The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order

Author(s): George Ostrogorsky

Source: The Slavonic and East European Review , Dec., 1956, Vol. 35, No. 84 (Dec., 1956),
pp. 1-14
Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College
London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4204790

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and
East European Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Slavonic and East European Review

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Byzantine Emperor and the
Hierarchical World Order*
GEORGE OSTROGORSKY

The political ideas of the Byzantines have only

subject of more detailed study and of a deeper
historians. The research work done in this field i
last few decades has for the first time revealed the substance and
peculiarities of the Byzantine theory of imperial authority and estab?
lished it as the mainspring of the Byzantine political ideology. Among
the most outstanding studies the following may be mentioned: the
penetrating researches of A. Alfoldi on the formation of Roman
court ceremonial and on the insignia and robes of the Roman
emperor;1 the very vivid and interesting work by A. Grabar on the
emperor in Byzantine art;2 the fundamentally important work by
O. Treitinger on imperial court ceremonial as an expression of the
Byzantine idea of emperorship and empire;3 numerous very instruc?
tive papers by F. Dolget on the relations between the Byzantine
empire and contemporary foreign powers in the light of the Byzan?
tine theory of imperial authority.4 And already since 1936 I myself
have been attempting to outline the Byzantine interpretation of the
idea of empire and the Byzantine conception of the world order, to
which I gave the name of the Byzantine hierarchy of states.5 I
should like to follow up these trends of thought today and to sum?
marise them in a more coherent manner.
Although the destinies of the Byzantine empire varied a great
deal and the character of its state policies was apparently hetero?
geneous, the basic idea underlying these policies, the idea of emperor?
ship, was firmly upheld through the ages, in spite of all divergencies.
Like all other elements of fundamental significance for the develop?
ment of the Byzantine state, this idea is traceable to Roman and
Hellenistic sources. And, like everything else in Byzantium, it
emerges here in a christianised version, in which the original pagan
concept has been little by little overshadowed by the power of
Christian ideas.
* Lecture given at King's College, London, and at the University of Edinburgh on 12
and 18 January 1956 respectively.
1 A. Alfoldi, * Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am romischen
Kaiserhof', Mitt. d. Deutschen Archdol. Inst., Rom. Abt. 49 (1934), pp. 1-118; * Insignien und
Tracht der romischen Kaiser', ibid., 50 (1935), pp. 1-176.
2 A. Grabar, Uempereur dans Fart byzantin, Paris, 1936.
3 O. Treitinger, Die ostrbmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im hofischen
Zeremoniell, Jena, 1938.
4 Reprinted in F. Dolger, Byzanz und die europdische Staatenwelt, Ettal, 1953.
5 G. Ostrogorsky, 'Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie', Seminarium Kondakovianum, 8
(1936), pp. 41-61.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

It is well known that the paga

sented the crucial stumbling-
refusal to worship the emperor
persecution of Christians in th
the transition from pagan to C
out any outward distortion of
the time of Constantine. The so
character, and thus the Roman
on in the Christian Byzantine
would not have been possible
gained a deeper sense even in t
origin of the sovereign's pow
original naive concept of the g
empire accepted this concept
natural to Christians than to se
appointed by God's will. Mor
accorded to the Christian empe
possible the maintenance of old
natural appearance.6
The Christian subjects of the
that he had been called to rule
ordered an effigy to be struck
hand of God placing the impe
of art belonging to a later epoc
ing of the emperor by Christ,
sovereign's head with His own
The emperor is the Chosen o
Providence and fulfills the Di
of the empire protected by G
all the Byzantines, from the em
are constantly reminded of it
ments. It emanates incessantly
buildings and streets are ador
from hand to hand. It is show
manner in all the rites of the
emphasised by an exuberance o
the emperor in the centre.
It would be a mistake to consi
as a stiff system of effete form
borated system of rites aimed a

6 Cf. J. A. Straub, Vom Herrscheridea

'Gottkaiser und Kaiser von Gottes Gna
Munchen, 1943. N. H. Baynes, Byzantine S
343 ff.
7 Alfoldi, Insignien, pp. 55 f. and fig. 6. 8 Grabar, op. cit., pp. 112 ff.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BYZANTINE EMPEROR AND WORLD ORDER 3
of his empire. And these rites were used for the implementation
political and religious cult of a peculiar nature.
The learned emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus wrot
book containing a detailed description of the imperial court c
monial. Such a subject, as he himself admits in the preface,
dearer to his heart than any other, because 'through the pra
worthy system of court ceremonial the imperial power is display
in greater beauty and magnificence, thus filling with admira
both foreign nations and our citizens5.9 He describes the rites to
observed on the occasion of church and state celebrations with g
affection and care. Each act of ceremony, gesture, word, accl
tion and hymn is recorded in detail, for every detail has an unde
lying symbolic meaning?the outcome of a coherent ideol
and everything points towards one single aim?the mystical glori
cation of the emperor.
Everything that surrounds the emperor inspires awe. The p
itself in which the Christ-loving emperor lives is under divine p
tection, and his subjects consider it to be a holy place; the s
solemn stillness reigns in it that was once observed in the presenc
Divus Augustus, the Roman god-emperor. Everything is perform
in awe-inspiring silence, not a single superfluous word is spoken,
unnecessary noise is allowed to break the solemnity of the mome
when the emperor appears before his people.10
Every time the emperor appears his subjects throw themse
to the ground and touch it with their brows. This is the cust
of prostration (TrpoGKvvr)ais) that was taken over by the Byzan
ceremonial, together with many other forms of ritual, from
Roman-Hellenistic cult of the sovereign.11 All the emperor's
jects, including even the highest dignitaries of the empire and
members of the imperial family greet the emperor by prostratio
because all of them without distinction are his slaves (SovXol).
Although all the subjects are considered slaves of the emperor,
does not mean that they are equals among themselves. Accord
to their respective official positions, some of them have a hig
station than the others, or, which is the same and constitutes
most important point, they stand nearer to the sacred person of
emperor. This gave rise to the formation of a hierarchical order
ranks which is specifically characteristic of the Byzantine state.
The imperial insignia and robes are invested with sacred meanin
Constantine Porphyrogenitus affirmed that the crowns and festi
robes of the emperor were not made by the hand of man; accord
to old scripts, an angel brought them to Constantine the Great w

9 De caerimoniis, ed. Bonn., p. 3 sq. 10 Treitinger, op. cit., pp. 52 ff.

11 Treitinger, op. cit., pp. 84 ff. Alfoldi, ?eremoniellt pp. 46 ff.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW
the command that they should be kept in
and worn only on the most solemn occ
emperor's robes is normally crimson, a
mented with gold. With these robes the
which is the main symbol of imperial d
The symbolism of colours is a very impor
tine cult of the emperor. During his pu
occasions the emperor never stands on th
special stool, upholstered with crimson
high marble steps. The emperor's hands
stuff or porphyry.13
Theocratic tendencies become more and m
of the imperial court. Not only the Chu
brates a special liturgical service on eve
the government and military officials,
people, praising the emperor with cerem
part in this sumptuous mystery-play. T
reflection of the kingdom of God. The
model and emulates his example, going
him at many church celebrations, at whic
evoked.
According to a tradition which is recorded about 900, the emperor
used to invite twelve guests to a meal on Christmas Day 'following
the example of the twelve apostles'.14 In an Easter Day procession
described in Constantine VIFs Book of Ceremonies, cthe magisters
and patricians take the places of apostles, while the emperor, so far
as possible, imitates Christ'.15 In later times, the emperor performs
the ceremony of the washing of feet on Maundy Thursday.16 Just as
Christ had washed the feet of his disciples, so the emperor washes the
feet of twelve poor men from his empire. The fact that poor men were
selected for this tended to emphasise the Christian humility of the
emperor. And this humility represented a new and most powerful
source of spiritual elevation, for it was more important than all
earthly grandeur that the emperor should follow the example of the
Son of God, who became man, and imitate His humility.
The particular nearness of the emperor to God and the divine
origin of his sovereignty imply the concentration of all authority in
his hands. As the emperorship was an emanation of divine power,
it was bound to gather up the whole power on earth, and its authority
could not be impaired by any other inner or outer force. Thus the
12 De adm. imp., ed. Moravcsik-Jenkins, cap. 13,1. 28 sq.
13 Cf. R. Delbriick, Antike Porphyrwerke, Berlin-Leipzig, 1932, pp. 11 ff., 27 ff. Treitinger,
op. cit., pp. 58 ff. Alfoldi, Insignien, p. 51.
14 Kletprologion of Philotheos, ed. Bury, p. 157, 12.
15 De caerim.y ed. Bonn., p. 638, 3. 18 Pseudo-Codinus, ed. Bonn., p. 70, io sq.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BYZANTINE EMPEROR AND WORLD ORDER 5
absolute power of the Roman emperor was further increased
the advent of Christian ideas.
For we should not forget that the Christ-loving sovereign of By
tium was a Roman emperor, and the empire that God had called
to rule was the Roman empire. The name 'Byzantine' is an exp
sion coined in later times which was not known to those whom
now call 'Byzantines'. They have always, quite consciously, c
themselves 'Romans'; their capital was for them the new Ro
their emperors were the successors of Roman emperors. Through
its history, the Byzantine empire holds on obstinately to its rig
succession to Rome. The inheritance of Rome, like the belief in t
divine origin of imperial power, represents a special source f
which the conception of the absolute power of Byzantine empero
and their high claims on the world beyond the borders of
empire is derived.
The emperor and omnipotent ruler of the Romans will be
leader of all the world and the guardian and protector of
Christian faith, because he is the only legitimate emperor on ear
being the Chosen of God and the successor of Roman emperors. T
idea that there may be only one single legitimate empire is the b
principle, the alpha and omega of all Byzantine political doctr
To the Byzantines, and also to all those living in the Middle A
this seemed as natural and incontestable as the belief that there
could be only one true Christian Church.
Like the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire was at first a uni?
versal power, and since the time when the Romano-Byzantine domi?
nation of the world was shaken by the barbarian invasions, the
empire struggled (and this constitutes the most fundamental aim
of the state policies of the early Byzantine empire and the focal point
of the attempt at restoration made by Justinian) first for.the pre?
servation and then for the re-establishment of its position as a univer?
sal power. All the countries that had once belonged to the Roman
orbis, and later joined the Christian Church, were considered by the
Byzantine emperors as their everlasting and incontestable possession.
The real developments however undermined the validity of this
proud claim. The world empire was in fact crumbling away, and
its former components gradually acquired independence and tended
to shake off the guardianship of the Roman successors in Con?
stantinople. Political independence did not however mean equal
standing with the empire. From the legal and ideological point of
view, the Byzantine empire, as the sole legitimate empire on earth,
had a more elevated position than all other countries, even when
these enjoyed political independence and were growing more power?
ful than the empire itself. And so great was the suggestive power

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 5 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

of the Romano-Byzantine ideas t

countries recognised for a long t
Byzantine emperor. They liked to
which they obtained from Consta
porated in the Byzantine hierarch
higher and others a lower rank. T
of a complicated hierarchy of states
stood the Byzantine sovereign, both
and as the head of Christendom.
Byzantine empire struggled to u
power, so in later times it strove to
For soon insubordination began to c
With the further shifting of the b
macy of the Byzantine empire wa
of their power, other nations began
of Charles the Great as emperor was
of the Byzantine hierarchy of state
have upset the balance of the tra
considered in Constantinople as the
of the Byzantine empire. After s
succumbed to the overpowering s
already in 812 recognised the imp
Although this was a very high di
cession on the part of the Byzantin
Charles the Great still appeared to t
cance limited territorially and, in t
acter, as opposed to their own un
never surrendered in principle its
whose mission it was to reunite a
God's command. It is most significa
of the imperial title of Charles th
began more and more frequently an
tion to call themselves not merely
Romans, thus indicating the differ
empire and that of the West.19
The mediaeval idea of imperial a
connected with the claim to the Ro
the Great himself, consciously tryi
Roman character of his emperors

17 Cf. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 41 ff.

18 On this most discussed problem cf. especia
der frankisch-byzantinischen Auseinandersetzu
pp. 282 ff.
19 Cf. E. Stein, 'Zum mittelalterlichen Titel "Kaiser der Romer",' Forschungen und
Fortschritte, 1930, pp. 182 f. Dolger, op. cit., pp. 305 ff.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BYZANTINE EMPEROR AND WORLD ORDER 7

title 'Imperium Romanum gubernans', the later Western

insisted most emphatically on the Roman origin of their
status, thus entering into open conflict with the Byzantine e
The twofold question?to whom did the imperial status
belong and who was entitled to inherit Rome?divided m
centuries in East and West and gave rise to many desperate
In these circumstances, the Byzantines often contested
claim of the Western emperors to the title of emperor i
particularly as the break-up of the kingdom of the Car
helped to commit the earlier explicit recognition to oblivion
the Western rulers were never recognised by the Byza
Roman emperors proper. This was however the main iss
struggle for the leading position in the hierarchy of states
the Roman emperor had a claim to universality.
Already at the beginning of the io th century the hierarch
of Christian states defended by the Byzantine empire su
new blow. It was the turn of the Bulgarian ruler Simeon (89
who had grown extremely powerful. He stretched out his h
the imperial crown, claiming the leading position in the
of states. For Simeon, who had grown up in Byzantium a
the Byzantines called a half-Greek, was also absolutely c
that there could exist only one single empire?the univer
empire. He aimed, accordingly, not at founding a national B
empire alongside Byzantium, but at substituting a new
universal significance for the old Byzantine empire.21 H
claim was not limited to the title of Basileus of the Bulg
demanded the status of Basileus of the Romans either with
out the addition of'and of the Bulgarians'.22 In spite of
mendous pressure which he brought to bear, Byzantium
recognise his claim; it could not do so, as it did not wish
render. In 927 however the Byzantine government, f
make concessions, ceded, with the hand of a Byzantine p
the title of Basileus of the Bulgarians to Simeon's more trac
Peter. This was, once more, a very considerable concessio
meant great promotion for Bulgaria in the hierarchy of sta
Byzantine empire managed however to defend its supremacy
the powerful Bulgarian empire, because the territorially
Bulgarian kingdom lacked the main characteristic of a true
viz. the universality inherited from Rome.
20 Cf. P. E. Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, I, Leipzig, 1929, pp. 12 ff.,
21 Dolger, 'Bulgarisches Zartum und byzantinisches Kaiser tum' in Byzanz un
Staatenwelt, pp. 140 ff. Ostrogorsky, 'Die Kronung Symeons von Bulgarien
Patriarchen Nikolaos Mystikos', Bull, de I'Inst, archiol. bulgare 9 (1935), pp
'Avtokrator i samodrzac', Glas Srpske akad. nauka, 164 (1935) pp. 121 ff.
22 T. Gerasimov in Bull, de VInst. arcKiol. bulgare, 8 (1934), pp. 350 ff. has
seal of Simeon with the significant legend: Evfxecbv iv XpiorQ ^aaiXevs 'Po/xc'cov.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

A similar crisis in the Byzantine idea o

14th century, when the predominanc
of the Serbian ruler Stephen Dusan (13
felt. Like Simeon of Bulgaria, Stephen D
tine world of ideas, and his political thin
theory of a single world empire. This is w
the foundation of a Serbian empire be
but wished to replace it by a Graeco-
creation. He was also not content with th
but assumed the prodigious title of 'E
Serbia and Romania'.23 The wars that
waged in order, to strengthen his claim b
to the verge of ruin, but again the old e
the grave crisis without abandoning its
The most striking and, perhaps, the mo
struggle for spiritual and political supre
the attacking young powers and the old e
imbued with the same ideology. For neit
the German nation nor the South Slav
the principle of the hierarchy of states.
violable also for them, and the rival r
higher position within the same hierarch
of emperor.
In reality however this struggle for the highest position led to the
division of the Christian world and also, however much it was
contrary to the political ideology of all the participants in this
struggle, to the formation of separate empires. On the one hand, the
old Byzantine empire would not let the competing powers merely
push it out of the way, and on the other hand, it no longer had the
possibility of hindering the rise of new empires governed by inde?
pendent rulers.
No one could show more contempt for facts when they contradicted
theory than the Byzantines. When facts and beliefs contradicted
each other beliefs prevailed. Byzantium has never admitted the exist?
ence of other empires and to the last moment preserved the belief
that it was the only empire in the world. As late as in the last years
of the 14th century, when the Byzantine empire was already lament?
ably weak and appeared to be on the very eve of its downfall,
Antonius, patriarch of Constantinople, deemed it his duty to remind
the Muscovite ruler, Prince Vasily I, of the doctrine of a single world
empire. For Vasily had forbidden the traditional mention of the
Byzantine emperor in Russian church services, because, as he said,
23 Cf. M. Dinic, 'DuSanova carska titula u ocima savremenika *, Zoorn^ u ^t $es*e
stogodifajice Z^konika cara Dufana, Beograd, 1951, pp. 87 ff.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BYZANTINE EMPEROR AND WORLD ORDER 9
Russia had a church, but no emperor, and would not recogn
The doctrine of a single emperor uniting all Christians w
expounded with more eloquence and persuasive force tha
letter, which was sent by the patriarch to Moscow from
stantinople already besieged by the Turks. It was, moreo
dressed to the same Prince Vasily who had been cons
approached by the Byzantines with solicitations for help and
cial support for the Christian brethren in Constantinople, 'w
languishing in need and distress in the city besieged by the
The patriarch enlightens the Russian prince on the high pos
the emperor within the Church, stating that he cannot be c
to other princes and rulers. 'And even though it is God's
heathens are now besieging the emperor's domain, he re
the present day, the same consecration, the same honour
same prayers from the Church and is anointed with the sam
Myrrh and ordained as emperor and autocrat of the Romans
means of all Christians. . . . This is why it is not at all good
when thou sayest: "we have a church, but no emperor". For
ship and Church constitute one integral entity and it is quit
sible to separate them from each other. . . . Listen to what th
of Apostles, Peter, says in his first epistle: "Fear God, r
emperor." He did not say "the emperors", so that nobody co
mise that he meant the so-called emperors of certain nat
" the emperor" in order to show that there is only one emper
world. . . . When certain other Christians assumed the e
title, this came to pass in contradiction to the natural order
and to the laws, through the imposition of tyranny and vio
There existed, of course, an obvious discrepancy betw
requirements derived from the doctrine of the empero
Christians and the actual trend of historical events. This dis
only increased with passage of time, as the Christian world
a growing tendency to break up, the power of the old empire
and other nations began to grow more and more independen
gain greater power. It would however be a mistake to bel
the claims connected with the imperial title were of purely t
character. The emperor possessed manifold and very import
rogatives which nobody would or dared to dispute; and t
the least important explanation of the bitter struggle for t
sion of imperial status.
Just how forcibly and demonstratively the Byzantine e
made valid their claim to sovereignty over the whole world
very clearly by the peculiar form in which, up to the 13th
24 Pohoye sobraniye russk. letopisey, 11 (1897), p. 168.
25 Miklosich et Muller, Acta et diplomata graeca, II, p. 190 sq.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IO THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

all the agreements concluded

rulers and governments of o
agreement with a foreign powe
for the first time concluded by
memorable Nymphaeum agree
concluded with Genoa a short
conquered. All the earlier agree
foreign powers were not real
concluded by partners enjoyi
ments bestowing the empero
stipulated in the agreement
humiliating for the empire, t
form of a privilege granted b
certain rights to a foreign rule
the document alone, as a grac
over, he made use of the tradit
stately donation charter pro
also granted to the subjects of
was being bestowed on one of t
pay a tribute to some overpowe
represented as gifts of the emp
The granting of titles and insi
within the same mode of thoug
was the outcome of Divine Pow
was the outcome of imperial au
emperor assumed the right of
sovereign rights by transmitt
example of this procedure is
Hungary received by the Hu
the Byzantine emperor Michae
tions appearing on this insigniu
Byzantine system of the hierarc
tion of ranks. The effigy of th
and is above Geyza's likeness,
in symmetrical apposition to
stantine. The Hungarian king
with the Byzantine co-empero
emperor and the co-emperor, a
Hungarian king appears withou
while the Hungarian king holds
headgear of the Hungarian king
magnificent robes of the two em
26 Treitinger, op. cit., p. 211. Dolger, '
ihrer politischen Anschauungen' in Byzanz

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BYZANTINE EMPEROR AND WORLD ORDER II

detail: in the inscription the names and t

are in red letters and those of the Hunga
the recognition of his royal status by By
able elevation in the hierarchy of rulers,
still lay between the KpaX-qs TovpKtag,
named, and the jSaoxAeus1 'PayxcuW, as
co-emperor were styled: this differentia
with incomparable clarity by the holy cr
The forms of address used by the emper
with foreign rulers, which are quoted
Ceremonies, will give us an idea of the
Byzantine system of the hierarchy of st
accordance with the higher or lower posi
the hierarchy of rulers. On the lowest st
numerous dependent states to whom
(KeXevcreis). To the princes of independe
letters (ypa/x/xara). Yet there is also c
among various independent sovereigns
them are honoured with more distingu
less important ones, just as some of them
sounding predicates while others are give
are given only one predicate, some two o
at all.29 Besides this, some of the prince
emperor, which is, without doubt, a r
of 'amici principis'. In the time of Co
of Egypt and India enjoyed the honour
distinction for a foreign sovereign
relative' of the emperor. Thus the rulers
and Alania were called ' sons' of the e
higher level stood the German and Frenc
as ' brothers' of the emperor. From this
institution of the family of kings, whic
most recent times.30
27 The correct reading of the inscriptions of the
Moravcsik, 'A magyar Szent Korona gorog feliratai
scriptions grecques de la Sainte Couronne hongroise
mdnyi Osztdly Kbrtbdl, XXXV, 5 (1935), pp. 131-
Crown of Hungary', The Hungarian Quarterly, 4 (19
ideological significance of this insignium cf. Graba
'Staatenhierarchie', pp. 59 f., Treitinger, op. cit., pp
zantinischen Reichspolitik', Archivum Centro-Orienta
28 De caerim., ed. Bonn., pp. 686 sq.
29 For more details see Ostrogorsky, 'Staatenhierarc
30 Cf. Dolger, 'Die "Familie der Konige" im Mit
Staatenwelt, pp. 34-69, and 'Die mittelalterliche 'F
und der Bulgarenherrscher', ibid., pp. 159-82. In
that the 'spiritual son' had a higher rank in the hi
while in his second paper (p. 167) he adopts the oppos
correct one.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

Thus a system of spiritual par

archy of rulers. This was done
extol the emperor and to emp
rulers. As bearer of the highest
Christian empire, the Byzantin
within the hierarchy of rule
all Christian peoples at the head
qualities and the age of indiv
of no consequence in such a syst
father was a helpless child and
ful ruler, as was the case with
Simeon of Bulgaria, who was fo
system of parentage established
transferred to the peoples they
that the Bulgarians were the sp
superior rank of the ruler prov
tion for the country represen
was at the same time the hierar
The position of every ruler an
not, of course, fixed with absol
considerably altered. With the
a ruler, not only his titles but
lating him to the Byzantine e
times, the kings of the differe
sons of the Byzantine empero
was, in the early Byzantine epo
Charles the Great was granted th
his imperial status was recogn
French and Italian successors w
emperor.32 In the 12th centur
hand, still called only friends o
appeared on the Byzantine hor
very rarely had dealings with t
There always remained a distan
emperor and the rest of the ru
relatives of the emperor and lin
actual family ties. When, dur
king Conrad III met the empe
spiritual brother, it was require
but he refused to comply with t
31 Dolger, 'Der Bulgarenherrscher als g
Byzanz und die europ. Staatenwelt, pp. 183 ff
32 Dolger, 'Die "Familie der Konige"', pp. 43 ff. 3S Ibid., p. 38, n. 8.
34 Cf. W. Ohnsorge,' "Kaiser" Konrad III', Mitt. d. osterr. Inst.f. Gesch., 46 (1932), pp.
343 ff.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BYZANTINE EMPEROR AND WORLD ORDER 13
the world and of the supremacy of the emperor over everyt
earth tended to obliterate the difference between the foreign
the actual subjects of the empire. It brought the foreign rule
certain degree to the same level as the Byzantine dignitari
the former and the latter were incorporated in the system o
archy which culminated in the person of the emperor an
him, according to Byzantine conceptions, the same expres
esteem, graduated in accordance with their rank in the hiera
The ambassadors of foreign countries and even foreign pri
to stand in the presence of the emperor, just as the Byzantin
dignitaries did, while the emperor was sitting on his throne. T
to sit in the presence of the emperor was rarely and rather un
granted to foreign princes, and even then they had to sit at
lower level than the emperor. This did not, of course, suit
body's taste and gave rise to comic incidents. It happened,
stance, that when the emperor Alexius I was receiving the cr
a bold Western knight sat down near the emperor, and when
of Boulogne tried to push him off his seat, muttered: 'loo
rustic that keeps his seat, while such valiant captains are
round him'.35 It goes without saying that the Byzantines r
this 'barbarian's' behaviour as sacrilege. The Western knights
selves were petrified at the improper conduct of their comra
one of the most distinguished among them enlightened the i
warrior. The reverence for the ancient status of an institution
deeply rooted in the hearts of men in the Middle Ages th
foreign princes themselves could not refuse to recognise the
tian emperor's claim to supremacy. Without this recognit
Byzantine doctrine of the hierarchy of rulers would have rem
fine theoretical thesis and would never have become what it
developed into, viz. a spiritual power which had the autho
impose its laws on the world.
One of the most beautiful illustrations of the hierarchy of
is provided by a contemporary description of the solemn entr
emperor Manuel I into subjugated Antioch in 1159. The em
adorned with all the imperial insignia, was riding on horseba
at a considerable distance the king of Jerusalem followed him
on horseback, but without any adornment. The prince of
walked on foot near the mounted emperor, holding on
emperor's stirrup.36 It could not be explained more clear
there was a greater difference between the Byzantine empero
the prince of Antioch, his vassal, than between the same Byz
emperor and the king of Jerusalem, who was a 'crowned
85 Anna Comnena, Alexias, ed. Leib, II, p. 229. English translation by E. Dawes,
86 Cinnamus, ed. Bonn., p. 187 sq.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

and yet in this case too there existed a

difference of rank.
So, according to Byzantine conceptions, s
and others a lower rank within the hier
highest rank was held by the Roman em
as the bearer of the highest title of sovereig
Christian empire, and as the father of all
head of the family of rulers.

This content downloaded from

82.78.233.185 on Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:41:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms