Patriarch Michael Autoreianos (Byzantine perceptions of violence during The Crusades part 3)

Patriarch Michael Autoreianos

A great break in Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition came to pass in the form of an indulgence issued by Patriarch Michael Autoreianos in 1208. The indulgence appears to be almost identical to the plenary indulgence of the crusaders.[1] It is preserved in a single copy of a letter from Patriarch Michael Atoureianos and his synod of refugee bishops in Nicaea; no record of a similar case has come down to us.[2] Tellingly, neither Niketas Choniates nor George Akropolites (1220-1282) mention the incident, suggesting that the practice was short lived. The Nicaean Empire under Theodore Laskaris (r 1204-1222) ceased to continue many important 12^th century traditions including the regular issuing of Chrysobulls, hyperya and employment of court rhetors. The absence of these staples of 12^th century Byzantium gives the picture of an austere household government in Nicaea.[3] Theodore II Laskaris (r 1254-1258), son of Theodore I remarked upon the emperors dislike for  “refined words”, if Theodore I requested intervention by the church he would have certainly preferred it to be straightforward over theologically nuanced.[4] At first the letter does not differ much from the established tradition of exhortation by Byzantine clergymen to military authorities. The main body of the text stresses the importance of monarchy and the divine assistance offered to the Byzantines because of their “immaculate” orthodox faith. The tone of the letter is reminiscent of the correspondence of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (r 901-907 / 912-925) who by his unique position as regent and hierarch is a close parallel of the dependant relationship of Laskaris and Autoreianos. Autoreianos’ letter calls to mind the harangues of Emperor Heraclius more than we may expect of a Churchman but Nicholas had already set a president for clerical involvement in military matters. In 915 he (Nicholas) wrote to the governor of Longbardia to congratulate him for a recent victory and thank him for not disappointing him.[5]  Again Nicholas advises his emperor to “train his men and be prepared.”[6] Even earlier though in more desperate circumstances Patriarch Sergios I (610-38) called for aid for Heraclius by asking all Bishops to contribute financially to the war effort. In light of the correspondence between the aforementioned clergy we see little change in Byzantine attitude towards violence in the main body of Autoreianos’ letter. The advice and support offered by these bishops had a common limit, they consistently refused to honor soldiers as martyrs and banned military participation by clergy.[7] In reference to clergy participation in warfare there are several examples of a strongly enforced policy of deposition even in cases of self-defense.[8] Additionally, when Nicholas discovered that clergymen had been drafted into the Byzantine army along the Bulgarian frontier he demanded their release explaining “to convert to common use anything whatever that has once been sanctified is culpable.”[9] The reluctance to accord the sacrifice of a soldier a double dedication, one to state and one to God or conversely with a clergyman is found in Autorianos’ letter by the inclusion of the so called indulgence as a post-script apart from the body of the letter.

Παρ᾽ ῟ου καὶ ἡμεῖς, τὴν μεγάλην δωρεὰν τῆς αὐτοῦ δεξάμενοι χάριτος, συγχωροὖμεν ὑμῖν, τοῖς ὑπερμαχοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὰ ἐν τῷβίω πεπλημμελημένα ύμιν, ὅσοις τῶν πατριδων προκινδυνεύουσι τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ λυτρῶσεως ἐπισυμβαιη καὶ θάνατος[10]

“ Having received from God the great gift of his grace, We forgive those trespasses committed in life those who die in the defense of our salvation and the liberation of our people.”

The meaning is clear, remission of sins for those who die fighting, a contrary view to the established position of the church and a potential endorsement of the crusader ideology of spiritually meritorious violence. Autoreianos informs Theodore that the letter was sent to the military authorities, suggesting that the indulgence may have been requested by Theodore to motivate his men. To introduce an alien and Latin practice at the time of the Latin occupation is perplexing, we have such conclusive evidence revealing the Byzantine understanding of Crusade ideology and such strong condemnation of the Islamic parallel that to imagine a scenario where Autoreianos dreamt up this indulgence without consciously adopting a Latin practice is very difficult indeed.[11] Constantine Stilbes’ (mid 12^th Century) Against the Latins refutes plenary indulgencies and repeatedly accuses Latins of conducting violence for the salvation of their souls[12] It is possible that the indulgence was intended to appeal to the large Latin contingent of Theodore’s army alone.[13] Upon his Consecration as Latin Patriarch of Constantinople Thomas Morosini (1204-1211) had immediately anathematized and excommunicated the Latins who failed to accompany him on a campaign against Orestias in 1204. In 1210, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) excommunicated those who took up arms against the empire of Constantinople and her allies.[14] The Latin contingent was therefore thoroughly excommunicated by the Western church and it is conceivable that Theodore wanted to ease their consciences with something more than just a higher rate of pay. Autoreianos’ indulgence does not however, go as far as it first appears, specifically it does not offer the title of Martyr to the fallen, rather “remission of the sins of this life” an important distinction to the plenary indulgence of the Roman Church. Emperor Nikeporos Phokas (912-969) specifically requested the dead be recognized as martyrs and the speech given to Heraclius’ by Theophanes refers to the crowns of martyrdom to be acquired in battle.[15] The phrase “sins committed in this life” could broadly reference the necessary act of killing in battle. Byzantine war ideology had consistently viewed killing in battle as a sin exceptionally forgiven by God through his grace and oikonomia. Interpreting the letter as a reiteration of the traditional Byzantine ideology being addressed to an army immediately strips it of the character of an indulgence and accounts for its simplistic language.

---

[1] Killing in war was believed to be a sin exceptionally forgiven by God through Oikonomia but requiring atonement.

[2]  The Latin accusation that Patriarch Dositheos had stated that killing Latins was spiritually beneficial but there is no corroborating Greek source that relates specifically to this point.

[3] Angelov, Dimiter. Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.p. 40

[4] Theodore 11 encomio

[5] Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Trs. R. J. H. Jenkins, L. G. Westerink, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973.p.458

[6] Nicholas I, Letters. P.336

[7] Specifically the seventh canon of Chalcedon. G.A Rhalles and M. Potles, Συνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ίερῶν κανόνων,(Αthens, 1852-59). Vol, 2, p.232 “We have decreed that those who have been enrolled in the clergy or have become monks shall not join the army or obtain ant secular office, Let those who dare do this and will not repent ..be anathema.”

[8] Demetrios, Chomiatianos Decisiones, p 324

[9] Nicholas I, Letters. P. 467

12 Autorianos, Michael, Act,s ed.,Oikonomidès Nicolas. “Cinq actes inédits du patriarche Michel Autôreianos.” In: Revue des études byzantines, 25, 1967. pp. 113-145.

[11]  Angelov concludes that the remission of sins offered by Autoreianos was a true indulgence, identical to those issued by the popes and was a conscious adoption of crusader practice. Angelov, Dimiter. Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.p. 100.

[12] Darrouzès Jean. Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 21, Paris, 1963. pp. 50-100 “The massacre of Christians is seen favourably by their bishops and especially by the pope and they declare the killings a means of salvation for those who perform them.”

[13] Akropolites, George. Opera. Translated by A Heisenberg. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. p. 16 Akropolites recorded the number of Latin Knights to be 800.

[14] Haluscynski, Theodosios, ed. Acta Innocentii pp, III, 1198-1216 E Registris Vaticanis Aliisque Fontibus. 1944. No. 114, 345-8.

[15] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. Translated by Cyril Mango and Rodger Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.p.19 And Nikephoros; Skylitzes, John. A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057. Translated by John Wortley. London: Cambridge University Press, 2012.p.263  (Nikephoros) was pressing the patriarch

And the bishops to agree to this doctrine but some of them vigorously withstood him and frustrated his intent. They produced in evidence the canon of [St] Basil the Great which requires that a man who has slain his enemy in battle to remain three years excommunicate

Zonaras and Aristenos reevaluate the Pacific Canons of St Basil (part 2 of 4)

Canonists

During the crusades the Basilian view of warfare was challenged by the Canonists Zonaras (12^th Century), Aristenos (Mid 12^th Century) and Balsamon (+1199). The pressure of the crusading movement had forced all parts of society to reevaluate the role of warfare in Byzantium. The canonist Alexios Aristenos referred back to St Athanasius’ (298-373) letter to Ammun “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.” [2] This letter was repeated and emphasized in order to present a lack of consensus in the Holy Fathers and specifically with the most influential Saint on this topic, Basil. Aristenos dishonestly presented the position of Athanasius as counter to Basil by only referencing the latter's recommendation of a ban on communion, insinuating that Basil held a contrary and pacifistic view. In reality both saints agreed on the nature and necessity of warfare. Alexis Zonaras went further than Aristenos by arguing that the Canon of Basil never predominated, he very specifically called the appeal to the Basilian canon a “last resort” suggesting its relative obscurity. “The saint [i.e. Basil of Caesarea] claims not in a demanding but only counseling manner that those who kill at war should refrain from the holy communion; it seems though to be a burdensome counsel the possible consequence of which is that the soldiers will be never in position to receive the holy gifts, even though they are being courageous and brave; ... For what reason should the hands of those who fight on behalf of the state and their brothers in order to avoid captivity or to free those captured be judged unclean? ... Thinking in that way, the older fathers did not regard those who killed at war as murderers, forgiving them because, as this saint also said, they were defending prudence and piety; Therefore, I believe that the spiritual legacy of Basil of Caesarea never predominated; it lasted though through time as an ecclesiastical tradition…Because they could not convince him (Nikephoros), they used this canon as a last resort saying: How can we count among the martyrs those who die in war, whom Basil the Great forbade the receiving of the holy gifts for three years, because their hands were not clean?” There is no evidence to suggest the active enforcement of the Basilian canon. The impracticality of its implementation make it unlikely that it ever was but Zonaras deliberately pairs Basil with Athanasius again in order to reconsider the traditional Byzantine view of violence as represented by Basil.  It is not clear what Zonaras meant by Ecclesiastical tradition but the statement suggests that those who held to the Basilian precepts were separate from the rest of Byzantine society. It also suggests that those belonging to the ecclesiastical tradition were more influential in the past because of the rigorous enforcement of punishments for those who conducted warfare contrary to the traditional Byzantine strictures defined by Basil and the Tactica. The repetition of Athanasius and the deprecation of Basil demonstrates that those who in the Twelfth century belonged to the ecclesiastical tradition of the Byzantine church were sympathetic to the idea of praiseworthy violence. If the deconstruction of the Byzantine view of warfare was a conscious effort to motivate an aggressive military resistance or was influenced by crusade ideology is hard to tell. It is conceivable that the beliefs of those outside the “ecclesiastical tradition” had spread and were adopted by a large portion of Byzantine society in a time when rationality and identity were strained and minimized in comparison to the need for survival.

---

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

The Impact of the Crusades on Byzantine Perceptions of Violence (part 1 of 4 Niketas Choniates)

Did the Crusades Change the Byzantine Perception of Violence?

The impact of the crusades on the Byzantine perception of violence is a complicated issue. There is an observable shift in the way Byzantines wrote about violence during the period of the crusades. Answering whether this indicates a break in tradition, an adoption of foreign ideology, a widespread endorsement of popular opinions or simply an expression of panic requires careful attention.[1] The shift in attitude can be observed in the commentaries of canonical commentators, statements by churchmen and in the portrayal of military saints. The most clear and measurable change can be seen in the way the Byzantine church treated violence. The church had historically supported the empire’s wars as an unavoidable necessity and can be reasonably described as more or less passively complicit. The separation between the sacred nature of the church and the military prerogatives of the Empire had been clearly defined.[2] The belief that all violence was by its very nature sinful was widespread and reinforced by both ecclesiastics and emperors.[3] The Byzantine concept of violence prevented the Church from offering spiritual rewards to soldiers as the Western church had.[4]

Choniates

By the time of Niketas Choniates (1155-1216) the perception of violence in Byzantium appears to have changed significantly. Niketas though hostile to the Crusaders extolled their military prowess and berated the consistent cowardice of the Byzantine army. The worsening political and military situation of the empire during the 12^th century transformed the traditional view of warfare as a means of bringing justice to a prerequisite for survival. The language used by Choniates indicates the need for urgent offensive struggle. Khazan made the observation that the number of times the word attack is mentioned in Choniates’ Historia compared to defense is overwhelming, reflecting Choniates’ preoccupation with military matters.[5] In his role as governor of Phillipopolis, Nicetas Choniates became acutely aware of the necessity of the military support that had been missing since the rule of Emperor Manuel. Choniates also demonstrates an understanding of the Crusading indulgence in his account of a speech given by Louis VII during the second crusade “Even though we be concerned about our going straight to the eternal mansions for God is not so unjust that he does not see the cause which had led us on this course and therefore not admit us into the virgin meadows and shady resting places in Eden, for we have abandoned our country and have chosen to die for him rather than to live.”[6] The speech is similar to that of Emperor Heraclius (575-641) in which battle is considered a martyric sacrifice, the religious language of the Louis speech is close to the Byzantine but states that the crusaders set out seeking a salvific death rather than to bring justice to an occupied territory.[7] Choniates goes on to give a favorable account of Frederick Barbarossa’s (1122-1190) crusade in which he criticized Emperor Isaac (r 1185-1195/1203-1204) assigning him the changeable characteristics often attributed to westerners by Byzantine authors.[8]  A large portion of Choniates’ praise of Barbarossa regards the crusading army’s military prowess that Choniates perceived as producing greater results than the Byzantine diplomacy had with the Turks.[9] He voiced his frustration with the apathy shown by the emperors toward Roman territories held by Muslims and the “ignominious”[10] military enterprises of the Romans. “Phrygia, Lykaonia, and Pisidia once subject to the Romans and now ruled by the barbarians who have taken them by the force of arms and exploit them, thanks to the slothfulness and unmanly housekeeping cares of Roman rulers who have been unwilling to labor and brave danger for the lands entrusted to their safekeeping.”[11] The absence of criticism for the crusade indulgence in Choniates is striking since he is quick to point out the other religious errors that belonged to the Latins.[12] That Choniates believed that the Crusades could be just can be read in his eulogy of Barbarossa in which he undoubtedly describes him as a martyr. “He chose...to suffer afflictions with the Christians of Palestine for the name of Christ…following the example of the Apostle Paul, he did not count his life dear unto himself but pressed forward, even to die for the name of Christ. Thus the man’s zeal was apostolic, his purpose dear to God and his achievement beyond perfection.”[13] Choniates interpreted the crusade as a parallel to the Byzantine just war, his own words regarding Barbarossa are very close to those found in the letter of Patriarch Michael Autoreianos (1206-1212). The theme of martyrdom for the protection of the Holy Sepulcher is echoed in Autoreianos’ letter with Constantinople the “new Jerusalem” replacing the old. Autoreianos and Choniates both agreed that the defense of Orthodox Christians offered a spiritual reward. Only after 1204 does he openly accuse the crusaders of the ill intent that Anna Komnene and Dositheos had assigned them “they were exposed as frauds…Seeking to avenge the Holy Sepulcher, they raged openly against Christ and sinned by overturning the Cross with the cross they bore on their backs, not even shuddering to trample on it for a little gold and silver.”[14] Despite his negative final assessment of the Crusaders Choniates did not make a case against the crusade indulgence but instead empathized with them and demonstrated a common understanding of violence with them. It is convincing that Choniates was favorable to the ideology of the Crusade but as Anna Komnene (1008-1153) did before him he observed that there were two distinct groups within the crusading movement; those who were sincere in their martyric struggle and those who sought material gain.[15]

---

[1] The differing degrees of interpretation are explored thoroughly in, Kolbaba, Tia. "Fighting For Christianity." Byzantion 68 (Brussels, 1998), pp. 194-221.

[2] Dennis, George T., ed. Three Byzantine Military Treatises.Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985.p.13. “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.”

[3] Emperor Leo VI, The Taktika of Leo VI, trans Dennis, George (Washington 2010),

 p .37. “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.”

[4] Pope John VIII (872-82) was the first pope to offer the remission of sins to those who died fighting Muslim raiders. This indulgence, unlike the crusading indulgence was offered to those defending Christian territory in Italy.

Thatcher, Oliver J., and Edgar H. McNeal, eds. A Source Book for Mediaeval History. New York: Charles Schreibner's Sons, 1905.p. 512 “Those who, out of love to the Christian religion, shall die in battle fighting bravely against pagans or unbelievers, shall receive eternal life..we absolve, as far as is permissible, all such and commend them by our prayers to the Lord.”

[5] Kazhdan, Alexander. "Terminology of War in Niketas Choniates' Historia." In Peace and War in Byzantium; Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., edited by Timothy S. Millier and John Nesbitt, 220-44. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1995.

[6] Choniates, Niketas, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry Magoulias. P. 40

[7] Confessor, Theophanes. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. Translated by Cyril Mango and Rodger Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.p.19 “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.”

[8]  Especially his “simple minded bewitchment” by Dositheos, Choniates, Niketas pp 221,222.

[9]  See the account of Barbarossa’s attack on Philomilion, Ginklarion and Ikonion. Choniates, Niketas, p 227,228

[10] Choniates, Niketas, p. 225.

[11] ibid., p.43.

[12] ibid., p.222. Regarding the Latins “Germans” and the Armenians “they agree with one another in most of their heresies… both use azyma in their divine liturgies, and both hold as lawful other perverse doctrines which are rejected by the orthodox Christians.”

[13]ibid., p.229.

[14] Choniates, Niketas, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates, p. 316

[15] Comnena, Anna, p.. “The simpler-minded were urged on by the real desire of worshipping at our Lord‘s Sepulchre, and visiting the sacred places; but the more astute,. had another secret reason, namely.. they might by some means be able to seize the capital itself, looking upon this as a kind of corollary” 

Byzantine New Year

Today is the beginning of the 7,524^th year since the creation of the world according to the Byzantine calendar. The Byzantine calendar was based on the Julian but made two significant changes. September first was made the first day of the year in accordance with the start of the ecclesiastical year. The second major adaptation was the dating of the age of the world according to the Old Testament. Opinion regarding the date of creation varied in the Eastern Roman Empire until it was set in the mid 7^th century.  Eusebius (260-339) calculated 5499 years from the creation of the world until the birth of Christ. The Alexandrians Annianos and Panodoros (5^th Century) calculated the same period to be between 5492-5494 with the range in dates is due to a dispute over when the new year fell, March 24^th to coincide with the Alexandrian ecclesial year and the feast of Annunciation or the 29^th of August as the first day of the Coptic month of Thoth. The Byzantines settled on 5508 years from the creation of the world until the incarnation of Christ. The familiar A.D. system of Dionysius Exiguus (470-544) recording years according to the incarnation of Christ rather than the creation of the world was not adopted in the East.

Byzantine Manuscripts contain colophons that give information about the work, copyist and date of completion. Many of these colophons are full of complex abbreviations, symbols and beautiful ligatures. Some of them reveal the mental state of the copyist or biographical notes regarding co-workers at the scriptorium. All of them give the date according to the ἕτος κόσμου or έτος κτίσης κόσμου that is year of the creation of the world. Most colophons also record the indiction (a 15 year cycle starting on September 1^st).  

In order to calculate the Byzantine year between 1st January and 31st August simply subtract 5508 from the desired date A.D. for the rest of the year subtract 5509.

This very basic and clear colophon is from a copy of the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St John Klimakos completed in the year 6477 AM, 12^th indiction, which corresponds to 969 A.D. It was finished on the first of June, the third day of the week (Tuesday) in the fifth hour. 

 Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh signing the proclamation of the new indiction in Constantinople 7524 A.M.

A short reflection on sainthood and locality

Last Saturday the Church of Serbia celebrated the glorification of two new saints who lived and worked extensively in our diocese of Western America, Sts Sebastian and Mardarije. The festivities were held in the Diocsean Cathedral in Los Angeles and hosted hierarchs, clergy and laity from several continents. Presiding at the liturgy and proclamation was His Holiness Irinej of Serbia. The presence of the hierarchs and especially the Patriarch gives witness to the ecumenicity of the Orthodox Church. The glorification itself bore witness to the unity of the living members of the Church with those who have gone before us. The process of sainthood in the Orthodox tradition is really one of recognition on an ecumenical level of pre-existing local veneration. In this way the proclamation of a person’s sainthood is much like the blessing or crowning of an Orthodox marriage. The marriage service entreats God’s blessing and asks him to perfect a pre-existing relationship in the presence of the Church congregation. The two newly recognized Saints worked tirelessly in what would become the Western American Diocese founding and nurturing fledgling communities.

The cult of local saints was a very important element of Byzantine culture. Certain saints were and continue to be almost completely associated with their locality. The greatest example of the local saint is Demetrios of Thessaloniki. 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

---

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

[2] “Demetrios’ ability to produce a substance by the same name as the sacramental oil of unction could be used as a challenge to patriarchal authority” 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.

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