) collatio lustralis LRE: tax on tradesmen's business activities
collegium, -ø LRE: societ¡ fraternity
coloius, -l LRE: peasant(s) attached to the land
adelþbaton, -a MB, LB: monastic prebend(s) conductor, -¿s LRE: short-term leaseholder(s)
ødeipotos, -ø LB: without master(s) conuenticulum, -ø LRE: place(s) of assembly
ad i a'k o o to n s it e r e s i o n MB : uninterr upted siter e s i o n
(q'v') conuefitus LRE: assembly
adiatimeta LB: not subiect to valuation copio.e LRE means, facilities
aedificium, -ø LRE: building(s) co:rpus Christianorum LRE: the corporate Christian church
ager LRE: farm cubicularius LRE: palace eunuch
o'lldrngyo, MB: ioint responsibility. for payment of taxes curia LRE town council
araþriíít MB: inquiry (into spiritual faults) curopalates LRE: honorary title for court official of patrician rank
analomata I-RE: cash allowanees
anaþhora MB: liturgical commemoration
dapane, -møta LRE, BE, MB: customâry expenditure(s)
anplareia MB: compulsory labor service
decurion LRE: member of the town councillor class
orhono MB: subsidY or wages in kind
defensores curialium LRE: municipal advocates
antilamb anomene MB': corrector (fem' )
demiourgos LB: creator (i.e., founder)
antileþtor MB: helPer, Protector
demosia BE: public taxes
a¡a BiE: blessed (an honorific)
demosiø monasteria MB: public monasteries
aioaitetai BE: tax collectors for ecclesiastical lands
demosiake eþereia MB: compulsory labor services
aþanteterion BE: hostel for pilgrims
demosiakoi MB: clergy resident on imperial estates
designare LRE: to nominate (for office) : proballein (q'v.)
a'parchai LRE: first fruits
i
abokrisarios LRE: personal envoy of an ecclesiastical official
despoteia MB: overlordship
aþomoirai LRE: portions (i.e', tithes)
I
I
desttotes BE: master
oÞotogr, -ai MB: gift(s) of property by a postulant to a monâstery
I

I
dia'þonia BE: estate of an ecclesiastical institution
I
aichimandrite : archimandrlres LRE: monastic supertor
diamone MB: (property) maintenance
arcbon BE: magistrate; MB: ecclesiastical administrator
I

diarium, -ø LRE: salary (-ies)

artabe, -aBE: i dry measure (e'g', of wheat)
diataxis LRE: (legal) disposition; MB: testâment
I

atbroisma EC: assemblage

MB: self-governing diøtyþosis MB: testamentary disposition
I
autex ou sios
I
dikaia episkoþika }y'rB: episcopal rights
I
autodesPoton, -ø MB: indePendent
dikaion, -a }ri'B (legal) right(s)
I
outourgio, M'B: landed enáo*tn.nt of an ecclesiastical insitution
I
I
dikaion tes gonikotetos LB: hereditary right
r dioikesis BE: administrative responsibility
I
dioiketes, -øi BE: administrator(s)
I basilicø, -ae LF.E: imperial church(es) diorthosis MB: correction of (spiritual) errors
basilika monasteria MB: imperial monasteries dometor, -es MB: founder(s)
I
basiliþos kourator MB: imperial curator dominium LRE: ownership
beltiosis MB, LB: imProvement dominus LRE: lord, property owner
breuion, -a MBt inventorY(-ies)
 GLOSSARY 273
272 GLOSSARY

facultates LRE: abilities, capacities

doøøs LRE: house fundus LRE: large family estate
domus diuina LRE: private estate of the emperor
domus ecclesiøe LRE: house church georgos BE: farmer
donarium, -l LRE: \'otive offering(s) gerokomeion, -ø LRE, MB: old-age home(s)
rights of usufruct
ãoir-ol|o **r¡ causa lng' don.iion of property reserving
doreaMB: : charistiþe (q.v.)
hagiosBE holy, saint
drungarios MB: admiral
hegoumene LRE: abbess
a|"iLlr',BE: military commander of a frontier district heþoumenos, -oi LRE, MB, LB: spiritual director(s), abbot(s)
horos MB: (doctrinal) definition
hyperþeron, -a LBz lare Byzantine gold coin(s)
ecclesia EC, LRE: church hypodektes BE: estate treasurer
)cchesia catholica LRE: :
þatholiþe ekklesia (q'v') hypomnema, -tø MB: memoranelum(-a)
Eigen kirc h e t proPrietarY church hypomnesis MB: memorandum
eii beltiosin MB: for (institutional) improvement hypothecation: mortgaging of property to produce an income
eisodemø, -ta LBt parishioners' offering(s) hJ'potyposis MB: model, constitution
Ze räî iît'r*'a¡o, inr' from the foundãtions, "from the ground up"
ekklesia LRE, BE, MB, LB: church idiolteriorista MB: self-determined (i.e', private' non-diclcesan)
l,ìätrr|os¡eo'rhoí¡a y¡n,landed endowment of the public
churches
illustris BE: illustrious (honorific)
a LRE ecclesiastical o ffi ces
e:þ..k1 e s i a st i þa o ffik i z
inquisitor, -es I RE: investigator(s)
ekohoria BE: produce' revenue iudex, iudices LRE: provincial governor(s)
e:þ'ooiesis. -els MB, LB: alienation(s) (of property) iuga LRE: land tax
monasteries
"ií"tøiiá' -iraste'ria MB: "free" (i'e', independent) ius corporis LRE: corporate right
embole BE: tax for public wheat distributions ius þatronatus LRE: patron's right
tr'ii"s*in"l -o¡ LRf,' peasant(s) bound to the land
engraphon prostagma MB: wrltten mandate þaine BE: new
pnáuiesis LB: (institutional) enlargement
without eco- kalliergia MB: (institutional) restoration
Zil,,*'"=" îln");r;;'MB;|B, ovirseer(s) of a religious institution þanonikon MB, LB: episcopal tax on monasteries
' not ti. rights of exPloitation
(q-'v') kapnikon, -a Ìly'^B: hearth tax(es)
enboreia tn'tS. l-"8, administrative charge of an ephor karþ oþ h oria LB: dedicatory offerings
l'oiíloî poi¡titeiou MBt keeper of the imperial inkstand
kat'a àorean MB: as a gift (i.e., in charistìke, q.v.)
e'ni tou þoitionos LRE, MB: chamberlain
"r't"¡¿åî¡t katholike, -ai ekklesia, -al LRE, BE, MB: public (i"e., diocesan) church(es)
among
¡¡y. LB, (1) prog.^n-., for the redistribution of economic assets
""'"""äl.rìÑ¿"ì1ffiñrions; katoiþeterion EC: dwelling Place
(2) an individual concession under this program
keimelia MB; sacred vessels
epimeleiaBE: responsibilit¡ commission þeimelìarchos LRE: custodian of sacred vessels
iþimeletes, -ai BE: property manager(s) þellia MB: individual monastic cells
/nisþeþsis LB: spiritual inspection keration, -ø BE: subdivision(s) of the solidus (q'v.) or nomisma
e:piskopeion, -a'BE, MB' episcopal residence(s) , þleisurarchos MB: commander of a mountain fortress
eloistantì LRE: to propose' nominate (for ofhce) klerikata offikia MB ecclesiastical benefices
ejDiteresis MB: (adminìstrative) oversight kleros BE lot
eioitroøos. -ol BE, MB: trustee(s) þoimeteria EC: burial grounds
e'p oikion,' -a BE: farmstead(s) koinobion, -a MB: coenobitical monastery (-ies)
tioior¡to¡ MB, LB: resident recipients oÍ siteresia (q'v') kome, -ai EC, LRE: village(s)
eukterion, -a LRE, MB: (private) oratory (-ies) kosmika katagogia MB: secular dwellings
euþterios naos lr4B: (private) oratory koubouklesios MB: chamberlain
eukterios olkos LRE, MB: (private) oratory kourator, -es BE, MB: curator(s)
eulabestatos BE: most pious (honorific) þouratore i a MB : curatorship
eulogiai MB: sacramental gifts . .. þrites MB: provincial iudge
)lui o r'ot o d o n. -a M B : income-yieldi ng property
(-ies)
ktetor, -es LS, (f) founder(s) of ecclesiastical institution(s);
MB: (institutional) well-being (2) heir(s) of the preceding
"uthenia MB: tax exemPtion
exkousseia
(q'v') ktetoreia LB: rights and responsibilities of the ktetor (q'v.)
,|,*,o*,on¡to¡ MB, LB: non-resident recipients of siteresia
 GLOSSARY GLOSSARY 275
274

ktetorikon diþ.aion LB: rights of the återor (q'v') parakoimomeøos MB: chief eunuch of the imperial bedchamber
'paramythia,
dikaion rrroríarthrromenon LB: iight of the ktetor (q.v.) and his/her -ai }y'rB monetary allowance(s) from ecclesiastical revenues
'----
ktetoriþo*
patriarchika monasteria MB: patriarchal monasteries
ir*ily io be buried within the religious institution over which þtetoreia
(q.v.) was exercised philokalia MB: (institutional) restoration
å¿ls¿esLRE: founder philoponion BE: lay confraterrrity
kyriakon dikaion MB: right of ownership philoponoi BE: members oÍ the philoponion (q.v.)
kyriotes MB: clominion, overlordship philoponos
'photapsia, BE:
chief of thephiloponion (q.v.) " ,
-ai MB: allowance(s) for expenses of illumination
pbrontis BE: care, responsibilitY
lamprotatos BE: most brillant (honorific) phrontistes, -ai BE: guardian(s)
latreia ,lri'B: worship phrontizein B[,: to take care of
Iaurøi MB collections ol kellia (q.v.) platysmos MB: (institutional) enlargement
leitourgia: public service polis EC: city
litra, -ãi MB: measure(s) of weight þossessio LRE: occupancY
Iogaristes, -ai }y'rB accountânt(s)
þossessor, -es LRE: leaseholder(s) on property
lolos þborou BE: accounts receivable
þotestds, -tates LRE| Power(s)
tigothetrt tou genikou MB: chief financial minister praedium, -a l,RE: private estate(s)
þraepositus MB: lord chamberlain
mapistros MB: master of the imperial household praÞteon EC: decree
mikarios LRE: blessed one (honorific) prøktikon engraqhon MB: written inventory
martyrion, -ø LRE: martyr's shrine(s) presbion, -a annalion, -ø LRE: annuity income(s)
mechønikos,-ol LRE: architectural engineer(s) þriuata possessio LRE: occupancy of private land
megalos sakþelarios MB: great treasurer priuatae ecclesiae LRE: private churches
meizoteros, -oi MB: estate manager(s) proasteion, -a LRE, MB: suburban estate(s)
LRE: to nominate (for office) : designare (q.v.)
'proballein
metochion, -a MB' LB: dependent monast.ery (-ies)
misthios, -ol BE: assistant rent and tax collector(s) procurator, -es LRE: property manager(s)
'proestos,
*|i"moty"o", -a MB' LB: commemorative service(s) for the deacl -totesBE, MB: prior(s) (of a monastery); abbot
þronc,etai BE: property managers; MB: property managers for
a charistiþarios
mi'oclios,:oi BÊ, MB, iubdivision(s) of the artabe (q.v')
moira BE patrimon¡ endowment (q'u.)
monøsterii þosmika MB: private monasteries pronoetes BE: property mânager; MB: : charistikarios (q.v.)
munera LRE: dedications, votive offerings pronoia BE, MB, LB: care, oversight
munera sordida LRE: compulsory labor services pronomia, -ai }dB (financial) privilege(s)
prosenexis, -eis MB: free-will offering(s) of postulant(s) to a monastery
pros kynesis MB : veneration
naos hagios EC: holY shrine prosodon LRE, MB: income
nomisma, -taLRE, BE, MB: :
solidus (q.v.) prosphora inter uiuos BE: liturgical offerings
nomos) -ol LRE: law(s) prosphora mortis causa BE: funerary oblations
nosokomeion, -a BE, MB: hosPital(s) prostøgma, -ta MB: diploma(s)
nosotnomos BE, MB: hospital director 'prostaiia
LRE: patronage MB: guardianship
notarios) -ol BE: notarY (-ies)
þrostasis EC: patroness
p rost ate s MB : protector
oiþeioi EC: householders' kinsmen þrostaxis, -eis MB: codicil(s)
olfrla EC: house þrotasekretis MB: chief personal secretary
oikodomos, -oi BE professional contractor(s) protektor LRE: proPerty manager
oikonomia MB: (financial) administration nrotoþometes BE: head townsman
oikonomos, -ol LRE, MB: financial steward(s) þrotoþaþds MB: chief priest of an ecclesiastical college
olåos EC: house protos MB: director of a monastery
oppidum LRE: town protospatharia MB: wife of the chie{ of the imperial bodyguard
oros BE: monastery þrotostrator MB: chief imperial groom
orphanotropheion, -4 MB: orphanage(s) þrotouestiarit MB: wife of the protouestiarios (q.v.)
'protouestiarios
ousia LP.E:. endowment MB: chief keeper of the imperial wardrobe
 --r
276 GLoSSARY

psycbike
'b
ophelia MB: spiritual benefit
to c h ot roþ b e i o n MB : al mshouse
'ptochotroþho.s
MB: director of an almshouse

rectores prouinciarurn LRE: provincial governors

Select Bibliography
res priuita LRE: ministry of imperial properties
riparios, -ol BE: constable(s)
roga, -ai MB, LB: cash sa-lary (-ies) or annuity þies)
riraiia obsequl¿ LRE: a form of tnunera sordida (q'v') Ahrweiler, Hélène. "Charisticariat et autres formes d'attribution de fondations
pieuses aux Xe-XIe siècles," ZRVI l0 (1967),l-27.
sakkelarios LRE: treasurer
"La concession des droits incorporels. Donations conditionnelles," Actes
sebastoþrator MB: honorary title of the emperor's brother du XIIe congrès international d'études byzantines (Belgrade, 1964),103-
singoularis BE: a tax official 14.
sitiresion, -ia l,1.B: allowance(s) or dividend(s) payable in kind "The Geography of the Iconoclast World," in lconoclasm, ed. A' Bryer
sitesis, -eis LRE: (personal) maintenance ,-
and J. Herrin (Birrningham, 1977), 21,-27.
solemnion, -¿ MB: imperial dedicatory offering(s) Alexander, Paul J. "The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia and Its Definition
solidus, -¡ LRE: standãrd gold coin(s) of the,later Roman Empire (Horos)," DOP 7 (1953), 35-66.
sphragis MB: episcopal consecration of the ltegoumenos (q'v') The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford, 1958).
stadiurn, -ø LRE: unit(s) of linear measurement Alivisatos, Hamilcar S. Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian I. (Ber-
tioirifógb", -a ly'IB, LÉ, foundation charter(s) issued by an ecclesiastical ofÊcial
Stifterrelht: founder's right : ktetoriþon dikaion (s'v')
lin, 1913).
Anrich, Gustav. Hagios Nikolaos, 2 vols. (Berlin, 19 13-17).
stiategos, -oi MB: military governor(s), , - Antonini, Luciana. "La chiese cristiane nell'Egitto dal IV al IX secolo secondo i
stratiõtika þtematø MB: soldiers' landholdings documenti dei papiri greci," Aegyptus 20 (1940), 129-208.
suburbanum LRE: suburban estate Armstrong, G, T. "Constantine's Churches: Symbol and Structure," JSAH 33
sustasis MB, LB: (insitutional) suPport (1974),5-16.
tyiritpøiorí, -a¡ lÀg, financiai contribution(s) of monasteries to ecclesiastical au- "Imperial Church Building and Church-State Relations, e.o. 313-363,"
' thorities
(q.v.) cH36 (1967),3-r7.
synetheìai MB: episcopal fees for the consecration of the ltegoumenos
"lmperial Church Building in the Holy Land in the Fourth Centur¡" BA
s,ynkellos MB: syncellus
30 (1967),90-102.
sy,nodo, endemóusa LB: permanent synod of bishops in Constantinople

taxiarch : taxiarchos MB: military commander
Theotokos LRE, MB, LB: Mother of God
therapeia MB: (personal) maintenance
úopos EC: place
traþteutai LRE: tax clerks
':rl!,ß{:;$i:ïi1'Hiiåliå'
o'."-enr
Babió, Gorda¡a. Les chapelles annetces des églises byzantines (Paris, 1969).
Bachatl¡ Ch. Le monastère de Pltoebammon dans la Thébaide (Cairo, 1981).
Barison, Paola. "Ricerche sui monasteri dell'Egitto bizantino ed arabo secondo i
documenti dei papiri greci," Aegyptus 18 (1938)' 29-148.
Barnard, L. W. "Athanasius and the Meletian Schism in Egypt," JEA 59 (t973),
8 1-89.
drawn up bv a rounder ro regurate 1

Barnes, Timothy. Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981).

the life of a religious institution
Bartelink, G.J. M. "'Maison de prière' comme dénomination de l'église en tant
qu'édifice, en particulier chez Eusèbe de Césarée," REG 84 (1971), L0l-
urbs LRE: city 18.
Bell, H. Idris. "An Egyptian Village in the Age of Justinian," JHS 64 (7944),27-
uicus LRE: village
36.
uilla LRE: suburban estate
Jews ønd Christians in Egypt (London, 1924).
Belting, Hans, Mango, Cyril, and Mouriki, D. The Mosaics and Frescoes of St.
xenodocheion LREt guesthouse, hostel Mary P amma þar i sto s (tù(/ashington, D.C., I 97 8).
xenonLF.E: hostel, hospice Bingham, Joseph. The Antiquities of tbe Christian Church (London, 1708:22)'
Boojamra, Lawrence. Church Reform in tbe Late Byzantine Empire. A Study of
zeugologion MB: cattle tax the Patriørchate of Athanasios of Constantinople (Thessalonica' 1982).
Bovini, Giuseppe. Laproprietà ecclesiastica e la condizione giuridica della chiesa
bt età precostantiniøna (Milan, 1948).
 -l

278 BIBLIoGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 279

,,Tivo Byzantine Treatises on Taxation," Traditio25 (1969),35- Recherches sur les offikia de l'église byzantine (Paris' 1970).
Brand, charles.
60. Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au XlVe siècle: Etude paléo-
byzantin,2 vols. (Paris, 1947-48)' graphique et diplomatique (Paris, 1971)-
- Louis. l,e monde rúrales
-Bréhier, au IXe siècle d'après I'hagiographie byzantine,"
'Cailo. .,Inìroducti-on à l'histoire du droit canonique orientale,"
:;Lei fopulations Declerc"q,
Bvzantion 1' (1'924)' 177-90. AHDO 3 (t947),309-48.
in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and Deslandes, S. "De quelle autorité relèvent les monastères orientaux?" EO 2t
'Gr...", n. "fn.'Cistercians
3..*r;Éü;;b.rn
(L922),308-22.
1204-1276," Traditio 16 (1958)' 63-'l'20'
¡ro.k, Eb.rh'ard F. Toteiteil und Seelgerät im griechischen Recht (Munich, Dölger, Franz . Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finønzuerøaltung, be-
- sonders des 10. und LL. Jahrhunderts' repr' ed' (Hildesheim' 1960).
1926).
nry.r, ÃniÀäny. ,,The Late Byzantine Monasrery in Town and coun¡yside," Regesten der Kaiserurþunden des oströmisclten Reiches uon 565-1453,
scH 16 (1979),219-41. 5 vols. (Munich-Berlin, t924-65).
S.y.r, Ã"rho"y,'ã.rd Fí.rrin, Judith, eds. Iconoclasm, Pøpers Giuen at the Ninth
-'''ii;i;g'Symposium'i¡ Doens, Irénée. "Nicon de la Montagne Noire," Byzantion 24 (1954),131-40'
-^' nyrâ4t1" Studies, t'Jniuersity of Birmingham, Dupont, Clémence. "Les privilèges des clercs sous Constantin"' RHE 62 (1967),
March L 97 5 (Birmingham, 1977). 729-52.
nor¡ ¡. n Ã'Crr tory of the"Latei Roman Empire from Arcadius to lrene,2 vols. Dvornik, Francis. The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge' 1948)'
(London, 1889). Dyggye, Ejnar and Egger, Rudolf. Forschungen in salona,3 vols. (vienna,l9l4-
_:Á Li¡siåry Lot* Romøn Ernpire from the Death of Theodosius I 39).
"rîh,
to the Death of Justinian,2 vols. (London, 1923)'
Falkenhausen, Vera von. "Monasteri e fondatori di monasteri a Costantinopoli
H,, and Rémondon, R. "sens et emplois deTo oros dans les documents
cadell,'papyrologiques," tra Costantino Magno e Giustiniano 1," Corsi di cubura sull'arte rauen-
REG 80 (1967), 343-49' nate e bizantina 26 (197 9) , 1 5 1-5 5 .
C"-pU".tüj.-ï.";ih.'Otigin and M911ing-of the Christian Use of the Word Fedalto, Giorgio. La chiesa latina in oriente, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Verona, 1981).
Ekklesia," /TS n.s. 49 (1948),130-42' Feine, H. E. Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte (Yleimar, 1950).
canart, P., Cupane, c., et al. studien zum PAtriarchatsregister uon Konstantino- . "Ursprung, Wesen und Bedeutung des Eigenkirchentums," MIOG 58
pel (Yienna,l98l). (1950), 195-:208.
Chalan'donì Ferdiáand. Essai sur le regne d'Alexis ler Comnène
(1081-1118)
Felten, Franz. Abte und Laienäbte irn Franþenreøå (Stuttgart' 1980)'
(Paris, 1900). Ferradou, André. Les biens des monastères à Byzance (Bordeaux' 1896)'
Charanìs, Peter. "À{onastic Properties and the State in the Byzântine Empire," Filson, F. V. "The Significance of the Early House Churches," ,fBL 58 (1939)'
DOP 4 (1948),53-118. 105-12.
"1hs ùottk'át an Element of Byzantine Societ¡" DoP 25 (1971), 6l-
Fitzgeral{, G. M. A Sixth Century Monastery at Betb-Shan (Scythopolis) (Phila-
84. delphia, 1939).
clarke, Elizabeth. "Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine Advancement: A Para-
-. ão* of Late Ancient Christianit¡" ,ATR 63 (1981)' 240-57 '
Frank, Kârl Suso. Grundzüge der Geschichte des christlichen Möncbtums
(Darmstadt, 1975).
Clover,-Frãnk. "The Family and Early'Career of Anicius Olybrius," Historia 27 Frazee, Charles. "Late Roman and Byzantine Legislation on the Monastic Life
(1978),169-96.
'';Emphyteusis from the Fourth to the Eighth Centuries," CH 57 (1982),263-79.
Comfort, H. among the Papyri"' !'egyptus 17-(193.7-)'-3.-24'
"St. Theodore of Studios and Ninth Century Monasticism in Constan-
õãr,rt"r,í.lor, Demeirios J. Byzãntine Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New tinople," Studit Monastica 23 (1981), 27-58.
Brunswick, N'J., 1968). Frend, W. H. C. "Town and Countryside in Early Christianit¡" SCH 16 ('l'979),
C.u,o, \í.it.r
E*ing. ';A Use of the Term 'Catholic Church'," PSBA 27 (1905)'
25-42.
17l-72.
jus- Gamber, C. G. Domus Ecclesiae. Die ähesten Kirchenbauten Aquileias (Regens-
Dasron. Gilbert. "Les moines et la ville: Le monachisme à Constantinople
" qu'"u concile de Chalcédoine (451)," TÛ.M 4 (1970),229-76.' , burg, 1968).
once d'une capitøle: Constantinople et ses institutions de 300 à 451' Gascou, ¡e-an. "Les grands domaines, la cité et l'Etat en Egypte byzantine," T(tM
(Paris,1974). 9 (1985), 1-90.
Dalton, O.lvl. Byzantine Art and Archaeolo-gy (Oxford, 1917)' '¿P. Fouad 87: Les monastères pachômiens et l'état byzantin," BIFAO
-.-¡lfa¡5 31 (l?7:J),307-17' 76 (1976),157-84.
ó"t..*¿t, ¡ean."'Décret inédit de Manuel Comnène," REB
- - . ..óårsier sur le charisticari at," in Polychronion: Festschrift Franz Dölger Gautier, Paul. "Le chartophylax Nicéphore: Oeuvre canonique et notice biograp-
(Heidelberg, 19 66), I 50-65. hique," REB 27 (1969), 159-95.
"Le mouvement ães fondations monastiques au XIe siècle," TÚM 6 "biatribes de Jean I'Oxite contre Alexis Ier Comnène," REB 28 (1970),
(1976), r59--76. 5-s5.
-.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
280
"L'édit d'Alexis Ier Comnène sur la réforme du clergé," REB 31 (1973),
t65-201.
"Jean V I'Oxite, patriarche d'Antioche: Notice biographique," REB 22
(1964), t28-57.
"Précisions historiques sur le monastère de Ta N'rsot't," REB 34 (1964),
128-57.
,.Réquisitoire du patriarche
Jean d'Antioche contre le charisticariat,"
-. REB 33 (1975),77-132.
"Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094). Etude prosopographique," REB
29 (197t),213-84.
C..n"kápiãt, Dino. The Emperor Michael Palaeologus and tlte Wesr (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1959).
Gedeon, Mãnuel. Patriarchiþoi Pinakes (Constantinople'-1-890)'
Gero, Síephen . Byzantine lconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, CSCO'
Vol. 384, Subsidia, Vol. 52 (Louvain,1977).
Byzaníine lconoclasm during the Reign of l-eo II1, CSCO, Vol' 346,
Subsidiø,Vol.41 (Louvain, 1973).
Giovanni, Lució de, chiesa e stato nel codice Teodosiano. saggio sul libro xvl
(Naples, 1980).
Glavinàs, ip*tolor. He epi Alexiou. Komnenou (1081-1118)_peri hieron
,þtuon þ.eimelion kai bagion eiþonon eris (L081-1,095) (Thessalonica,
1972).
Goodchild, R. "A Byzantine Palace at Apollonia (cyrenaica)," Antiquity 34
(t960),246-s8.
Grabar, Andié. Martyrium, Recherches sur le culte des reliques et I'att chrétien
antique,2 vols. (Paris, 1943-46). ,
..Lés monuments paléochrétiens de Salone et les débuts du culte des mar-
tyrs," in Disputaiiones Salonitanae 1970, ed. Zeliko'Rapanió (Split,
t975),69J4.
B. ,itacte de fondation d'un monastère dans les ptovinces grgqlggs. drl
Granié,'Bas-Empire
au Ve et au VIe siècle," in Mélanges Cbailes Diehl, YoL 1
(Paris, 1930), 101-5.
,,Das Klosiárwesen in der Novellengesetzgebung Kaiser Leons des lù(/ei-
seî," BZ 37 (1931),61-69.
,,óie privatìechtliche Stellung der griechischen Mönche im V. und VI.
-.
Jahrhundert," BZ 30 (1'929-30), 669 J 6.
r..htii"he Stellung und Organisation der griechischen Klöster nach
----:..iDi.justinianischen
dem Recht," BZ 29 (1929)' 6-34.
Grashof, Otto. "Die Gesetz der romischen Kaiser über die Verwaltung und Ver-
äûsserung des kirchlichen Vermögens," AKK 36 (1876),793-274-'
..Die Gãsetzgebung der römischen Kaiser über die Güter und Immuni-
taten der Kirãhe unld des Klerus nebst deren Motiven und Principien,"
AKK 36 (1876),3-5r.
Griffe, Elie. La Gaule chrétienne à l'époque rorn^ine,3 vols..(Paris, 1947-65).
G;itñ.¡*, 4., and Bacht, H., eds. D7s'Konzil uon Chalkedon: Geschichte und
Gegenutart, 3 vols. (ìÙlurzburg, 195 1-54).
,,L'affaire de Léon de Chãlcédoine: Le chryso-b-ulle d'Alexis Ier sur les
Grumel, Vl
objets sâcres"' Etudes byzantines 2 (194+)' 126-33.
"TaÍÍaire ie Léon de Chalcédoine: Le décret ou 'semeioma' d'Alexis Ier
Comnène (1086)," EO 39 (1941-42),333-4L.
"Blastarès (Mathieu)," Catholicisme 2 (1949), 84-85'
BIBLIOGRAPHY 281
Lø chronologie (Paris, 1958).
.,ChronologË patriarcale au Xe siécle: Basile ler Scamandrenos, Antoine
Scandalios lãStùdite, Nicolas II Chrysobergès," REB 22 (1964),45-17'
..Documents athonites concernant l'afÍaire de Léon de Chalcédoine," in
Miscellanea Giouanni Mercati, Vol. 3 (Vatican City, 1946),116-35'
,.Nicolas II Chrysobergès et la chronologie de la vie de Syméon le Nou-
veau Théologien," REB 22 (1964),253-54.
"Nicon d. l"a Mont"gne Noire et Jean IV (V) I'Oxite: Remarques chron-
ologiques," REB 2t (1963)' 270-73.
,,ies pairi"tches grecs d'Antioche du nom de Jean (XIe et XIIe siècles),"
EO 32 (1933), 279-99.
"Les réponses canoniques à Marc d'Alexandrie," EO 38 (1939), 321-
33.
Grumel, V., I-aurent, V., and Darrouzès, J,' Les regestes des actes.du,pø^triarcat
áe Constantinopie,Yo¡ 1: Les actàs des patriarcbes, Fascicles 1-3 (Chal-
cedon, 1932-47), Fascicles 4-6 (Paris, t97 1-79)'
Guillou, André. "La classe dei monaci-proprietari nell'Italia bizantina (sec. X-
XI¡' Economia e diritto canonico," Bulletino dell'Istituto Stotico ltaliano
per il Medio Euo 82 (1970),159--72.
.Haas, Christoþher. "Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the
Church, e'.o.257-260,' CH 52 (1983)' 1'33-44.
IÙ(/ohltätigkeitanstal-
Hagemann, H. R. "Die rechtiiche Stellung der christlichen
ten in der östlichen Reichshälfte," RIDA 3 (1956),265-83'
Die stellung der Piae cøusae nach iustinianischem Rechte (Basel, 1953).
au
Hajiar,
" 'X. Joseph. "Lã synode perrnanent dans. I'Eglise b11a¡r-tin9-des^origines
siècle," Orientalii Christianø Analecta t64 (1962),21-4.3'
--
Halkin, François. Bibliotheca hagiograpbica gr^ecL,3rd ed. (Brussels, 19-57).
Hardy, Edwaid,y. fh, Large E*atis of Byzantine Egypt (New York, 1931)'
Heiseíberg, l. inibliographische Notizen), BZ 19 (1910), 589-8-9,. -
;'Balsamon," in DDC, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1937),-cols' 76-83:
Herman, Èmil. -
706-3s.
,,Das bischölliche Abgabenwesen im Patriarchat von Konstantinopel
vom IX. bis zur Mitte des XIX. Jahrhunderts," OCP 5 (1939)' 434-513'
"Charisticaires," in DDC, Vol. 3 (Paris, 1939), cols' 6ll-17' . ..
-. ,,.Chiese privaie' e diritto di fondazione negli ultimi secoli dell'impero
bizantino," OCP 12 (1946), 302-21'.
"Die kiichlichen Einkúnfte des byzantinischen Niederklerus," OCP 8
(1942),378-442.
"Le professioni vietate al clero bizantino," oCP-10 (!?.44),23:4.4'
"Die Regelung der Armut in den byzantinischen Klöstern"' OCP 7
(1941.),406-60.
-. ,,Riiáche sulle istituzioni monastiche bizantine: Typika ktetorika, car-
'in OCP 6 (1940),293-375'
isticari e monasteri'liberi',"
"The Secular Church," CMH, Vol. 4 (2nd ed'), Pt' 2 (Cambridge,
-. 1966),104-33.
"La istabilitas loci' nel monachismo bizantino," OCP 21 (1955), 115-
42.
"Zum kirchlichen Benefizialwesen im byzantinischen Reich," SBN 5
(1939),657--71.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 283
282

Elisabeth. Ecclesia in re publica. Die enttuicklung der"Kircbe uon Klauck, Hans-Josef, "Die Hausgemeinde als Lebensform im Urchristentum,"
"-
Herrmann,
MTZ 32 (1981), 1-15.
orridostøatlicher zu staa¡licb inkorporierter Existenz (Frankfurt, 1980).
Kaiserzeit (Leipzþ, 1'896)' , Hausgemeinde und Hauskircbe im frühen Christentum (Stungart, 1981)'
His, R.'Die Domänen der römischen , .,
A. System des justinianischen Kirchenuermögensrecåúes (Stuttgart,
ü;i;,ï" "r,¿ Vit"", G. *The Trier lvory,Âdventus Ceremonial, and the Relics Knechr,
1905).
ôf St. Stephen," DOP 33 (1'979),113-33'
Honoré, Tony. iribonian (London, 1978)'. Konidaris, l. V. fo Dikaion tes monasteriakes periousias Lpo tou 9ou mechri
üÑy;l;;;: "Byzantine'Monastícism," in CMH, Vol' 4 (2nd ed')' Pt' 2 (Cam- kai tou 12ou ainos (Athens, 1979)'
bridge, 1966), L6l-84. Nomiþe theorese ton Tnonasteriakon typiÞon (Athens, 1984).
"Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios," i¡ Fontes Minores, Vol. 5, ed'
Dieter Simon (Frankfurt, t982), 33-106'
Arcb-
Iameson. Andrew. The Responsa and Letters of Demetrius chomatianus, Krasnozhen, M. "Kommentarii Alekseya Aristina na kanonicheskii sinopsis,"
"'"'--- tiriio of ochrida and Bulgaria, diss. (Harvard universit¡ 19f 8). vv 20 (19t3),189-207.
il.irrpt ¡, e:cclésiasiique' de I'empire bl111tin, P¡' 12.L,1 siège de ..Die Testamenre der Ãbte des Phoibammon Klösters in The-
¡^nin,î.'îí
" patriaicat oecuméniqugi ygtt 2t -Les églises et les
Krause, Martin.
Constìntiiople et le ben," MDAI Cairo 25 (1969), 57-67.
1975); V9], 3: Les églises
ioiiit¿rtt 'd/,5 grardi centres byzantins (Paris,(Paris, Krautheimãr, Richard. Early Christiøn and Byzantine Architecture, 3rd ed. (Bal-
et les lnonastares ¡de Constantinoplel, 2nd' ed' 1 969) '
timore, 1979).
Krüger, Gerda. Die Rechtsstellung der uorþonstantinischen Kirchen (Stuttgart,
XIVe siècle)," REB 22 (1964),5-44' 1935).
(1933)'
"Les monastères nati;naux et provinciaux à Byzance," EO 32 Krumbacher, Karl. "Ktetor, ein lexicographischer Versuch," IF 25 (1909)' 393-
429-37. 427.
,,Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine (1204-1267)'"
Kurth, Julius, "Ein Stück Klosterinventar auf einem byzantinischen Papyrus,"
Etudes byzantines 2 (7944), 134 -84' BN/ 1 (1920),142-47.
iipsálios et le Mànastèie ta Narsou," BZ 44 (1951), 293-9*01
to"nnou,-p.
(Princeton,
Í;;;;;;À. c" ,r¿ west, L. C. Byzantine Egypt: Economic studies Lampe, G. \ü. H. APatristic Greek Lexicoø (Oxford' 1961).
,.Anekdoton keimenon peri tou hagiou Lazarou Galesiotou,"
1949).
.,ct'u.ch Finance in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,'' JTS n.s. l| Lamþsides, O.
¡on.,, R. rl. r'1. Theologia 53 (1982), 158-77.
(1960), 84-94. Lassus, Jean. Sanctuaires chrétiens de Syrie (Paús,1947).
Suruey,
The later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social and Administratiue Laurentl Vitalien, "Charisticariat et commende à Byzance: Deux fond-ations pa-
American Ed',2 vols' (Ñorman, Oklahoma, 1964)' triarcales en Epire aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles," REB 12 (1954),100-113'
H. M.. Martinãale, J' R., ánd Morris, J' The Prosopograqhy of the "L'oeuvre canonique du concile in Trullo (691-692)," REB 25 (1'965),
"Iones. A.
-. Lot", Roman Empire,2 vols. (Cambridge, 1971-80)' 7-41.
Leclercq, H. "Alexandrie," in DACL, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, cols. 7098J182.
der Papyri hôpitaux, hôtelleries," in DACL, Vol. 6, Pt. 2, cols. 2748-
Kaosomenakis. srylianos. voruntersucltungen zu einer Grammatik
' der nach-Christlichen Zeit (Munich, 1938)' 70.
Kav. nichard.
,,Benedict, and Donations 'Mortis Causa' in the 'Regula Lefebvre, Gustave. "4p"," rn DACL, Vol. 1, Pt' 2, cols. 2494-2500.
-.':'Hospices,
' Magistri'," RB 90 Justinian,
(1980)' 169-93-' "Deir-el-Abaid,' in DACL, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, cols. 459-502.
K""hdar,, Ã. p. Ágrørnie òtnoth'eriya u Vizantü XIII-XN zu.
(Moscow, 1952). Lemerle, Paul, "Un aspect du rôle des monastères à Byzance: Les monastères
_: ?p;eãvarTtehie zamechaniya o mirovozzrenii vizantiiskogo mistika X- donnés à des laTcs, les charisticaires," Acadérnie des Inscriptions et Belles-
XI w. Simeon a," Byzantinoslauica 28 (7967),1-38' Lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l'année 1967,ianuier-mørs (Patis,
1.967),9-28.
(1971),48-70. Cinq études sur le Xle siècle byzantin (Patis, 1977).
of the "Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources e^t les prob-
Karhdu'n,,q.'þ. t*itir Simon Franklin). Studies on Byzantine Literature
Eíeuenth and Ttuelfth Centuries (Cambridge, 1'?84)' lèmes," RH ZIg (1958), 32-74,254-84, and220 (1958)' 43-91' now in
Engliéh translation by Gearóid Mac Nincaill as The Agrarian Hktory of
.
p. "La domut ecclesiae cristiana del III secolo a Dura-Europ-o.s in
^- - 'il4;;;potamia,,,
Kirschjáhann
Byiantium from the Origins to the Tiaelfth Century (Galway, 1979).
ii stud¡ dedicøti alla memoria di Paolo ubaldi (Milan, i'Recherches sur les inititutions judiciaires à l'époque des Paléologues,
1937-45),73-82.
degli antichi titoli.cristiani di Roma," i¡ Atti del III II: Le tribunal patriarcal ou synodal," AB 68 (1950),318-33.
congresso
""."it.red¡ ítud¡ romani, ed. c. G. Paluzzi (Bologna, 1934),
"n(&toncile "'Roga'et rente d'état aux Xe-XIe siècles,"-REB 25 .(1967),7^7-100'
Vol. 1, PP. 39-47. Lenox-Conyñgham, Andrew. "The Topography of the Basilica Conflict of R.n.
--;ôriginã
p¡¿ í¿*¡t"lrt, Titelþ.ircben im Ahertum (Paderborn, 1?13)'. 385/6 in Milan," Historia 31 (1982),353-63.
Kitzinger, Êrnst.
,,4 Survey of the Early Christian Town of Stobi"' DOP 3 Levchenko, M. V. "Tserkovnie imushchestva V-VII vv. v vostochno-rimskoi im-
(1946),81-762. per1i," VV 27 (1949),11-59.
-.
 -T
BIBLIOGRAPHY 285
284 BIBLIoGRAPHY

The Donor and His church Model in Medieual Art from Nystazopoulos, M. G. "Ho epi tou kanikleiou kai he ephoreia tes en Patmo
-''-' -k;;tyElizabeth.
Lipsmeyer,
Christiøn Times to tbe Late Romanesque Period, diss. (Rutgers Uni- mones," Symmeikta I (1966),76-94.
versit¡ 1981).
Lo-brrá, Àíít ed. Constøntin V, empereur des Romains (740-775) (Paris' 1902). Oeconomos, Lysimaque. La uie religieuse dans I'empire byzantin au temþs des
Comnènes et des Anges (Paris, 1918).
,,The coptic Archive of Dioscorus of Aphrodito," chronique Oesterle, G. "De monasterio stauropegiaco," Il diritto ecclesiastico 64 (1953),
MacCoull, Leslie.
450-60.
d'Egyqte 56 (1981), 185-93.
Oikonomidès, Nicolas. "Monastères et moines lors de la conquête ottomane,"
fvf".rid*ÏÉlodore, Mango' Cyril, et al. "The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Südost-Forschungen 3 5 (197 6), l-10.
öamii) at lstanbul," DOP 18 (1964),249-'115'
É""t. "fn" Byzantine Holy_ Man in the Twelfth Centur¡" in Tbe Ostrogorsk¡ George. History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, N'J.,
frl"gdrlin;,
" Bvzantine Saint, ed. Sergei Hackel (Birmingham, 1981), 51-66' . 1,969).
"Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium," DOP 25 (1971),3-
t,t"lr, õ'.ittude. .,Thé papyriof Dioscoros: lublications and Emendations,"
"*'-'
lri¿¡ ¡i onorc d¡ Ai¡stide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, Vol. 2 (Milan, 32.
Pour I'histoire de la féodalité byzantine (Brussels, 1954).
L957),345-56.
"Pour I'histoire cle l'immunité à Byzance," Byzantion 28 (1958), L65-
M"-alakes,'i . p. To Hagion Oros (Atbos) dia mesou ton aionon (Thessalonica,
254.
197r).
Manaphes, k. A. Monøttrriaka þpika-Diathekai (Athens, 1970)'
M;üã; Cyril. ,.Historical Introdúèrion," in lconoclasm, ed. A. Bryer and J. Her- Papachryssanthou, Denise. Actes du Prôtaton (Paris, 1975) : Archiues de
rin (Birmin gham, 1977), l-6. I'Athos, Vol. 7.
Märlia. .'ihe Value oï Donations to Church Treasures (keimelia) in the "La date de la mort du sébastocrator Isaac Comnéne," REB 2t (7963)'
-- "-p",ri"rchate
-Manso.
of Antioch in the Early Christian Period," BSCT (1981),52. 250-:25 5 .
Martin, E. J. A History of the lconoclastic Controuersy (London, )9101', BZ 12 (1903)' 449-93.
Pargoire, J. "A propos de Boradion,"
it{;;;.;". l"ean. Catalogu'e général des antiquités égyþtiennes du
Musée du Caire: "Constantinople: Le couvent de I'Evergétès," EO 9 (1906),228-32,
' fafryrus grecs d;époque byzantine,3 vols' (Cairo 2.191:l:16.).'. .. ^, 366-73 ; EO l0
(1907), 15 5-67, 259-63.
"Rufinianes," BZ I (1899), 429-77.
(l9ll),426-8t. "Les Saints Mamas de Constantinople," lRAlK 9 (1904),261'-316.
Vf"th.ùr, i-ltårn"r. The Earty Churches of Constantinople: Arcbiçecture and Lit- Petersen, Joan. "House-Churches in Rome," Vigiliae Christianae 23 (1969),
urgy (lJniversity Park, Pa.' l97l)' .
264J2.
iípiivate' Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture:
.
Toward a Re-appraisal," Pfanmüller, Gustav. Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung Justinians hauptsäcblicb auf
Cahiers ørchéologiques 30 (1982), 125-38' Grund der Nouellen (Berlin, 1902).
Meates, A.V. Lullingstoie Roman Villa, Kent (London' 1955)' Pfeilschifter, G. "Oxyrhynchos: Seine Kirchen und Klöster," in Festgabe Alois
placide de.be monachico statu iuxta disciplinatn byzantinam (Vatican
fuf.àr,.i, Knöpfler geøidmet (F reiburg, 19 l7), 248-64.
City,l'942). Polyzoides, K. Th. Ho uasileus kai hoi laiþoi eis to en genei dioiketiþ.on ergon tes
Miller, iilottty. îhe ø¡rth of tbe Hospital in the Byzantine Etnpire (Baltimore, eþklesias epi Alexiou Komnenou (1081-1118) (Thessalonica t979) '
'
Puza, Richard. "Gründer einer Gemeinde und Stifter einer Kirche oder eines
1985).
,.Il Cristianesimo ad Ossirinco secondo i papiri," BSAA 9 (1937), Klosters in der christlichen Antike," AKK 151 (1982)' 58--72'
Modenã, G.'
254-69.
Morris, Rosemary. "The Political Saint of the Eleventh centur¡" in The Byzan' Rémondon, Roger. "L'église dans la société égyptienne à l'époque byzantine,"
îine Saint,' ed' Sergei Hackel (Birmingham, 1 98 1 ), 43-5 0'. Chronique d' Egypte 48 (1973), 254J7.
,1Ta charìstika kai eleuthera monasteria," Theologia 34 (1'963)' "Le monastère alexandrin de la Métanoia était-il bénéficiaire du fisc ou
Moutzourès, J.
536-69 and 35 (19 64), 87-123, 27 l-304' à son service ? " iî Studi E. Voberra, Vol. 5 (Milan , I97 7), 7 69-81.
Ringrose, Kathryn. "Monks and Society in Iconoclastic Byzantium," Byzantine
,,Das Toleranzgesetz des Licinius," HJ 74 (1955)] 44-61. Studies 6 (1979), 130-51.
Nesselhauf, Herbert.
Centuries of Byzantium (Cam- Robinson, Gertrude. "History and Cartulary of the Greek Monastery of St' Elias
ñ*ãi, boí"td. Church and Society in tbe Last and St. Anastasius of Carbone," OC 1'l (1'928),270-349 and 15 (1929),
bridge,1979)'
l,Eã.íesiastical Relations between the Despotate of Epirus and the King- 178-27 5.
Robinson, Olivia. "Private Prisons," R/DA 15 (1968)' 389-98.
dom of Nicaea in the Years 1215-1239," Byzantion 22 (1.952),207-28.
Rouillard, Germaine. L'administration ciuile de I'Egypte byzantine (Paris' 1928).
\üaldemar. Die Diataxis des Michael Attaleiates uon L077'¿ Ein Beitrag
-Nissen,'zur Geschicbte des Klosterwesens im byzantinischen Reiche (Jena' 1894).
O¡i nri"lung des Klosterutesens im Rhomäerreiche bis zum Ende des 9. Santifaller, L. Beiträge zur Geschicbte des lateinischen Patriarchats uon Konstan-
(Hamburg' 1 897). tinopel und der uenezianischen Urkunden (1204-1261) (Weimar, 1938)'
J ahrbunderts

-
 --T rì

BIBLIOGRAPHY 287
286 BIBLIOGRAPHY
,,Les privilèges de I'Eglise à l'époque des comnènes: un rescrit inédit de
à Rotne et à
sarrazin, A. Etudes sur les fondations dans l'øntiquité en þLrticulier Manuel Ier Comnène," T(îM 1 (1965)' 325-91.
Byzance (Paris,1909).
Scheltenía, H. J."'Byzantin. I-"*," in CMH, Vol' 4 (2nd ed')' Pt' 2 (Cambridge' ..4 Byzantine Ecclesiastical Reform Movement," MH n.s.
1.966), 5 5-77 . Thomas, John Philip.
Schlumbergéi, Gustave. (Jn empereur byzantin øu Xe siècle;
Nicéphore Phocas t2 (1984),1-16.
(Paris,1890)' "Ìhe Crisis of Byzantine Ecclesiastical Foundations, 964- t025," BF 9
S.hrnid, ff. i. "Byzãntinisches Zehtwesen," !OFG 6 (1957)' 45-110' (1985), 255-74.
é.ttrnl,ú Th. "Kahrie-Djame," IRÁIK.11 (1906)' 1-306' "A Disputed Novel of Emperor Basil II," GRBS 23 (1983)' 273-83'
..The Ê.ise of the Independent and Self-governing Monasteries as Re-
5.r^¡"" 1y.';N"t"iu.t.r oiigin.r religieuses des paroisses rurales," RHPR 15 _.
flected in the Monastic þpika," GOTR 30 (1985), 2l-30.
(1935), 243-54.
Nicéphore
-. "sisinnius II: A Reform Patriarch of the Reign of Basil II," BSC 9 (1983),
5*¿."ùà, ifrá" , niuart sur la polémique entre.'fhéodore Métochites et premiers
Choumnos, La uie iniellectuille et politique à Byzance sous les 54-55.
Tiftixoglu, V. "Gruppenbildungen innerhalb des konstantinopolitanischen Kle-
Pøléolo gue s (Brussels, L9 62)'
Cã.Á.-o.áting Sisinnios,'Curator' of Tzurulon (n.p. ius während der Kommenenzeit," BZ 62 (1969),25-72.
5 6!J
813)," BYzantion 3 5 (1965)' Till, Iíalter C. "Datierung und Prosopographie der koptischen Urkunden aus
;ñicolá" Crbasilas"'Anti-2ealot' !'.
Discourse: A Reinterpretation," DOP Theben," SO,AW 240,Pt.2 (Yienna, L962)'
-:-,:i;sciiption
1l (1957),80-171. ,
Troianos, Sp.
¿,Ein
Synodalakt des Sisinios zu den bischöflichen Einkünften," in
,,Theodore tU.tã.hit.r, the Chora and the Intellectual Trends of His Fonies Minores, Vol' 3, ed. Dieter Simon (Frankfurt, 1979),211--'29'
-: Til;;; i"Þ"d Underwóod, Kariye Diami, Vol' 4 (Princeton' 1975)' 19- Tromble¡ Frank. "Monastic Foundations in Sixth-century Anatolia and Their
55. Rõle ln the Social and Economic Life of the Countryside," GOTR 30
Skabalãnovit ch,M. Vizantiiskoe gosudarstuo i tserþou u
Xl ueþe (St' Petersburg, (1985),45-59,
1884). Turner, HaroÍd. From Temple to Meeting Place: The Phenomenology of Places
(Louvain' 1980). of WorshiP (The Hague, 1979).
skoul"tor, Basile. Les personnages þyzantins .de I'Alexiade
s polouinv lX do
õ;k;i;;, i"; t. Sostoliin¡e moiashestua u uizantiiskoi tserkui
,,Mneniya
nacbala XllI ueþa (842-1204) (Kazan,1894)' uspenskii, Th. i postalovleniya tonstantinopolskikh p^gmestnikh so-
Sokolov, Þt",o' P. TserkàunoimushLbestuennoe
prrtuo u greko-rimskoi imperü ' boiou XI i XII ïv. o razdache tserkovnikh imuschestv (Charistikarii),"
(Novgorod, 1896). IRAIK 5 (1900), 1-48.
Sp"tn"ìrtìr,"io"r,nir' Cå,rp"t of Dated llluminated Greek Manus*ipts to the
' Year 1453,2 vols. (Leiden, 1981)' Vailé, Siméon. "Le droit d'appel en Orient et le Synode permanent de Constan-
- náu. r a¡rir xoistant¡n
sp..t,
-Í vÎ., Die Legitimation einer fremden und der ver- tinople," EO 29 (192I),129-46.
such einer eigenen Herrscbaft,2 vols' (M-unich' 1978)' Vasiliev, A,. 1,. tl;story of the Byzantine Empire,2 vols' (Madison, 1952)'
-t""g . in
Stein, óietrich
"*-"' O"î nrgiii-ari by.ia'ntinisch.in Bilders¡eites und seine Entwick- Voelkl, L. Die Kirchenstiftungen des Kaisers Konstantin im Licbte des röntisclten
iit die 4"0er Jahre d9s 8. Jabrbunderls (Munich' !'80)'. .. - Søkralrechts (Cologne, 1964).
der Papyti,".ZSR75, ,.Die konstantinis"chen Kirchenbauten nach den literarischen Quellen des
St.in*.Áiå., Àrtur. "Aus däm kirchlichän Vermögensrechte
þ.a.44 (1958)' 1-34. Okzidents," RAC 30 (1954),99-136.
1.2 (1932)',5,5
'7ivr"ÀiínltJÉ. Mönchstestam ente," Aegyptus ^91' "Die konstantinischen Kirchenbauten nach Eusebius," RAC 29 (1953),
_.,,õi. Ordin",ionrbitt.r, koptischei Kleii'kir," Aegyptus ll (1931), 29-
49-66.
-. 34. Volk, Robert. Gesundheitsu.,esen und Wohbätigkeit im Spiegel der byzantin-
50'
Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Klöster nach den Papyri," ZSR ischen Klöstertyþika (Munich, 1 983).
",¡The
rü(¡ill of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius Boilas
k.a.19 (1930), 1-50' Vryonis, Speros, ¡r.
St.ph"r,ä,
-:,lDie
' i. l;i; ãå;.ir; de Léon de Chalcédoine et ses adversaires sur les (1059)," DOP rL (1957),263--77.
images," OCP 12 (1946),177-9.9' Vulió, N. "Inscription grecque de Stobi," BCH 56 (1932)'29t-98'
:;i'"Ëo.è, d. Léòn de Óh"lcédoine'" qcP 9 (1943),5-64' .

St.u.nr, c. i. oi iørái"ro notto*one' Ánalysis oþeruln ac tnentis iuridicae rùlalke, S. ,,The l)se of. ecclesiø in the Apostolic Fathers," ATR 32 (1950), 39-
c.
(Rome, 1969).
--
Stutz, Ùirich.'Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen
Kir- 53.
'Wenger,
Leopold. "Eine Schenkung auf den Todesfall ,' ZSR 32, r'a' (1911),
chenrechtes (Berlin, 1895)' 325-37.
bis auf
Geschichte ¿rt'ülrUírl|" Benefiziølwesens uon seinen Anfängen '$íipszycka, Ewa. ,,Les confreries dans la vie religieuse de I'Egypte chrétienne,"
die Zeit Alexanders 1Il. (Berlin, 1895)'
Annuaire de
' 'Proteedings of theTwelfth lnternational Congress of Papyrology (To'
Suo.or,ár, Ñi.ol"r' "Hi""ii.-¿èt inst¡í"t¡ons de I'empire þ¡-zi"l9:" ronto,1970), 5Ll-25.
l,EcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes(IVesectio,n)(1975_76),455J6.
 f
288 BIBLIOGRAPHY
"L'Eglise dans Ia chôra égyptienne et les artisans," Aegyþtus 48 (1968)'
130-38.
"Les factions du cirque et les biens ecclesiastiques dans un papyrus égyp-
tien," Byzantion 39 (1969), 180-98. Index
Les ressources et les actiiités économiques des églises en Egypte du IVe
au VIIIe slècle (Brussels,7972)-
Wolff, Robert Lee. "The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,"
Traditio 2 (19 44), 213-37 .
,.The Organizatlon of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinop,le, 1204-
CP Constantinople
126l: So{ial and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest," eccl. ecclesiastical
Traditio 6 (19 48), 33-60. p.r.f. : private religious foundations
"Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1202-1'261," DOP
8 (1954), 225-303.
Abba Elias, nosoþomeion of (Oxyrhyn-
Zhishman, Josef von. Das stifterrecbt in der morgenländischen Kirche (Vienna, chus), 77
Abbesses, I 8
1888)..
Abbots, 54, 7L6, 1.17,1.22, 1.26, 131., 144,
Zorell, Stephan. "Die Enrwicklung des Parochialsystems bis zum Ende der Ka- 147,164,175,176. See also hegou-
rolingerzeit," AKK 82 (7902)' 74-98' ffienoi; proestotes
Abitinae, 11
Abraamios, St. (monastic leader), 55
Accountânts, see Io garistai
Achaea, principality of, 246
adelphata, 208, 211., 233, 237 , 254, 261
adespota,259
adiatimeta,259
Aeion (epitropos),68
Agnaton (peasant), 92
Agrarian legislation, imperial, 126, 145,
1,60
Agricultural labor shortage, 91
Alania, 165
Aiexander fll
(pope), 244
Alexandria, 60, 67 , 81, 91.; katholike ek-
klesia of, 67, 82
Alexios Mousele, Caesar (son-inJaw of
Theophilus), 132
Alexius (son of John II Comnenus),223
Alexius Comnenus, Emperor (1081-1 1 18),
192; defense of requisitions, 1.94, 1.95,
196; indictment of Leo of Chalcedon,
197-98; subsequent requisitions, 200,
202-3; defeat of Patzinaks, 203; recall
of Leo, 204-5 ; reform activities, 205-
9; De iure patriarcbae, 3,207-9,228
Alexius Palaeol ogus (ktetor), 268
Alexius Studites (patriarch of CP), 166,
168-71; frrst hypomnema, 1.68-69,
201; second ltypomnema, L69-70; ef-
fects of legislation, 182, 190,200,
201. , 209 , 21,0 , 23 6
Alienation of church property, 37,51,,52,
56, 57,79,81,11.4, 1,21-22, 1,26,
138, 180, 196, 197, 200, 203, 206,
21.0, 23 5, 23 6, 237, 261, 263, 267,
268. See also ekpoìeseis
allelengyon, 164, 1.65-66, L69, L7 1
Almshouse. see ptochotroPheìon
Ambrose (bishop of Milan), 13
Amida, church oÍ,48, 52
Ammonios, Count (patron), 61; builder of
p.r.Í., 62-63, 70; estate of, 73, 7 5,
89-90, 108-10; financial support of
p.r.f., 68, 7 6, 77, 82, 83, 90, 91, 94-
9 6, 1,04 -7 ; overlord of p.r.f ., 64, 65,
72; registers of, 88-96, 104-10
anakrisis,232
analomata, 52
Anania, St., monastery of (Italy), 175
anaphora, 1.61, 196, 232, 240
Anastasio (sister-inJaw of Attaliates), 180
Anastasiopolis, 1 11
Anastasius, Emperor (491-518), 20, 45,
48,50,52, 55,56,78
Anastasius martyrion (Salona), 12
Anatolia, 1L4,234
Anatolikon, theme of, 128, 130
Andreas (abbot), 65
Andreas, St., monastery of (Calabria), 176
Andreas, St., monastery of (Oxyrhynchus),
69
Andrew (archbishop of Crete), 117
Andrew (bishop of Patras),147
Andronicus II, Emperor (1282-1,328), 250,
252
Andronicus Palaeologus (ktetor), 268, 269
angareia,146
Anna (patron), 116
Anna Comnena (historian), 194,197
Anna Dalassena (mother of Alexius Com-
nenus),193
annonø,31,,172
Annuities, 48,75,1,83-84. See also presbia
annalia; siteresia
Antaeopolis, 81, 94
Anthemiou, Ta, monastery of (Chryso-
polis), 132
Anthologia Palatina, 20, 23, 250
antilambanomene, 223
antileptor,2lS
Antinoe, 94
Antioch, 9,36, 50
Antolius (nephew of Sporacius), 20
Antonina (wife of Belisarius), 22

290 INDEX
Antonius I (patriarch of CP), 132
Anulinus (proconsul of Africa), 12
Apa Agenios, monastery of (Aphrodito),
64, 65, 66, 72, 89, 90, 94, 96
Apa Patemous, monâstery of (Aphrodito),
77
Apa Sourous, monâstery of (Aphrodito),
68,73
Apa Theodore, monastery of (Hermo-
polis), 69
apaitetai,6S
apantetelion, 62,68
aparchai, 30, 56,77,78
Aphrodito, 1,, 61, 63, 64, 7 l, 72, 73, 7 5,
7 6, 77, 81., 83, 87-96, 104-6
Apion family (household), 63, 67, 69, 70'
76, 77, 83,.861 donations of, 84, 86,
98-1,02; p.r.f. of, 83-87,98-102
Apion II, Flavius (patron), 86
apokrisarios,3S
Apollinarian sectaries, 19
Apollinopolis, church of, 82
Apollos (protoþometes), 61', 62, 64, 65,
72,73, 116
Apologia of Justin Martyr' 8
Apologia contra Arianos of Athanasius, 14
apomoirai, 30,77
ap otagai, 1.83, 206, 207-8
Aquileia, battle of, l9
Arcadius, church of (Alexandria), 60
Arcadius, Emperor (395-408), building ac-
tivities, 60; legislation of, 22, 26, 27,
28,29,33
Archbishops and their sees, 145, 156
Archdeacons, 65
Archiepiscopal monasteries, 144
Archimandrites, 69
Archistrategos, monastery of the (Armen-
tum),177
Architects, 45
Architecture (eccl.), 144
archon, 1.22
Areobindus (husband of Juliana Anicia),
24
Arian sectaries, 73, 1'6, 32, 35, l1'8, 124;
their churches, 34
Aristenos, Alexios (canonist), 229
Aristomachus (governor of Egypt), 43
Armenia, 145
Armeniac theme, 154
Arsaver (patrician), 128
Arsinoe, nome of,67
o s), 67- 68,
Artemidoros, Flavios (ep itrop
73
Aspasios (brother of Pakourianos), 222
Astras, George Synadenos (ktetor), 267
-
Athanasios (abbot of Ta Melana), 175
Athanasios Philanthropeno s (b e goumeno s),
21.2,223
Athanasios the Athonite (monastic leader),
149, 216, 218; his diatYPosis, 21'8
Athanasios, St., monastery of (Italy), 175
Athanasius (bishop of Alexandria), 14-15,
19, 6l
athroisma, S
Attaliates, Michael (benefactor), 179-85 ;
as charistikarios, 182, 1'87; diataxis
of, 180-84, 218 organizational pref-
erences, 218,219
Aulikalamos (tax collector), 120
Aurelian, Emperor (27 0-27 5), 10
autexousios, 207 ,214
autodespota, 155,214
autourgion, L26,210, 236; cf. 170
Auxentios, St., church of (Chaldia), 163'
260
Auxentius, St. (monastic leader), 22; mon-
astery of, 118, 1'19, 1,20
Bakers and bakeries,6' 77, 1'83
7 Benefices, 49,173. See also klerikata offi-
Baldwin, Emperor (1204-5), 246
Balsamon, Theodore (canonist), 228-29 ;
and the canonical tradition, 236-38;
opinions on: benefices, 211'; the char-
istìþe, 213, 230-31', 233-34, 259 ;
clerical income, 234-36; financial
support and exploitation of p.r.f.,
229 -30, 232-33 ; legalitY of Private
chapels, 229; pluralism, 226, 236'
245; secularization of p.r.f., 234; stau-
rop e gia, 230, 240 - 41 ; tYP i ka' 230-32
Baptisms and baptistries, 87, 11,5, 142'
't70
Barachos of Bakatha (bishoP), 45
Barbara, St., church of (lberia), 1'72-73
Bardas Phokas (rebel leader), 154
Bardas Skleros (rebel leader), 1'54,1'69
Bari,177
Barlaam (monk), 258
Barle¡ grants of,75; rents in, 92
Bartholomew (h egoumeno s), 242
Bartholomew, St., church oÍ (kaly),1'77
Basil (Athonite monk), 176
Basil I, Emperor (867-886)' 136' 139;
building activities' 21', 25, 1'38-39;
recognition of patriarchal stauroþ e 8i4,
t39
Basil II, Emperor (976-1'025), 1.43 ' 147 '
154, 155, 172;law onthe allelengYon,
164-66, 1'69, 17 1', 187; novel of 988,
154-55, 228; novel Peti ton dYnøton,
160-62,216; role in the charistiþe,
INDEX
158-60; support of the Lavra monas-
tery,215-1,6
Basil-Blasios (patron of Armentum), 176-
77
Basil of Euchaita (metropolitan), 195,196,
204,205
Basil the Great, St., monastery of, 154
Basil the Parakoimomenos (regent for Basil
rr), 154
Basil, St., monastery of (ltaly), 178
Basilica Porciana (Milan), 13
basilicae, 1,3, 14, 1L7 , 136. See also lmpe-
rial churches
Basiliþa, 139-40, 155, 173, 231, 259
basiliþa monasteria, 207. See ø/so Imperial
monasteries
li kos koura I or, I 3 I
ba si
Bassus (praetorian prefect), 46
Baths, 8, 29
Baths of Myrtinus (Rome), 8
Belisarius (general of Justinian), 22, 46
behiosis, 1,58, 251,, 257
Benedictines, 248
þia
Besarion (brother of Apollos), 72, 89
Bessourous (peasant), 92
Bishops, see Local bishop; Episcopal rights
Blasios (brother of Basil-Blasios), 177
Blastares, Matthew (canonist), 259, 260;
his Syntagma,259
Blessed Virgin, church of (Cornuta), 40
Bohemund (prince of Antioch), 191
Boilas, see Eustathios Boilas
Bosphorus, 1 19
Bouzina, 172,178
Bread, grants of,76,87. See also Eucharis-
tic elements
breuia, 135, 194,195,200,208. See also
Inventories
Bricks, grants of, 75, 85
Bruttium, 50
Building contrâctors, 62
Bulgarian wars, 135, 146, 148,1.65
Burials and burial grounds, 9,16,1,7, 56,
78,158,172,173,1,83
Byzantine culture, Iinguistic conservatism
of,4
Cabasilas, Nicholas (canonist), 263-66
Calendar (of station churches), 8
Canon law, citation of, 1,60, 1,65, 197 ,
202, 210, 221, 226, 229, 23 1, 263 ;
disregard of, 1,34, 142, 23 5, 266;
precedents in, 237, 241, 243, 259,
268; and regulation of p.r.f., 115,
291
1.27, 138, 153, 198, 264, 267 ; reform-
ers' use of, 194,197,202,231,263
Canonists, 17 8, Zl3, 228, 229, 233, 23 5,
244,259
Capital gains, 57
Cappadocia, lT2
Caesareum (Kyriakon), church of (Alexan-
dria),61
Caesarius, Flavius (consul), 1,6-17
Caesaropolis, bishop of, 249
Calidonia, diocese of, 248
Calligraphers; 1.72, 234
Callinicus (hagiographer), 22
Callistus (patriarch of CP), 261
Calones (taxiarch), 17 4J 5, 177
capitatio, 25, 26, 27 , 8l
Cappadocia, 48
Cartularies, 1.74, 251.
Cash donations (to p.r.f.), 45,52,75,98-
101, 105-6, 1.30. See also analomata
Cassiodorus (praetorian prefect), 50
castrum, 17 5
catapan,177
Cathedral churches, 5, 20, 47, 65, 68, 82,
1.12, 1.17-1.8, 1.44,246, 248. See also
Hagia Sophia; þatholikai ekklesiaì
Catherine, St., monastery of (Mount Sinai),
55
Cemeteries, se¿ Burials and burial grounds
Cenchreae, ekklesia in, 7
Census (eccl.), 206
Chalcedon, 2'1,46, 1L8
Chalcedonian reform movement, origins,
19 4 -9 5 ; opposition to requisitions,
19 6, 200, 202, to the cbaristike, 203,
205, 212; triumph of, 205, 247 ; ef-
fects of, 205,2L3,243; extremist re-
formers, 236, 259; moderate reform-
ers, 232, 234, 24'1.; and bishops, 224,
230,231, 238,247, 242,262; and
canon law, 1.97 , 259; and clergy, 262;
and independent monasteries, 219,
220,223; and patriarchs, L99,200,
204, 20 5, 259, 261 ; and patrons, 230,
249
Chaldia, theme of, 163
Chalice, 14
Charisius (illustris), 45
Charisius (lector), 38-39
charistikarìoi, 157-59, 1.61., 162, 1.781,
rights of, '1,32, 187,188, 190, 208,cf.
209; abuses of, 158, L69,1.70, 1.74,
182, 1,89, 1,91,, 206, 2 12; monks as,
1,67, cf. 177; powers limited, 199-
203, 205-8, 234 ; Íate oÍ, 279, 240.
See also pronoetai
 _-

292 INDEX INDEX 293

charistike, definítion of, 1'57 ; forerunners Cistercians, 248 Constantine Vlll, Emperor (1025-28), Cyriacus (patriarch of CP), 112, 115
of,53,115, 1,57,177; origins and ciuitas,33 171,216 Cyril of Scythopolis (hagiographer), 45, 55
purposes of, 156, 158, 168, 1'86; Íea- Classical Roman laq 38, 40 Constantine IX Monomachus, Emperor Cyrus (patriarch of CP), 117
tures of, 157, 163,1.64, 168,190 Claudian (pagan poet), 21 (1042-5s), 21.7,218
episcopal participâtion in, 161; impe- Clement of Alexandria, 8 Constantine X Ducas, Emperor (1059- Dalmatus, monastery of (CP), 50
rial participation in, 159, 1.64,247; Clerg¡ contracts for services of, L74' 175, 67),218 Damideias, monastery of, 154
patriarchal participation in, 1'56, 163, 177; deposition of,170; families of, Constantine Líps (drungarios), church of dapanemata, 53,75,207
164-66,209; threat to p.r.f., 1'62, 96, 126-27 , 21'l; flight of, 49, 57 , (CP), 1 44 ; monastery of (CP), 249 Dara,48; church of,55
167, 173, 174, r78, 180, L84, 21,4, 114,126,127; as founders of P.r.f., 3, Constantine Prasinos (ktetor), 260 David Palaeolo gus (ktetor), 268, 269
216,220,231; beneficial use of, 157, L2,L74; freedmen as, 17,132; house- Constantine Spanopoulos (bishop), 239 Deacons, 32, 69, 86
182; abuses of, 166, 768--70, 245 ; de- hold furnishings of, 86; insubordina- Constantinople, 13; cathedral church of, Decapolis (lsaurian), 131
fenders of, 164-65, 21'3, 227' 233, tion of, 170; legacies Ío475,1'72-73; 47,48,50,51, 56; conquest by cru- decuriones,2S
237; opponents of, 160, L63,1'86-92, limits on numbers of,27-28,50-51' saders, 241, 244; graín dole of, 81, Dedicatory offerings, s¿e Votive offerings
197,203; reform of, 168-71,1'96, L13-14, 182, 225 ; military service of, 91; imperial churches in,5, 123; pa- defensores curialium, 33
1.99-202, 204, 205; fate oÍ, 21'1-13, 146,148; nutritional needs of, 84; triarchate of,47,56; populace of, Demetrios Contostephanos (þtetor), 258
223,234,237 private nomination of,74; rights and L20,138; p.r.f. in, 15; public churches Demetrios of Bothrotos (bishop), 241.-42
Charitable distributions, 79 , 83, 1.11' 1,51, stâtus of, 83, 84, 163, 172, 262, 266; in, 1 16; qvarter ta Probou, 16; short- Demetrios of Domokos (bishop), 242,243
783,264 secular employments of, 69-7L, L34, age of clergy in, 236 Demetrios, St., monastery of lPokobion),
Charsianites, monastery of (CP), 266 1.37,234-35. See also Household; Im- Constantius II, Enrperor (337-361'), 1'5, 242,243
perial; and Rural (peasant) clergy "1.6,34; award of tax exemptions, 25- Demetrius, St., Basilica of (Thessalonica),
chartophylax, I68
cbartoularios, 65 Co dex Th eodosianus (Theoðosian Code), 26; building activities, 61 1L7-18
Chomatianos, Demetrios (canonist), 241- 3,31 Contracts, 174, 17 5, 177 demiourgos,250
4Z collatio lustralis, 25, 26, 28 conuenticula, 11.,31 demosia, 81,82
Chora church and monastery (CP)' 45, collegia, 7 5 Convents, 168,261,. See also Nunneries demosia monasteria, 207
118,131, 133,252,255 coloni,28 conuentus, 31,36 demosiake epereia,225
choregia, 49, 5 L, 7 5, 1'41' Colonna, John Cardinal (papa| legate), 247 copiae,32 demosìakoi,225
choria, 12,34,41.,48, 1.1.2, L46 Commemorative masses, s¿¿ Memorial ser- Coptic canon law, 74, 82, 83 designare, 53
Choteachobou, monastery of, 241 vices Coptic Christians, 78, 82 despoteia, 1.0, 171.,772, 175,191
chresis, 172 Communal (proprietary) churches, 160, Coptic churches,96-98 despotes, S9
Christ, Jesus, 7 161, t62, 163 Coptic sources, 60, 69,74,80 diaþoniai, 79, L69
Christ Chalke, church of (CP)' 154 Communion, '120,235. See also Eucharis- corpus Christiønorum, 11 diamone,157, 168, 188
Christ Panoiktirmos, monastery of (CP)' tic elements Cosmas (hegoumenos), L7 8 diaria,1.74,1L8
179 conductores, 32,34 Cosmas I (patriarch of CP),193-94 diataxis,12,180,185
Christ Philanthropenos, monastery of (CP), Constans II, Emperor (641-668), 1,1.6 Cosmas II Atticus (patriarch oÍ CP),21.2 diathekai,2'19
212,260 Constantina, 13. See also Ckta Council of Antioch (326),229 diatyposis,2lS
Christ-bearing Apostles, monastery of the Constantine (archbishop of Nicomedia), Council of Chalcedon (451.), 37-38, 47, diþaia, 1.88
(Aphrodito), 61,64,72 120 55; disregarded , 67 , 69, 1.1.2, 276, dikaia episkopiþa,232. See also Episcopal
Christodoulos (monastic leader), 219 Constantine (metropolitan of Kyzikos), 230; influence of its legislation, 39, rights
Christopher (char istikarios), I 5 9 209-L0,21,L 40, 41. , L1.4, 2L 5 , 217 , 22L dikaion tes gonikotetos, 25 5
Christopher Phagoura (patron), 1'67,'17 6 Constantine (oì konomos), 17 7 Council of Constantinople (381), 1.6,124 Diocesan clergy, 141, 142
cbrysika, 91, 92, 94 Constantine, Emperor (306-337), 14; Council of Constantinople (536), 42, 43 Diocesan (episcopal) monasteries, 144,
Chrysillos Christodoulos (priest of Or- award of tax exemptions , 25,27; Council of Constantinople (861), 133-36, 152, 155, 1.5 6, 161, 233, 243, 246
vieto),177 building activities, 13; impact of con- 140, 142, 146, 1 52, 15 5, L61,, r78, Diocletian, Emperor (284-305), L0, 12
Chrysobulls, 1.59, 2L6, 225, 226 version, 12; legislation of, 1'2' 25 227,230,231 dioikesis,63
Chrysonike, monastery of (CP)' 130 Constantine II (patriarch of CP), 119, Council of Hiereia (754),1L9,120, L3l dioiketai,65
Chrysopolis, 11.6, 167 L20-22 Council of Nicaea, Second (787),122, diorthosis,20T
Chrysostom, John (archbishop of CP), 18, Constantine IV, Emperor (668-685), fl6 125-27, 1.31., 137 , 142,270,226, Dios, monastery of (CP), 125
27, 59,77; homily on idealized estate Constantine V, Emperor (7 4 1-7 7 5), 1'1'9 - 236,263 Dioscorides, manuscript of, 24
church,29-30,32,36 22, 1,25, 128, 186; building activities' Craftsmen, 46 Dioscoros (phrontistes), 64, 73, 88
Churches, see Cathedral; Communal (pro- 130 Cross, 43 Diptychs, 22,24, L97
prietary); domus ecclesiae; Imperial; Constantine VI, Emperor (780-797), 123 Crusaders, 234, 244, 245 dometores, 243. See also Founders; ktetor;
Monastic proprietary; Patriarchal; Pri- Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Emperor Curators (of eccl. property), 1.26, L3l. See ktistes
vate; and Public churches (9 44
-9 5 9), 148 ; D e ødmini strando also kouratores dominium, 13
Chysis, church of, L1 imperio, 144; legislation of, 1.45, 15L, curia,28 dominus, 27, 33. See ø/so Landowners
Cirta, 10. See also Constantina 1.53,162 Cyprus,17l Domokos, diocese of, 248

294 INDEX
dotnus, 33,36
domus diuina,48
domus ecclesiae, 7, 8-9, 10, 11, 16, 30
donarii, 35 . See also Votive offerings
donatio mortis causa, 40
Donations, to p.r.f., seeBarley; Cash; eÈ-
phoria; Fruits; Landed property; Me-
morial services; prosphola; Vinegar;
\Vine
Donatist sectaries, 13
dorea,207. See also charistike
Dorotheus (patron), 43
Dowries,234,256
Dristra, battle of, 199,201.
drungarios, 144
8-9
Dura-Europos, domus ecclesiae at'
dux,65
Dyrrachium, 193
ecclesia,3l
ecclesia catbolica, see þ.ath olikai eþklesiai
Ecclesiastical hierarch¡ see Archbishops
and their sees; Local bishop; Metro-
politans and their sees; Patriarchs of
Constantinople
"Edict of Milan," 11
Egypt, Arab conquest and rule of, 60, 81,
82, 83; idiosyncrâtic nature of' 60;
monasteries of, 62; Persian occupation
of, 66; private prisons in, 70-71; pt.f.
in, 60, 7 L, 82-83 ; secularization ab-
sent in, 71; taxation of churches in, B0
eisodemata, 257 ,260
ek ton tbemelion,9
eþþlesiai,25l
ekklesiastika cboria, 1.2, 48
eþþlesiastiþø offikiø, 113
Ekloga (law code), 136
ekphoria, 7 5, 88-90, 109
ekpoieseis, 200,267 . See also Alienation
eleutherø monasteria,207. See also lnde-
pendent monasteries
Eleutherius, St., orâtory of (CP)' 38
Eliamus (lay benefactor), 58
embole, 81.,91., 92, 94
Emperor, the. behaves like a private
founder,58; as founder in EgyPt' 60;
private property of,48; rights of pa-
tronage, 14, 61,,1'14. See also Imperial
rights
Emphyteutic leases, 67, 73, 79, 94, 138
empisteutheisa tes dioikeseos, 55
enaþogruphoL29
Endowment of religious institutions, 64;
options: see Benefices; Donations;
_T
Landed propertyi prosodon; Pros'
phora; Salaries; features: see breuia;
Furnishings (interior); Inventories. See
also moira; ousia
Engineers, see mechaniþoi
engraphon prostagma, L88
Epanagoge (law code), 1.36-39
epauxesis,257
Epbesians, use of architectural terminology
in,7
Ephesus, ekklesìa of,7
ephoreia, 207 218-20, 25 3, 25 5, 25 6,
" epitropoi, 68,86,21.8,'222.
257 ,258,261
Ephors, examples of, 180, 21'8, 249 ; he-
reditar¡ 261, 262; private appoint-
ment of, 1.80, 23I, 249; patriarchal
appointment of, 252, 253, 25 5; rela-
tionship to charistike, 21'2,219; rights
an<l duties of,255,257
Ephraem (patriarch of Antioch), 5 1
epi tou kanikleiou, 218,2L9
epi tou koitionos,46
epidosis, 1,46-1,7; endorsement of, 165,
197, 233; episcopal use of, 250, 251,
252,254,262; opposition to, 156,
160; patriarchal use of and rights in,
1.46-47 , 157, 1'58,206,207; regula-
tion of, 1.69,20L
epimeleia,6S
ePirneletai, 68. See also Estate managers
Epiphanios, St., monastery of (Kerasos),
1,65
Epiphanios, St., monastery of (Thebes), 61
Episcopal monasteries, s¿¿ Diocesan mon-
asteries
Episcopal residences, see episþopeia
Episcopal rights, appoint clergy, 27, 36,
49, 5 3, 7 0, 1.1.4, 16l, 21.0-11, 232;
approve construction of p.r.f., 37, 39,
42-43, L34; close churches, 127;
commemoration in liturgY, 16I,232
(see also aftaphora\; consecrate ab-
bots, 54-55, 112, 134, 224, 231, 232,
cÍ.147 (see also sphragis); consent to
private liturgies, 41, 11.5, 133; con-
struct churches, 44, 242, 250; correct
spiritual errors, 161 (see also dior-
fåosri); curtailed by typika, 231', and
by independent monasteries' 240; ded'
icate p.r.f., 43, cf . 229; donate monas-
teries, 259 (see also epidosis); expel
clergy in p.r.f.,232; financial oversight
of p.r.f., 44,232 (see also eþileresis);
inherit clerical estates, 28; inspect
p.r.Î., 254 (see also episkepsis); legal
INDEX
basis for, 231-32; participate in char-
istike, 1,57 ; provide financial assist-
ance to p.r.f., 83, 155; repair of
churches, 83, 135,215; spiritual au-
thority over p.r.f ., 37, 54, 232, 237,
243,265 (see also anakrisis); super-
vise philanthropic foundations, 54.
See also dikaia episkopika
episkepsis,254
episkopeia, 63, 125,'1.29, 170, 1.82, 234
epistanai, 54
epiteresis, 207, 232
See ¿/so Tiust-
ees
epoilzia,64
esomonitai, 188, 208, 246, 25 4
Estate managers, 63, 67, 84,.85, 91,, 222,
235. See also epimeletai: ftteizoteroi;
pronaetai; Property m n gerï proteþ-
tor
Estate registers,76,84,85, 87-88, 89, 94,
95
Estate treasuries, 63
Eucharistic elements (offerings of), 77, 83,
85, 1,46
Eudaimon, Count (patron), 76
Eudocia (daughter of Irene Comnena), 223
Eudocia, Aelia (wife of Theodosius II), 24
Eudoxia (empress), 22
Eudoxia, Licinia (empress), 23
Eudoxius (bishop of CP), 16
eukteria, 15, 1 I1, 1.26, 1.61-63, 25L. See
ø/so Private oratories
eu þtæiolnaos, see Priv ate oratories
eukterioi bikos,'1.6, l4l, 229, 230, 240,
243. See ¿/so Private oratories
eulogiai,236. See ø/so Eucharistic elements
Eulogios (monk of Arcadia),71.
Euphemia, St., church of (CP), 23
euprosoda,236
Eusebia (Macedonian deaconess), 16
Eusebius (keimeliarchos), 51, 58
Eusebius of Caesarea (church historian),
10,1.2
Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arian bishop), 14
Eustathios (son of Philaret the Merciful),
129
Eustathios Boilas (magnate), 1.71, 1.78,
181; will of, 171-74
Eustathios of Thessalonica (metropolitan),
227
Eustathios Rhomaios (jurist), 163, 168,
260
Eustratios Garidas (patriarch of CP), 193,
19 5 , 196, 1.98, 1.99, 200
,t
29s
eiltbenia,168
Euthymius (patriarch of CP), 155-56
Eutropius (minister of Arcadius), 22
Eutyches (archimandrite), 39
Eutychian (bishop of Dara), 55
Evagrius (church historian), 51, 55
Excommunication, sanction of, 115
Executors, testamentar¡ 79-80
exkousseia, 187, 225, 226. See a/so Taxes,
exemptions of
exomonitai, 1 88, 208, 209, 211,, 25 4
Factories, 37
facuhates,32
Financial accounts, 66. See also Estate reg-
isters
Firewoocl, 75
First fruits, 30
Florus, monastery of (CP), 117 125
Fortifications, 246
'
Forty Martyrs in Mese, church of (CP),
't32
Foundation charters, 1,49, 170, 212-2L3,
239,243. See ølso stauropegia; typika
Founders, 39,49,51', 53,63,64' 150' 186,
230,243. See also ktetor; ktistes
Founders'heirs and families,53; dying out
of, 135, 1,52, 1,61, 1'80,219; litigation
among, 222; responsibilities oÍ, 1,72;
restrictions on, 180-81; rights of, 54,
97, 147, 1,56, 172, 177-78, 180, 181,
182-83, 184, 188, 255
Founders' responsibilities, 47, 53, 256-58;
maintain typikon,254; support of
clergy, 49, 54
Founders' rights, 1, 53-58, 230, 244, 253;
appointment of abbots, 1-34,222, of
ephors, 180, 218,2L9,231, of monks,
254, of philanthropic administrators,
54; burial in p.r.f., 56,78,173,783,
2I7, 222,255; can be overridden, 44,
1,47,253; donation of property to
p.r.Í.,264; draw up tyPikon,232; Ê-
nancial perquisites, 56-58, 7 1" 21'7,
221, 232-33, 25 5, 25 I ; memorial ser-
vices, 56, 82, 183, 2L7 ,222,254;
nomination of abbots, 54, o( clerg¡
27, 53, 5 6, 70, 7 1,, 21.0, 254, cÍ. 232;
preferential admissions, 21.7, 222;
rental of property (usufruct), 91; resi-
dence in p.r.f., 255; spiritual inspec-
tion of p.r.f., 254. See also ktetorikon
dikaìon
Franciscans, 248
Free and self-governing monasteries, see
 _--

296 INDEX INDEX 297

Independent (self-governing) monas- Hagia Sophia, church of (CP)' 10' 18; Iconoclasm, First Age of, 118-22; Second Irene Doukaina Comnena (wife of Alexius
teries clergy in, 20,2'l', 50,51, 113-14; en- Age of, 130-33 Comnenus), 203,223
Fruits, grants of, 173 dowment oÍ, 739, I44, 146, 148; im- Iconoclastic clergy 131, 132 Irene Palaeologina (patroness), 268-69
perial rights in, 5, 14; officials of, 1'28. Iconoclastic monasteries, 122, 1.31 Irene Secontaruri, domus ecclesiae in, 14-
fundus,33
Furnishings (interior), of eccl' institutions, See also Constantinople, cathedral Iconodules, ll8, 122, 1.23, 124, 131, 133 15
158, 163, '1.72,173 church of Icons, 125, 1,96, '1,98,203,204 Isaac (Syrian monk), 17
Hagia Sophia, oratory of (Barr),1'77 idioperiorista, 170 Isaac Palaeologus (uncle ofJohn V),261
Galatia, 23 Hagios Sion, monastery of, 35 Ignatius (patriarch of CP), 130, 133 Isaac the sebastocrator (brother of Alexius
Galerius, Emperor (305-31i)' edict of tol- Hathor, 74 Imperial churches, 5, 1.2, 1.3, 14, 15, 60, Comnenus), 193, 1.94, 204
eration,11,12 Flebraika, monastery of (CP)' 130 123, 225 ; benefactions to, 1.61-62 Isaac I Comnenus, Emperor (1057--59),
hegoumene, L8. See also Abbesses (see also solemnia); dedication of, 61; 193
Gallienus, Emperor (260-268), 9
Gardens, 177-7 I , 268 hegoumenoi, consecration ai, 2L5, 224, rights of patronage in, 14, 61. See also Isaac II Angelus, Emperor (1185-95),228
Gelimer (Vandal king), 23 231.,232; founders as,116, 134; he- basilicae Isaak (owner of church), 71
Gemma (patroness), 177-78 reditary transmission of, 178; icono- Inrperial cler gy, 1.3 6 -37, 22 5 Isaias (patriarch of CP), 254,258,259,
Gennadius (patriarch of CP), 38-39 clast, 13 1; iconodule, 124, 125, 1'33; Imperial curatorship (of eccl. property), 262
George (benefactor), 80 of independent monasteries' 21,2,21'5 1.29,130,132, 138,159 Ischyras (Meletian priest), 14-15, afraft ol,
' Imperial monasteries, 11.6, 123,124, 128,
George II Xiphilinus (patriarch of CP), 21,9;laymenas, 117, L18; magnates 1,9

240-41,242,252 as, 145; restrictions on,208; tenure 130, 144, 17 5, 791,21,2, 21,6, 21,9, Isidore of Pelusium, 8
George Charzana (Athonite monk), 175 of, 181, 2'12; under the cbaristike, 223,258, 262; awards of to laymen, Ision (orphan of Irene Secontaruri), 14-15
George of Cappadocia (mystic), 212 158,175,188,189,190 130, 132, 159, cf. 155-56. See also Islamic law, 83
George of the Cypresses, St., church of Heliopolis, 13 basilika monasteria Italy (Byzantine), 17 4, 178 ; Norman con-
(cP), 183 Hellas, theme of, 175 Imperial religious foundations, 4, 44-46, questof,175,176
George the Praepositus, St., monastery of Henr¡ Empero r (1'20 5 -1' 6), 24 6 62, 1L5, 136-37, 1.39, L57 iudices,33
(Paphlagonia), 129 Heraclius, Emperor (670-641), 116; legis- Imperial rights, appointment of esomoni- iuga,26
George, St., Attaliates' monastery of, L82 lation of, 51,,1.13-1.4, 126 tai, 188, oÍ exomonitai,20S; approval ius corporis, 1.1
George, St., church of (Sykeon), 111 Heresy, charge of, 198 of episcopal elections, 149; confiscate ius patronatus,244
Georgians,222 Heretics, see Religious sectaries (eccl.) propert¡ 264; overcide canons,
georgos,9l. Herman, Emil, 1 235; ratily tyþika,23l; set aside testa-
Gerasimos (Italo-Greek monk\, 1'7 4 -7 5 Hermaous (owner of church), 71 ments, 264; validate donations, 264 Jacob (proeslos), 80
Germanus I (patriarch of CP)' 117, 118 Hermopolis, 66, 68, 81; cathedral church Imperial treasury, 29, 127 , 13 1; lessee of Jeremias (oi þo domos), 62- 63
Germanus II (patriarch of Nicaea), 242 oÍ,65,66,68,71 public church property, 138; officials Jeremias, monastery of (Arsinoe), 82
geroÞotneia, 3, 46, 115' LL6 Hesychast movement, 263 of.,144; receipts for expenditures, 45; Jerusalem, 13, 18
gerokomeion of Narses (CP)' 46' 115 Hilarion (Italo-Greek monk), 175 recipient of confiscated churches, 41, Jews, 41
gerokomeion of Peter the Patrician (CP), Holy Apostles, church of (CP)' 5 57. See also res priuata Joannikios (bishop of Ezova),262
46 Holy Sepulcher, church of the (Jerusalem), "lndependent" (private) monasteries, 4, Joannikios (illustris), 65
gerokomeion of Severus (CP), 116 51,58 62, 9 5, 144, 21.5 . See also idioperior- Johanna (patroness), 80
seroþomeion of Stephen (CP), 115 Holy Trinit¡ monastery of the (Kava), 176 ista Johannes (singoularis), 68
Õerontios (brother of Aurelios Pageos), 74 Homoousion, monastery of the (Oxyrhyn- Independent (self-governing) monasteries, Johannes, Count (patron) , 65,74
Graptoi brothers (iconodule spokesmen), chus), 69 4, L7 5, 17 6, 180, 183, 207, 21,2, 231, John (brother of Flavius Phoibammon), 68
131 Honorius, Emperor (39 5-423), legislation 249i defended by Cabasilas, 263-64; lohn (ch artoular io s), 87
Gratian, Emperor (375-383)' legislation of, 33 donations of p.r.f. to, 179, and ephor- lohn (epi tou koitionos),21.8
of, 19, 28 Honorius III (pope), 246,247 eia, 218-201, exempt from charistiþe, John (metropolitan of Athens), 201
Greece, 171 horos, 119 232; and local bishops, 239; opposi- John (son of Calones), 175
Greek Orthodox Church, institutional Hospitals, see nosokomeia tion to, 227, 228; origins oÍ, 214-1.6; John (treasury official), 55
structure of, 2 Hostels, 37 preeminent position oÍ,251; as re- John II Comnenus, Emperor (1118-43),
Gregorian reform movem ent, L7 9, 243, House churches, see domus ecclesiae builders of churches, 240,251; and 223,226
244,246 Household clergy, 17, L40-43 reformers, 223, 224; under Latin rule, John V Palaeologus, Emperor (1341.-91.),
Gregory (hegoumenos of Florus), 117 Hypatius (monastic leader), 22 248 261,263,265,266
Gregory (b e goumeno s of Petritzionitisse), hypodektes,6L,72. See a/so Estate treasur- Innkeeping, 734. See ¿/so Taverns John V the Oxite (patriarch of Antioch),
222 Innocent III (pope), 245,246,248 186, 202-3, 204, 273 ; condemned by
Gregory (monk), 147 hypomnemata, 765,201' inquisitores,33 Balsamon, 233; critique of the chøris-
Gregory (patriarch of Antioch), 55 hypoffines¡s of the archons, 206-7 lnstitutes of Justinian, 38, 40, 259 tike, L86-91.; De monasteriìs, 1.86,
Gregory Nazianzus (bishop of CP)' 10 hypothecation, hypothecated revenues, 48, Inventories, 135, 152, 1,78. See also breuia; 203,220; anð p.r.f., 191-92
Gregory of Nyssa, 9 94,95,117,129,133 praktikon engrapbon John IX Agapetus (patriarch ofCP),209,
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 9 hyþotyposis,29 Irene, Empress (797-802), 123, 127, 128; 234,261
Guesthouses, see xeno do ch eia building activities, 723 -24 John XIV Calecas (patriarch of CP), 259-
Guiscard, Robert (Norman prince), 193, Irene Asania Philanthropena (patroness), 64,26t
196-97,223 Iberia, theme of, 172 261, John of Antioch, see John V the Oxite
 --r
298 INDEX
John of Cappadocia (praetorian prefect), þ.anoniþon, 215 , 240, 249, 252, 257 ' 266
22 kaPnika,128
lohn of Ephesus (historian), 46,52,58 Kariye Camii, mosque of (CP), 252. See
john of Fiephaestopolis (Monophysite ø/so Chora church and monastery
leader), 52 Karpianos (patron), 116
Þarþophorià, 260. See a/so Votive offerings
fohn Philanthropenos (kretor), 258
john the Baptist, St., Probus' church of Kastoreon,131
(cP), 16 Kata Christianon logoi of Porphyry 9
kata dorean, 161.. See also charistiþe
John the Baptist, St., Theodora Palaeologi-
na's church of 4CP),249 þatholikai ekþlesiai, 5, 6, 12, 1'3, 14, 16,
61, 1.22, 1.25,1,40, 1.43,1.69, L82,
John the Evangelist, St., monastery of
(Pat-
mos), 219 229. See a/so Public churches; Cathe-
dral churches
John the Psichaite, St. (monastic leader)'
1.24, 126-27 ; Lite o1, 126 katoiþeterion, T
þeimelia,'1,92. See a/so Sacred vessels
John Triakontaphyllos (Aretor)' 258
keimeliarchos, 51,58
John Tzimisces, Emperor (969-97 6), 1,53-
54, r91.,217. kellia,153
kleisurarchos, 117
Joseph (priest of HermoPolis), 65
julian, Empero r (3 67-3 63), 26 klerikata offikia, 21'1'. See also BeneÊceS
kleros Ierados, 72, 73
Juliana Anicia (patroness), 23-24, 250
koimeteria,9
Justin II, Emperor (565-578)' 49' 55;
building activities, 2I, 115 ' 117 þoinobia,220
Justin Martyr, 8 Kom Ombo, 62
justina (mother of Valentinian II), 13 þomai,34
justinian, Emperor (527-5 65), 22; impe- kosmika katagogia,2l0
rial founãations, 5, 44-46; building þoubouþlesios, 177
activities, 25, 44-46, 61, 1'38-39; leg- Kouloukes, Leo (renegade abbot), L22
islation on ordination of slaves, 28- þouratoreia, 1.26, 731'
'l'46,235 . See also
29; persecution of religious dissidents, kouratores, 64, 66,74,
34-35; use of classical Roman law, Curators
38, 258; legislation on financial sup- þrites,21.8
port of eccl. foundations, 40,47-53' ktetor, 252, 25 3, 25 4, 25 5, 25 6, 257, 258'
173; systematization of regulation, 260,2.61,, 262, 267 . See ølso Fotnd-
40; eccl. legislation, 40-44, 253; leg- erc; ktistes
islation of iights of private benefac- þtetoreia, 253, 256, 258, 266, 269 ; honot-
tors, 53-58; restoration of churches, ary, 252, 25 5, 25 6, 257, 260 ; sharcs
53, 115, 151; and P.r.f. in EgYPt' 61, of,259
þ.tetorikon dìþaion, 253,260,267 . See also
62, 63, 67, 71, 74, 7 5, 81, 82-83, 85'
94, 95; limits on rental of church Founders' rights
property, 73; fate of eccl. legislation, þtetoriþon diþaiòn ensoriasth esomenon,
1'n, 11.2, 1.13, 1,14, l2o, 1.25, L26, 255
134, 135, 136, 138, 139-43, 193, ktistes, 53,64,1.50. See also Founders;
237,259,261 ktistes
kyriakon diþaion,232
Justinian II, Emperor (685-695' 705-711'),
1.17, L18 kyriotes,1.80
lustos (oìkonomos of Arsinoe), 67
lustos (waterpourer of Oxyrhynchus), 87 Labor services (compulsory), 146, 255-56.
Juvenal (patriarch of Jerusalem), 52 See also angareia; demosiaþe epereia;
munela sordida; ruralia obsequia
Kaine ekþlesia (New Church) of Aphro- Lachonodrakon, Michael (strategos)' 12L
dito,72,89 Lakape, imperial monastery of, 145' 148
Kaisarios, Count (founder), 64 Lampardopoulos, John (Patron), 216
kalliergia,186 Landed property (eccl.), donation of,40,
Kallistos (patrician), ll9, 120 48, 91, 9 5, 9 6, 1,17-18, 129, 133,
Kallistratos, monastery of (CP)' 125 135, 145, 173,177,183 (see also aqo-
Kalonymus, monâstery of Theophanes on, tagai) ; lease of , 7 2-7 3, 126, 7 5 9 ; laY
123 mânâgement of, 129, 160; requisition
INDEX
of, 198, 263. See also autourgion
Landowners, 30,70, 84, 88, 96. See also
dominus; Magnates
Latinianum, eparchy oÍ, 177
latreia,1.98
laurai,153
Lavra, monastery of (Mount Athos), 149,
153, 57, 2L6-17, 218, 21,9
1.
Lawrence, St., church of (CP),24
Lay brethren, 1,90. See also philoponoì
Lazaros of Mount Galesion, St. (monastic
leader),217
Leaseholders, 32, 159, 202
Lectors, 32,38-39
leitourgia,25S
Lenrnos,250,267
Leo (father ofJohn the Psichaite), 126-27
Leo I, Emperor (457-471,),legislation of,
32,39,41
Leo III, Emperor (7 17-7 41), 1 18, 136
Leo IV, Emperor (77 5180), 119, 122,
123, L28
Leo V the Armenian, Emperor (813-820),
130-3 1
Leo VI, Ëmperor (886-912),137; building
activities, 155-56; legislation oÍ, 139-
43, i55, 1.60, 170, 1,73, 229, 230,
237,259
Leo Katokoilas (courtier), 155-56
Leo Modas (ktetot),267
Leo of Chalcedon (metropolitan), 1.92;
protests against government requisi-
tions, 1,9 4 -97 ; trial and exrle, 197-
98; effect on reformers, 199,200,
202,203, 213; recall and reconcilia-
tion, 203-5; condemnation of aliena-
tions endorsed, 268
Leo of Nauplia (bishop), 224
Leo the Deacon (historian), 154
Leo the Great (pope), 39
Leo the Philosopher (courtier), 132
Leontius, Emperor (695-698), 117
Licinius, Emperor (308-324), 11', 16
Liturg5 expenses of, 182; contracts for
performance of, 17 5 ;private celebra-
tion of, 41, 1 15, 133, 136, L4L, 144;
processions curtailed, 1.43-44. See
¿/so Eucharistic elements
Local bishop, the, 39, 44,49,55,70, 1'1,2,
1.1.4, L33, 135, 136, L37 , 1,6'1,,21,3,
21 5, 217, 221., 224, 230, 231, 232,
237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 246, 25 1,
254,257,258
Local magistrates, the, 43,82,218
logaristai,235
Iogos phorou,92-95
Iogotbetes tou genìkou, L1.7, I27 , L29
rì
299
Lucania, 50
Luke (brother of begoumenos Theodore),
1,78
Luke Chrysoberges (patriarch oÍ CP)' 226'
232,233,235
Luke Tromarchos (patron), 176
Lydus, John (historian), 58
Macarius (partisan of Athanasius), 14
Macedonian sectaries, 16, 17
Macedonius I (bishop of CP), 16' 34
Macedonius II (patriarch of CP), 50
magistros, 155,'164
Magnates, 1,12, 126, 1.29, 138, 142, 145,
148, 154, '1.60, 161, 168, 169, 186-
87,237,242
Makrodoukas, Nicholas (ktetor), 267
Mamas, St., monastery of (CP), 46, L58,
169
Mambre, 13
Manuel, monastery of the magistros (CP),
1,5 5 , L64
Manuel II (patriarch of Nicaea), 242-43
Manuel Comnenus, Emperor (1 143-80)'
224 ; enðow ment of monasteri es, 226-
28; use of tax immunities , 225-26'
228,236
Manuel of Stroumitza (bishop), 224
Manuel Philas (epigrammist), 250
Manuel Xenophon (logothete of Serres),
262
Marcellina (sister of Ambrose), 14
Marcellus (pope), 13
Marcian (jurist), 38
Marcian, Emperor (450-457), 39
Marcionite sectaries, 12
Mare the Solitary (Monophysite monk)'
44,45-46, 52
Maria (nun), 171
Maria (p r ot ou e stiar i a), 203
Maria Akropolitissa (patroness), 258
Maria Palaeologina (daughter of Michael
vtII),258
Maria Sklerina (protospatharia), L69
Marina, St., oratory of (Chrysopolis), 167,
176
Marinos (protouestiario s), L 48
Maritza, battle of, 263
Markets, 29
Martiniakos (courtier), 133; monastery of
(cP), 133
martyria, 1.2, L6, 44, 45
Mary of the Mongols, St., convent of, 261
Matthew I (patriarch oÍ CP),257 262,
'
266-69
Maurice, Emperor (582-602)' 111' LL2,
21,2, 215 ; building activities, 27' 1'15
 -- rl

INDEX INDEX 301

300

ffinemosyna, 254, 257 ,258 Nicephorus I, Emperor (802-81,1), 1,27- nosomomos,65

Maxentíus, Emperor (306-312), l1'
Maximinus Daia, Emperor (309-313)' leg-
islation of, 12
mecbanikoi,45
Meditatio de nudis pactis, 1'83-84,222
megalos saþþelarios, 200
meizoteroi, '1.26
Melana, Ta, imperial monastery of (Mount
Athos), 175
Melania the Elder (patroness), 18
Melania the Younger (patroness), 18
Meletian sectâries' 71
Memorial donations (for the dead), 76' 78
Memorial services, 5 6' 7 5, 7 6, 141' 189,
251
Menas (archdeacon of Hermopolis), 65
Menas (notarios of Hermopolis)' 68
Menas (oikononos of Oxyrhynchus)' 67,
74,87
Menas (pagarch of Antaeopolis), 81-82
Metanoia, nunnery of (CP)' 49
Metaxas, John (patriarch al offrcial)' L94'
204
Methodius (patriarch of CP)' 133
metocbia, 176,251
Metochites, Theodore (patron)' 252, 25 5
Metropolitan monasteries, 144
Metroþolitans and their sees, 122, 145,
136, 157, 16L, 162, 1'65, 1'69, l7o'
201., 21.0, 212, 21 6, 230, 23 4, 242,
260,265
Michael (bishop of Limne)' 240
Michael (bishop of Synadon), lZ4' 125
Michael (patrician), 1'24' 129
Michael (Proestos of Lavta), 17 6
Michael I, Emperor (811-813)' L29-30,
131
Michael II, Emperor (820-829)' 1,31
Michael III, Emperor (842-867),1'32' 133
Michael III (patriarch of CP),239,242
Michael VIIiPalaeologus, Emperor (1259-
82),247,248,249
Michael Glabas (ktetor), 25 0
Michael Sarantenus (patriarch of Nicaea),
242
Michael the Synkellos (hegoumenos), L31',
133
Michael, St., church of (Katesia), 132
Michael, St., church of (Rhaidestos), 182
Michael, St., monastery o{ (Kataskepe),
))'7 ) )R
Michael, St., monastery of (Mount Auxen-
tias),249
Miltiades (bishop of Rome), 11
Minucius Felix, 8
misthioi,66,68
moira,64
monasteria þosmiþø, 3, 207 . See also Pri-
vate monasteries
Monasteries, cartularies oÍ, 17 4, 25 1;
chapels in, 161; consecrated status of,
203; defended by John of Antioch,
186; independent form of govern-
menr, 149, 18 5, 21.2, 22L, 228, 249 ;
introduction at Cl 16; landed endow-
ments of, 47; monastic refo¡m move-
ment, 21.4, 220; originally p.t.f ., 17;
proprietary form of government, 149'
185, 214, 220, 221', 228. See also Ar-
chiepiscopat; Episcopal; Imperial; "ln-
dependent" (private); Independent
(self-governing); Metropolitan; Pa-
triarchal; and Private monasteries
Monastic proprietary churches, 240, 241,
251,
Monks, entrânce fees for, 1'45,183,206'
207-8 (see also apotagai); free-will of-
ferings of, 208 (see also prosenexeìs\;
inaugural services of' 183; lifetime
maintenance for, 178; nutritional
needs of, 95; as parish Ptiests, 160-
61, 201; secular emploYments of, 69,
235; tonsure oÍ,122,130, 183' 188
Monomachos (ktetor), 258
Monophysite sectaries, 31', 32, 36, 39, 42'
43,52,61,
Montanist sectaries, 34, 118; their
churches, 34, 35
Mortgaging, 51.,94. See ø/so Hypotheca-
tion
Mortuary chapels, 144
Mosaic, donor's, 252, 25 5
Moschus, lohn, Pratum sP ilituale, 38
Mount Athos, 1,74, L75'227
Mount of Olives, monastery on (Jerusa-
lem), 18
,nufiera, 50. See also Votive offerings
muflera sordida, 25,26,27 . See also Labor
services
Municipal advocates, 33, 35
naos hagios, T
Narses (general of Justinian), building ac-
tivities 46, 115
Naval vessels, reconditioning of, 226
Nea Basilika, church of (CP), 136-37, 138
Nestorian sectaries, 32
Nestorius (patriarch of CP), 22
Nicaea, successor state of, 241',247 248,
' 1,25
250
Nicaean creed, 34
29, 1.30, L31, 1,38,21,6
Nicephorus I (patriarch of CP), 128, 130
Nicephorus II Phocas, Emperor (963-969),
1,45, 1,48, 149; legislation of, 150-53,
1S 6, 1.61 , 226, 227 , 228
Nicetas I (patriarch of CP),1.2L-22, 124,
1,25
Nicholas (son of Calones), 175
Nicholas of Adrianople (metropolitan),
204
Nicholas of Hagios Sion, St., 44
Nicholas of Myra (archbishop), 55
Nicholas I Mysticus (patriarch of CP),
t46-48,156, i58,178
Nicholas II Chrysoberges (patriarch of
cP), 148, L54-57, 158, 169
Nicholas III Grammaticus (patriarch of
CP), election, 196; reform activities,
1,99,200-207, 213,234, 261; rela-
tions with Chalcedonians, 203-5
Nicholas IV Muzalon (patriarch of CP),
21,2
Nicholas, St., church of (Tzermenikon),
241,-42
Nicholas, St., Täronas' church of (Tzer-
menikon), 242
Nicomedia, 1.3,226-27
Nika revolt, 20,25, 53
Nikephoros (epi tou kanikleiou), 21.8
Niketas (lgnatius, patriarch of CP), 130
Niketas (Italo-Greek monk), 178
Niketas (metropolitan of Athens), 201-2,
209,21,1,
Niketas (patrician), L28, 129, 130, 131,
t32
Niketas (son of Philaret the Merciful), 129
Niketas Stethatos (hagiographer), life of
Symeon the New Theologian, 167
Nikodemos (monk of Lacedaemon), 218
Nikon Metanoites (monastic leader), 218
Nikon of the Black Mountain (monastic
leader),220-21
Nomenclature, peristence of, 4
nomos, 1.2
Norman war, L92-93, 1,9 5, 1,96
nosol¿omeìa, 3, 49, 64-65 , 67 , 68, 77
1L7 , 125, 154
nosoþomeion of Abba Elias (Oxyrhyn-
chus), 87
nosoþomeion of Philentolos (Constantia),
1,1,7
nosokomeion of Sabas (Jerusalem), 49
nosokomeion of Theophylact (Nicomedia).
nosokomeion of Zoticus (CP), 154
Notaries (notarioi), 67 , 68, 77 , 87 , cÍ. 234
Novatian sectaries, 34
Numidia, 13
Nunneries, 49,1.32, 182,224. See also
Convents
Nymphas of Laodiceia, 7
Octauius of Minucius Felix, I
oikeioi, T
oìþia,7, 12,18,34
oikodomoi,62,63
oikoi, use as domus ecclesiae, ll
1.44, oikonomia, 1.86,207
oikonomoi, 39, 5 1, 5 6, 67, 68, 69, 70, 7 4,
77,87,97, L24, L46, L77,181,, 1,89,
21,2
Old-age homes, sce gerokomeia
Olybrius, Anicius, Emperor (472), 23
Olympias (patroness), 18
oppidum,33
Optatus of Mileve, 13
Ordination (clerical), 74, 136, 235, 237,
240,265; sureties of candidates for,
74-75
oros of Aphrodito, 88-89, 90,91,92
orphanotrophela (orphanages), 3
Ottomans and the Ottoman Empire,262,
263
ousia,48
Oxyrlrynchus, 63, 68, 69, 70, 7 4, 77,
1.,
83-87, 95
Pachomius (monastic leader), 17
Pagan temples, sacral character of, 38
Pagans, 41
Pageos, Aurelios (priest of Hathor), 74
Pakourianos, Gregory (founder), 1.85, 224;
tyþikon of, 185, 221.-22,223
Palaeologan dynast¡ 247, 248
Palaeologina (protouestiaria), 268
Palaeologus, George (general), 1.95, 199,
204
Palestine, 61
Panberios (ch ar isti kario s), 1. 68- 69
Pankam, Henoch (peasant), 92
Panopolis, lT
, 87,
Panteleimon, St., monastery of (CP), 133,
1,64
Pantocrator, monâstery of the (CP), 223
Paphlagonia, 34
Paphnutios (notary of Oxyrhynchus), 68
Papinian (jurist),38
Papsau, epoikion oÍ,84
Papyrological sources, 59,71, 83, 87, 1'42
parakoimomenos, 115, 154

INDEX
302
þaratnythìdi, 147
Þarishíoners, 56; their free-will offerings,
35, 111, 260 (see also eisodemata;
karpopboria)
Parlement of Ravennika, 245
Patras, diocese of, 146
Patriarchal churches, 175, 240, 243
Patriarchal monasteries, 121, 744, 152,
155, 156, 1.65, 799, 205-6, 209, 240,
243
Patriarchal religious foundations, 115
Patriarchal rights, annulment of grants,
170; appointment of esomonitai, 188'
208, hàþoumenoi,232; aPProval of
abbots, 147; compel restitutions, 206,
207; consent to secularization' 246;
grants in cbaristike, l5T; grants of
itauroPegia, 139, I47 , 21'2, cÍ. 1'1'2;
overlordship, 1 48 ; override tYP ika,
232; oversight, 207,238, (see also ePi
teresis); pationage' 114; rcceipt oÍ ka-
nonikon, 257; restriction of' 207, 208,
249; spiritual correction, 207' 238
(see also diorthosis); visitation, 206,
207,238,254
patriarchiha monasteria,207. See also Pa'
triarchal monasteries
Patriarchs of Alexandria, 61; chancellory
of,66
Patriarchs of Antioch, 191',202
Patriarchs of Constantino ple, 49 ; bureauc-
racy of, 117; chartophylax (chancel-,
lorj of, 168, 200, 20I, 228, 230, 23,9,
241 ; Latin patriarchate, 245 ; megalos
sakþelarios of, 220 ; reform activities
of, 1,99--207, 259, 261; sYnodal court
of, 769, 193, '1.95, 798, 201-2, 209-
lo, 2r1, 212, 226, 233, 260, 261"
267,268 (see also sYnodos ende-
mousa)
Patriarchs of Nicaea, 24I,242
Patronage, 56
Patronesses, 7
Patrons, 116; grounds for removal, 181;
legal relationship to foundation,2' See
aÈo Founders; Founders' heirs and
families
Patrons' abuses, conducting illegal litur-
gies, 133, 136,1'41; cutting off sup-
þort for p.r.f.,49, 56-57; embezzle'
ment of iunds, 181; exaction o{
simon¡ 55; failure to prevent aliena-
tions, 181 ; imitated by charistikario,i,
188; insufficient endowment of p.r.f.'-
47, 143; maintenance of unsupervised
clergy, 134,136; neglect of structural
_ll.-
INDEX 303
maintenance, 83,173,181, 182; re- Phoibammon (peasant), 92 of autonom¡ 152,224; on landholcl-
Phoibammon, Flavius (physician of Arsi- ings, 32, 54; owned and bequeathed
fusal to build planned p.r.t.,43-44,
95i of stauropeg,ia, 238-43; uncanon- noe),68,78,82 by clergy, 96-97, 25 5 ; patronal titles
Phoibammon, St., monastery of (Thebes), of, 85; relationship to patrons, 178;
ical employment of clerg¡ I34,737
61,66,80,179 sale of, 3, 17 , 4L,7I, 257,258, 260;
Patrons' rights, see Founders' rights
phoros, 89, 93, 1.09-1.0 shares of ownership in, 60, 177 , 259,
Patzinak (Petcheneg) invasions, 198' 799,
photapsiai, l6l 267; suspension of services in, 49,
200,202,203,223
Photius (patriarch of CP), 133,1.36, 1.42, 141,, 184; in Thebes, 96-97 . See also
Paul (Marcionite priest), 12
142n, 164; building activities, 155 p/iùatae ecclesiae
Paul, St. (apostle),7
phrontis,62 Private monasteries, at Aphrodito, 87-96;
Paul of Samosata,9-1,0
phrontistai, 64,65, 66, 68,73,74 autonomy of, 135, 152,178; costs of,
Paul III (patriarch of CP), 117
Phrygia, 34, 35 95; declirìe in numbers, 224; exemp-
Paul IV (patriarch of CP), 122
Paulos (peasant), 84
Physicians, 68 tion from episcopal oversight, 112;
Pinara,44 granted patriarchal properties, 199i
"Peace of the Church," 9
Peasant cierics, see Rural (peasant) clergy
Piperatos, monastery of, 148, 154-55, landed endowments of, 47-48, 117,
156,161, 123,'1,28,152; minimum size for,
Peasant communes' 70, 1'60
Peasants, 29, 30, 89, 90, 9'l', 92, L12, 144'
Pithara, monâstery of (Mount Athos), 175 143; new foundations prohibited,
Placidia (daughter of Valentinian III), 23 151; oppositiorr to iconoclasm, 119;
161, 221,240
Platanion,1l8 privilege of asylum at,'1,1,2; shares of
Pekusios (peasant), 90
Pensions (lompensatory), 181, 184, cf.
Plato (bishop of Krateia), 55 ownership in, 176. See also monas-
Plato of Sakkoudion (begoumenos), L23 teria þosmiþa
1.90. See also ParamYthiai
platysmos, 168 Private oratories, 15, 39, 4L,43,1.'15,1.33,
Perfumer¡ 183
Plein (benefactor), 79 140-43, L67, l70, 1,77-8 5, 201,, 224,
Persians, war with Byzantium, 1'1'4, 1'l'6
Peschate (Coptic layman), 79
Pluralism (clerical), 1.1.4, 127, 226, 23 5, 229,236. See also eukteria; euþterios
Pessinus in Galatia, church in, 58
236,237,245 oiþos
Polycharmos, Tiberius (patron), 10 Private philanthropic institutions, 46,77 ,
Peter (archbishop of Jerusalem), 45
Polychronion, monastery of (Sigriana), 123 83, 85, 115, 1.28, L79-85, 186, 224;
Peter (brother of Maurice), building activi-
ties of, 24 Polychronius (priest), 17 administrators of, 54, 68,145, 180-
Polyeuctus (patriarch of CP), 148, 216, 81.; buying or leasing facilities Ío4 43;
Peter (patriarch al cb artop hy lax), 239
238 new foundations prohibited, 151; reg-
Peter and Paul. Sts., church of, 21
Peter the Patrician,46
Polyeuktos, St., church of (CP),24 ulation of, 39,43; removal of direc-
Porphyry (anti-Christian polemicist), 9 tors, 181
Peto, 94
possesslo, 33 Private philanthropy, benefits oÍ,236; reli-
Petronius (Egyptian landowner), 17
possessores,32 ance upon, 17 , 248; traditional pat-
Pharasmanes (chamberlain), 46
potestates,32 terns of, 150,1,53,214
Phiale, 120
Pous (Meletian priest), 71 Private prisons, 70-71
Philanthropic institutions, 16, 53; laymen
as administrators of, 67-68, varieties
praedia,39 Private propert¡ confused with tenancy,
praepositus, 2'1.8 202; oÍ the Christian communitS 11 ;
of,3. See also gerokomeia; nosoko-
meìa ; orP hønotroqh eit otro' prakteon, T0 right to ownership of, 2, 1,0,28, 40,
; Pto ch
praktikon engraphon,200. See also breuia; 147, 264, 265 ; right in eccl. institu-
þheion ; xenodocheia; xenon
Philaret the Merciful, St' (benefactor)' 129
Inventories tions,2, 155, 163, 778,222,258,
Prebends (monastic), see adelphata 262; this right renounced, 179
Philemon of Colossae, 7
presbia annalia,48,75,1l1. See also An- Private religious foundations, administra-
Philentolos (patron), 1 17
Philialetes (patron), 268 nuities tive oversight of,45; commended by
Prinkipio, monastery of Irene on,123-24
'l
Philippicus (general of Maurice), l6; John of Antioch, 191; confiscation of,
Prisca (lay benefactor), 7 41, 1,20, 1,21-22, 1,25, 1,30; construc-
monastety of (Chrysopolis), 1 16' 120,
Prisoners of war, 193 tion of, 37, 39, 43, 62-63,70, 239;
131
philokalia,186 priuata possessio,33 deficient in capital assets, 151-52; def-
pñuatae ecclesiae, 3. See also Private inition of, 2-3; demolition of, 154;
philoponìon,69
philoponoi,69 churches endowment oÍ, 37, 47, 1 17; exercise
Private churches, 32, 38, 41,45,46, 51, of founder's rights in, 3, 71; financial
þhiloþonos,69 profit from,56-58, 189, 792,255,
Philotheus (patriarch of CPl, 263, 264,
lZ7, 1,28, 158; annual operating costs
of,84,773; of the Apion household, 258,260; fiscal sanctions against,
265,266
Phocas, Emperor (602-61'0)' 1'1 5-1'6 83-87; and the charistiþe, 17 8, 182; 120; flight of clergy from, 49, 57 , 114,
in the countryside, 19, 28, 37, 41, 42, 126; groups ineligible to own,41; im-
Phocas (praetorian prefect), 58
Phoebe (patroness), 7 59, 7 o, L1.l, 127,'1.42, 143, 2lo ; lack pact of Latin conquest on,244-48; in

304
Egypt, 60, 71.,82-83,90; included in
the charistike, l62; indicat<ì¡s of, 3;
provision of financial assistance to, 3,
82-83; lay administrative officials in,
63 ; lay overlor ds oÍ, 64 (see also
Founders; þouratores ; ktetor ; phron-
tìstail;liabrlity for state taxes, 57, 80,
1 19; lighting expenses in,40' 47,83,
173,268, cf. L18, 1,39, (see also Pho-
tapsiai); loss of patrons, 162' 184;
management of,37,71; mandated ex-
penditures of, 181-82; origins of, 6,
9, 229 ; prelíminaries to dedication of ,
42-43; problems inherent in, 136,
188; purchase of land for, 44; reluc-
tance to build,43-44, 95; repairs, res-
toration, and maintenance of, 40, 47,
52-53, 83, 85, 115, 135, 148, 150,
156, tr58, L73, 179,'1.86, 187, 239,
267, cf.146; returns on investments
in, 57-58; sacramental capacities of,
L15, 140, 1,42,229; sale and Purchase
of, 3, 1.7, 4!, 71, 256, 259; sale Pro-
hibited, 258; subsidies for other p.r.f.,
182; support of clerics in, 3, 40, 47,
52, 83, 85,'1,11, 1.36, 172, 1.7 5, 177,
181,267,268; surplus revenues of,
1 59, 163, 1 82-83 ; temPorarY ecliPse
of, 46; termination of services in, 57,
141 ; visitation of, 119, 1'32, cf. 205 ;
votive offerings to' 3,1.63. See also
Private churches; Private monasteries¡
Private oratories; Private philan-
thropic institutions
proasteia, 41, 42, 44, 123, 1'29, 130, 13
1,32
proballein, 53
Probus (legendary founder), 16
Proclus (archbishop of CP)' 17
Procopius of Caesarea (historian), 34, 35,
47 , 49; De aedificiis, 46; Hìstoria ar-
cana,34
prccuratores, 32, 34
proestotes, 61, 62, 64, 65,74, 87 , 194,
241,
Prokopia (wife of Michael I), monastery of
(cP), 130
Prokopios, St., nunnery of, 182
pronoetai, 66, 67, 68, 69, 190, 235 ; as
cbaristikarioi, 169
pronoia, 68, 1.46, 157, 1.61,267
pronomiai, 163, 188
pronooumenos,6T
Property managers, 32, 112, 159, 190. See
also epimeletai; Estate manâgersi
pronoetai; Prcteþ.tor
Propontis, 226
INDEX
Proprietary church, see Private churches
prosenexeis,20S
proskynesis, L98
prosodon, 18,48,49
prosphora donations, 56, 7 6-80, 90, 91,
97,184
prosph ora inter uiuos, 7 6-7 8, 17 3
prosphora mortis causa, 7 6, 7 8-80, 17 3
prostagmata,20S
prostasia,2l8
prostasis,
T
prostates,2l-8
_
prostaxeis,20l
protasekretis, 124
Prote, monastery of Vardanes on, 128' 130
protektor, 1L2
protokometes, 64, 67, 72
protopapas, L37, L63
protos, 17 5
Þrovincial gove¡nors, 33, \22. See also iud-
ices ; rectores prouinciarum; strclegoi
Psachos (peasant),90
Psaios (monk of Aphrodito), 62
Psellos, Michael (courtier), 171; as charis-
tikarios, 187,1.90
Psinepolis, monastery oÍ, 81', 82
Psmo (pbrontistes),66
psychike oph elia,'1.86
'þtocb
otrcp h eioø of Attaliates (Rhaidestos),
179-85,219
ptochotrophos, 180
Public buildings, 39
Public church system, 117, 127, 122' 1,24,
162; atrophy of, 161, 25 1, 252
1' Public churches, agricultural dependents
of,146; autonomy of, 135; clergY of,
50, 114, 1,30 (see ¿/so Diocesan
clergy); deûcient in capital assets, 152;
hierarchy oÍ, 15 6; landed endowments
'l'38, 1'44, L46'
of , 47, 68, 1'!.2, \18,
148; loan of treasures, 16; means of
financial support, 117; origins of, 6,
9; ownership of martyria, 12; ProP-
erty management bY laYmen, 126'
159; recipients of confiscated p.r.f.,
57; religious sectaries in, 31', 42, 229 ;
rental of property by clergy, 126,210'
by laymen, 56, 72, 73, 89' 126, 1'38,
202,2'1.0,211; rivals of P.r.f., 125,
136, 142; sacramental caPacities of,
11.5, 120, 1, 40, 42, 1' 68-7 0 ; scarcitY
1,
of, 5; subiect to requisitions, 194;
sympathetic to iconoclasm, 1'31. See
also Cathedral church es, kath olìkai
ekþlesiai
Public monasteries, 207
Public philanthropic institutions, I17, 1'25
INDEX
Pulcheria (empress), 17,39; building activ-
ities, 21, 24,113
Pynote (estate manager), 67
Qlwfute, monastery of, 43
Quartering of troops, 82,129
Ravennika agr eement, 24 6
Reformers, s¿e Chalcedonian reform move-
ment
rectorcs prouinciarum, 33
Regulation of private religious founda-
tions, 237-38; by Council of Chalce-
don,37; by Leo I, 39,41,ibY Zeno,
39-40; by Justinian' 40-58; bY SYnod
in Trullo, 1.1.4-1.5; by Second Council
of Nicaea, 125-27' by Council of
Constantinople (861), 133-36; by Leo
VI, 139-43; by Nicephorus Phocas,
149-53; by Basil II, 154-55' 160-62;
by Manuel Comnenus, 224-28;bY
Palaeologan patriarchs, 25 5-62, bY
Matthew l,266-69; alienation of
property prohibited, 37 42; assuring
' rl4, 141, 144, 1.54, 172-73, 181-,
èonstruction, 39-40; episcopal over-
sight, 42-43; 6nancial support speci-
ñed, 47 ; personal profit Prohibited,
25 9 -60 ; private liturgies restricted,
41; sale prohibited, 258-59; time lim-
its for construction, 43, 63
Relics, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24' L22, 229
Religious sectâries, 30, 39 42' 71, 11'8,
' Sectarian churches, 31',34,36; on private
229. See ¿/so Sectarian churches; Sec-
tarian clergy; and the indiuidual sects
Rents, 88, 89, 90; collection of, 66; in-
come for p.r.f. from, 64,89-95,1'06-
10, 183; payment by clerg¡ 70'84,bY
peâsants, 9 l, 92, 94, 95, 106-9; rate
bf in..e"t. controlled, 92¡ receipts for
payment of,64,67,73,89. See also
phoros
Requisitions (of eccl. property), by lsaac
Comnenus, 193; by Alexius Com-
nenus, 192, 194,195,198; bYJohn V
Palaeologus, 262' 266
res priuata, 49
Rhaidestos, 179, 182
riparioi, 67
Robert, Emperor (121'9 -28), 246, 247
rogai, 1.44, 172, L8L' 222
Romanus I Lecapenus, EmPeror (919-
944), 144 -4s, 1.47-48, L49, 1's0,
155; building activities' 15 4, 1'64; leg-
islation of, 145, 151, 153, 1'60, 162
Romanus III Argyrus, Emperor (L028-34),
L71,
Romanus, St., church of (Aphrodito)' 82
305
Rome, 13, 46; domus ecclesiae in,10
Rufinus (praetorian prefect), 2l-22; mon-
astery of (Chrysopolis), 2L, 22-23'
155
Rural (peasant) clerg¡ Ênancial support of,
210, 246; a hereditary class, 210-11;
life-style of, 70, 84, 86, 9 5, 1'26; mi-
grations of, 1 13, l1'4, 1'26-27, 136'
numbers of,26; at OxyrhYnchus,
102-4; rapid increase of,225-26,
236; shortage of, L27, 141; subordi-
nation to-bishoPs, 41
ruralia obsequia,2T
Sabas (Athonite monk), 176
Sabas of Jerusalem, St. (monastic leader),
22,44,49
Såcraments, fees for, 235-36,237. See ølso
eulogiai
Sacred vessels, 51, 86, 129, 177, 192, 193,
198,203. See also keimelia; Votive of-
ferings
saþkelarios, 52
Salaries (clerical), 49, 50, 51, 63, 85, 112,
183, 189, 222,268. See also analo'
,nata: choregil; diaria; rogai; sitesis
Salona, l2
Samaritans, 41
Sarcophagi, l2
Saturninus (priest of Abitinae), 10
Saturninus, Flavius (consul), 17
estates,30-36
Sectarian clergy, 3 L, 32
hierarch¡ 32
Sectarian
Secularization, of consecrated property'
129,146,245 256; of religious foun-
'
dations, 37, 42, 62,71', 97 , 114' l2l'
L25, 126, 746,'1.65, 166, 19 1, 206,
234,256,261. See also kosmiþa kata'
gogia
Sen[ . . ]itos, Count (patron?), 64
of Constantinople, 52,195
Senate
Senouthios (Dux oÍ the Thebaid), 65-66
Serapion (pronoetes), 67
Serbians, 263
Sergios (Auxentine monk), 119
Sergios (brother of Basil-Blasios)' 177
Sergios (nephew of Photius), 155
Sergius (Monophysite monk), 43
Sergius I (patriarch of CP)' 116
Sergius II, (patriarch of CP)' 155, 164-65'
217,228,233
Sergius, St., church of (Nessana), 78
Servants, household, 17
Severus (grandson of Heraclius), 116
 INDEX INDEX 307
306

Severus of Antioch (Monophysite patri-
arch),36,42
Sexual misconduct, 181, 190
Sharecropping, 72
Simon¡ 5 4, 5 5, 7 4, 113, 114, 237
singoularis, 68,73
Sisinnios (imperial curator), 131
Sisinnius II (patriarch of CP), 156' 160'
161, 163-64, 165, 187,21.5, 21,6,
228
siteresia, 181, 183-84, 188, 208' 271,
216,222,233,237
sitesis, 47 ,7 5
Skleros, (Bardas?) (father of Maria Skler-
ina),169
Skylitzes, John (historian), 1'54' 17 I
Sláves, beãome monks, 28t receive clerical
ordination, 28, 29
Smaragdus (exarch of Ravenna), 115
Socrates (church historian), 34
solemnia, 149,1'54, 161'' 164
Sophanene, 52
Soiomen (church historian), 17
Sozopolis,198
Spania, 68, 86
sphragis, 161,232
Sooracius (consul), 20
Siauracius (son of Nicephorus l), 130
stauropegia, 752, 157,240; episcopal,
239, 243, 23 I ; Patriarchal, 739, 747'
- 82,92-93,164; PaYment in install-
1,5 5, 275-1.6, 2r7, 279, 230, 238-43'
248,249
Steinwenter, Artur, 1
Stenon, monastery at (CP)' 7L6-1'7
Stephen (koubouklesios), 17 I
Steþhen (parakoimomenos), 1 15
Stephen I (patriarch of CP)' 140
Stephen, St., church of (CP)' 23
Steþhen the Younger (h egoumenos), 118-
20
Stifterrecht, see þtetoriþon dikaion
Stobi, synagogue in, 10
Stole fees, se¿ Sacraments, fees for
Stones (for building), 63
Strategios II (patron), 86
strategoi, 121, 1'46, 218
stratiotiþa þtemata, 1'45, cf.263
Strongylizon, 146
Strymon, theme of, 146
Stutz, Ulrich, 1
Subleases, 72, 89
Suburban estate (suburbanum), 33, 1'23'
See also Proasteia
sustasis, 157, 15 8' 1'88, 25 1, 257
Synagogues, T, 10
syneisPhorai, 170
synetheiLi,2lS
Svnod at Blachernai (1094)'204-s
Synod in Trullo (692), I 14-15, 160, 165'
229
Synod of Caesarea (334)'74
Svnod of the Oak, 22
synodos endemousa,250. See also Patri'
' archs of ConstantinoPle, sYnodal
court of
Synopsis Mino¡, 25 l, 258
Tarasius (patriarch of CP), 123' 1'24,1'25,
127,728; monastery of (Stenon), 124,
130
Tarouthinos, 69, 85; church of, 85
Taverns, 37. See also lnnkeePing
Taxes, 57, 65, B0-S3, 1'29, 217 ; borrovr"-
ing to pa¡ 80-81; of clergY and eccl.
initituiions, 73, 81, L38, 746,764,
169, 187, 225, 227 ; collectors of, 45,
227, clergy as, 81 (see also misthioi,
singoulali's, trakteutai) ; donations for
p"y-"nt of,7 5, 82; exemPtions from'
2i--',29, 57, 80, 81-82, 117-18, 128-
29, 145, \87 ,221,246 (see also
exkousseia); non-Payment of, 57, 58,
ments, 82; registers of, 1'29; uniust ex-
action of, 8L. See also allelengyon; an-
nona; èapitatio ; chrysika ; collatio,
lustralisi demosia; embole; iuga; ka-
nonikon ; kapnika; synetheiai; zeugo-
Iogion
Taxiarch,174
Testaments and wills, 62, 145, 171-74,
17 8, 179, 1.86, 278, 219, 264, 265 ; as
transmissory vehicles Íor p.t.t., 61-62,
256,264
Teveu, monastery of, 1'7
Thagaste, lS
Thasos, 250
Thebaid, 65
Thebes, 96
Thematic court, 201
Theodora (empress, wife of Justinian), 42,
44-45,48, 52,8r
Theodora (niece of Michael Vlll)'249
Theodora (wife of Michael VllI),249
Theodora (wife of Theophilus), 132-33
Theodora Palaeologina (patroness), 268
Theodore (Athonite monk), 176
Theodore (uncle of Theodora, wife ofJus-
tinian), 45
Theodore of Sykeon (monastic leader),
1.1r-1.2, r77,1.39
Theodore Santabarenos (courtier), 137
Theodore the Studite (monastic leader),
123, 128,131
Theodore, St., church of (Arsinoe), 67
Theodore, St., church of \CP),20,21
Theodore, St., church of (Oxyrhynchus),
85
Theodorus (mechanikos), 4 5
Theodosios (Athonite monk), 176
Theodosios (metropolitan of Ephesus), 120
Theodosios Kastrisiou (epi tou kanìþleiou),
219
Theodosius (patriarch of Alexandria), 52
Theodosius I, Emperor (379-395)' build-
ing activities, 60; legislation of, 19,
26,33
Theodosius II, Emperor (408-450), legisla-
tion of,27 o 28,29,35-36
Theodosius, church of (Alexandria), 60
Theodotus (abbot), 116-1.7
Theodotus Melissenus (patriarch of CP),
130
Theophanes the Confessor (monastic
leader),24, 123, 128, 129 130
'
Theophano (wife of Stauracius), 130
Theophilos (ch aristikarios), I 5 9
Theophilus (archbishop of Alexandria), 22,
66-67
Theophilus, Emperor (829-842), L3l-33
Theophylact (bishop of Nicomedia), 124,
125
Theophylact (h egoumeno s), 17 8
Theoþhylact (patriarch of CP), 148; build-
ing activities,23, 155
Theophylact of Ochrida (archbishop),
238-39
Theosebe (wife of Philaret the Merciful),
t29
Theotokos, Boilas' church of the (lberia),
1.72--73,182
Theotokos, church of the (Antioch), 49
Theotokos, church of the (Honoratae),24
Theotokos, church of the (Jerusalem), 45,
49
Theotokos, Cyriacus' church of the (CP),
115
Theotokos, imperial monastery of the
(Lembos), 258
Theotokos, Juliana Anicia's church of the
(cP),24
Theotokos, monastery of the (Lacedae-
mon), 216
Theotokos, monastery of the (Mount
Athos), 171
Theotokos, monâstery of the (Tzurulon),
131
Theotokos Amolyntos, church of the (CP),
268-69
Theotokos at Blachernai, church of the
(cP), 113
Theotokos Ëleousa, monastery of the
(Stroumitza), 224
Theotokos Evergetis, monastery of the
(cP),220,267
Theotokos Kecharitomene, monastery of
the (CP), 223
Theotokos of Gomatou, monastery of the
(Erissos),157
Theotokos of Psicha, monastery of the
(cP),124,1.29
Theotokos Pege, monastery of the (CP),
1.24,127
Theotokos Petritzionitisse, monastery of
the (Steinimach os), 221
Theotokos tes Areias, nunnery of the
(Nauplia),224
Theotokoi tes Bebaias Elpidos, nunnery of
the (CP), 249
Theotokos tes Pammakaristou' monâstery
of the (CP), 250
Theotokos ton Chalkoprateion, monastery
of the (CP), 2L,1.94,195
Theotokos ton Hodegon, monastéry of the
(cP), 191
Theotokos tou Pharou, church of the (CP),
130
therapeia, 141
Thesialonica, Empire of,248; Kingdom o{,
245,246
Thomas (monk of Coele-Syria),51
Thomas of Amida (bishop)' 45' 55
Thomas the Armenian (MonoPhYsite
monk),44
Thrace,183
Thrakesion, theme of, 121
Thrysus, St., church of (CP)' 17
Tiberius II, Emperor (578-582)' building
activities, 1 15
Timoros (prcnoetes),67
Timotheos (pronooumenos), 67
Tithes,56, 77,246. See also aparchai; apo-
moirai
Tivoli,40
Tombs, 16 ri

Theodore (hegoumenos), 178 Theotokos, Karpianos'church of the (CP)' Tornikios Kontoleon (strategos of Hellas),
Symeon (protouestiarios), monastery of d

Theodore (Italo-Greek monk), 178 11.6 17s

(Mount OlymPus), 171
Theodore (son of Attaliates), 180, 182, Theotokos, monastery of the (Armentum), Trachaniotes, George (catapan), 1- 5 9 r
Symeon the New Theologian (monastic
' leader),'158, 167, 169, 176,212 183, 184, 218 1,77 trakteutai,45 1

J

308
Tialles, 59
Treasur¡ see Imperial treasury
Tiibonian (quaestor), 40
Tiier, 19
Trisagion, hymn of the, 20
trophe, l19
Trotta (proprietress), 179
Trustees, 177,21.8. See also epitropoi
Tryphon, St., church of (Kastoreon), 133
Tsenvictora (peasant), 92, 93, 94, 1'08
Turks, effects of raids and conquests, 182,
202,234
Tutors, 234
typika, 88, 188, 23 1, 232, 236, 2541, dia-
tøxis of Attaliates, 179-185; hypoty-
posis of Christodoulos, 219; typikon
of Athanasios Philanthropenos, 223;
typiÞon of Pakourianos , 785 , 221.-23
Tzachas (emir of Smyrna), 202
Tzermenikon, 241
Tzimisces, see John Tzimisces
Urbicius (cubicularius), 22
urbs,33
Valens, Empero r (364-378), legislation of,
1.9
Valentinian II, Emperor (37 5-392), 1'3 ;
legislation o{, 28
Valerian, Emperor (25 3 -260), persecution
oÍ,9
Valila, Flavius (patron), 40, 49
Vardanes (strategos), L28
Vassals,246
Venetians, 244
Verina (wife of Leo I), building activities
of,21,
Vestments (clerical), 86, 173
___-
INDEX
Victor (tenant), 72
uicus,33
uillø,33
Vinegar, grants of, 75
Vineyards (monastic), 176
Votive offerings,35, 130, 1.63. See also
donarii; ffiunera; Sacred vessels; so
Iemnia
Vouchers, 76
\üheat, grants o[, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 1,02,
106-8, 111, 173. See also ekphoria
White monastery of Schenute, 64
Wills, see Testaments and wills
'Wine, grants oÍ,75,79. See also Eucharis-
tic elements
xe.nodocheia, 44, 46, 62, 68, 86
xenodocheion of Belisarius (Rome), 46
xenodocheion of Narses (CP), 46
xenodocbeion of Psaios (Aphrodito), 62
xenodocheion of St. Sabas (Jericho), 44
xenon, 46, 49, 62, 68, L1.5, '1.32-33,249
xenon of Sampson (CP),62
xenon of Stephen (CP), I l5
xenon ofTheodora, wife of Theophilus
(cP), 132-33
x enon of Theodora Palaeologin a (Cp), 249
Zachariah of Mitylene (histprian), 45, 52,
55
Zeno, Emperor (47 4-491), legislation of,
39, 43-44, 7 0-7 1., 13 5, 140, 232
zeugologion,225
Zhishman, Josef von, 1, 253
Zographou, imperial monastery of (Mount
Athos), 262
Zonaras, John (canonist), 235