How the disciplinary canons of Trullo (692) contribute to our understanding of anti-Latin texts in the eleventh through the thirteenth century

The aim of this study is to explore the ways that the disciplinary canons of the Council of Trullo (692) were used during the conflict between the Greek and Latin Churches in the critical period of the eleventh century. To understand how the disciplinary canons of Trullo influenced anti-Latin treatises before and after the capture of Constantinople by the army of the Fourth Crusade (1204). In what ways the canons contributed to the sense of a separate identity after the partition of the Byzantine Empire, which was followed by intensive efforts by the Roman Catholic Church to Latinize the Greek Orthodox populations. Focusing on specific canons dealing with liturgical discipline that reappear in popular anti-Latin treatises, known as Lists of Errors. The most important questions that we will attempt to answer are as follows: (a) is there a correlation between these lists and the canons of Trullo?; (b) to what extent and how important was the reference to the authority of these canons for the defense of specific doctrines and dietary and liturgical practices for both sides?; (c) in what ways the canons of Trullo reflect the definition of orthodoxy against heresy and Judaism and (d) What were the political and ecclesiastical repercussions of the enactment of these canons ? These questions will be examined from a historical and theological point of view.

The material comprises mainly published sources, Acts of the Councils, theological treatises, Lists of Errors, anti-heretical manuals, canonical commentaries, and hagiographical texts. Though substantial work on the Lists of Errors has been published by Tia Kolbaba, and a number of scholars have examined the background of the theological controversies of the eleventh century, the direct link between the canons and the list of errors has been neglected; this dissertation is an attempt to fill in the gap.

In terms of structure the study comprises three Sections (I-III). Section I discusses the Council of Trullo, placing it in the historical and theological context, focusing on the aforementioned disciplinary canons with relation to the definition of orthodoxy and heresy. Section II examines the afterlife of the Council and the specific canons, placing emphasis on their reception in East and West in the period prior to the ‘events of 1054’, in an effort to assess their use in defense of doctrinal accuracy as perceived by either side. Section III will attempt to answer the main question, namely to what extent and in what ways these canons influenced the development of the dialogue between Byzantine and Western theologians in the period that followed, which culminated in the publication of Niketas Choniates’ Panoplia Dogmatike and Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum, and the Council of Lyons (1274), where these doctrinal and liturgical practices were crystallized.

Section I: The Council in Trullo

The Council in Trullo (691-692) met in the domed hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople, the same palace that had hosted the Sixth Ecumenical Council eleven years earlier. The Council was convened by Emperor Justinian II (685-695, 705-711). According to tradition, forty-three hierarchs among those who participated had also attended and signed the acts of the Sixth Council.[1] More recent scholarship on the earliest extant copy of the subscription list of the Acts of the Council puts the total number of episcopal signatures at 226, that is 227 including the Emperor’s.[2] The Council drew up 102 disciplinary canons that were intended to supply what the previous two Ecumenical Councils omitted.

The Council has been treated by commentators mainly in two ways; the first interpretation and until recently the most common opinion in the West is that the council was effectively an exclusively Eastern local Synod. The implication of this approach is that the canons of the Council do not have ecumenical authority. The argument against Trullo’s ecumenical character is based primarily upon the so-called ‘anti-Roman’ canons 6,13, 36, 52 and 55 which contradict the established practices of the Roman (Latin) Church regarding clerical celibacy and fasting. These canons were repeated countless times in anti-Latin literature when the Byzantine and Roman Churches came into conflict. The first reference to Canons 13 and 55 are found in Patriarch Photius’ (858-867, 877-886) Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, written in response to the Latinising Roman missionaries in recently converted Orthodox Bulgaria.[3] Patriarch Michael Cerularios (1043-1059) also made reference to Canon 23 of the “Sixth Synod”, meaning Trullo when he anathematized the papal legates of 1054.[4] Both Photius and Cerularios refer to the Council as ecumenical. Based upon these canons and their supposed reserved or partial reception, most western commentators have treated the Council with suspicion or have left it out of Latin canonical collections.[5]

The second position is that the Council was a continuation of the Fifth Council (or Second Council of Constantinople) summoned by Justinian I in 553, and the Sixth Council (or Third Council of Constantinople) convened by Constantine IV in the same domed hall eleven years earlier (680-681) and that its canons are ecumenically binding. For this reason the Council in Trullo is also known as the ‘Fifth-Sixth Council’ (Πενθέκτη Σύνοδος and Concilium Quinisextum or simply Quinisext and Penthektē).[6] The latter position is held by the Orthodox Church that has consistently referred to the canons pronounced in Trullo as those of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Those present at the Council clearly viewed it as a continuation of the work of the previous two Councils that had pronounced on Christological theology but did not produce any canons.[7] As the logos prosphōnētikos in the Trullo explicitly states, the fathers were “brought together since the last two councils drew up no canons”.[8] The predominant reasons for the western resistance to the Council are the content of the canons themselves and the supposed lack of western representation at the Council. The lack of western participation in councils held in Byzantium was nothing new, neither was it unusual for there to be resistance to the ratification of the acts of a council. The Second Ecumenical Council of 381 was only officially accepted by the papacy in 517, no less than 136 years after its conclusion.

---

[1] Nikodemos the Hagiorites, The Pedalion, trans. D. Cummings (New York, 1983).

[2] R. Flogaus, ‘Das Concilium Quinisextum (691/692). Neue Erkenntnisse über ein umstrittenes Konzil und seine teilnehmer’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102/1 (2009), 25-64.

[3]  Regarding Canon 13 cf. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, eds. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink, Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, vol. 1 (Teubner: Leipzig, 1983) pp. 39-53: ‘There is a canon of the regional synod of Gangra that anathematises those who do not recognise married priests. This was confirmed by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned those who require that priests and deacons cease to cohabit with their lawful wives after their ordination. Such a custom was being introduced even then by the Church of Old Rome. That Synod reminded the Church of Old Rome of the evangelical teaching and of the canon and polity of the Apostles, and ordered it not to insult the holy institution of Christian marriage established by God Himself’. Regarding Canon 55 cf. ibid.: ‘The first error of the Westerners was to compel the faithful to fast on Saturdays. (I mention this seemingly small point because the least departure from Tradition can lead to a scorning of every dogma of our Faith. They introduced fasting on Saturdays, although that is prohibited by the 64th Apostolic Canon which states: “If some cleric is found fasting on Sundays or Saturdays except the one Great Saturday before Pascha, let him be removed from the ranks of the clergy, and if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated”. Similarly, by the 56th canon of the holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod which states: “Since we have learnt that in the city of Old Rome some, during the Great Fast, in opposition to the ecclesiastical order handed down to us, keep the fast even on Saturdays, the holy Ecumenical Synod orders that in the Church of Old Rome the Apostolic Canon which prohibits fasting on Saturdays and Sundays is to be followed exactly”.

[4] Michael Cerularius, Anathematization of Papal Legation, ed. C. Will, Acta et Scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saec. XI composita extant, (Leipzig and Marpurg, 1861; repr. 1968), p. 66; trans. D. J. Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes (Chicago, 1984), p. 210.

[5] G. Nedungatt, ‘Ecumenism and the Canon of the Councils’, Theological Studies 71.3 (2010), 651-676.

[6] G. Fritz, ‘Quinisexte (Concile ou in Trullo)’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. XIII.2 (Paris, 1937), col. 1597.

[7] For a comprehensive examination of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils see A. Grillermier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604) (London, 1995).

[8] G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone eds,  The Council in Trullo Revisited, The Council in Trullo Revisited (Rome, 1995), p. 54.

Russian Holy War in Syria? What Byzantium and the Crimean war tell us.

On the 30^th of September the Russian Church made a public statement confirming its support for Russian military involvement in Syria. The statement then referenced the destruction of Christian communities by terrorist groups within Syria and the traditional role of Russia as a protector of the Christian population of the Middle East. Imperial Russia certainly considered itself the heir to Byzantium and as such made efforts to preserve the Christian community in formerly Byzantine territory. The most obvious example of the use of that role was the costly Crimean War of 1953-1856. What is most interesting and perhaps troubling is the religious rhetoric used in the statement, “The fight against terrorism is a holy struggle/fight and today our country is perhaps the most active force in the world to combat terrorism”.[1] The support of Orthodox hierarchs for (broadly defensive) military campaigns waged by orthodox countries or earlier the empire is standard. Several Patriarchs of Constantinople even allowed the melting down of precious liturgical vessels from the Churches of Constantinople in order to finance campaigns. Leo of Chalcedon (11^th C) is the only recorded example that took exception to this practice and was excommunicated for his position. The use of religious rhetoric such as that quoted above however, was usually confined to the battlefield.[2] There are many parallels between modern Russia and the Byzantine Empire, the most obvious being the level of cooperation between the Church and State. Another example is the role of the Russian head of state as a kind of sanctified autocracy. In the aftermath of the Volgograd bombings for example, the internet was abuzz with rumours of Putin’s (alleged) plan to annihilate Mecca in defence of Christianity in the same way that Emperor Nikephoros’s contemporaries believed he would.[3] The description of the struggle against terrorism as Holy is problematic from an Orthodox Christian point of view. Although the Church has a number of military saints the three most venerated ( George Demetrius and Theodore the Tyro) were accorded the status of Saints because they confessed Christianity, rejected their military duties and were martyred and not because of any valiant military exploit. The language of the Holy Struggle within Orthodoxy is common but used in a spiritual sense as a fight against passions and demons. No violent action can be considered Holy according to the Orthodox tradition, St Athanasius (298-373) wrote “One is not supposed to kill, but killing the enemy in battle is both lawful and praiseworthy. For this reason individuals who have distinguished themselves in war are considered worthy of great honors, and monuments are put up to celebrate their deeds. Thus, at one particular time, and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permitted, but when time and conditions necessitate it, it is both allowed and condoned.” [4] Praiseworthy is about as far as the Byzantine tradition took killing, provided it is carried out according to the Just War principles laid out in the Taktika.[5] The word Holy implies that the undertaking sanctifies those who carry it out as with Crusade or Jihad ideology. For the Byzantine view of this kind of meritorious violence we need look no further than Constantine Porphyrogenitus’  De Administrando Imperio  that categorizes the belief  that “he who slays an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters into paradise” as “nonsense”.[6] So what are we to think of the recent announcement? Is it perhaps simply a poor choice of words or maybe a deliberate manipulation of religious language in order to galvanize Christian support against an aggressive infidel enemy?  Russia is cultivating the image of its Imperial past as the protector of Christians in the Middle East whatever its motive may be. The arguably “expansionist” policies of the modern Russian State in Crimea and Ukraine are reminiscent of the Imperial years preceding the Crimean War. Yesterday Russian forces attacked American backed Syrian rebels, Senator John McCain and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina immediately advised the shooting down of Russian aircraft to protect anti-Assad U.S allies. The situation is as serious as it is familiar.

---

[1] http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=60391 trans. D.Williams

[2] “Brothers, do not be troubled by your enemies numbers for, God willing, one will chase thousands. Let us sacrifice ourselves to God for the salvation of our brothers. Let us take the Martyrs’ crown so the future will applaud us and God will give us our reward.” Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. P.19.

[3] Von Grunebaum, Gustav. “Eine poetische Polemik zwischen Byzanz und Bagdad im X.Jahrhundert.”

 Analecta Orientalia

 14 (1937): 41–64.

[4] Swift, L. J., The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. Wilmington, DA: Michael Glazier, 1983.p.95

[5] VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI. Translated by George T. Dennis. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010.

[6] Porphyrogenitus Constantine, De Administrando Imperio, Trans. R j. Jenkins (Washington 1985),p 79.

The Byzantine Concept of Martyrdom, Heraklios-Theophanes.

1. The Byzantine concept of Martyrdom 

Those historians who argue for a type of Byzantine Holy War rely primarily on military harangues and chronicles while neglecting ecclesiastical sources. Aside from the very obviously charged speech of such documents the approach itself is detrimental to the argument because the most famous example of Nikephoros Phokas and the canon of St Basil reveals the separation between the imperial prerogatives and those of the church. Attributing more importance to military sources, gives the false impression that the Byzantines held the same belief in spiritually meritorious warfare as the crusaders. This assertion is effected by a limited interpretation of the use of the word “martyr” in battlefield exhortations to incorrectly mean one who achieves sanctification through dying or killing in battle. Theophanes puts the following speech into Heraklios’ mouth before battle, “Brothers, do not be troubled by your enemies numbers for, God willing, one will chase thousands. Let us sacrifice ourselves to God for the salvation of our brothers. Let us take the Martyrs’ crown so the future will applaud us and God will give us our reward.”[1] According to Leo’s Tactica, the most important ability of a general is to exhort his troops so that they “despise death” unsurprisingly religious catechism is not mentioned in the same text.[2] The speech and more importantly the use of the word martyr itself reflect the literary style of heroic epics, the theme of noble sacrifice inherited from Hellenic literature should not be considered as purely Christian or even religious simply because the empire was. The Byzantines were very familiar with many types of martyrdom or “witness” through the lives of the saints, the example of the monastic renunciation, Christian marriage where the bride and groom are fitted with martyrs crowns and military saints. Martyrdom in its true sense is to the glory of God and never, even in the case of military saints in service to a prince. The fact that the most revered soldier martyrs were themselves martyred by the Roman military during periods of Christian persecution and not in battle reveals the precedence Byzantines gave to spiritual warfare.[3] How those who heard Heraklios’s speech encouraging them to “take up the martyrs crowns” interpreted it cannot be known in certainty.[4] From what we do know of the Byzantine understanding of martyrdom we can deduce that it meant a kind of heroic and praiseworthy deed in service to the empire as Saint Athanasios had written.[5] Given the religious significance of Heraklios’ recovery of the cross and documented use of the word “infidel” to describe the enemy it is tempting to assign Heraklios’ wars a religious character. Theophanes also recounts how Heraklios released 50,000 prisoners in thanksgiving to God for granting him victory. Setting free infidels whose destruction is pleasing to God is hardly a fitting sacrifice for one adhering to holy war ideology. It is necessary at this point to acknowledge that Byzantine spirituality emphasized individual responsibility for participation in the Divine Energies as the main salvific path. In contrast to the Byzantine view, the western church held that the ecclesiastic body of the temporal church alone dispensed salvific grace. The authority of the heir of St Peter to meter out salvation or martyric status to those who die in service to the church was easily justified by centuries of Roman Catholic theological development. Byzantine theology did not maintain that grace was only attainable through the visible head of the church and never accounted corporate salvation to the will of a hierarch. They never accepted that participating in the sinful enterprise of war brought them closer to divine likeness (theosis) regardless of what an emperor said before battle. Here we find a difference not only in the role of the Emperor to that of the Pope but also in the basic understandings of martyrdom and the spiritual life. 

---

[1] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. P.19.

[2] VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI. P.21.

[3] Meitanis, PHD.121

[4] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. P. 19.

[5] Swift, L. J., The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. P. 95. “One is not supposed to kill, but killing the enemy in battle is both lawful and praiseworthy. For this reason individuals who have distinguished themselves in war are considered worthy of great honors, and monuments are put up to celebrate their deeds. Thus, at one particular time, and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permitted, but when time and conditions necessitate it, it is both allowed and condoned.” 

Just War and Holy War in Byzantium

The motivation for warfare

 The Byzantines held a concept of just war, Leo stresses that war can only be made when  “The God of justice is on your side.”[1] Making war to pacify an enemy or to defend territory in the role of the non-aggressor was the only just cause. Appeals for divine assistance and thanksgiving in victory were frequent but do not indicate a religious motivation. Religious imagery was equally used in warfare with co-religionists as with other faiths. For example Emperor Basil II (976-1025) made use of the highly revered Hodegetria icon as a shield while dueling Bardas Phokas (878-968).[2] The use of mercenaries, treaties and subterfuge were standard in Byzantium, consequently a knightly caste did not develop as in the west. Another important difference between the Byzantine wars and the Crusades is the lack of civilian participation on the Byzantine side compared to the mass involvement of western civilians. The lack of non military involvement further weakens the argument of a religiously motivated Byzantine war. Byzantine military ideology made peacemaking the sole purpose of its wars; Leo’s Tactica states that a general should “treat war as a physician treating an illness”.[3] Later in the same treatise Leo explains root of war itself “Out of reverence for the image and the word of God, all men ought to have embraced peace and fostered love for one another instead of taking up murderous weapons in their hands to be used against their own people. But since the devil, the original killer of men, the enemy of our race, has made use of sin to bring men around to waging war, contrary to their basic nature, it is absolutely necessary for men to wage war in return against those whom the devil maneuvers and to take their stand with unflinching resolve against nations who want war.”  Leo identifies peace as the religious duty of ‘all men” and though he asserts that war is inevitable consequence of sin he does not advocate war against others but rather stresses the necessity of self-defense. The identification of the enemy as “nations who want war” reflects the Byzantine view of the world, it does not refer to enemies as infidels to be destroyed or converted as in Holy War but reveals the pragmatic belief that those outside of the empire were all of a relatively even and barbarian standing in Byzantine estimation. The requirements of defensive warfare were flexible in practice because the re-conquest of any of the land previously held by the Roman Empire was considered a legitimate target for liberation. Being under non-roman rule regardless of the duration did not disqualify a territory from Byzantine military defense. [4] The early Byzantine perception of the Crusades as a type of defensive war (at least in principle) accounts for the lack of polemics against the Latin theological element of the crusades when compared to that post 1204.[5] The Byzantine wars were imperial and though appeals for the protection of Christian sites or retribution for crimes against Christianity were common there is no evidence for a religiously motivated Byzantine war.[6]

---

[1] VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI. Translated by George T. Dennis. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010.p .37.

[2]Psellus, Michael. Michael Psellus (1018-after 1078): Chronographia. Translated by E R. Sewter. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953,p.132.

[3]VI, Leo. The Taktika of Leo VI., p.33

[4] Stouraitis, Ioannis, ‘Byzantine Approaches to Warfare (6th to 12th Centuries)’, Byzantine War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion, ed. I. Stouraitis and J. Koder (Vienna,2012), p.10-11.

[5]  Kolbaba notes the lack of Byzantine complaint to Crusade indulgence prior to 1204, Kolbaba, Tia. "Fighting For Christianity.", p. 216.

[6] Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises Dennis states that religion in the Roman military should not be considered a specific feature of Byzantium’s Christian identity “nor should their wars be viewed as particularly holy or religious.”

Niketas Byzantios explores Jihad

The Church as the source of Holy War

The Byzantine state differed from the Latin and Islamic worlds in its retention of a powerful administration that alone had responsibility for the military. The Byzantine Church had no authority to interfere in military matters and held those who transgressed this rule accountable through rigorously enforced canon law.[1] The separation of the sacred nature of the Church and the profane duty of the imperium to wage war had meant that no Byzantine Patriarchs had pursued military ends as the Popes had done.[2] Byzantine churchmen supported the military activities of the empire as envoys and by their presence at army encampments without ever taking part in combat. A prominent example of the role carried out by Byzantine churchmen is Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (901-907, 912-925) by his letters of mediation with Symeon of Bulgaria (893-927). In these letters he appeals for peace between Bulgaria and Byzantium and reminds the Archbishop of Bulgaria that his obligation “beyond all else (was) to serve the cause of peace’.[3] The mixture of the two spheres of society was considered abhorrent in Byzantium as witnessed by the damning accounts of Latin clergy participation in the crusades vividly described by Anna Komnene.[4] 

The Byzantine understanding of violence

The main obstacle in attaching a religious meaning to Byzantine wars is that the Byzantines viewed war as a symptom of the fallen world a tragedy and always sinful[5]. As a consequence of its perception of violence the Byzantines never developed a concept of meritorious killing, on the contrary Constantine Porphyrigenitos ridicules jihad in his De Administrando Imperio categorizing the belief “he who slays an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters into paradise” as “nonsense”.[6] Constantine’s repulsion at the idea of meritorious killing is representative of the Byzantine perception of Jihad and violence for the entire span of Byzantine history. “If, then, it has been demonstrated that all murder, insofar as it is murder, is bad, it is evident that it is also not licit.”[7] Niketas Byzantios’s (9^th Century) dialogue with an “Agarene” is a polemical yet typically Byzantine explanation of the nature of killing (here murder). The segment above is a response to his Muslim correspondent’s letter explaining the Islamic belief in both licit and illicit murder. The criterion for licit murder according to the Muslim correspondent is the will of God.[8] As discussed above Byzantines attributed the existence of violence to the fall and therefore the devil, to attribute any war or killing to the will of God would have seemed completely alien.

---

[1] We have decreed that those who have been enrolled in the clergy or have become monks sheall not join the army or obtain ant secular office, Let those who dare do this and will not repent..be anathama, Chalcedon 7 RP 2;232

[2] A clear statement defining the roles for the classes of people in Byzantine society is found in “Holy orders have been established for the worship of God..through whom all things came into being and are governed in the ways of goodness known to him alone. Legal institutions are established to bring about justice.. laws and judges have been established to pronounce judgement .. to aid people in living together in peace.” Dennis, George T., ed. Three Byzantine Military Treatises, (Washington, 1985). p.13.

[3] Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Trs. R. J. H. Jenkins, L. G. Westerink, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973. p. 82.

[4] Comnena, Anna, The Alexiad, ed. E. R. A. Sewter.  (London 2009), p. 285. Regarding the battle between Marianos and a priest defending count Prebentzas “The Latin customs with regard to priests differ from ours. We are bidden by canon law and the reaching of the Gospel, “touch not, taste not, hanfle not- for thou art consecrate’. But your Latin barbarian will at the same time handle sacred objects, fasten a shield to his left arm and grasp a spear in his right. He will communicate the Body and Blood of the Deity and meanwhile gaze on bloodshed and become himself “a man of blood”. Thus the race is no less devoted to religion than to war”…. “It was as if he were officiating at a ceremony, celebrating as though war was a holy ritual.”

[6] Porphyrogenitus Constantine, De Administrando Imperio, Trans. R j. Jenkins (Washington 1985),p 79.

[7] Krausmüller, Dirk. “Killing at god's command: Niketas Byzantios' polemic against Islam and the Christian tradition of divinely sanctioned murder.” Al-Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 16:1, (Carfax, 2004), p. 167

[8] Arberry, A J., ed. The Koran Interpreted. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

p. 207 “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”)

George Akropolites describes the Laskarid army (Final look at the Byzantine perception of violence in the wake of the 4th Crusade)).

Demetrius

In 1207, the death of the invading Bulgarian Tsar Kalojan was attributed to the the patron saint of Thessaloniki, St.Demetrius. The Thessalonian attribution of violent acts to a saint and the crusader belief of Deus Vult both make the will of God the motivating force for violence. The encomia of Demetrius that recall his are unique in orthodox hagiography and in some cases appear contrary to the writings of Basil and Leo.[1] The city of Thessaloniki, second of the empire was defined by the frequent attacks upon it, its patron saint Demetrius is an extraordinary example of the flexibility of the Byzantine attitude to violence in light of contemporary events. The power of Demetrius’ cult also reflects the increased autonomy and confidence of Thessalonica as a city independent of Constantinople.[2] Demetrius was not originally represented in iconography as a soldier but in the plain tunic associated with martyrdom. During the tenth century military saints began to be recognized as a separate caste and were adopted as the patrons of imperial and noble families.[3] The high profile of the military under Basil II (958-1025) popularized the military saints, especially Demetrius to whom ten churches were dedicated in Constantinople.[4] In the 11^th century he was given the title Stratelates a term equivalent to “General” and later Myrovlytes meaning myrrh gushing in reference to his relics.[5] The earliest example of Demetrius’ intercession is an account of the defense of the city in 586 written by John of Thessaloniki in the mid 7^th century. Despite Demetrius’ activity as a protector of the City from the 7^th century on the earliest evidence of his portrayal as a military saint is not until the 11^th century.[6] In the development of his status from martyr to General we see a microcosm of the wider change in attitude toward violence that happened throughout the empire in the 12^th and 13^th centuries.[7] How widely accepted the violent acts attributed to Demetrius were within the church is difficult to judge. George Akropolites for example reported that Kalojan died of pleurisy “though some attributed his death to the wrath of God.”[8] There is no discernable trend in the editing of the miracles but it is clear that some emphasized Demetrius’ moral courage and inspirational leadership over his violent punishments.[9]

The description of the army

Theodore Laskaris was presented as a new Constantine by Choniates who specifically compared the battle of the Maeander to the battle of Milvian Bridge by noting the Nicaeans wore the cross as an ensign. As noted above there were a large number of Latin mercenaries in the Nicaean army but Akropolites states that “in the Lord Christ whose name we pious people bear as an ensign or seal” implying that all present wore the cross.[10] The comparison of Theodore to Constantine is an important one because Constantine, one of the very few Byzantine emperors considered a saint personified the reconciliation of kingship and Christian faith. It was upon Constantine’s conversion that Eusebios formulated what would become the Byzantine understanding of the emperor as a mirror of divine rule and perfection.[11] Theodore increased the religious tone of the Nicaean campaigns by proposing a truce between Latin Constantinople and Nicaea ultimately rejected by Innocent III in order to combine their forces against the Muslims.[12] The rejection of the treaty with by Innocent III in favour of an alliance with the Turks lent Theodore legitimacy in his position as a Christian ruler.[13]

           

Conclusion

            The sources indicate that there was an element of Byzantine culture outside of the “ecclesiastical tradition” that believed from the 6^th Century that divine punishment in the form of physical violence was administered by one of God’s saints. It was standard practice that those at the very height of the Byzantine Church supported the emperor’s military role as the bringer of justice to the world. Choniates believed that warfare for the sake of Christ was not a sin that was immediately forgiven by oikonomia but meritorious. The violent acts of Demetrius far predate the coming of the crusades and serve as an example of the reactive nature of Byzantine culture under external pressure. Demetrius’ interventions make the actions of Autoerianos seem less influenced by crusade ideology and more of a regression to basic Eusebian principles. The flexibility of war ideology was possible because the Christian empire had been established by violent means. The wearing of crosses on the battlefield should therefore be associated more with the battle of Milvian Bridge than with the crusades. The pressure placed on Byzantium by the crusades enlarged the place traditionally accorded to military valor. Crusade ideology on the other hand does not appear to have had any significant influence on Byzantium. Plenary indulgences were continually condemned, those Byzantines who argued for meritorious violence appealed to the writings of their own saints and others believed that God had protected them on the battlefield through saints long before and after the crusades.

---

[1] There were two other popular military saints, George and Theodore though the literature surrounding Demetrius eclipses both there are similarities between all three, in particular their martyrdom.

[2] Eugenia Russell, St Demetrius of Thessalonica, Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages. (2010) p. 9-18.

[3] Walter, Christopher. The Warrior saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. 79.

[4] ibid., p.77.

[5] “Demetrios’ ability to produce a substance by the same name as the sacramental oil of unction could be used as a challenge to patriarchal monopoly” By this she means the Chrism that is produced once a year only by the Patriarchs of the Local Autocephalous Churches of Orthodox Christianity.

Ruth J. Macrides, “Subversion and loyalty in the cult of St. Demetrios”, Byzantinoslavica 51 1990, 189-97.

[6] Walter, Christopher. The Warrior saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2003.p 22.

[7] The first recorded iconographic representation of Demetrius as a stratelates is dated 1108. Lexikon der Christliche Ikonographie, 6 (1974), p.43.

[8] Akropolites 23

[9] Lemerle, P. Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de saint Démétrius: Vol. 1. Le texte (Paris, 1979).p 177-8

[10] George Akropolites, Opera,p. 129

[11] Angold, Michael. A Byzantine Government in exile; Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea 1204-1261. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. P.38

[12] Gardner, Alice. The Laskarids of Nicaea ; The Story of an Empire in Exile. London: Methuen, 1912. p. 80-81.

[13] One of the most persistent Crusader accusations/criticisms against Byzantium was their supposed alliance with Muslims. An alliance between the Crusaders and the Muslims must have been very disenfranchising for many Latin Knights.