The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople () || The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the...

The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the Building of the Pantokrator Complex

Vlada Stankovi / Belgradewith contributions by Albrecht Berger / Munich

Introduction

The Pantokrator complex represented undoubtedly the most ambitious imperial foun dation archite cto nically and ideologically outside the Great Palace and the old cen ter of Con stanti nople after the time of the emperor Justinian.1 The Pantokrator com plexs dominant position at the crest of a hill overlooking the Golden Horn, together with its multidi mensional structure and multifaceted purpose were in perfect accor dance with the grandiose idea beyond its founding.2 Richly en dowed, overtly impor tant for the im perial family for the dynasty which John II Komnenos aspired to create and uphold the Panto krator complex, should have served as the new dynastic mau soleum, the first after the imperial mausoleum of the Holy Apostles church, situated in its vicinity.

We cannot determine with accuracy the time of the construction of the Pantokrator com plex, other than to place it in the period between 1118 and 1136, assuming that it took more than a decade to finish it.3 In a recent article, Robert Ousterhout stressed the thematic and stylistic unity of the complex and the rapi dity of its expansion.4 It is a question that without doubt deserves a separate re search that should combine an analysis of literary sources with the conclusions reached after the archaeological research.5 Although my conviction is that John II had not commenced the construction of the Pantokrator complex immediately after his takeover of power in 1118, for a variety of reasons that cannot be exa mined in depth here,

1 For the Orphanage on the old Acropolis of Byzantium, which may have been similar in size to the Pantokrator complex, see below, p. 25.

2 R. Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Patronage at the Pantokrator Monastery, in: N. Necipolu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life. Leiden 2001, 133150.

3 See the overview with additional bibliographical references by R. Ousterhout, Con text ualizing the later churches of Constantinople: Suggested Metho dologies and a Few Examples. DOP 54 (2000) 241250, at 247248.

4 R. Ousterhout, The Decoration of the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii): Evidence Old and New, in: A. dekan / E. Akyrek / N. Necipolu (eds.), On ikinci ve on ncu yzyl lar da Bizans dnyasnda deiim / Change in the Byzantine world in the twelfth and thir teenth centuries. Istanbul 2010, 432439, esp. 439.

5 See Ousterhout, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Patronage (as in note 2), and note 121 below.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universitt DsseldorfAuthenticated | 134.99.128.41

Download Date | 12/4/13 2:50 PM

4 Vlada Stankovi Albrecht Berger

1118, the year of Alexios Komnenos death, will consti tute the chronological limit of this analysis, mainly due to methodological principles: after 1118, with the new, the first purpleborn generation of the Komnenoi in power, the pheno mena pertaining to the Komnenian attitude to and impact on Constan tinople changed drastically in nature, following the changes within the ramified imperial family, and adapt ing to the new circumstances that have risen from the familys evolution.

The multifaceted character of the Pantokrator complex, like its manifold purpose, stands at the end of more than half a century of the Komnenos familys building acti vities in the Byzantine capital. Komnenian buildings in Constan ti nople and the ideas that stood behind them were developing gradually, becoming richer and more complex with every subsequent generation. Some of the phases of this development practical, political and ideological im plications of the Komnenian impact on physical look of Constantinople or the citys structure, can be traced down, studied and analyzed in detail, especially from the time of Alexios Ko mnenos accession to the throne.6 More problematic aspects of the presence of the Komnenoi in the capital remain, however, the questions re garding the time when the family took up the residence in Constantinople, the cir cum stances under which that happened, and the early stages of the family histo ry. An analysis of the early history of the Komnenoi in Constantinople, their relation ship with and influence on the capital should therefore be presented at the outset of this contribution

The early history and the geographical origins of the Komnenian family were rightly labeled a vexed question.7 Rising practically out of nowhere to obtain the imperial crown in 1057, leapfrogging more influential and more powerful aristocratic families in what seems to be one giant (crucial) step that drew the family out of obscurity, and placed it forever in the highest stratum of Byzantine society the Komnenian early history in Con stantinople represent doubtlessly one of the puzzles of Byzantine histo ry.

The problem of the beginnings of the family of the Komnenoi cannot be clarified satisfacto rily at the present level of our sourceknowledge. The family roots remain still obscure, and moreover, the entire issue is usually approached and studied inadequately, with the pre mise that the Komnenoi belonged to the military aristo cracy, which is based on the obso lete concept of a clear division between the military and civil aristocracy, especially in the 11th century Byzantium.8 Let it be said that Anna Komnenes information that young Ale xios has stopped in his grandfathers town9 on his return to Constantinople after success fully dealing with Ourselios (1073)

6 P. Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople, in: idem, Studies on the History and Topogra phy of Byzan tine Constantinople. Variorum Collected Studies Seri es. Alders hot/Burling ton 2007, I, 5152; 76ff.

7 P. Magdalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos 11431180. Cambridge 1993, 185 note 13. 8 See J.C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestation Byzance (9631210). Paris 1990 (2nd ed. 1996),

191198, and J.C. Cheynet / J. F. Vannier, Les Argyroi. ZRVI 40 (2003) 5789, at 71 who rightly criticized the oldfashioned insistence on such a false division.

9 Alexias, ed. D. R. Reinsch / A. Kambylis. CFHB, 50/1. Berlin/New York 2001, I.3.4 (p. 17, 78).



The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the Building of the Pantokrator 5

surmised to be Kastamon10 does not confirm that the family originated from that town (), and that John Skylitzes stated only that Isaac Komnenos was at Kastamon, with out specifying whether that was also the Komne nos place of origin.11 It is very signi ficant that Theodore Prodro mos in his several contem porary praises of John IIs repeat ed recaptures of Kastamon have never even hinted that the emperor, or the Komnenoi originated from, or that they had any personal connection with that town,12 and the same can be said for John Kinnamos as well.13 When talking about the familys early history at the very beginning of his History, Nikephoros Bryennios did not mention or allude to the place of the origin of the Komnenoi.14

From the reign of Isaac Komnenos, until the accession of Alexios in 1081 too, a little is known about the evolution, the growth and gradual strengthening of the family, and even less about the bases owing to which these developments were possible. The Komnenoi were out of the scope of Byzantine historians, and they were certainly not much discussed in the capitals higher circles. Unprovocative in their behavior, apparently acquiescing to the existing rhythm of gradual rise through hierarchy, outwardly more than a bit dull, too excluding Anna Dalas sene, the head of the family, who had the peculiar advantage of her gender not to be held politically absolutely accountable for her opposition to the emperor15 the Komnenoi gave the impression of a family which sank into the mediocrity of eleventh century middle aristocracy.

Were it not for the story conveyed by Nikephoros Bryennios about the refusal of the protobestiarios John Komnenos, the father of the future emperor Alexios, to accept the imperial crown from his ailing brother Isaac in November 1059, it would be much more difficult for modern scholars to understand the audacity of young Alexios in 1081 to demand the throne for himself and to comprehend his eventual

10 Cf. among others, Alexias / Anna Komnene. bersetzt, einge leitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen von D. R. Reinsch. Kln 1996, 31, and note 22. Cf. J. Cline, Alexios and Kastamon: castles and settlements in middle Byzantine Paphlagonia, in: M. Mullett / D. Smythe (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos. Belfast 1996, 1236.

11 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. I. Thurn. CFHB, 5. Berlin/New York 1973, 489, 7172.

12 W. Hrandner, Theodoros Prodromos. Historische Gedichte. WBS, 11. Vienna 1974, IIIVI, VIII. Interesting ly, Prodromos too characterizes Kastamon as , III, 96; IV, 111, and in VIII, 58, 72 as .

13 Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A. Meineke. CSHB. Bonn 1836, 14, 35; 15, 1011.

14 Nicphore Bryennios Histoire, ed. P. Gautier. CFHB, 9. Brussels 1975, 7577. For the discussion of the origins of the Komnenoi, see V. Katsaros, . 3 (1983) 111123, and the overview in K. Barzos, I. Byzantine Texts and Studies, 20. Thessalonica 1984, 2526.

15 Her impulsiveness and, in general, her energy to pursue a certain goal until it was achiev ed, was inherited only by a few among her offspring, most notably, two of the nine children of the first purpleborn generation, Anna Komnene and her brother, (the second) sebasto krator Isaac. For Anna Dalassene see Alexias (as in note 9) III.6.1III.8.5 (p. 100106); Cf. J.C. Cheynet / F. Vannier, tudes prosopographiques. Paris 1986: Les Dalassnoi, 95 ff; D.R. Reinsch, Eine gebildete Frau in Byzanz. Berliner wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, Jahrbuch 1999. Berlin 2000, 159174; V. Stankovi, Komnini u Carigradu (10571185). Evolucija jedne vladarske porodice. Belgrade 2006, 1736, 103118.




success.16 Without Bryennios piece of information that kept the Komne noi, Alexios Is parents, John Komnenos and Anna Dalassene,17 within the circle of the most influential families and serious pretenders to the throne, a cru cial ideolo gical link between the reign of the first Ko mnenos, Isaac I, and Alexios aspiration for the imperial crown in 1081 would be missing, especially regarding the position and the role of more powerful family of the Doukai, who could base their claim to the imperial crown on more solid argu ments.

But we will return to Bryennios story later in the text, as well as to the same au thors tale about the upbringing in Constantinople of the future emperor Isaac and his brother John. What is of primary interest for us, though, is the place the Komnenoi had in Con stan tinople, their behavior in, and influence on the Byzantine capital from the first time they were mentioned in the sources in direct connection with the Queen of Cities, how they used the structures and the fabrics of the capital or how they influ enced the development of Constantinople, before and after they metamorphosed into a dominant, vast and ramified imperial family.

The first (?) generation in Constantinople: the Komnenoi of the Peira

The decades after the long reign of Basil II were marked by a strong reshuffling within Byzantine society. The Byzantine short 11th century the period between 1025 and Alexios Komnenos accession to the throne witnessed a change in the structure and hierarchy of the Byzantine aristocracy, the outcome of which deter mined the balance of power in the empire in the centuries that followed. The im pression that the death of Basil II opened wider cracks in the system, which enab led new families to flood the highest circles of the state administration, al though certainly exaggerated to a degree, could be supported by the rise of new families, who drew their power and influence principally from familial solidarity.

The Paphlagonians, John Orphanotrophos, Michael IV and their three brothers, who had risen to power gradually strengthening their hold on the imperial court

16 Usually taken at face value, Bryennios statement offered the logical connection bet ween Isaac and Alexios, even though there is hardly any evidence to corroborate the im pression, provoked indirectly by Bryennios narrative, that Alexios aspiration for the im perial crown was strengthened by his relation to the emperor Isaac I, the least against the aspirations of the members of the Doukai family. Similarly, the recollection of Isaac I as the first emperor from the family of the Komnenoi is con spicuously absent from the Komne nian ideology, from the reign of Alexios Komnenos onwards. There were multiple reasons for this, one of which is undoubtedly Isaacs essentially unsuccessful rule, but the interfa mi lial dislike or even open antagonism within the Komnenian family could have contri buted to this fact, as well. For example, the motif of Isaac I as the founder of the imperial line of the Komnenoi is to be found only once within the voluminous poetical opus of Theodore Prodromos, addressed to the emperors John II and Manuel Komnenoi, see Hrandner, Prodromos (as in note 12)XVIII, 303, 1315: , , , / , , / .

17 At the time the parents of the future emperor Alexios were very young, with baby Alexios only two or three years old.




in the 1020s and early 1030s, are typical examples of the new solidarity by blood that cha racterized the new families from the higher strata of Byzantine society, distinguishing those who could rely on the support of the relatives from others, who were forced to search for the alliances outside the family circle, as was the case with the most power ful eunuchs from the court of Basil IIs. The significance of the success of the Paphla gonians lay primarily in the confirmati on of both the signi ficant restructuring of Byzantine society at the beginning of the 11th century and of the fact that the family became the nucleus from which its members drew their power, with relatives inva ria bly becoming the closest political associates. For the Pa phlagonians themsel ves the major setback was the fact that three of the five brothers were eunuchs (John Orpha notrophos, Constantine, George) with Mi chael IV being married to the empress Zoe and suffering from epilepsy, and Niketas who died probably already during 1034 and that they were thus unable to create a strong and functional familial network on which they could rely.18

While the collective family attempt of the Paphlagonians to obtain the total domi nance in the empire ultimately failed, the activities of one of the brothers in Constanti nople, the nobelissimos Constantine,19 offer an interesting and valuable insight into the habitudes [mores] and attitudes of the most prominent and most powerful members of the Byzantine elite in the 1030s and 1040s, exactly at the time when we find the first documentary mention of the Komnenoi in the capital. The nobelissimos Constantine was the staunchest, and eventually the only suppor ter of his sisters son Michael V within the family of the Paphlagonians, insomuch that his destiny was inseparably intertwined with that of his ambitious nephew. In the description of the revolt in the capital in April 1042 that brought the short, fourmonth long rule of Michael V to an end, Constantine emerges as the energetic hardliner of the family, who had at his disposal some private troops, with which he rushed to the Great Palace in order to assist his nephew.20 Since we lack any addi tional information it is hard to assess the number, the strength, and the quality of these troops, but John Skylitzes provided another detail which could be of even greater interest to us. According to Skylitzes account, Constantines residence, his oikos, was situated in

18 Disputes within the family, bolstered by ambition, were another factor that contri buted to the disintegration and the eventual disappearance of the Paphlagonians. Their sister Ma ria, the mother of Michael V the Kalaphates, did not have a major role within the family, dominated by the eldest brother, John Orphanotrophos. Cf. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestat ion (as in note 8) 261286, and a casestudy on the Paphla gonians: V. Stankovi, Nove lisim Konstantin, Mihailo V i rod Paflagonaca. ZRVI 40 (2003) 2744 (French summa ry: Le noblissime Constantin, Michel V et la famille de Paphlagoniens 4548). The biological factor the number of offspring and relatives that often determined the destiny of the fa milies was emphasized by A. Laiou, Mar riage, amour et parent Byzance aux XIeXIIe sicles. Paris 1992, 28.

19 As described by John Skylitzes: Scylitzes (as in note 11) 390, 7273; 400, 2627; 401, 67ff; 416, 76417, 78 (a mention of Constantines estate in Opsikion); 417, 8688.

20 Scylitzes (as in note 11) 419, 5357. The information about Constantines private troops was not used by J.C. Cheynet in his analysis of this subject: L aristocratie Byzantine (VIIIXIIIe sicle). Journal des savants 2 (2000) 281322, esp. 310317.




the vicinity of the Holy Apostles, and it was there that he had kept his private troops too, as well as a great amount of gold.21 Although the more precise location of the nobelissimos Constantines cannot be ascertained, this example confirms the prominence and even the fame of the neighborhood around the Holy Apostles and its attractiveness for the welloff upstarts in the 1030s.

One of the reasons for the Komnenian preference for this part of Constantinople, limited by the northern branch of Mese near the Valens aqueduct, the Golden Horn and the Blachernai, could be sought after in the character this neighbor hood ac quired in the decades before their rise to power. Equally important, the Pantokra tor complex was erected on maybe the most prominent spot within this quarter.

It is thanks to the invaluable information contained in the collection of the deci sions of one Eustathios Rhomaios, judge and magistros, known as the Peira that we have the evidence of the first Komnenoi in Constantinople in the 1030s, exactly at the time when the nobelis simos Constantines oikos near the Holy Apostles was functioning.22 We learn that, most probably during the latter years of the reign of Romanos Argyros there was an 18year old son of the Komnenos in Constantinople, and that he was offi cially engaged to the daughter of the protospa tharios Elijah, and the engagement approved by the emperor.23 Some time later,24 however, this Komnenos who is now referred to simply as ,25 tried to cancel the enga gement, and eventually succeeded under the pretext that he was underage at the time the engagement deal was brokered, but not before paying the enlarged sum than previously agreed upon for such an eventuality. Apart from testifying for the relatively high position of the Komnenoi in Constantinople in the 1030s which placed them in the same stratum as the protospatharioi,26 the Peira bears witness that a Komnenos (the father of the 18year old boy whose engage ment had been arranged), had bought a property (

21 Nearly 1700 kilograms, if John Skylitzes is to be believed: Scylitzes (as in note 11) 422, 1619. It should be pointed out that John Skylitzes is the only source that mentions both the treasure of the nobelissimos Constantine, and of the patriarch Alexios Stoudites (10251043), Constantines contemporary, although the patri arch Alexios apparently had col lect ed in his monastery only 25 kentenaria of gold, an amount twenty times smaller com pared to Constantines treasure: Scylitzes (as in note 11) 429, 2224.

22 The Peira is still available only in Zachariae von Lingenthals edition, reprinted in: J. Zepos/ P. Zepos (eds.), Jus Greacoromanum IV. Athens 1931, 5260. For the correct dating of this information to the 1030s, the reigns of Romanos Argyros and Michael IV, see A. Laiou, Marriage (as in note 18) 34 note 8, correcting A. Kazhdan, Some Notes on By zantine Prosopography of the Ninth through the Twelfth Centuries. BF 12 (1987) 65ff, who believed that the emperor mentioned in connection with the Komnenoi was Basil II (connecting the information from the Peira with Bryennioss account, on which see below notes 25 and 27).

23 Peira (as in note 22) 17.14 (p. 6365).24 Peira (as in note 22) 17.14 (p. 63): . For the time of the composition of

the Peira, and its characteristics, see N. Oikonomides, The Peira of Eustathios Romaios: an Abortive At tempt to Innovate in Byzantine Law. Fontes Minores 7 (1986) 169192, esp. 174176.

25 In the same manner in Peira (as in note 22) 44.1 (p. 184), although in this instance the father of the young Komnenos is meant.

26 N. Oikonomids, Listes des prsances byzantines des IXe et Xe sicles. Paris 1972, 328.




), which he gave as a part of the engagement deal before he died.27 Whether the property this Ko mnenos had bought should be situated in the neighb or hood of the monastery tou Kanikleiou in the southwestern part of the city is hard to tell. The Ko mnenoi were certainly well established in Constantinople in the 1030s but it is not possible to determine where precisely was the center of their fami ly, where their oikos at the time was situated.

The generation of Isaac and John Komnenos

Nikephoros Bryennios fairytalelike story about two orphan brothers, Isaac and John, growing up in the monastery of Stoudios under the protective eye of the emperor Basil II confirms, if anything, the uncertainty about the familys origins, its earliest history, and the whereabouts of the first generations of the Komnenoi in Constantinople already at the time when Bryennios was writing his History, in the years between 1118 and 1136/8.28 Apart from being Anna Komnenes husband, the wise Nikephoros Bryennios was also the first fa mily historian of the Komnenoi, entrusted by the then exempress Eirene Doukaina with the difficult task of ex plaining Alexios (and her) pi votal role in the rise of the Komnenoi, and their estab lishment on the imperial throne. Notwithstanding all these aggravating cir cum stances, Bryennios story bears witness to the Komnenian connection with the ca pital, to the fact, known for certain from the Peira that by the fourth decade of the 11th century the family of the Komnenoi was firmly established in Con stan tinople. Curious as it is, Bryennios account remains the only attempt to write the early history of this imperial fami ly: for the generation to which Nikephoros Bryennios belonged and for those that fol lowed, the history of the Komnenoi began with the reign of Alexios.

The already blurred notion of the first generations of the Komnenoi in Constantinople from the time when Bryennios wrote his History ceases to be a theme of the Byzan tine poets, historians and rhetoricians close to different members of the ramified imperial family in the 1130s and onwards, as a topic politically complete ly irrelevant, in the same manner as it was of no interest for Anna Komnene, and her version of Alexios rise to power and the account of the events from his long reign. In Annas Alexiad there is no special, emphasized connection of her ancestors to the capital, and the only reference to the origins or the early history of the family is

27 Peira (as in note 22) 44.1 (p. 184). From the available edition of the text of the Peira it is hard to tell whether presumes that the property in question belonged or was named after some , or if we are dealing with the possibly corrupt form of a derivative from a name or a toponym. Similarly, it is not possible to determine any thing concrete about the pro perty ( ) that the older of the two Komnenoi mentioned (the father) had obtained, and a recent search of the online edition of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae ren dered no match for the term , or its deri vatives. Whether this property ( ) had any connection with John Zonarass account about the Komne nian women being taken to the monastery referred to in more detail on p. 11 below, or if it had any influence on it, must for now remain unclear.

28 Bryennios (as in note 14) 75, 777, 20.




found in a passage where she relates her fathers visit to Kastamon.29 Constan tinople finds its place in Annas narrative primarily as the setting in which events take place, which is most ap parent in a lively and almost theatrical description of the nocturnal adventures of her father and her uncle Isaac, and the escape of the Komnenian women to Hagia Sophia.30

The main problem in analyzing both Bryennios and Anna Komnenes narrative as far the descriptions of Constantinople are concerned, lies in the fact that they were both Constantinopolitans,31 and that the scarce and circumstantial mention of the capital in their historical works could be considered more as reflections of their perception of Constanti nople of the 12th century, the capitals structures and the fabrics of their own time when the Komnenoi dominated the citys life and its development in every aspect. The relationship of the Komnenoi with and their status in Constantinople before Alexios accession to the throne, or even during his reign in Annas case, was not among the principal literary con cepts of the historical works of the imperial couple, and rightly so: they could not have had a clear image of Constan tinople without the Komnenoi, and the fact that they especially Anna let so little of their knowledge about contemporary, 12th century Constantinople protrude into their narrative testifies to the seriousness of their attempt to present a per suasive historical discourse.

We shall return now to Bryennios story about the young days of the future emperor Isaac and his brother John in Constantinople, and examine it in more detail, be cause, according to the familys first historian, it constitutes the essence of the Komnenian connection with the Empire and its capital. Unlike the encomiastic ex curse by Michael Attaleiates about the brave deeds, military prowess and victo ries of his heros ancestors who helped the emperor Basil II destroy the enemies in the West and in the East, Bryennios begins his History with a tale about the upbringing of the two young Komnenoi orphans in Constantinople.32 The first two chapters of Bryennios Material of History are dedicated primarily to the positi oning of two young Komnenoi within the closest circle of the emperor Basil II, whose persona lity and reign were held in the highest esteem by many in posterior generations, not least by Bryennios admired predecessor and histo rio graphywise role model, Michael Psellos,

29 Alexias (as in note 9) I.3.4 (p. 17, 78).30 Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.1II.5.6 (p. 65, 1369, 22). On this episode see below p. 10.31 It is not possible to establish with certainty whether Nikephoros Bryennios was born in the

capital. At the time when he was writing his Material of History, however, he was certainly no less a than his wife. The most mentions of Constantinople in the Alexiad, peculiarly, are connected with the emperor Alexios departures from the City to the battlefield and his returns to the capital.

32 Miguel Ataliates, Historia, ed. I. Prez Martn. Nueva Roma, 15. Madrid 2002, 167, 1171, 16 = Michaelis Attaliatae Historia, rec. Eud. Th. Tsolakis. CFHB, 50. Athens 2001, 176, 14182, 7. The beginning of Bryennios Material of History is in this aspect significant it is evident from the very outset that he writes a family history, starting with the first known (or the first known to him) significant male Komnenos: , ..., Bryennios (as in note 14) 75, 1ff.




from whose Chronography he had drawn heavily.33 To this goal, Bryennios emphasizes the patro nage of the emperor Basil II over the young Komnenoi and the provisions he had made for their military upbringing, choosing the Stoudios monastery as their quarters in the capital, both because it was important for their spiritual education, and, in the first place, because in that way the brothers could easily leave the city to go hunting and training.34

Informative as it seems, both regarding the habitudes of the Byzantine aristocracy and the capitals topography, Bryennios story cannot be verified by any other source. The circumstance that Isaac Komnenos had retired to the Stou dios monastery in No vember 1059 after leaving the imperial crown to Constantine Dou kas, and died in this important urban center not long afterwards, does not help us select with absolute surety one of the ways in which Bryennios sto ry could be interpreted:

as an indication that Isaacs connection with the monastery sprung from his youth, or

that Bryennios invented Isaacs youthful association with the Stoudios, knowing that that was where the emperor had ended his life.

The external arguments which could be utilized as assistance are equally ambiguous, on top of being scarce to the point of almost nonexistence: on the one hand, there are no sources confirming Isaacs relationship with the Stoudios monastery before or during his reign; on the other hand, Basil IIs strong, and well confirmed ties with Stoudios in the latter years of his life, provides Bryennios entire story with a sense of plausibility due to its correct placement in an adequate historical context of the early 11th century Constantinople, making it hard to simply discard it as a com plete, and much later invention of the learned caesar.35

The marriages of Isaac and John with Ekaterina of Bulgaria, the daughter of Sa muels nephew John Vladislav,36 and Anna Dalassene, respectively, testify to their relatively

33 Psellos had doubtlessly crucially influenced many aspects of pastoriented thoughts and comprehensions of both Bryennios and Anna Komnene, who cited his work extensively. A. Kaldellis, The Argument of Psellos Chronographia. Leiden 1999, brought a new dimension to Psellos portrayal of Basil II, while Athanasios Angelou in a recent article showed the extent of the amazing multidimensionality of a learned Byzantine historical work, that should instigate the endeavors to improve the existing methodology in historiography, A. Angelou, Rhetoric and history: the case of Niketas Choniates, in: R. Macrides (ed.), History as Literature in Byzantium. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, 15. Farnham 2010, 289305.

34 Bryennios (as in note 14) 77, 14: .35 During the last year of his reign Basil II had made two successive hegoumenoi of the Stou dios

monastery, Nicholas and Alexios, patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, respe ctively, cf. V. Stankovi, The path toward Michael Keroularios: the power, selfpresen tation and propaganda of the patriarchs of Constantinople in the late 10th and early 11th century, in: M. Grnbart (ed.), Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter. Akten der Internationalen Tagung des Exzellenzclusters Religion und Politik, Mnster, 03.-05. November 2010. Mnster 2013, 135151.

36 Bryennios makes a mistake stating that Ekaterina was Samuels eldest daughter she was the daughter of Samuels nephew John Vladislav but that could be viewed as adding signi ficance




high position, similar to that described by Bryennios, and, without doubt, a mark of the emperor being, at the very least, the nominal marriage broker. In summing up the early history of the Komnenoi in Constantinople it should be stressed that apart from the above facts little more can be concluded with any certainty about the association of the family with the capital in the generation of Isaac and John, Anna Dalassene in cluded, about their household () in the city or parts of Constantinople they had had land in or buildings or other special interests.

The oikos of the Komnenian family and the first foundations

A hypothesis by Magdalino37 brilliant in its forwardleaping reasoning that the Ko mnenian family house, the house of John Komnenos and Anna Dalassene could have been the palace of the sebastokrator Isaac that his eldest son John transformed into the monastery of Christ Euergetes, appears very probable, al though Magdalino him self38 raised doubts whether this could be taken for certain, when he analyzed Anna Komnenes account of the nightly adventures of Alexios and Isaacs during their flight from the City (February 14, 1081). By combining Annas narrative with the potential identification of a sebastokrator Isaac who owned a huge house near the port of Julian with the first sebastokrator Isaac, Alexios elder brother,39 Magdalino lays out the pos sibility that that was the house of the sebastokrator Isaac and in that way the Komne nian family house at the time before Alexios accession to the throne. Eventually, Mag dalino opted for the iden tification of the site of the later monastery Christ Euergetes (today Gl camii) with the sebastokrator Isaacs and the Komnenian family house. Re garding the house Isaac apparently received from the emperor Nike phoros Bota neia tes see further text.40

Following Annas account41 that Alexios and Isaac, together with the Komnenian women had walked to the Constantines Forum where they have split up the bro thers going in the direction of the Blachernai, the women towards Hagia Sophia, it would indeed be more logical to assume as their point of departure a location in the southernsouthwestern part of Constantinople, as Magdalino rightly stressed, in order to avoid Alexios and Isaac going the longer way round and even crossing a part of the way twice. Anna Komnene relates further how the Komne nian women led by Anna Dalassene rushed to the small church of St Nicholas adjacent to Hagia Sophia

to this bond, on top of a certain amount of ignorance about the accurate prosopo graphy of the house of the Bulgarian tzar Samuel. The members of the Bulgarian royal family were well integrated in the Byzantine aristocracy already in the mid eleventh cen tury (as Psellos himself, and his associations with Alousianos, for example, confirm), and consequently there is nothing strange in Bryennios naming Samuel , Bryennios (as in note 14) 77, 12.

37 Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 7879.38 ibidem, 8081.39 ibidem, 52.40 See note 69 below.41 Esp. Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.2 (p. 66, 2834).




and the asylum it offered, simultaneously with the escape of Alexios and Isaac from Constan tinople, and their practically open rebellion from that moment on. Zonaras, whose in formation about the Komnenoi in general usually differs from Annas, gives a sequel to the story about the Komnenian wo men, different from Annas story that the emperor Botaneiates sent the Komnenian women headed by Anna Dalassene to the Petrion monastery.42 Accord ing to Zonaras, the emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates transferred the women from Hagia Sophia to the monastery tou Kanikleiou, in order to prevent them from commu ni cating with the re bels ( ).43 The monastery , as far as we know, was situated in the southsouth western part of the city near the Sea of Marmara,44 and it is interesting to consider whether it could have been easier for Botaneiates to watch over the Komnenian women in that neighborhood than in the always problematic Hagia Sophia with its huge premises and famous labyrinthlike structures, or in the monastery of Petrion, in the vicinity of the Blachernai palace.

Botaneiates was after all the second ktetor of the monastery of Theotokos Peribleptos in the western part of Constantinople, on the western branch of Mese, and he could have had a tighter control over the net of communication in the neighbor hood in which he was the main patron at the time (he retired, in the end to the Peribleptos monastery45). Zonaras account of the deeds of the Komnenoi is always provocative with hardly, or even not concealed criticism at all, but his narration is nevertheless very significant, and his wording is usually carefully chosen (see only his toying with the term apostasia, that acquired greater signi ficance after the reconstruction of the original text of the Alexiad by D. R. Reinsch,46 when it became obvious that Anna herself had used apostasia almost exclusively to describe her fathers takeover of power). Zonaras says47 that after securing the power in Con stantinople, the Komne noi dispatched their mother and their wives from the mona stery ta Kanikleiou to the palace ( ). It would seem, following Zonaras account, that the Komnenoi brothers had waited for the things in Constantinople to calm down before sending for their mother and wives, in order to move them from the distant part of the city to the palace the Great Palace or, more probably the Blachernai, which meant that they had to cross a major part of the capital in which the ram page of Alexios troops and supporters lasted three days. Anna Komnene, on the other hand, leaves the narrative about the Komnenian women halffinished, with out the exact expla nation as to how they had

42 Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.8 (p. 68, 614): there they were joined by the protobesti arissa Maria, Eirene Doukainas mother and Anna Dallasenes .

43 Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum, III, ed. Th. BttnerWobst. CSHB. Bonn 1897, 730, 17731, 6.

44 A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos. , 8. Bonn 1988, 127128, 139, 645646.

45 Alexias (as in note 9) III.1.1 (p. 87, 519).46 D. R. Reinsch, Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komnenes. JB 40 (1990) 233268, here 245247.47 Zonaras (as in note 43) 730, 17731, 1.




departed from the Petrion monastery where they were confined after Alexios conquest of power, just mentioning that the Komnenoi went to greet their mother, soon after entering the city.48 Anna essentially jumps over to the storyline important to her about her former fiance Constantine Doukas and his mother, the empress Maria of Alania, and the problem of her mo thers corona tion.49

On the other hand, Alexios parents John and Anna Dalassene are most probably identical with John Komnenos and Anna Dukaina who founded, according to a now lost inscript ion, the monastery of Christ Pammakaristos in Constan tinople, the first new monastery founded by members of the Komnenos family.50 It is unknown when this foundation took place, but this may well have happened before Isaac came to power in 1057. The Pammakaristos mona stery, of which the church still stands, though with later ad ditions and in a rather disfi gured form,51 lay in the northwestern part of Con stantinople, the future Komnenian quarter where some time later the monasteries of Pante poptes, Philanthropos and Kechari to mene, and finally the Pantocrator were built.

What is certain is that the Komnenoi were firmly established in Constantinople, and remained with significant influence after the death of John Komnenos on July 12, 1067, and even during the reign of Michael Doukas.52 We have to wait for the generation of the future emperor Alexios and his elder brother Isaac to mature, before we gain more insight into the life of the Komnenoi in Constantinople. In the narrative of Bryen nios Material of History, however, the confirmation that the Komnenoi had come to represent one of the leading in the City lay in the fact that the father of the future emperor Alexios, the protobestiarios John, could have easily become the emperor, had he acquiesced to become his brothers successor.

The handing over of the crown from Isaac Komnenos to Constantine Doukas re presents the other pillar of Komnenian imperial legitimacy in Nikephoros Bryennios Material of History, and the authors (or perhaps even the benefac tors, the exEmpress Eirene Doukaina and Bryennios wife, Anna Komnenes?) firmest argu ment to support Alexios right to claim the throne for himself.53 As already mentioned

48 Alexias (as in note 9) II.12.1 (p. 84, 8995).49 Alexias (as in note 9) III.1.2III.2.5 (p. 8793).50 R. Janin, La Gographie ecclsiastique de lempire byzantin I: Le sige de Constan tino ple et

le patriarchat cum nique 3: Les glises et les monastres. 2nd ed. Paris 1969, 208213.51 A highrising domed chapel and lateral halls for burial purposes were added on the sou thern

side in the early Palaeologan period, and the presbytery of the main church was replaced by a new mihrab compartment after the con version to a mosque in 1593/4. On the date of this con version, see N. AsutayEffenberger, Zum Datum der Umwandlung der Pam ma karistoskirche in die Fethiye Camii. Byz 77 (2007) 3241.

52 La vie de saint Cyrille le Philote moine byzantin ( 1110), ed. . Sargologos. Subsidia hagio graphica, 39. Bruxelles 1964, 17 (p. 9094). Describing the saints visit to Anna Dalassene, presumably in Constantinople, Nicholas Kataskepenos does not convey a single detail that could increase our knowledge of the position of the Komnenoi in the capital, apart from the impression, which could stem from his hindsight, that Anna with the sur name Komnene (91,1)(!) was rich, respected and influential in Constan tinople.

53 The relation between Bryennios work and the text by an anonymous writer which was written at a later date and inserted as an introduction in front of Material of History, in which particular




above, following strictly Bryennios account, it could be concluded that a kind of family go vernment of the Komne noi was in existence in Constantinople al ready at the time of the reign of Isaac Komnenos (September 1/4, 1057 Novem ber 22, 1059), with the crucial evidence being the ailing emperors offer to his young brother, the protobestia rios John, to accept the imperial crown.54 Given its uniqueness, Bryennios story of John Komnenos decline to carry on the Komne nian family rule was mainly accepted by the scholars, even if with caution.55 Bryen nios narrative that presupposes the Komnenian influence in the capital to have been at a much higher level than could be ascertained by an analysis of both the other sources and the historical context of mideleventh century Byzantium and its capital, should be reassessed and regarded as not much more than an invention of the later generations, eager to bring forward the agenda of, at the time described in the narrative, the lesser family line of the Komne noi. Whether it was a plain invent ion by Nikephoros Bryennios himself, who just switched the roles, and in verted Michael Psellos narrative from the Chronography, or whether he was pre senting an exaggerated version of a family legend already in exi stence at the time when he was writing the Material of History is of lesser signifi cance.

Both the difference with the accounts of other historians, and the similarity of Bryennios and Psellos scene (with only changed protagonists) was rightly stressed by the editor of the Material of History, Paul Gautier.56 In his parallel narrative, Psellos mentioned, without naming them, the emperors brother John and a nephew (Theodoros Dokeianos), but only as mour ners, rushed to what everybody supposed would be the emperors death bed.57 There is not a single allusion in Psellos account that Isaacs successor could have been his brother John, and the harsh words that Bryennios ascribes to Anna Dalassene in his historical work, resound in tone the angry criticism of the empress Ekaterina addressed to Psellos himself.58 The official letter announcing the change on the imperial throne was also, it seems, composed by Michael Psellos, and it bears wit ness to the gradual takeover of power by Constantine Doukas, and to the interdependence of the allies who expelled the emperor Michael VI in the coup of 1057.59

emphasis was laid on Alexios right to the throne, cannot be examined in more detail here: see J. Seger, Byzantinische Historiker der zehnten und elften Jahrhun derts I. Nikephoros Bryennios. Eine philologischhistorische Untersuchung. Munich 1888, 83106 ; Bryennios (as in note 14) 4751; cf. V. Stankovi, Uvod u Materijal Istorije Nicifora Vrijenija. ZRVI 47 (2010) 137146 (English summary: The Preface to Nikephoros Bryennios Material of History, 147148).

54 Bryennios (as in note14) 81, 583, 17.55 P. Gautier, commenting Bryennios text (see note 53 and the following paragraph of the text),

was probably the most cautious in this respect.56 Bryennios (as in note 14) 81, notes 8 and 11.57 See: Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronografia), ed. S. Impelizzeri. Vicenza 1984,

II, VII.7488 (p. 274288): II, VII.79 (p. 278, 713).58 Psello, ed. Impelizzeri (as in previous note) II, VII.81 (p. 280, 68).59 P. Gautier, Basilikoi logoi indits de Michel Psellos. Siculorum Gymnasium 32 (1980) 717

771, here 761764, with the new official acclamation as follows (763):




Even if the protobestiarios John was at the first opposed to the election of Doukas as it could be surmised after Gautiers correction of the otherwise quite unclear passage in the text that could hardly be taken to mean that he was a candidate for the crown, since he was mentioned in the Chronography, as well, as pre sent near Isaac at the Blachernai palace when the problem of his heir was being discussed, but that would rather strengthen the impression that there was no place for John in the new government of Constantine Doukas. On the other hand, the peculiar affinity of Bryen nios to revise the history in order to either give strength to his argument or, prima rily, to obtain a more positive judgment on his ancestors is well known. Bryennios 60 three most obvious personal reasons for presenting the relationship of the two brothers in such a manner could be named here, apart from his evident borrowing from Psellos, as being: firstly, that it was important to stress the virtues of the ancestor of the current ruling line of the Komnenoi, who in the with Isaac emerged as the better warrior, with a charming personality and political skill that drew supporters and even barbarians to his side; secondly, praising John Komnenos military and political prowess, Bryennios demon strated the advantage the younger brother had over the elder, in much the same manner as Alexios talent and successes, on top of his marriage with Eirene Doukaina, made him more suitable for the imperial crown than his elder brother Isaac;61 and lastly, the way by which John displayed political prudence in a very sensitive moments in November 1059, greatly resembled Nikephoros Bryennios himself, whose cautiousness in a similar situation did de prive him and his wife Anna of the imperial crown, but contributed to the more general impression in Constantinople that he was wise not only regarding the letters but in political matters too.

What matters primarily is the clear impression that at the moment of Isaac Komne nos withdrawal from the throne his brother John and his young family line were much less influential in the Byzantine capital than Bryennios (and the later Komne noi of Alexios line) wanted us to believe.

It is not quite clear what the political destiny of the protobestiarios John was after his brothers withdrawal from the throne. Although he is not mentioned as a parti cipant in any action of relative significance or as a dignitary in the regime of the Doukai brothers, his early death on July 12, 1067 does not allow a constructive estimation of his position or activities in Constantinople between 1059 and 1067. The relationship with the ruling fami ly of the Doukai might not have been as hostile as later presented through Anna Dalas senes enmity and political grudge against them, and accepted by modern scholarship.62 Barzos estimative proposition that the eldest son of John and Anna Dalassene, Manuel, was born around 1045, and the second Isaac around 1050 (with Alexios being born in 1056/7) does not seem com

.

60 See D. R. Reinsch, , in: ' . , , . Thessalonica 2003, 169177.

61 See, for instance, Zonaras (as in note 43) 727, 612.62 See Barzos (as in note 14) 6162, and note 4.




pletely convincing. That would make Manuel around 26 years of age at the time of his death in Bithynia in 1071, and it would be prudent to bring forward his birth by a couple of years, since Manuels daughter was already betrothed to the emperor Nikepho ros Botaneiates grandson (although Anna uses the term for him) at the begin ning of 1081.63 Since Ma nuel died in 1071 his daughter could not have been around three years old in 1081.64

The generation of Alexios Komnenos and the sebastokrator Isaac

The victorious entry into Constantinople on Easter Thursday, April 1, 1081 of Ale xios and Isaac Komnenoi, and the threeday pillaging of the City by the troops that had supported Alexios bid for the imperial crown, marked the beginning of a new era for the Komnenoi, for the Empire in general, and for the relationship of the now ruling regarding Constantinople.65 Byzantiums short eleventh century that started after Basil IIs death in December 1025, had its symbolical end with the overthrow of the emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates who in his deeds and attitudes followed his eleventh century predecessors, exemplified in his renovation of Ro manos III Argyros monastery of Theotokos Peribleptos, of which he became the second ktetor and in the seclusion of whose walls he had ended his life. Maybe consciously attaching himself to the emperors from the previous generation, the generation that had enjoyed a period of peace before the seemingly incessant civil wars started, Nikephoros Botaneiates attached himself much more closely to the immediate successors of Basil II and Constantine VIII than to his real predecessors, who, from Isaac Komnenos onwards, did not show a particular interest in leaving their visible, physical mark on Constantinople through churches, monasteries or other buildings.66 The Komnenoi would, over the

63 Alexias (as in note 9) II.5.1 (p. 65, 1316). See Cheynet / Vannier, tudes prosopographiques (as in note 15) 95, no. 16, who suggested that Anna Dalassene married John Komnenos between 1045 and 1050.

64 As can be found in Alexias / Anna Komnene. bers. von D. R. Reinsch (as in note 10) 81, note 39.

65 The three day looting of Constantinople left a strong impression on the contemporaries, and, together with Alexios repeated confiscation of church goods, deeply tainted the first part of his reign. It was recorded as a hardly believable and almost unprecedented event not only by John Zonaras, known for his negative assessment of Alexios and his gover nance, but also by Anna Komnene, in one of her excurses in which her father was described to be and behave far from the ideal hero, Alexias II.12.16 (p. 84, 8986, 58). Anna Komnenes unfavorable passages about Alexios and his deeds have not yet received ade quate analysis, although a sound basis was laid by D. R. Reinschs study of the text, that an nounced his critical edition of the Alexiad, D. R. Reinsch, Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komne nes (as in note 46) and in some aspects by P. Magdalino, The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the MidTwelfth Century in the Alexiad, in: Th. GoumaPeterson (ed.), Anna Ko mnene and her Times. New York/London 2000, 1545.

66 Isaac Komnenos built a chapel of St Thekla in the Blachernai palace, as a token of his miraculous salvation from lightning by the saint during the campaign against the Petche negs. The Doukai, in spite of their immense wealth, were not inclined to express their power, ideology, attitudes or interfamilial antagonism through building activities in the ca pital, which adds a peculiar nuance to the Komnenian buildings in Constantinople, to their entire programme, and to the specific intentions of every single Komnenian ktetor.




next three generations, essential ly transform the character of the City, both regarding the imperial and ceremonial side of the capital, and the more private, although highly ideologically coloured expressions of beliefs and attitudes by the emperor and the members of the vast imperial family. However, it was a process that developed gradually, with every subsequent generation upgrading the previous concepts by adding its own ambit ions, and the values and ideas of their times.

Once in power in Constantinople the Komnenoi immediately proceeded to strengthen their position. The confusion of the first weeks after Alexios coro nation, chiefly mark ed by the attempts of the emperors mother Anna Dalassene to thwart the influence of the Doukas family that would allow them to dominate the new regime,67 was swiftly forgotten and followed by the creation of a threeheaded government in which, along with the new empe ror, his elder brother Isaac participated with the new, highest dignity of sebastokrator coin ed for him perso nally, and their mother Anna Dalassene, who actually held all the reins of power both within the governing family, and as widely in the Empire as possible.

A sort of scanning of the situation in Constantinople immediately after the Komne nian conquest of the imperial throne with the aim of tracing the distribution of the properties and wealth among the new ruling family is almost as impossible a task as determining the starting position of the Komnenoi in these aspects on the eve of Alexios and Isaacs rebellion. The sources, or rather the lack of them, are to blame for our inability to probe more deeply into the organization of the Komnenian family in those times and the structures of Constantinople that engendered the new generation of the Byzantine elite. To the possibilities discus sed above, that the family house of the Komnenoi could have been situated either at the site of the later monastery of Christ Evergetes on the slope of the hill near the Golden Horn, or that it was actually Alexios brother Isaac who owned a palace near the port of Julian,68 should be added a curious and to some extent overlooked record by Nikephoros Bryennios, who stated that the future sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos received a house within the palace from the em peror Nikephoros Botaneiates.69 With Bryen

67 Above all other issues that arose was the question of the crowning of Alexios young (not yet 15 years old) wife, Eirene Doukaina. Although Anna Dalassene, and all the Komnenoi, in the end had to succumb to the caesar John Doukas strong pressure, they responded very quickly by overthrowing the patriarch Kosmas, a client of the rival family and installing An na Dalassenes own underling, the eunuch Eustratios Garidas, Alexias III.1.5III.2.5 (p. 89, 5893, 84).

68 Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 52; 80, and see above, p. 12.69 When describing Isaacs being recalled from Antioch to Constantinople, Bryennios stresses

the virtues of the Komnenos, and at the same time the simplemindedness () of the emperor, who was easily beguiled with the gifts, Bryennios (as in note 14) 29 (p. 297, 110). Regarding the properties and the house given to Isaac see 297, 46: (Isaac was) . The entire chapter follows the account of Alexios success against the rebelled Nikephoros Basilakes (28, p. 297, 925), for which Alexios had received both the title of sebastos (as would Isaac, on his return to Constantinople from Antioch), and a great deal of property:




nios story, however, not being verifiable, it is doubtful whether Isaac, and the family of the Komnenoi through him, did acquire a house within (or adjacent to?) either the Great palace or the Blachernai palace, which would have positioned them politically, and topographically, much more conve niently both before and after their takeover of power in 1081. On the other hand, the Komne nian preference for the Blachernai palace and the region stretching south of it to the site of the Pantokrator complextobe is wellknown and soundly evi den ced, and there is no need to reiterate it here.70

The Blachernai palace

One of the most fundamental changes in the history of Byzantine Constantinople was the move of the imperial household from the Great Palace in the southeast of the city to the Blachernai Palace in the extreme northwest.71 When exactly this event took place, is un known: at least during the reign of Alexios, probably also under his son John II, the old ceremonial in the Great Palace, the hippodrome and Hagia Sophia was still observed,72 and there is no clear evidence since when the emperor and his family actually lived in the Blachernai. The reasons for Alexios decision are unknown, but one of them were probably security concerns, for in the first decade of Alexios reign the Turks were present on the shores of the Sea of Marma ra and began to extend their milita ry activities from land to sea, so that the eastern parts of Constan tinople were in immediate danger.

The Blachernai region had already long been famous by the large large church of the Mother of God, built in the midfifth century at the foot of the hill which rose there.73 This church housed the robe of the virgin Mary, the maphorion,74 and was visited regu larly by the empe rors with a procession, which included also recepti ons and a banquet after the visit to the church.75 As a suitable place was needed for these

(297, 2325). It is not possible to de termine the reliability of Bryennios account, or to uncover his source(s) in this regard, but the similarities between his account describing Botaneiates inclination toward Alexios and that about Isaac are a cause for great caution. The detail that stands out, however, is the information about the house Isaac received, and it should not be automa tically discarded.

70 The most complete recent overview: Magdalino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 7684.

71 R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine. Dveloppement urbain et rpertoire topographique, 2. d. Archives de lOrient chrtien, 4,1. Paris 1964, 123128; Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 116119; S. Miranda, Les palais des empereurs byzan tins. Mxico 1964, 105118.

72 The emperor, therefore, had to arrive from the Blachernai palace in time: see Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 237242; A. Berger, Imperial and ecclesiasti cal pro cessions in Constan tinople, in: N. Necip olu (ed.), Byzantine Constan tinople (as in note 2) 7387, here 83.

73 Janin, Gographie (as in note 50) 161171.74 On which see J. Wortley, The Marian relics in Constantinople. GRBS 45 (2005) 171187,

esp. 186. S. Papaioannou, The Usual Miracle and an Unusual Image: Psellos and the Icons of Blachernai. JB 51 (2001) 187198.

75 The first such procession is mentioned for the 2nd February 602, see Theophylacti Simo cattae historiae ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig 1887 (2nd ed. P. Wirth, Stuttgart 1972), 291, 6292, 8. By




cere mo nies, artificial ter races were built on the slope of the hill above the church, with a num ber of re ception halls on them. The Book of Cere monies lists four such halls, of which one bears the name Anastasia kos as we may as sume, because it had been built by the emperor Anastasios, that is, already in the late fifth or early sixth cen tury.76 At an unknown time, a fur ther pa lace building was added to the northeast of the already exist ing ter race, which over looked the walls. When rumours spread during a revolt in 1047 that the emperor Constantine Mono machos was dead, he deci ded to appear in public, together with his wife Zoe, on the terrace of a palace near the Bla chernai wall, so that the couple could be seen by the revolters out side.77

That Alexios choice fell on the Bla chernai can therefore also be ex plained by the fact that a palace there did already exist: when he decided to take his residence there, a sufficient number of buildings already existed at this place to receive him and his court.

Although the palace where Ale xios Komne nos took up his residence was known by the name Alexiakos, it was probably no new construction of his time, but identi cal to the build ing mentioned in 1047, which had received its new name after a thorough restorat ion. It must also be the newly built big hall, in which the synod of 1094 was held.78 Nothing is known about additional constructions during Alexi os reign or the reign of his son, John II. Only under Manuel Komne nos (114380), a new wall was built at the Blacher nai which extended the narrow flat part of the hill to the northwest79 and gave the oppor tunity for new constructions, of which we know two by name, the Manouelites and the highrising palace of Ma nuels first wife, the German Bertha or Irene.80

Religious foundations under Alexios I

It is remarkable that, despite the difficult political and economical situation during the first two decades of Alexios rule, building activities did not cease in this time. In Alexios Komnenos edict, issued in 1094 in connect ion with the synod which settled the affair of Leon, archbishop of Chalkedon, fifteen abbots of Con stantinopolitan monasteries appear among the signatories, and of these monaste ries, that of Christ Akataleptos is perhaps mentioned here for the first time, while for those of Oikoproteros, Prasianou and probably also that of the Pterygion the novella is the only source.81

the 10th century, it was accomplished on horseback, see Constan tine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, ed. J. J. Reiske. Bonn 1839, 156, and Berger, Unter suchun gen (as in note 44) 557558.

76 Janin, Constantinople (as in note 71) 124.77 Psello, ed. Impelizzeri (as in note 57) II, 4852.78 P. Gautier, Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094). RB 29 (1971) 213284, 220.79 N. AsutayEffenberger, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopelstanbul. Millennium-Studien,

18. Berlin 2007, 118127.80 Janin, Constantinople (as in note 71) 127. 81 Gautier, Le synode (as in note 78) esp. 219220 and 276280.




Alexios mother Anna Dalassene is also the person who built the first familial, com ple tely new mona stery in Constantinople, the nunnery of Christ the AllSeeing, Christ Pantepoptes.82 The epithet Pantepoptes that Anna Dalassene chose consci ously for her private foundation, although it did resonate in the contempo rary Byzantine sources, was otherwise quite rare and extravagant, and her monastery remained the only one to be dedicated to the AllSeeing Christ till the end of Byzantine empire.83 Anna Dalassenes preference for this epithet showed at the same time the resolution of the ktetor to fight for what she considered to be the appropriate position for her and her family, and to avenge all the wrongdoings that she had endured over the decades of what she perceived as harsh sufferings.

The monastery is first mentioned in 108784 which suggests that it had actually been con structed some time before, perhaps as early as in the 1050s or 1060s. For a long time, it was believed that the former church now called the Eski maret Camii had been the church of the Pantepoptes monastery,85 until Cyril Mango con vincingly de monstrated that it must be locat ed at the place where today the Selimi ye mosque stands, on a hill high over the Golden Horn a fitting place for the mo nastery of Christ the AllSeeing.86 In fact, the monastery may have replaced the for mer new Bonos palace from the time of Roma nos Lakapenos (920944), reusing its main building and with a new church added.87

82 On which see Janin, Gographie (as in note 50) 513515.83 A recent search of the online Thesaurus Linguae Graecae showed that this epithet can be

found in Septuaginta, in Clemens Alexandrinus Paedagogus 3.4/44. 1, in Romanos Melodos Hymn18, 21.1, and that it was also used, among others, by John Damascenus, Symeon the New Theologian, Michael Psellos, Gregory Akindynos, and Theodore II Doukas Laskaris. Its usage in the contemporary Komnenian texts (still not recorded in the Thesau rus Linguae Graecae database), is much more revealing for the currency of the term Pantepoptes within the circle of Byzantine intellectuals close to the imperial court: P. Maas, Die Musen des Kaisers Alexios I. BZ 22 (1913) 348370, at 352; Constantine Manasses, as well, in the mid12th century used this resounding epithet: K. Horna, Das Hodoiporikon des Konstantin Manasses. BZ 13 (1904) 313355, at 333, 286, and also in his verse chro nicle: Constan tini Manassis Breviarum chronicum, ed. O. Lampsides. CFHB, 36. Athens 1996, 130, 2367; 243, 4461.

84 In the chryso boullos logos from 1087, quoted in note 88 below.85 Konstantios, . 2nd ed. Constantinople 1844, 106107.

Last accepted by R. Ousterhout, Some Notes on the Construction of Christos ho Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii) in Istanbul. DChAE 16 (19911992) 4756.

86 C. Mango, Where at Constantinople was the Monastery of Christos Pantepoptes?DChAE 20 (1999) 8788. Subsequently, S. Kotzabassi, Zur Lokalisierung des Akata leptosKlosters in Konstantinopel. RB 63 (2005) 233235, proposed the identification of Christ Akataleptos, an otherwise not localized 11th century monastery, with the Eski Imaret Camii.

87 A. Berger, Vom Pantokratorkloster zur Bonoszisterne: Einige topographische ber le gun gen, in: K. Belke et al. (eds.), Byzantina Mediterranea. Festschrift fr Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag. Vienna 2007, 4356. Doubts on this hypothesis have been raised by N. Asu tayEffenberger / A. Effenberger, Eski maret Camii, Bonoszisterne und Kon stan tins mauer. JB 58 (2008) 1344. An analogous pre history of the site has been pro posed by Magda lino, Medieval Constantinople (as in note 6) 5052 for the Panto krator monastery, which may have reused the remains of the great hospital of Theophilos.




Positioned in the Komnenian quarter of Constantinople, the mona stery of Christ Pantepoptes in many aspects paved the way for the future Komnenian foundations:

it was conceived as a rich, private property of the ktetor with absolute kteto-rial rights;

it provided a place of shelter, political as well as spiritual for the founder, and it was conceived as the burial place of the ktetor.

The difficulties, political and economic, of Alexios first reigning years did not seem to perturb particularly the ktetor of the Pantepoptes monastery: in spite of troublesome economic conditions and the empire being on the verge of fiscal breakdown, Anna Dalassene was preoccupied with establishing the wealth of hers and her protges foundations, in such a measure that some properties changed owners as many as three times, in the first seven years alone of the Komnenian go vernance of the empire. A case in the point is the example of the islands of Leros, Leipsos, and Pharmakos that were firstly added as a whole or some specified pie ces of land to the domain of Anna Dalasse nes monastery, then were transfer red by the ktetor herself to the Myrelaion monastery, only to be bestowed on the fa mous monk Christo doulos from Latros, the founder of the Patmiac monastic life, one of the protg monks close to the mother of the emperor.88

Apart from the evident avarice that permeated the newly established rulers of the em pire, and the promotion of their personal agenda par ticularly apparent in the deeds and behavior of Anna Dalassene, not to mention the other members of the imperial it is hard to detect a consistent policy of the Komnenoi toward the capital. The velocity with which the properties changed hands at the very beginning of Komnenian rule could point to the revolutionary character of the years that followed the coup of the Komnenoi brothers or to such a notion present in Constantinople, if not to the con sciously developed political concept of the new elite that acquired power in 1081.

Forced to try to assemble a puzzle with most of the parts missing, the scholar of Byzantine history is forced to examine every detail that could provide additional information and add a nuance that would hopefully enhance the under standing of the already existing pieces. One such detail is the fact that one of the beneficiaries of Anna Dalassene was the Myrelaion monastery, the wellknown foun dation of the emperor Romanos Lekapenos, in which her sisterinlaw, Isaac I Komnenos wife, Ekate rina of Bulgaria, found monastic sanctuary, together with her daughter Maria, after the change on the throne in November 1059. It could be presumed that the two imperial wo men kept the channels of communication open between them, and that Anna Dalassenes inter vention in favour of the Myrelaion monastery at the

88 See E.A. Branouses (ed.), . . . Athens 1980, nos. 5 (p. 4445) and 47 (p. 333334). The emperor Alexios confirmed the gift to Christo doulos with his chrysobull in 1087, only enhancing the impression of the boundless power of Anna Dalas sene in the capital, at least until her retirement to the monastery of Christ Pante poptes after 1095.




time when she was practically the ruler of the empire was not undertaken impartially or haphazardly. A kind of privatizati on of the imperial administration by the Komnenoi, strongly criticized by John Zonaras at the end of his historical work,89 represented only the last stage in the decadeslong process of the evo lution of the imperial administrational system.90

That a similar impression was shared by some, if not by all the inhabitants of the Byzantine capital, is confirmed in practically the only contemporary voice of dissent to be heard during the reign of Alexios Komnenos.91 The true extent of the Komnenian seizing of properties and wealth cannot be convincingly estimated, nor could an ade quate methodo logy for such an assessment be easily devised, especial ly regarding Constanti nople.92 By the end of the first decade of Komnenian rule, at the very end of the exhausting period of Ale xios constant, seemingly futile military campaigning, the titular patriarch of Antioch, John Oxeites, composed a speech ( ) and an advice () addressed to the emperor, analyzing the state the empire was in, and the behavior of the ruling elite.93 A critical judgment of the first ten years of Alexios reign was underscored by a historical and politi cal analysis that surpass the mere invective against the emperor, and although John Oxeites introduced an almost apocalyptical division between Alexios nature and behavior, and the consequences for the Empire, before and after his accession to the imperial throne, the reason he considered the most important for the internal political de cay of the Empire can be found in the passage dedicated to the Komnenian occu pation of Constantinople. Begin ning with the topic of the poor state of imperial finances, John Oxeites compares the deficit in the state treasury with the opulence of the ruling Komnenian family, highlighting to the emperor how they had built the entire cities within the City, enjoying an abundance of possessions, while at the same time partaking in the states revenues and trea sures, thusly dismantling the very imperial system, by living extravagantly, and placing personal benefit before the common wellbeing.94

89 Zonaras (as in note 43) 766, 4767, 19.90 See Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 180 ff.91 John Zonaras, the famous critic of Alexios system of government, formulated his attitudes

mainly in his historical work, a world chronicle that he finished after Alexios death (F. Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates. Mnchen 1971, 144147). Zonarass historical work should be reexa mined, since Tinnefelds remarks are too superficial and partially outdated.

92 Such an analysis should include the allies of the Komnenoi as well. For instance, Anna Komnene mentions two palatial residences within the city walls of her maternal grand father, the caesar John Doukas: one lower palace, and the Boukoleon palace (Alexias III.1.5, p. 89), while stressing in another place his vast estate at Moroboundion in Thrace (Alexias II.6.4, p. 70, 64: John Doukas received the word of the rebellion of the Komnenoi while ). Although it seems plau sible that the caesar John Doukas had two palaces in Constantinople even before 1081, a doubt remains whether Anna Komnene placed the fact known to her in its correct historical context.

93 P. Gautier, Diatribes de Jean lOxite contre Alexis Ier Comnne. RB 28 (1970) 555 ( 1949, 4955).

94 Gautier, Diatribes (as in previous note) 41, 1843, 1. See Magdalino, Empire (as in note 7) 269270. I have paraphrased John Oxeitess main critical opinions regarding the Komne




It is clear that the Komnenoi had not only penetrated all the pores of the imperial administration after a decade in power, but that they also managed to adapt and trans form the family structure to the state administrational mechanism, even if the judge ment of John Oxeites should be approached cautious ly. However exag gerated his assess ment may strike us, especially regarding Alexios military failu res (for which John Oxeites does not take into account what was objectively, the pro blematic state of affairs that Alexios inhe rit ed), and given that the privati zati on of the empire by the Komnenoi is a wellestablished opin ion in modern histo riography, his depiction of the new elites life style in the capi tal deserves cre dibi lity chiefly because it was presented as the peripheral effect of Alexios govern ment, and not as the authors main argument, which is, otherwise, embed ded in a mystical notion of the deserved wrath of God as the consequence of the sins com mitted, characteristic for the spirituality of the late ele venth century.95 Albeit, even John Oxeites criticism of the Komnenian behaviour does not enable us to map the possessions of the imperial family in Constantinople, particularly because soon after his literary diatribes, the political scenery of Komne nian Constantinople changed radically.

The change that was unfolding can be already sensed in the written communication of Manuel Straboromanos, another learned contemporary, regarding Alexios and his clo sest circle, especially the empress Eirene Doukaina, and her brothers Michael and John, who had climbed to high posts just at the beginning of the last decade of the eleventh century.96 The empress, driven by her own ambition and determined to cast off the obtrusive dominance of her motherinlaw and Anna Da lassenes clients, helped Alexios to extricate himself from the strong familial bonds that had blurred his identity and his political and ideological agenda, through an indiscriminative amalgam of the leveling, joint familial rule with his mother and brother, and to emerge as the leader, first within the of the Komnenoi and then in the empire, in general. With Anna Dalassenes withdrawal in her nunnery of Christ Pan

nian impact on Constantinople. The entire text of this passage, otherwise possibly corrupt (Gautier, Diatribes 41, note 43) reads as follows: ... . , , , , , . The example of the nobelissimos Constantine, emperor Michael IVs uncle, comes readily to mind after reading John Oxeites repri mand, see above.

95 Only a year later, in 1092 when the process against John Italos was staged, Alexios and the Komnenoi had begun their peculiar struggle for the true faith and against various heresies and heretical teachings, that would constitute a common feature of Komne nian rule over three generations, see J. Guillard, Le synodikon de lOrthodoxie: edition et commentaire. TM 2 (1967) 1316, 7375; 183227.

96 P. Gautier, Le dossier dun haut fonctionnaire dAlexis Ier Comnne, Manuel Straboro manos. RB 23 (1965) 168204. For Michael and John Doukas, and their careers, see D. Po lemis, The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography. London 1968, nos. 24 and 25, respectively. Both prosopographical notes should, however, be partly revised.




tepoptes in the years after 1095, and her, and the se bastokrator Isaacs deaths at the beginning of the twelfth century,97 Alexios Ko mnenos had found himself in a new situation, which became immediately evident by his in creased activities in Constantinople and his and the empress much stronger im print on the capital. Instead of a company of equal relatives, be longing to the same age group, the Komnenoi were now becoming a broad family strongly di vided along the line of the porphyry, with the emperors family on one side, and all the other relatives on the other.

The simultaneity of the imperial couples actions in Constantinople at the outset of the twelfth century points to a peculiar liberation of both Alexios Komnenos and Eirene Doukaina from the tight hold the mother of the emperor,98 Anna Dalassene, and, in a much lesser degree, the eldest Komnenos after her, the sebasto krator Isaac, had over the family policy and endeavors.

Another case of Komnenian activity in the northwest of Constantinople is the reno vation of the monastery of Christ of the Chora between 1077 and 1081, shortly before Alexios accession to the throne, which was sponsered by Maria Doukaina, his future motherinlaw.99 The new church, however, soon faced the same statical problems as its predecessors, since it lay on the upper part of a steep slope, and collapsed at an un known date not long after its recon struction. Isaac Komnenos, her grandson and Ale xios third son, rebuilt the church in the midtwelfth cen tury.100

The mona stery of Christ Philanthropos (ManLoving) is first mentioned by the signature of its hegoumenos, Sophronios, in an act from 1107, which confirms the existence and functi oning of this monastery at this date.101 A cistern, which lay about 150 m northwest of the main en trance to the complex of the Sultan Mehmed Fatih

97 D. Papachryssanthou, La date de la mort du sbastocrator Isaac Comnne et de quelques vnements contemporains. RB 21 (1963) 250256, dated the death of Anna Dalassene in the years 11001101, and that of Isaac in around 11021104. S. Runciman, The End of Anna Dalassena. Annuaire de lInstitut de Philologie et de lHistoire Orientales et Slaves 9 (1949 = Mlanges Henri Gregoire) 517524, proposed an interesting theory that Anna Da lassenes withdrawal to her monastery, and her granddaughters silence regarding her last years in the Alexiad, were caused by her inclination to some heretical attitudes and beliefs, widely spread at the end of the eleventh century in Constantinople. A new reexamination of this hypothesis and of the heretical movements in Byzantium and the Balkans at that time in general would be very useful, and might render Runcimans thesis or some of its aspects more credible than supposed until now.

98 The mother of the emperor was part of the official nomination, practically the title of Anna Dalassenes, J. Zepos / P. Zepos (eds.), Jus Graecoromanum 1. Athens 1931, no. XX, 298; Cheynet / Vannier, tudes prosopographiques (as in note 8) 9798.

99 R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. DOS, 25. Washington 1987, 1518.

100 ibid., 1830. He is depicted on a mosaic in the inner narthex of the present church, which dates to the time of Theodoros Metochites last reconstruction between 1315 and 1321; see ibid., 97.

101 S. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos. 1. Cambridge 189, 176, no. 2058.




mosque, but has disap peared after the fire of 1918 in this region, may well have been the substructure of its church, as its architectural form suggests.102

Regardless of some doubts about whether the ktetor of the monastery of Christ Philanthropos was the emperor Alexios or his wife, due to the loss of the typikon or any other founding document, the practice followed without exceptions by the Komne noi, which provided for the founder to be buried in his or her monastic foundation,103 as well as the dedi cation of the monastery,104 strengthens the conviction that it was Alexios who bore the absolute founders rights over the monastery in which he was eventually buried after his death in 1118. It seems that in this time there were still no plans yet to establish a dynastic mau soleum of the family, for the graves of his parents remained in the Pamma karistos church, and neither they nor Alexios himself were trans ferred to the Panto krator when this much more impressive building as sumed the function of a dynastic burial site one generation later.

When Anselm of Havelberg visited Constantinople in 1135, he only menti oned two monasteries by name, those of Pantokrator and of Philanthropos, a fact which clearly suggests that the latter was the most important foundation of the Komnenoi be fore the Pantokrator was built.105 Anselm asserts that of these mona ste ries the Pantokrator had 700 and the Philanthropos 500 monks, numbers which are, of course, highly exaggerat ed: according to their typika, the Pantokrator was design ed for 80 monks, and the nunnery of Theotokos Kecharito mene near the mens monastery of Christ Philanthropos, which may have been similar in size to it, for 24 nuns.106

102 A. Berger, Die mittelbyzantinische Kirche bei der Mehmet Fatih Camii in Istanbul. Istan-buler Mit tei lungen 47 (1997) 455460: The description of the adjoining nunnery of Theo tokos Kecha ritomene (see below) shows that both complexes lay somewhere on the ridge of the hill between the church of the Apostles and the cistern of Aetios.

103 That Alexios was buried in the Christ Philanthropos monastery was confirmed by Niketas Choniates: Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J. A. van Dieten. CFHB, 11.1. Berlin/New York 1975, 8, 8286. Choniates claims in this passage that it was Alexios who built the mona stery of Christ Philanthropos.

104 Some arguments to support this view have been offered in Stankovi, Komnini u Carigradu (as in note 15) 270288 and summed them up in a forthcoming article in English: Comnenian Monastic Foundations in Constantinople: Questions of Method and Historical Context. Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011) 4772. In spite of its title, the paper by E. Cong don, Imperial commemoration and ritual in the monastery of Christ Pantokrator. RB 54 (1996) 161199, is almost completely useless, while V. Dimi tropoulou, Imperial women founders and refonders in Komnenian Constanti nople, in: M. Mullett (ed.), Founders and refounders of Byzantine monasteries. Belfast 2007, 87106, presents little more than just a general overview of this theme.

105 Anticimenon, I 10 (Anselme de Havelberg, Dialogues, ed. G. Salet. SC, 118. Paris 1966, 100102 = PL 188, 1156D and the english translation in: Anselm of Havelberg. Anticimenon: On the Unity of the Faith and the Controversies with the Greeks, trans. by A. Criste, OPraem/ C. Neel. Cistercian Studies Series, 232: Premonstratensian Texts and Studies, 1. Collegeville, Minn. 2010, 73; on Anselm see also Ilias Taxidis contribution to this volume: The Monastery of Pantokrator in the Narratives of Western Travellers, 97106, esp. 108.

106 P. Gautier, Le typikon de la Thotokos Kcharitmn. RB 43 (1985) 5167, text 19155, here at 41.




The nunnery of Theotokos Kecharito mene (Full of Grace), a foundation of the em press Eirene Doukaina, lay near the Philanthro pos monastery and was separated from it by a wall. The typikon of the monastery is fortu nately preserved, and was composed almost at the same time when the mention of the first hegoumenos of Christ Philan thropos is found, between 1108 and 1111, most pro bably in 1109 or 1110, according to its editor, Paul Gautier.107 The empress strongly em phasized her particular care for her female offspring, at first for her divorced daughter Eu dokia, and after Eudokias death for Anna Komnene and her daughters, who assu med possession of the monastery after the ktetorissas death.108

To return to the context of the early twelfth century Constantinople, of greater sig nificance and much more revealing is the veiled revenge Eirene Doukaina took against her deceased motherinlaw in the founding document of her monastery. Among twenty two closest relatives for whose memorial services different provisions were instructed by the empress, only one family member is not named: only Anna Dalassene was left anonymous in Eirene Doukainas typikon, and was refer red to simply as her revered mistress and motherinlaw.109

The Orphanage of John IIs father Alexios Komnenos was labeled the greatest imperial foundati on of the Middle Ages by Paul Magdalino,110 and not without a reason, as we can understand from the description of Anna Komnene in her Alexiad.111 A magnificent and very significant complex, as it doubtlessly was, the Orphanage bore, however, both the mark of the previous imperial endeavors in the same area spreading over the cen turies, with the complex of St George of the Mangana of Constantine Monomachos being only most recent one, and of its charitable slightly less openly or aggressi vely ideological function than that of the Pantokrator. With later deve lopment of Constantinople

Date post:	21-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sofia
View:	232 times
Download:	3 times

The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople () || The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the...

Documents