Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:12:52.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ritual Brotherhood in Byzantium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Claudia Rapp
Claudia Rapp*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kinship networks and social hierarchies provide an important key to the Byzantine Empire's tenacious survival over the course of more than a millennium. This study concentrates on one such social networking strategy, that of ritual brotherhood. No investigation of ritual brotherhood can overlook the Byzantine evidence, for Byzantium is unique among medieval societies in having formally incorporated into its ecclesiastical ritual the ceremony by which the priest's prayers and blessing make ‘brothers’ of two men. Further, the history of the empire provides ample evidence for the concrete implementation of this bond. Hagiographical and historical narratives as well as regulations of secular and ecclesiastical authorities attest to the importance of ritual brotherhood as it was practiced by holy men and patriarchs, aristocrats and emperors. The Byzantine evidence is, unsurprisingly, at the core of John Boswell's argument in his Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe,' Boswell drew attention to this interesting and multi-faceted relationship, but he did not explore the full range of sources for ritual brotherhood, nor did he attempt to show how this relationship related to others within Byzantine society.

Type
Ritual Brotherhood in Ancient and Medieval Europe: A Symposium
Information
Traditio , Volume 52 , 1997 , pp. 285 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The research for this article has greatly benefited from the assistance and critical comments of Alexander Alexakis, David Blank, Stephanos Efthymiadis, Paul Halsall, Gail Lenhoff, Claudia Ludwig, Ruth Macrides, Stefano Parenti, Vincenzo Ruggieri, David Sabean, Lee Sherry, Patrick Viscuso, and Barbara Zeitler. In the final stages, Jason Moralee provided meticulous research assistance. The shape of my argument has profited greatly from Paul Magdalino's valuable suggestions on an earlier draft. Without the encouragement and constructive criticisn that Elizabeth Brown and Brent Shaw provided over the long gestation period of our joint project, this article would not have been written. I wish to express my gratitude to all, and at the same time to absolve them of any responsibility for what follows.Google Scholar

In addition to those listed in Elizabeth Brown's introduction, n.1, the following abbreviations have been used consistently:Google Scholar

Georg. mon. = Georgius monachus , ed. Bekker, I., Theophanes continuatus (Bonn, 1838). Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ) = Chronika Georgija Amartola , ed. Istrin, V. M., 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1922).Google Scholar

Georg. mon. (ed. Muralt, ) = Georgius monachus, ed. Muralt, E. (St. Petersburg, 1859), reprinted in PG 110.Google Scholar

Leo gramm. = Leo, grammaticus, Chronographia, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn, 1842).Google Scholar

Life of Euthymios = Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP., text, trans., intro., and comm. by Karlin-Hayter, P., Bibliothèque de Byzantion 3 (Brussels, 1970).Google Scholar

Life of John the Almsgiver = Léontios de Néapolis, Vie de Syméon le fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre, ed. and trans. Festugière, A.–J. with Rydén, L. (Paris, 1974).Google Scholar

Life of Symeon the Fool = Léontios de Néapolis , Vie de Syméon le fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre, ed. and trans. Festugière, A.–J. with Rydén, L. (Paris, 1974).Google Scholar

Life of Theodore of Sykeon = Vie de Théodore de Sykéon, ed. and trans. Festugière, A.–J., vol 1: Texte grec, vol. 2: Traduction (Brussels, 1970).Google Scholar

Macrides, , “Godfather” = Macrides, R. J., “The Byzantine Godfather,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 11 (1987): 139–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

and multi-faceted relationship, but he did not explore the full range of sources for ritual brotherhood, nor did he attempt to show how this relationship related to others within Byzantine society.Google Scholar

ODB = The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (New York and Oxford, 1991).Google Scholar

Rhalles, Potles, Syntagma = Rhalles, G. A. and Potles, M., Syntagma ton theion kai hieron kanonon, 6 vols. (Athens, 1852–1959).Google Scholar

Sym. mag. = Symeon magister, ed. Bekker, I., Theophanes continuatus (Bonn, 1838). Theodosius Melitenus = Theodosii Meliteni qui fertur Chronographia , ed. Tafel, T. (Munich, 1859).Google Scholar

Theoph. cont. = Theophanes continuatus, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn, 1838).Google Scholar

All translations from Greek are mine, unless otherwise noted.Google Scholar

2 Scholars since the last century have suspected that a link between ritual brotherhood and godparenthood exists, but this case has never been argued in detail. See von Lingenthal, Zachariä, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1892), 70 n. 139; Patlagean, , “Christianisation”; Macrides, , “Godfather,” 141; eadem, “Kinship by Arrangement: The Case of Adoption,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 109–18, at 110; Puchner, , “Griechisches zur ‘adoptio in fratrem’,” 196; and, most recently, P. Viscuso in a review of Boswell's book in the New Oxford Review (December 1994): 29–3l at 31.Google Scholar

3 I follow here the felicitous translation of θέσει by Macrides, , “Adoption,” 109.Google Scholar

4 Theoph. cont. (317, line 10) preserves the most detailed and most spectacular case of adelphopoiesis, that of the emperor Basil I with the son of Danelis, calling their relation “spiritual brotherhood” (πνευματικὴ ἀδελφότης). Boswell (SSU, 27), however, seems to imply that Goar in his Euchologion attached the label “spiritual” to the brotherhood ritual in order to “obviate any comparison with heterosexual matrimony.” Google Scholar

5 See the entries αδελφός and πνευματικός in Lampe, G. W. H., Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961).Google Scholar

6 It should be noted, however, that in isolated instances adelphopoiesis, as well as synteknia relations, were formed between a man and a woman.Google Scholar

7 The evidence for, and nature of, this ritual are explained in detail in the introduction to this symposium.Google Scholar

8 For further references, see Horden, P., “The Confraternities of Byzantium,” in Voluntary Religion, ed. Shiels, W. J. and Wood, D., Studies in Church History 23 (Oxford, 1986), 25–45 at 39–44; S. Pétridès, “Spoudaei et Philopones,” Échos d'Orient 7 (1904): 341–48; Wipszycka, E., “Les confréries dans la vie religieuse de l'Egypte chrétienne,” Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology , ed. Samuel, D. H. (Toronto, 1970), 511–25; and Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1959), 138–39.Google Scholar

9 Dagron, G. (“ ‘Ainsi rien n’échappera à la réglementation.’ État, Église, corporations, confréries: à propos des inhumations à Constantinople [IVe–Xe siècle],” in Hommes et richesses dans l'Empire byzantin, II: VIIIe–XVe siècle, ed. Kravari, V. et al. [Paris, 1991], 162–64) presents and discusses the charter of a burial society, which calls itself a “brotherhood” (adelphotes), in Constantinople in the first half of the ninth century. E. v. Dobschütz (“Maria Romaia,” Google Scholar

Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 [1903]: 173–214, at 202) mentions a Christian confraternity in the ninth century that met every week for the purpose of carrying an icon of the Holy Virgin in a public procession.Google Scholar

10 According to a Greek description of Constantinople that dates from between 1063 and 1081 and is preserved in a Latin manuscript of the early twelfth century, a group of men and women organized a weekly procession of the icon of the Virgin Hodegetria. Cf. Ciggaar, K. N., “Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pèlerin anglais,” Revue des études byzantines 34 (1976): 211–67, esp. 249. The same procession is also described in the Latin account by a Francophone traveler who visited Constantinople between 1075 and 1098 in order to study the Greek language. Cf. Ciggaar, K. N., “Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55,” Revue des études byzantines 53 (1995): 117–40, at 127, lines 349–68. A Danish traveler of the twelfth century also recorded this procession (ibid., 140).Google Scholar

11 On his visit to Constantinople, the Spanish traveler, Tafur, Pero (Travels and Adventures, 1435–1439, trans. Letts, M. [London, 1926], 141–42) observed the weekly gathering of a group of twenty men, wearing distinctive red linen dress, to honor an icon of the Holy Virigin with a procession.Google Scholar

12 Nesbitt, J. and Wiita, J., “A Confraternity of the Comnenian Era,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 68 (1975): 360–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 An excellent study of military associations and patronage is Beck, , Byzantinisches Gefolgschaftswesen. See esp. 15–16, on the conspiratorial character of phratriai. Google Scholar

14 Council of Chalcedon, can. 18, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum , ed. Schwartz, E., vol. 2: Concilium Chalcedonense (Berlin and Leipzig, 1936), in Latin. English trans. in Hefele, C. J., A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1883), 404. Greek text in Rhalles, Potles, , Syntagma, 2: 263: Tò τῆς συνωμοσίας ἢ φατρίας ἒγκλημα καὶ παρὰ τςν ἒξω νόμων πάντη κεκώλυται, πολλς δὴ μςλλον ἐν τῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ‘Eκκλησίᾳ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἀπαγορεύειν προσήκει. Εἲ τινες τοίνυν κληρικοὶ ἢ μονάζοντες εὑρεθεῦεν συνομνύμενοι ἢ φατριάζοντες ἢ κατασκευὰς τυρεύοντες ἐπισκόποις ἢ συγκληρικοῦς, ἐκπιπτέτωσαν πάντη τοῦ οἰκείου βαθμοῦ. This prohibition was repeated, in slightly different words, as canon thirtyfour of the Quinisext Council in 692 (Mansi 11, col. 960A).Google Scholar

15 Cheynet, J.-C., Pouvoirs et contestations à Byzance (963–1210) (Paris, 1990), 159–60.Google Scholar

16 I have not found in the Byzantine sources any indication of brotherhood involving the exchange of blood between the ‘brothers’. For a detailed treatment of this aspect in post-Byzantine and Slavic societies, see “‘Aδελφοποιία (καὶ ἀδελφοποίησις),” in Μεγάλη ‘Ελληνικὴ ‘Εγκυκλοπαɩδεία 1 (Athens, 1926), 569–71, and Puchner, , “Griechisches zur ‘adoptio in fratrem’.” Google Scholar

17 Constantinople, MS Patriarchate 615 (757), copied in 1522 (Dmitrievskii, , Euchologia, 743). At the beginning of the ritual, there are apparently three men who place their right hands on the Gospel book: καὶ ὁ προειπὼν, τίθησι πρῶτος τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῖ εἰς ἃγιον εὐαγγέλιον, εῖτα ὁ δεύτερος καὶ ὁ τρίτος.Google Scholar

18 It literally means “having children in common,” as does the Latin term compaternitas. Since the English language has no word to describe this relationship between adults, anthropologists have resorted to borrowing the Spanish compadrazgo from the Latin American societies where it continues to play an important role.Google Scholar

19 On his political role after the overthrow of Phokas in the rebellion of Herakleios, see Kaegi, W. E. Jr., “New Evidence on the Early Reign of Heraclius,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 66 (1973): 308–30, repr. in his Army, Society and Religion in Byzantium (London, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Life of Theodore of Sykeon, chap. 120, 96–97.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., chap. 128, 103.Google Scholar

22 The Greek reads καὶ ἠσπάσαντο ἀλλήλους ἐν χαρᾷ πολλᾖ, “they embraced each other with great joy”: ibid., chap. 133, 105, lines 2–3. There is nothing in this description that would be suggestive of sexual overtones. The verb ἀσπάζομαι is generally used to describe a friendly embrace, esp. in the liturgy, as the kiss of peace, and also on the occasions of departure and arrival.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., chap. 134, 106, lines 1–2: προετρέψατο αὐτòν ὁ μακαριώτατος Θωμᾶς. Festugière's translation (ibid., 2:110) of the verb προετρέψατο as “le très bienheureux patriarche Thomas l'invita à demeurer chez lui [my emphasis]” is an overinterpretation. Without an object, it simply means “to invite, to demand, to summon”; see Lampe (n. 5 above). In the present context, the object of the patriarch's invitation is explained in the following sentence: he wishes to become the saint's ‘brother’.Google Scholar

24 Πολλὴν σχέσιν καὶ πληροφορίαν ἒχων εἰς αὐτόν, ὡς καὶ διὰ πολλῆν δεήσεων πεῆσαι αὐτòν ἀδελφοποίησιν ποιῆσαι μετ’ αὐτοῦ: ibid., chap. 134, 106, lines 2–4.Google Scholar

25 A.–J. Festugière (Life of John the Almsgiver, 261 n. 3) emphasized the spiritual obligations created by this relationship. Boswell (SSU, 230), however, underlines the possibility that this relation is “based on passionate feelings, at least on Thomas’ part,” because “it is difficult to interpret otherwise the latter's desire for them to be together in heaven.” Google Scholar

26 Ei ὅλως κατηξίωσας ἀδελφόν με ἒχειν καὶ τοιαύτῃ γνησιότητι διάκεισαι εἰς τὰ κατ’ ἐμέ (“if you really count me worthy to have me as a brother and if you are disposed with such genuine sentiments towards me”): Life of Theodore of Sykeon, chap. 134, 107, lines 39–41.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., chap. 135, 107–8, lines 15–46.Google Scholar

28 Πολὺν πόθον ἒσχε καὶ πληροφορίαν εἰς αὐτòν πλείω τοῦ πρò αὐτοῦ: ibid., chap. 136, 109, lines 24–25.Google Scholar

29 ‘Aνεδέξατο ἐν τᾖ ἁγίᾳ κολυμβήθρᾳ: ibid., chap. 127, 102, lines 3–4. The verb ἀναδέχεσθαɩ, Google Scholar

“to receive,” commonly refers to the act of becoming a godfather by receiving a child from the baptismal font. In the present case, however, it is also conceivable that Theodore was considered a godfather because he had officiated at the boy's baptism. For the date of Photios's exarchate, see Sansterre, J.-M., “Une mention peu connue d'un exarque d'Italie,” Byzantion 55 (1985): 267–68.Google Scholar

30 Life of Theodore of Sykeon, chap. 127, 102–3.Google Scholar

31 On the textual transmission, see Life of John the Almsgiver, 267, and Mango, C., “A Byzantine Hagiographer at Work: Leontios of Neapolis,” in Byzanz und der Westen. Studien zur Kunst des europäischen Mittelalters, ed. Hutter, I., Akad, Sb. Vienna 432 (Vienna, 1984), 33–34.Google Scholar

32 Mango (“A Byzantine Hagiographer,” 35–36) has shown that the historical role of Niketas, as described in the hagiographical dossier of John the Almsgiver, , “is open to serious doubt.” Google Scholar

33 On this ‘brotherhood’ relationship, see also the insightful comments by Festugière, , Life of John the Almsgiver, 261 n. 3.Google Scholar

34 Delehaye, H., “Une vie inédite de saint Jean l'Aumonier,” Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927): 5–74, esp. 20, line 35–21, line 1: John was initially reluctant to become patriarch of Alexandria, but ultimately yielded to the pressure from the emperor Herakleios and from Niketas: CrossRefGoogle Scholar

’Εντεῦθεν ὑπò τοῦ βασιλέως ‘Ηρακλείου λίαν ἐκβιασθεὶς εἰσηγήσει μάλιστα Νικήτα τοῦ τηνικαῦτα τῦ τῦς πατρικιότητος τιμῦ τετιμημένου καὶ παραδυναστεύοντος, ὅς καὶ ἀδελφοποίητος τῦ μακαρίτῃ κεχρηματίκει…. In hagiographical texts, the expression ὁ μακαρίτης, which here identifies the “brother” of Niketas, is commonly used to refer to the saint who is the subject of the Vita. See also the other redaction of this text, published by Lappa-Zizicas, E., “Un épitomé inédit de la vie de s. Jean l'Aumonier par Jean et Sophronius,” Analecta Bollandiana 88 (1970): 265–78, at 274, in chap. 4: John was urged to accept the patriarchal see ὑπò ‘Ηρακλείου τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ Νικήτα τοῦ συμμάχου καὶ ἀδελφοποιητοῦ αὐτοῦ. The editor reads (268) this passage as referring to Niketas's brotherhood not with the saint, but with Herakleios. The tenth-century version, however, agrees that Niketas was the “brother” of the saint: Νικήτας … ἀδελφός τε κατὰ πνεῇμα τῇ μακαρίῳ τελῇν καὶ δεσμοῇς αὐτῇ φιλίας ἂριστα συνημμένος (Leontios’ von Neapolis, Leben des heiligen Iohannes des Barmherzigen, Erzbishofs von Alexandrien , ed. Gelzer, H. [Freiburg i. Br. and Leipzig, 1893], 110, lines 6–9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 For the dating, see Mango, , “A Byzantine Hagiographer,” 33.Google Scholar

36 Πολλὴν συνδεθῆναι πνευματικὴν ἀγάπην τοῦδε τοῦ παμμακαρίστου καὶ τοῦ πατρικίου Νικήτα: Life of John the Almsgiver, chap. 52, 402. I intend to discuss the implications of this ‘brotherhood’ relation of John the Almsgiver in a future study.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., chap. 10, 356–57, esp. 357: τοιαύτη δὲ ἀμφοτέρων συνεδέθη ἒκτοτε ἐκ θεοῆ ἀγάπη, ὡς καὶ σύντεκνον γενέσθαι αὐτòν τοῆ πολλάκις εἰρημένου λαμπροτάτου ἀνδρός. From chap. 16, the abbreviated version edited by Delehaye follows Leontios's Life of John the Almsgiver, and therefore preserves a very similar text: Delehaye, , “Une vie inédite,” chap. 25, 36, lines 9–12, and chap. 47, 67, lines 22–24. The epitome edited by Lappa-Zizicas does not include these passages.Google Scholar

38 For a discussion of this work (but not of the nature of the relation between Symeon and John), see now Krueger, D., Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontius’ Life and the Late Antique City (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1996).Google Scholar

39 Life of Symeon the Fool, 58, line 8: συντυχεῆν ἀλλήλοις κατ’ οἰκονομίαν θεοῆ.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., 58, line 11: ἔσχον … τὴν συντυχίαν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἀλλήλων.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., 60, line 4.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., 64, line 4. John later refers to Symeon as “my brother” (64, line 13).Google Scholar

43 This word is not otherwise encountered in the context of ‘brotherhood’ relationships. It usually describes the affection of parents for their children; applied in a different context, it sometimes has sexual overtones. See the relevant entries in A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., revised by Jones, H. S., with a revised supplement (Oxford, 1996) and Lampe (n. 5 above).Google Scholar

44 Life of Symeon the Fool, 71, lines 1 and 6.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., 76, line 26–77, line 15.Google Scholar

46 Ibid., 78, lines 7–9; 100, lines 22–23; 101, lines 21–25.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., 78, line 13: ὡς ἵνα ἐχώριζεν αὐτòν μάχαιρα ἀπò τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.Google Scholar

48 The combination of intense friendship and a shared spiritual goal is reminiscent of the Martyrdom of Sergios and Bakchos, especially of the moment when Sergios laments the death of his companion, only to be consoled by him in a vision and encouraged to join him in heaven: “Passio antiquior ss. Sergii et Bacchi graece nunc primum edita,” Analecta Bollandiana 14 (1895): 373–95, at 389; translation in Boswell, , SSU, 385.Google Scholar

49 On the political career of Nikolaos, see Gay, M. J., “Le patriarche Nicolas le Mystique et son rôle politique,” in Mélanges Diehl, vol. 1 (Paris, 1930), 91–100.Google Scholar

50 Life of Euthymios 11, lines 30–32; 71, line 6.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., 11, lines 30–31; trans. Karlin-Hayter, 10: ὅν εἱς ὓστερον ὁ βασιλεὺς Λέων προσλαβόμενος ὡς ἃτε συμμαθητῆ αὐτῷ γεγονότι καὶ θετῷ ἀδελφῷ, ὡς μέγα τι ποιήσαντι τὴν ἀπόκαρσιν τῷ τοῷ μυστικοῷ ἀξίᾳ τετίμηκεν. For their long friendship, see also 71, line 6; 85, lines 16–17.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., 81, lines 15–17.Google Scholar

53 Ibid., 85, line 17: μηχανορράφος.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., 89, lines 5–6; 99, lines 24–25. Compare the remark to Nikolaos by his successor, the patriarch Euthymios, that Leo “loved and desired you greatly”: ibid., 139, lines 4–5: τòν πολλά σε στέργοντα και ποθοῦντα βασιλέα, trans. Karlin-Hayter, , 138.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., 67, line 22: ἠχθέσθη τὰ μέγιστα, trans. Karlin-Hayter, 66.Google Scholar

56 Ibid., 69, line 23.Google Scholar

57 Ibid., 71, lines 5–6.Google Scholar

58 Ibid., 91, lines 19–23.Google Scholar

59 Ibid., 71, lines 14–16.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., 113, lines 17–19.Google Scholar

61 On Samonas, see K[azhdan], A. and C[utler], A., “Samonas,” ODB 3: 1835–36.Google Scholar

62 Theoph. cont., 370, lines 11–15; Leo gramm., 279, lines 7–10.Google Scholar

63 Macrides, , “Godfather”; Lynch, , Godparents; Jussen, B., Patenschaft und Adoption im frühen Mittelalter. Künstliche Verwandtschaft als soziale Praxis (Göttingen, 1991).Google Scholar

64 Crusaders as Conquerors: The Chronicle of Morea, trans. Lurier, H. E. (New York and London, 1964), 187. Greek text in The Chronicle of Morea , ed. Schmitt, J. (London, 1904; repr. Groningen, 1967), 260, lines 3934–37: ποτὲ Ρωμαίου μὴ έμπιστευτς διὰ ὅσα καὶ σο ὀμνύει· | ὅταν θέλῃ καὶ βούλεται το να σὲ άπεργώσῃ,| τότε σὲ κάμνει σύντεκνον ἤ ἀδελφοποιτόν του,| ἢ κάμνει σε συμπέθερον διὰ νὰ σὲ ὲξολοθρέψῃ. This passage is found in MS Havniensis 57, but absent from the text in MS Parisinus 2898.Google Scholar

65 Kekaumenos, , Strategikon (Cecaumeni Strategicon , ed. Wassiliewsky, B. and Jernstedt, V. [St. Petersburg, 1896; repr. Amsterdam, 1965]), 49, lines 10–14: καὶ τὰ μὲν οἱ δανεισταὶ μηχαν πειρνται, ἓτεροι δὲ ἀδελφοποιήσεις καὶ συντεκνίας ἐπιτηδεύονται, προξενοσί τε γαμβροὺς καὶ νύμφας, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἐπαγγελόμενοι πάσῃ μηχαν πειρνται στερσαί σε τò σόν. πρόσεχε ον τούτοις.Google Scholar

66 On the political and social significance of imperial synteknia, see now Dagron, G., Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le “césaropapisme” byzantin (Paris, 1996), 66–67.Google Scholar

67 Theoph. cont., 23, line 22–24, line 1; Sym. mag., 609, line 22–610, line 2. See n. 83 below for the interrelations among the sources for the ninth century.Google Scholar

68 See also H[ollingsworth], P. A., “Michael II,” ODB 2: 1363.Google Scholar

69 Theoph. cont., 120, lines 21–23; Sym. mag., 634, lines 10–12; Georg. mon., 798, lines 13–16; Leo gramm., 220, lines 18–20; Georg. mon. (ed. Muralt, ), col. 1016D; Theodosios Melitenos (ed. Tafel, ), 152.Google Scholar

70 Theoph. cont., 172, lines 11–15; Sym. mag., 659, lines 3–8; cf. Beck, , Byzantinisches Gefolgschaftswesen, 16.Google Scholar

71 Kekaumenos, , Strategikon (n. 65 above), chap. 74, 27, line 10–28, line 8.Google Scholar

72 See the ample documentation in Macrides, , “Godfather.” Google Scholar

73 Studites, Theodoros, Ep. 17. 24, ed. Fatouros, G., Theodori Studitae Epistulae, 2 vols. (Berlin and New York, 1992), 1: 49: τòν δενα ἢ τòν δενα ἂρχοντα τυχòν ἢ δυνάστην.Google Scholar

74 Ibid., 48–49.Google Scholar

75 On family obligations, see Cheynet, , Pouvoirs et contestations (n. 15 above), 261–63.Google Scholar

76 Dmitrievskii, , Euchologia, 237: [the priest] βάλλει τὴν δεξιὰν χερα το μικρoτέρου, ἐπὶ τὰ ἐπάνω τὴν δεξιὰν χερα το μεγαλητέρου.Google Scholar

77 Nevertheless, some godfathers took care of their orphaned godchildren or supplied their goddaughters with an appropriate dowry. See Macrides, , “Godfather,” 147–48.Google Scholar

78 I have found no evidence in the Byzantine sources for the practice of delaying the baptism of children in order to have one “in store,” as it were, should the need for synteknia arise — a practice that seems to have been common in the West. One possible explanation for this difference is that in Byzantium the relation of adelphopoiesis fulfilled the same function.Google Scholar

79 Quinisextum, can. 53, Mansi 11, 968C: ’Επειδὴ μείζων ἡ κατὰ τò πνεμα οἰκειότης τς τν σωμάτων συναφείας…. See also Pitsakis, C. G., “Le droit matrimonial dans les canons du concile in Trullo,” Annuarium historiae conciliorum 24 (1992): 158–85, at 178–80. Imperial legislation soon had to address an ingenious abuse of this principle: fathers or mothers would act as godfathers or godmothers for their own children in order to sue for divorce from their spouses on the grounds of these marriage prohibitions. Cf. Simon, D., “Zur Ehegesetzgebung der Isaurier,” in Fontes Minores I. Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 1, ed. Simon, D. (Frankfurt a. M., 1976), who dates the relevant law to 726/27. Kresten, O., “Datierungsprobleme isaurischer Eherechtsnovellen. I. Coll. I 26,” in Fontes Minores IV , ed. Simon, D. (Frankfurt a. M., 1981) has shown that this Novella should be dated to 819/20.Google Scholar

80 A law of 530 rules: “Clearly any woman should be entirely forbidden to marry a man who received her from most holy baptism … since nothing else can so bring about paternal affection and a just prohibition of marriage as a relationship of that sort by which their souls are joined through God's mediation.” Codex Iustinianus 5. 4. 26, ed. Kruger, P. (Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 2 [Berlin, 1877; repr. Dublin and Zurich, 1970]), 197: “Ea videlicet persona omnimodo ad nuptias venire prohibenda, quam aliquis, sive alumna sit sive non, a sacrosancto suscepit baptismate, cum nihil aliud sic inducere potest paternam adfectionem et iustam nuptiarum prohibitionem, quam huiusmodi nexus, per quem deo mediante animae eorum copulatae sunt.” On the subject of marriage prohibitions as a result of synteknia, see also Dauvillier, J. and de Clerq, C., Le manage en droit canonique oriental (Paris, 1936), 146–47.Google Scholar

81 Ecloga 2. 2 (Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Kaisers Leons III. und Konstantios’ V. , ed. Burgmann, L. [Frankfurt a. M., 1983], 170–71).Google Scholar

82 Mullett, M. E., “Byzantium: A Friendly Society?” Past and Present 118 (1988): 3–24, has pointed out the need in the highly competitive aristocracy of Byzantium to forge reliable, friendly associations with members outside one's immediate kin-group and discussed the rhetorical representation of such relations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 For an overview of these sources, their historical value, and the question of their interrelation (which still defies modern scholarship), see Karayannopulos, J. and Weiss, G., Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324–1453), 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1982), 2: 368–72. For the legendary character of the sources on Basil, see Moravcsik, G., “Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basilieios I,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961): 59–126, at 59–110. For a general narrative of the early career of Basil, see Adontz, N., “L'age et l'origine de l'Empereur Basile I (867–886),” Byzantion 8 (1933): 475–500, and 9 (1934): 223–60.Google Scholar

84 This work survives in three different versions, all of which must be consulted: Georg. mon.; Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin); and Georg. mon. (ed. Muralt, ). It is closely related to the chronicle by Theodosius Melitenus. In the following, I rely primarily on the version of Georg. mon. in the Bonn edition, with consistent additional reference to the version edited by Istrin. The version of Georgius monachus edited by Muralt, and the chronicle by Theodosius Melitenus are only mentioned if they differ from the Bonn text .Google Scholar

85 Theoph. cont., 211–353. This author's version of Basil's ritual brotherhood relation with the son of Danelis is repeated later by the eleventh-century historian John Skylitzes (Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Thurn, J. [Berlin and New York, 1973]), 120, lines 91–119 (Basil receives support from the hegoumenos of the monastery of Diomedes); 121, line 46–123, line 94 (spiritual brotherhood with the son of Danelis); 160, line 79–161, line 98 (rewards for the monastery of Diomedes, honors for his spiritual brother, and visit of Danelis to Constantinople); and by the eleventh/twelfth-century historian Georgios Kedrenos (Georgius Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, I., vol. 2 [Bonn, 1839]), 188, line 15–189, line 17 (Basil receives support from the hegoumenos of the monastery of Diomedes); 190, line 23–193, line 8 (spiritual brotherhood with the son of Danelis); 236, line 19–237, line 15 (rewards for the monastery of Diomedes, honors for his spiritual brother, and visit of Danelis to Constantinople).Google Scholar

86 Theoph. cont. 223, line 5–224, line 16.Google Scholar

87 Ibid., 226, line 7–228, line 22.Google Scholar

88 On this wealthy and powerful widow, see Runciman, S., “The Widow Danelis,” in Études dédiées à la mémoire d'André Andréadès (Athens, 1940), 425–31. On her Slavic background see most recently Ševčenko, I., “Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus,” in Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Shepard, J. and Franklin, S. (Aldershot, 1992), 192–93.Google Scholar

89 Theophilos has already departed for Constantinople, but Basil is forced by an illness to stay behind. This delay enables Danelis to honor Basil without causing offense to the imperial officer Theophilos.Google Scholar

90 Ποιήσασθαι πνευματικς ἀδελφότητος σύνδεσμον πρòς ‘Iωάννην τòν ταύτης υἱόν: Theoph. cont. 228, lines 6–7.Google Scholar

91 Τς γς ἐκείνης ἀπάσης … κυρίαν: ibid., 228, line 14.Google Scholar

92 ‘΄Ωσπερ τινὰ σπόρον εἰς ἀγαθὴν αὐτὰ καταβαλλoμενη χώραν, ἳνα ἀμήσῃ παμπολλαπλασίονα ἐν εὐθετ καιρ: ibid., 228, lines 1–3.Google Scholar

93 Ibid., 316, line 13–321, line 10. According to this source, however, the abbot does not become Basil's ‘ritual brother’.Google Scholar

94 Significantly, his name is mentioned only on two occasions (ibid., 228, line 7, and 320, lines 10–11); he is usually identified as “the son of Danelis” — a further indication that it was Danelis, and not her son, who really mattered in this relationship.Google Scholar

95 Ibid., 317, line 10: διὰ τὴν φθάσασαν κοινωνίαν τς πνευματικς ἀδελφότητος.Google Scholar

96 Ibid., 318, lines 3–5.Google Scholar

97 Ibid., 318, line 21. Scholars have commonly followed the statement in Sym. mag., 701, lines 21–22, that the title of “Father of the Emperor” (βασιλεοπάτωρ) was granted for the first time by Basil's son Leo VI to his father-in-law Stylianos Zaoutzes. See K[azhdan], A., “Basileopator,” ODB 1: 263–64; and Karlin-Hayter, P., “The Title or Office of Basileopator,” Byzantion 38 (1968): 278–80. A new interpretation was proposed by Schminck, A., “Frömmigkeit ziere das Werk,” Subseciva Groningana. Studies in Roman and Byzantine Law 3 (Groningen, 1989): 108–9, n. 130, who suggests that the original form of the title βασιλειοπάτωρ, i.e. with the letter iota, as it is found on the seals of Stylianos, was created in analogy to the Latin title of “quaestor sacri palatii” to mean something like “father of the palace.” This original sense was soon superseded, Schminck argues, by the interpretation of the title as an honorific designation of kinship, and the letter iota was dropped from it in part with the encouragement of Stylianos himself who could thus claim an even closer connection to the emperor. This passage in Theophanes continuatus can be taken as evidence that Danelis was a female recipient of this title. There seems to have been a general tendency during this period to elevate designations of kinship relation with the emperor to the level of honorific titles. A further example is Philaretos the Merciful, whose daughter was chosen to become the wife of Constantine VI (780–797). According to his hagiographer, Philaretos rejected all the gifts and honors that the emperor offered to lavish upon him, and merely wished to be called “grandfather of the emperor” (πάππος βασιλέως): Μ.- Fourmy, H. and Leroy, M., “La Vie de S. Philarète,” Byzantion 9 (1934): 85–170, at 151, line 13. By the twelfth century, the imperial family was successfully and deliberately enlarging its kin-group to include relations by marriage. A husband who had married a woman of the Comnenian house was considered a gambros of the emperor, while his actual rank and title depended on the degree of his wife's relation to the emperor. Cf. Stiernon, L., “Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Sébaste et Gambros,” Revue des études byzantines 23 (1965): 222–43.Google Scholar

98 Theoph. cont., 319, line 5: τῷ υἱῷ καὶ βασιλεῖ. Boswell (SSU, 235) prefers the assumption that this expression refers to a gift made jointly to her biological son and to the emperor, which would indicate some kind of economic union of the two. But in that case, the Greek would have to repeat the article and read τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῷ.Google Scholar

99 Theoph. cont., 319, line 8: δέσποινα τῶν ἐκεθεν βασίλισσα.Google Scholar

100 The imperial officer sent to Greece to settle this inheritance meets, in the fortress of Naupaktos, her “offspring” (ἔκγονος) Daniel: ibid., 320, line 19. He may be identical with the “offspring” mentioned on 227, line 10.Google Scholar

101 Theophanes continuatus, our representative of the first tradition, also elaborates on the generous assistance Basil received from the abbot of this monastery on the first day of his arrival in Constantinople, but significantly omits the ‘brotherhood’ bond: ibid., 223, line 10–225, line 1; 316, line 19–317, line 7.Google Scholar

102 Georg. mon., 819, line 16–820, line 10, and 842, lines 17–20. Similar versions survive in the following works: another redaction of Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 2: 5, lines 24–34, and 2: 21, lines 27–29; the chronicle by Theodosios Melitenos (ed. Tafel, ), 163 and 179; the chronicle of Leo gramm., 233, line 11–234, line 3, and 256, lines 13–16; the chronicle of Sym. mag., 656, lines 1–12 and 691, lines 10–11; and the telescoped version in the tenth-century chronicle of Genesius (Iosephi Genesii, Regum libri quattuor, ed. Lesmueller-Werner, A. and Thurn, I. [Berlin and New York, 1978]), 77.Google Scholar

103 See Beck, Byzantinisches Gefolgschaftswesen, 6–9.Google Scholar

104 According to the version of the story in Theoph. cont. (223, line 15), the man in question was the abbot of the monastery. Genesius (77) reports that some of his sources mention a monk and others an abbot. Mango, C. (“Germia: A Postscript,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 41 [1991]: 297–300, at 299), explains that a prosmonarios or paramonarios was “a resident custodian attached as a guard, and, sometimes, administrator to a parish church or pilgrimage shrine,” and then goes on to show that in the original version of this story, preserved in the version of Georgius monachus edited by Moravcsik (“Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios I” [n. 83 above], 120), the prosmonarios in question is indeed attached to a church, while the later version in Theoph. cont. anachronistically upgraded the church into a monastery (a measure that Basil took only after his accession) and accordingly promoted the promonarios to the rank of abbot.Google Scholar

105 The brotherhood relation is rhetorically embellished in the version of Georg. mon. (ed. Muralt, ), col. 1044A: καὶ συνηυφραίνοντο ἐν ἀλλήλοις, “and they rejoiced in each other;” and even more elaborately in the version of Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 5, line 34: πνευματικòν ἀδελφòν ἐποιήσατο καὶ ὁμώροφον εχε καὶ ὀμοδίαιτον “[Nikolaos] made him his spiritual brother and shared his roof and his meals with him.” Google Scholar

106 This is the same Theophilos whom, according to Theophanes continuatus, Basil accompanied to Greece where he made the acquaintance of Danelis.Google Scholar

107 Georg. mon., 842, lines 19–20. The same statement also in the version of Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 21, lines 28–29; Leo gramm., 256, lines 15–16; Sym. mag., 691, line 11. But compare Theoph. cont., 316, line 21–317, line 7: according to this tradition, Basil received assistance at a crucial time from the abbot of the monastery of Diomedes (without, however, concluding ‘brotherhood’ with him), and later showed his gratitude with lavish gifts and donations to the monastery. In the same sense also Skylitzes (n. 85 above), 160, lines 79–82, and Kedrenos (n. 85 above), 236, lines 19–22.Google Scholar

108 Beck, , Byzantinisches Gefolgschaftswesen. Boswell does not note this important work.Google Scholar

109 This title denotes the second in rank after the emperor and, often, his designated successor.Google Scholar

110 Georg. mon., 828, lines 15–16: καὶ δɩ’ ὅρκων ἐβεβαιώσαντο ἀλλήλους ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ καὶ διηνεκε ἀγάπῃ εναι. Identical expression in Leo gramm., 242, lines 17–18; slightly different phrasing in Sym. mag., 676, lines 3–4: δɩ’ ὅρκων βεβαιοσιν ἀλλήλους τὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς ὁμόνοιαν; and in Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 11, lines 35–36: δι’ ὅρκων τὴν ἀλλήλων ἀγάπην ἐβεβαιώσαντο. Theophanes continuatus does not wish to implicate his heroic protagonist Basil in the murder of the Caesar Bardas, and hence does not mention Basil's alliance with Symbatios.Google Scholar

111 Theoph. cont., 210, line 8: γνώμῃ τν φιλοντων Βασίλειον.Google Scholar

112 Georg. mon., 837, line 12; Georg. mon. (ed. Murait, ), col. 1069B.Google Scholar

113 Leo gramm., 244, line 5; Sym. mag., 678, lines 9–10.Google Scholar

114 Georg. mon., 840, lines 5–6; Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 18, line 11; Leo gramm., 254, lines 2–3; Sym. mag., 688, lines 8–9. For Basil's family background, see Adontz, , “L’âge et l'origine de Basil I (867–886)” (n. 83 above).Google Scholar

115 Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 16, lines 25–26.Google Scholar

116 Genesius (n. 102 above) omits this list.Google Scholar

117 Sym. mag., 691, lines 11–14.Google Scholar

118 It seems unlikely that this John is identical with the son of Danelis of the same name.Google Scholar

119 Georg. mon. 842, lines 20–22: τòν δὲ ἓτερον ἀδελφòν αὐτο … καὶ τòν ἓτερον ἀδελφòν αὐτν … τòν δὲ ἓτερον …; Leo gramm., 256, lines 16–18. The version of Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ) 21, lines 29–31, mentions Basil's advancement of Nikolaos, of “his [i.e. Basil's] brother” (τòν δὲ ἀδελφòν αὐτο) John, and the promotion “of his other brothers” (τν δὲ ἑτέρων αὐτο ἀδελφν) Paul and Constantine. A third version of the chronicle of Georg. mon. (ed. Muralt, , col. 1080A-B) mentions after Nikolaos, , “his other brother John (τòν δὲ ἓτερον αὐτο ἀδελφòν ‘Iωάννην) …, his other brother Paul (τòν δὲ ἓτερον ἀδελφòν αὐτο Παλον) …, the other [brother] Constantine (τòν δὲ ἓτερον κωνσταντνον).” Google Scholar

120 It is attractive to identify our John and Constantine with John ho Chaldos and Constantine ho Toxaras, the associates of Basil who assisted him in his plot against the Caesar Bardas and in the murder of Michael III: Georg. mon., 830, lines 4–5, and 837, lines 8–13; Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 12, line 35, and 16, line 27 (omitting the mention of John ho Chaldos); Leo gramm., 244, lines 6–7, 251, lines 8–13; Sym. mag., 678, lines 12–13, and 685, lines 4–5 (omitting Constantine ho Toxaras). There is a slight problem in the sequence of the narrative: long before the promotion of Basil's “brothers” John and Constantine is discussed, the chronicles describe how John ho Chaldos and Constantine ho Toxaras along with several others meet their untimely death by way of divine punishment: Georg. mon., 839, line 15–840, line 7; Georg. mon. (ed. Istrin, ), 18, lines 4–13; Leo gramm., 253, line 14–254, line 4; Sym. mag., 687, line 21–688, line 10. But this need not be an obstacle: the sources for this period are notorious for their confusion of the chronographic sequence, and it would make perfect sense for the chroniclers to mention the death of the assassins immediately after the murder, and Basil's generosity in rewarding his loyal friends later in the narrative about his reign.Google Scholar

121 Strategios's career is well documented in the sources: see Martindale, J. R., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 2: 395–527 (Cambridge, 1980), 1034–36, and ibid., 3: 527–641 (Cambridge, 1992), 1200–1201.Google Scholar

122 Narratio de aedificatione templi s. Sophiae, chap. 4 (ed. Preger, T., Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, 1 [Leipzig, 1901], 78, line 13–79, line 1): Στρατήγιος δὲ μάγιστρος, ὁ τν βασιλικν χρημάτων φύλαξ, ὁ το βασιλέως ἀδελφοποιητός. T. Preger (“Die Erzählung vom Bau der Hagia Sophia,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 10 [1901]: 455–76, 458) surmises that the Narratio itself must have its origin some time before the middle of the ninth century.Google Scholar

123 Narratio, chap. 9, 85, line 1: ὁ καὶ ὑπάρχων πνευματικòς ἀδελφòς το βασιλέως ’Ιουστινιανο. Boswell's quotation of this passage in SSU (229, n. 56) is in error.Google Scholar

124 Although the text only preserves an abridged form of the name, “Konsta,” the identity of the emperor is quite clear from the context: he is a descendant of the emperor Herakleios and was murdered in his bath in Sicily, whereupon Severus led the fleet safely back to the East.Google Scholar

125 Πάτρια κωνσταντινουπόλεως III, 108 (ed. Preger, T., Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, 2 [Leipzig, 1907], 251, line 18–252, line 4): ἀδελφοποιητòς κώνστα βασιλέως. Berger, A. (Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Poikila Byzantina 8 [Bonn, 1988], 525–26), identifies this story as a later invention.Google Scholar

126 For the manifestations of these tendencies in the eleventh century, see Ahrweiler, H., “Recherches sur la société byzantine au XIe siècle: nouvelles hiérarchies et nouvelles solidarités,” Travaux et mémoires 6 (1976): 99–124, and the recent work of Cheynet, , Pouvoirs et contestations (n. 15 above).Google Scholar

127 For family strategies in the Middle Byzantine period, see in general Kazhdan, A. P. and Wharton Epstein, A., Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1985), 99–104; for Late Byzantium, see the detailed study of Laiou, A. E., Mariage, amour et parenté à Byzance aux XIe–XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1992), 21–66.Google Scholar

128 É. Patlagean, , “Les débuts d'une aristocratie byzantine et le témoignage de l'historiographie. Système des noms et liens de parenté au IXe–Xe siècles,” in The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed. Angold, M., BAR International Series 221 (Oxford, 1984), 32–36.Google Scholar

129 Stiernon, , “Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines” (n. 97 above), passim.Google Scholar

130 Thus also Mullett, , “Byzantium: A Friendly Society?” (n. 82 above), 7.Google Scholar

131 Psellos, Michael, Scripta minora, ed. Kurtz, E. and Drexl, F., 2 (Milan, 1941), 118, line 26–119, line 1: φίλτατε περιπόθητε ἀνεψιέ, σύντεκνε, ἰσόψυχε ἀδελφέ.Google Scholar

132 Vita S. Mariae iunioris, AASS, Nov. IV, 692D: συνήθης καὶ φίλος.Google Scholar

133 Ibid., δεσμòν … στερρòν τε καὶ ἀρραγ.Google Scholar

134 Ibid., ’Επειδή (φησίν) φίλτατέ μοι ἀνδρν, οὓτως ἐκ συνηθείας ἀλλήλοις συνεκράθημέν τε καὶ συνεδέθημεν, δίκαιον ἣγημαι τòν δεσμòν τοτον τς ἀγάπης βιαιότερον θεναι καὶ τελεώτερον καὶ τὰ τς ἀγχιστείας τούτῳ προσθεναι ἃμματα, ἵνα διπλ συνδεσμώμεθα, μετὰ τς συνηθείας προσλαβόντες καὶ τὴν συγγένειαν.Google Scholar

135 Ibid.: κἀντεθεν λοιπòν ἄλυτον τὴν ἀγάπην τηρήσωμεν.Google Scholar

136 It is interesting to note that Mary was related to Bardas only through his marriage to her sister. This illustrates the growing importance, discussed above, of women — even if they are distant relations — as pawns in the creation of social networks.Google Scholar

137 Komnena, Anna, Alexias 10.3. 3 (Komnène, Anne, Alexiade , ed. and trans. Leib, B., vol. 2 [Paris, 1967], 196, lines 6–20. English trans. by Dawes, E. A. S., The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena [London, 1928], 241). Note that Anna consistently calls them brothers ἐκ προαιρέσεως, “by preference”: 10. 3. 3 (196, line 7); 10. 3. 4 (197, line 1).Google Scholar

138 Ibid., 10.3.4 (197, lines 1–2).Google Scholar

139 See K[azhdan], A., “Bryennios, Nikephoros,” ODB 1: 330–31.Google Scholar

140 Ibid., 1:328–29.Google Scholar

141 Alexias 10. 3. 3 (196, lines 18–20): ὁ δέ γε ψευδώνυμος τοσοτον ἀπηναισχύντητεν, ὡς καὶ θεον ἐπ’ ἀληθείας τοτον κατονομάζειν (trans. Dawes, , 241).Google Scholar

142 Περιπόθητος αὐτάδελφος: Miklosich, F. and Müller, J., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra at profana, 4/1: Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis (Vienna, 1871), no. 79, pp. 147 and 149. On Demetrios Tornikes, see the brief remarks by Schmalzbauer, G., “Die Tornikioi in der Palaiologenzeit,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 18 (1969): 115–35, at 117, and Angold, M., A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204–1261) (Oxford, 1975), esp. 64 and 155–61. The same designation is used by Theodoros Laskaris, the predecessor and father-in-law of Vatatzes, for a certain Alexios Komnenos : Miklosich, and Müller, , Acta et diplomata, 4/1, no. 131, p. 217, on which see Dölger, F., “Chronologisches und Prosopographisches zur byzantinischen Geschichte des 13. Jahrhunderts,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27 (1927): 291–320, at 315, n. 1.Google Scholar

143 Compare the use of the same adjective (περιπόθητος) by Manuel Komnenos (1143–80) for several members of his court, as recorded by Choniates, Niketas, Thesaurus XXIV (PG 140, 177); Thesaurus XXV (cols. 236, 252–53).Google Scholar

144 F. Dölger interprets this as an adelphopoiesis relation: “Chronologisches und Prosopographisches,” 303, n. 1; emphasized again in his brief report of Amantos, , “Epitimion,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 28 (1928): 175; and finally in his “Johannes VI. Kantakuzenos als dynastischer Legitimist (1938),” repr. in his Paraspora. 30 Aufsätze zur Geschichte, Kultur und Sprache des byzantinischen Reiches (Ettal, 1961), 197–98, n. 12. This interpretation was followed by Beck, H.-G., “Der byzantinische ‘Ministerpräsident’,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 48 (1955): 309–38, at 321, n. 4. R.-J. Loenertz (“Le chancelier impérial à Byzance au XIVe et au Xiiie siècle,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 26 [1960]: 275–300, at 298), by contrast, assumes that this was a case of fraternal adoption, while Angold (Byzantine Government in Exile, 64) sees it merely as an “honorific title.” Google Scholar

145 Pachymeres, Georgios, Historiai 1, 21 (Pachymérès, Georges, Relations historiques , ed. Failler, A., trans. Laurent, V. [Paris, 1984]), 1: 91, line 25–92, line 1: εχον γον καὶ οτοι τò πρòς τò ἀμφιβαλλόμενον ἰσχυρòν, τò ἀπò πατρòς οἰκεον καὶ ἀδελφικόν ἐν γράμμασι πρòς τòν το νέου πάππον καὶ βασιλέα ‘Iωάννην τòν Δούκαν. Compare also Akropolites, Georgios, Historia , ed. Heisenberg, A., revised Wirth, P., 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1978), 1: 90, lines 19–24: Theodore Petraliphas vies for a position at court. He is the ἐπὶ θυγατρὶ γαμβρòς of Demetrios Tornikes ὅς τὰ κοινὰ συνδιέπων ν τ βασιλε ‘Iωάννῃ, πάνυ παρ’ αὐτο φιλούμενος καὶ τιμώμενος · ἀδελφòν γὰρ αὐτòν ἐν τος γράμμασιν ἀπεκάλει. ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δὲ πρò καιρο γέγονεν.Google Scholar

146 Dölger, , “Johannes VI. Kantakuzenos,” 197–99. On his reign, see also Nicol, D. M., The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), ca. 1100–1460: A Genealogical and Prosopographical Study (Washington, D.C., 1968), 35–103.Google Scholar

147 Ioannis Cantacuzeni Historiarum libri IV, ed. Schopen, L., 3 vols. (Bonn, 1828–32), I, 2 = 1: 19, lines 12–23; II, 9 = 1: 369, lines 17–23; II, 40 = 1: 558, lines 18–22; III, 24 = 2: 150, lines 14–20; III, 25 = 2: 157, lines 12–23.Google Scholar

148 Coll. V, Nov. 51, in Zepos, J. and Zepos, P., Jus Graecoromanum, 1 (Athens, 1931; repr. Aalen, 1962), 593: το βασιλέως το πάππου τς βασιλείας μου. Cf. Dölger, , “Johannes VI. Kantakuzenos,” 194–95.Google Scholar

149 Dölger, F., “Die Familie der Könige im Mittelalter,” Historisches Jahrbuch 60 (1940): 397–420, repr. in his Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal, 1953).Google Scholar

150 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. van Dieten, J. A. (Berlin and New York, 1975), 561, lines 19–20: ἒνιοι δὲ και τος Λατίνοις εἰς ἑταίρους ἀνακραθέντες.Google Scholar

151 For the citation from the paraphrase into colloquial Greek, line 27: φιλίας μετὰ τν Φράγγων ποιήσαντες καὶ ἀδελφοποιησίας, I rely on Ε. Hörandner's review of Kretzenbacher, , Rituelle Wahlverbrüderung , in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 67 (1974): 147–48, at 147.Google Scholar

152 See above at nn. 64 and 65.Google Scholar

153 For the question of marriage prohibitions resulting from adelphopoiesis, see also Zhishman, J., Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirche (Vienna, 1864), 285–89.Google Scholar

154 For a history of Byzantine jurisprudence, see the monumental handbook by Zachariä von Lingenthal (n. 2 above), and more recently Pieler, P. E., “Rechtsliteratur,” in Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, mit Beiträgen von Ch. Hannick und P. E. Pieler (Munich, 1978).Google Scholar

155 In this context, synteknissa can have three meanings: the godmother in relation to the biological father; the biological mother in relation to the godfather; or the wife of the godfather in relation to the biological father.Google Scholar

156 Chrysostom, John, Epitimia 73, in Pitra, J. B., Spicilegium Solesmense, vol. 4 (Paris, 1858; repr. Graz, 1963), 461: ‘O πεσὼν εἰς τὴν ἑαυτο συντέκνισσαν, ἐπιτιμάσθω ἒτη ζ’, ποιν καθ’ ἡμέραν μετανοίας ς’, τò “κύριε ἐλέησον” τ’, καὶ ξηροφαγν.Google Scholar

157 This injunction appears first in Theodore's letter of advice to his disciple Nikolaos, who had recently become abbot: Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, (n. 73 above), 1: 32, lines 33–36, with commentary, p. 152*: οὐ σχοίης μετὰ κοσμικν ἀδελφοποιίας ἤ συντεκνίας, ὁ φυγὰς το κόσμου καὶ το γάμου · οὐ γὰρ εὓρηται ἐν τος πατράσιν, εἰ δὲ καὶ εὓρηται, σπανιάκις, καὶ τοτο οὐ νόμος. It is repeated verbatim in Theodore's Testament, which was probably composed between 806 and 809: Studites, Theodoros, Testamentum, PG 99, 1820B. I have not encountered any reference in the legal sources to adelphopoiesis between two monks.Google Scholar

158 Already Jerome complained that the relation of spiritual parenthood between older women and younger men often degenerated into one of “marital license”: Jerome, , Ep. 125. 6. 2 (Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae , ed. Hilberg, I., 3, CSEL, 56 [Vienna and Leipzig, 1868], 123, lines 15–18): “Noui ego quasdam iam maturioris aetatis et plerasque generis libertini adulescentibus delectari et filios quaerere spiritales paulatimque pudore superato per ficta matrum nomina erumpere in licentiam maritalem.” Google Scholar

159 Actes du Prôtaton, ed. Papachryssanthou, D., Archives de l'Athos 7 (Paris, 1975), 212, lines 92–93: Μηδενὶ συγχωρεσθω τν ἀδελφν το ’΄Oρους ἐξέρχεσθαι (καὶ) συντεκνίας ἤ ἀδελφοποιήσεις ποιεν μετὰ κοσμικν· (καὶ) εἰ προλαβόντες τινὲς τοιοτόν τι κατεπράξαντο, μηκέτι εἰς τοὺς οἴκους αὐτν ἀπίτωσαν ἢ συναριστάτωσαν ἢ συνδειπνείτωσαν ἢ ὅλως μετ’ αὐτν συμποσιαζέτωσαν.Google Scholar

160 Ibid., 260, lines 60–62: Μηδένα τν μοναχν το ‘Αγίου ’΄Oρους ἐξέρχεσθαι (καὶ) συντεκνίας ἢ ἀδελφοποιίας ποιεν μετὰ κοσμικν· ἀνοίκειον γὰρ τοτο τος μοναχος ο καὶ παισὶ καὶ π(ατ)ράσι και ἁπλς πσι τος καθ’ αμα τούτοις προσήκουσιν ἀπετάξαντον. καὶ εὶ προλαβόντες δέ τινες κατεπράξαντό τι τοιοτον, μηκέτι εἰς τοὺς αὐτν ἀπίτωσαν οἴκους, μηδὲ συναριστάτωσαν τούτοις ἢ συνδειπνήτωσαν ἢ ὅλως μετ’ αὐτν συμποσιαζέτωσαν, μηδέ τι αὐτος καταλιμπανέτωσαν ὡς κληρονόμοις αὐτν.Google Scholar

161 Chartophylax, Petros, Περὶ κανονικν ὑποθέσεων, in Rhalles, Potles, Syntagma, 5: 370: ’΄Eστιν ἄξιον δέχεσθαι μοναχòν παιδία ἀπò βαπτίσματος, ἢ ποιεν ἀδελφοποιησίας, ἣ κρατεν στεφάνια; — παρὰ κανόνα εἰσι, καὶ κωλύονται.Google Scholar

162 Gautier, P., “Le chartophylax Nicéphore,” Revue des études byzantines 27 (1969): 159–95, at 172: Συντεκνίας δὲ ἢ ἀδελφοποιήσεις ποιεν μοναχος κεκωλυμένον ἐστὶν καὶ ἐνταλματικς τοτο τος ἡγουμένοις καὶ τος ἐξάρχοις τν μοναστηρίων ἡ εκκλησία παρακελεύεται· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ νόμος δέχεται τὰς λεγομένας ἀδελφοποιήσεις ὅλως. Compare Rhalles, Potles, Syntagma, 5: 400.Google Scholar

163 F[ögen], Μ. T., “Harmenopoulos, Constantine,” ODB 2: 902.Google Scholar

164 Harmenopoulos, Constantine, Epitome canonum, PG 150, 124D: Λαɩκοὶ μὲν γυναιξὶν εὐχαρίστως καὶ χωρίς παιγνίων συνεσθιέτωσαν, μονάζοντες δὲ ἢ ἱερωμένοι κατ’ ἰδίαν γυναιξὶ μηδὲ συγγενέσει συνεσθιέτωσαν· εἰ μή που μετὰ θεοφόρων καὶ εὐλαβν ἀνδρν τε καὶ γυναικν. Σχόλιον. ‘Η το χαρτοφύλακος τς Μεγάλης ’Εκκλησίας κυρίου Πέτρου διάλεξις, ‘Aνένδεκτòν [sic], φησὶ, μοναχòν δέχεσθαι παιδία ἀπò το ἀγίου βαπτίσματος, καὶ κρατεν στεφάνους γάμων, καὶ ἀδελφοποιίας ποιεν. Even though it does not correspond verbatim, Harmenopoulos probably refers to the passage by Peter Chartophylax cited above (n. 161).Google Scholar

165 I have only encountered one instance where adelphopoiesis reportedly resulted in marriage prohibitions for the next generation, the twelfth-century BNF MS graecus 1384, fol. 171r, quoted by von Lingenthal, Zachariä, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts (n. 2 above), 119 n. 352.Google Scholar

166 Peira 49, 11, in Zepos, , Jus Graecoromanum (n. 148 above), 4: 201, lines 6–7: Αί ἀδελφοποιήσεις προσώπων εἰσί, καὶ ἐκενα μόνα κωλύονται εἰς γάμον, οὐχὶ δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τς συγγενείας πρόσωπα.Google Scholar

167 Grumel, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople, 2nd, rev. ed. by Darrouzès, J. (Paris, 1989) 1, fasc. 2–3, no. 1034, pp. 488–90. The oldest manuscript preserving a statement to that effect (of which Grumel gives a French summary) is the twelfth-century MS Athos, Lavra B 43, where it is ascribed to the Chartophylax Constantine, who was probably active under Patriarch Nicholas IV Mouzalon (1147 to 1151). A similar passage, from the fifteenth-century MS Mosq. 322 (Vladimir), where it is ascribed to Niketas, the metropolitan of Thessalonike from 1132 to 1133, was published by Pavlov, A., “Kanonicheskie otviety Nikity, mitropolita Solunskago (XII vieka?),” Vizantjiskij vremennik 2 (1895): 378–87, at 384: ‘Eρώτησις · ἐάν τινες μέλλωσι ποιεν ἀδελφοποιίας, ὀφείλομεν αὐτὰς ποιεν, ἢ οὐ; ‘Απόκρισις · ἡ λεγομένη ἀδελφοποίησις περιττή ἐστι καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἀγαπόντων μὲν δθεν, ἀνοητότερον δὲ διακειμένων· τὰ πολλὰ δὲ καὶ εἰς ἁμαρτήματα μέγιστα καταντ. ’΄Eστι δὲ καὶ παραλογώτατον χωρὶς τούτου· πάντες γὰρ οἰ πιστοὶ ἀδελφοί ἐσμεν, καὶ ἀπò το θείου βαπτίσματος ἕνα πατέρα ἔχοντες τòν θεόν. καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ κατὰ χάριν ἀδελφότης· ἠ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ νόμον, ἤγουν θέσιν, πατρòς μεσιτεύοντος γίνεται· ἐνταύθα δὲ οὐ μεσιτεύει πατὴρ, πς άδελφòς; ἀδελφòς γὰρ ἀδελφòν οὐ γενν. ’΄Eπεται δὲ τ φύσει καὶ ὁ νόμος.Google Scholar

168 The fourteenth-century MS Barocci 215, fol. 25r, reads as follows: ‘Eάν τινες θελήσωσι ποισαι ἀδελφοποιησίαν ὀφείλομεν αὐτοὺς [sic] ποιεν; — ἀνεπίγνυσται εἰσὶν [sic] αται πάντη τ ἐκκλησίᾳ. A similar text was edited from the sixteenth-century MS Monac. gr. 62, by Pitra, J. B., Analecta sacra et classica Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, 6 (Paris and Rome, 1891, repr. 1967), col. 713: ‘Eάν τινες μέλλοντες ποιεν ἀδελφοποιίας, ὀφείλομεν αὐτος ἐπιτρέπειν; — ‘Ανεπίγνωστοι εἰσὶν αται τ ἐκκλησίμ.Google Scholar

169 M[acrides], R. J., “Chomatenos, Demetrios,” ODB 1: 426.Google Scholar

170 Codex Iustinianus 6.24. 7 (n. 80 above), 257. See the article by Brent Shaw in this volume for a careful reassessment of this law.Google Scholar

171 Chomatenos, Demetrios, Cap. V ad Alexandrum, in Pitra, , Analecta sacra, cols. 31–32, at col. 32: τὰς δ’ ἄλλας ὡς ἀποβλήτους καὶ ἀσυστάτους ἀποκρουόμεθα.Google Scholar

172 See above at n. 132.Google Scholar

173 Chomatenos, Demetrios, De gradibus , in Pitra, , Analecta sacra, 6, col. 726: ‘H δέ γε διὰ θέσεως ἀδελφότης, ὡς ἀσύστατος καὶ ἀβέβαιος καὶ τ φύσει ἀνακόλουθος, καὶ τ νόμῳ ἀπόβλητος, οὐδόλως οὐδὲ εἰς γαμικὰ συνοικέσια ἐμποδοστατε. The same passage is also found in Rhalles, Potles, , Syntagma, 5: 426.Google Scholar

174 Schminck, A., “Der Traktat Περὶ γάμων des Johannes Pediasimos,” in Fontes Minores (note 79 above) 156, lines 375–81: Τὴν δὲ ἀδελφοποιίαν ἔφαμεν ἀπò τν νόμων τυγχάνειν ἀσύστατον, ὣστε ον, εἰ καὶ προβαίη τοιοτόν τι, ἐκενο μὲν ὡς μὴ γεγονòς λογισθήσεται, ὁ ἱερεὺς δὲ ἐπιτιμηθήσεται, τò συνάλλαγμα δὲ προβήσεται καὶ εἰς τὰ ἀπωτέρω καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐγγὺς πρόσωπα· εἰ δὲ αὐτò ἐκενό ἐστι τò πρόσωπον, εἰς ὅ ἡ ἀδελφοποιία ἐγένετο, εἰ μὲν προέβη ἀνερωτήτως, ὁ γάμος οὐ κωλυθήσεται, εἰ δἐ λαθραία φθορὰ γέγονε, διὰ τὴν προβσαν ἐπ’ ἀδελφοποιίαν εὐχὴν κωλυθήσεται ἡ το γάμου εὐχή. See also 173.Google Scholar

175 Krumbacher, K., “Ein vulgärgriechischer Weiberspiegel,” Sb. Akad. Munich, 1905/1: 335–432, at 412, lines 1199–1204: καὶ ἄλλη τòν λαλε κουμπάρο — διὰ τ’ αὐτò τάχα ἔχει θάρρο — | καὶ ἄλλη δι’ ἀδελφοποιητòν| ἔχει τòν ἀγαπητικόν·| μετ’ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀδικίαν| κάμνουν φανερὴν πορνείαν. For this work, see also Beck, H.-G., Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Munich, 1971), 194.Google Scholar

176 French summary, based on MS Vat. gr. 2219, by Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1/4 (Paris, 1971), no. 1762, 541: “Interdire l'adoption fraternelle (ἀδελφοποιία), source de libertinage, et dénoncer à l'Eglise les recalcitrants.” Google Scholar

177 Ibid., no. 1777, 554: “Pour ce qui est des fraternisations (ἀδελφοσυναί), oeuvre de perversité et de libertinage, ou il les empêchera en imposant une pénitence ou, s'il ne le peut, il livrera les coupables à l'autorité civile (τ δημοσίῳ).” Google Scholar

178 See K[azhdan], A., “Blastares, Matthew,” ODB 1: 295.Google Scholar

179 Blastares, Matthaios, Syntagma kata stoicheion II, in Rhalles, Potles, Syntagma, 6: 126–27: ἡ μέντοι ἀδελφοποιία οὐ νόμιμόν ἐστιν · ἄπαιδες μὲν γὰρ ἄντες, ἐσοφισάμεθα τὴν υιοθεσίαν εἰς διαδοχὴν τν πραγμάτων· τὴν δὲ ἀδελφοποιίαν οὐδεμία εἰσάγει εὔλογος πρόφασις · τὰ μὲν ον τò εὔλογον ἔχοντα, καὶ ὁ νόμος ἐδέξατο · τὰ δὲ μὴ τοιατα, οὐ παρεδέξατο.Google Scholar

University of California, Los Angeles Google Scholar

180 Constantini Harmenopuli Manuale legum sive Hexabiblos, ed. Heimbach, G. E. (Leipzig, 1851), iv. 8. 7, p. 514: ‘Η δὲ ἀδελφοποιία ῳς μὴ γεγονòς λογίζεται καί ἐστι πρòς γάμον ἀκώλυτον, ὅτι ή θέσις μιμεται τὴν φύσιν, οὐδεὶς δἐ γενν ἑαυτ ἀδελφòν.Google Scholar