What Is the Significance of Christs Presence During the Crowning of Emperors in Byzantine Art?

The coronation (Greek: στέψιμον, romanized: stepsimon , or στεφάνωσις , stephanosis ^[2]) was the main symbolic human activity of accession to the throne of a Byzantine emperor, co-emperor, or empress. Founded on Roman traditions of election by the Senate or acclamation past the army, the anniversary evolved over time from a relatively simple, ad hoc affair to a complex ritual. In the 5th–6th centuries it became gradually standardized, with the new emperor appearing earlier the people and army at the Hippodrome of Constantinople, where he was crowned and acclaimed. During the aforementioned time, religious elements, notably the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, became prominent in what was previously a purely armed services or civilian ceremony. From the early 7th century on, the coronation ceremony unremarkably took place in a church, chiefly the Hagia Sophia, the patriarchal cathedral of Constantinople. The ritual was obviously standardized by the end of the 8th century, and changed little afterwards. The main change was the addition of the emperor's unction in the early on 13th century, likely under Western European influence, and the revival of the belatedly antique practice of carrying the emperor on a shield in the 1250s.

History of the Byzantine coronation ceremonial [edit]

Theory and do of imperial accessions [edit]

In the Roman Empire, accession to the throne was never regulated in a formal manner.^[3] In theory, current since the time of Augustus and later formalized in aspects of the Byzantine coronation ceremony, the office of Roman emperor was elective, and the emperor was chosen by the Roman people, the Senate, and the army.^[four] The aim was to cull the "best man", but the reality of imperial accessions rarely fitted the idealized theory; as a result, irregular accessions to the throne were retroactively justified equally a manifestation of divine favour.^[five]

The idea of selecting the "best man" was espoused specially by the Senate, and the continuing Republican tradition of the senatorial aristocracy demanded that a new emperor exist chosen by the Senate at Rome.^{[half dozen]} The foundation of the Roman royal power, however, was the supreme command over the army, embodied in the title of imperator , originally given to the triumphant generals of the Republic.^[vii] Equally such, the emperors were frequently chosen by the army in the provinces, with the Senate deprived of any role in the process.^[8] Senatorial consent was still required as a matter of grade, still, and many emperors who had been proclaimed in the provinces visited Rome to receive it.^[ix]

Already from the earliest days of the Roman Empire, during the Principate, several ruling emperors were able to designate their own successors, usually a shut relative by blood or adoption, but the principle of a dynastic succession was never enshrined in law. The road always remained open up for usurpers to successfully claim the throne, provided they were acclaimed past the common people or the ground forces, which signalled their consent.^{[10] [11]} The fact that a usurper—usually an army officeholder—could successfully install himself on the throne and get accepted as a legitimate emperor led modern historians to depict the authorities of the subsequently Roman Empire as "absolutism tempered by the right of revolution".^[12]

This blueprint continued in the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire. During the early Byzantine period (324–610), the army provided 12 emperors, while simply nine came from the ruling imperial family. This began to change during the social transformations of the so-called "Byzantine Dark Ages" of the 7th–8th centuries, which enhanced the principle of dynastic legitimacy, exemplified past the cosmos of the highly prestigious epithet porphyrogennetos (lit. 'regal-born') for children built-in to reigning emperors. Dynastic succession became more and more common, until it prevailed completely nether the Komnenos and Palaiologos dynasties of the late Byzantine era.^[13]

Election and acclamation ceremonies in the Roman Empire [edit]

Due to the irregular nature of imperial accessions, no stock-still ceremonial emerged during the Roman Empire.^[three] The only constant role of any imperial accession was the acclamation by the Senate, people and the regular army, which signalled the consent of the ruled;^[14] during the Principate, this ritual act of consent was often repeated annually by vows ( vota ) taken to the emperor on the anniversary ( natalis ) of his accession.^[15] Over the centuries the human action of acclamation became increasingly formalized and scripted, but remained a key symbol of pop consent, and hence of an emperor'due south legitimacy.^[xiv]

During the Principate, apart from the actual act of the ballot or acclamation, the ceremony of accession only included the conferment of the usual imperial insignia, chiefly the general's cloak ( paludamentum or chlamys ) of royal purple, which hearkened back to the traditions of the triumphant imperator .^[16] Starting with Claudius ( r. 41–54), the accession was followed past the issuing of a donative to the soldiers, either equally a reward for their loyalty, or as an outright ransom for their support.^[17] From the time of Constantine the Neat ( r. 306–337) on, following ancient Near Eastern tradition, a diadem was adopted as a sign of the openly monarchical power the purple office had assumed during the Dominate. However, dissimilar the ancient Near Eastern monarchies, no coronation ceremony appears to have been adopted at this point.^[18] During the Dominate, the anniversary of the arrival ( adventus ) of a victorious emperor was sometimes employed every bit a symbol of an imperial accession, although it was an occasion celebrated throughout an emperor'southward reign likewise.^[19]

The commencement evidence of a coronation anniversary is recorded during the acclamation of Julian in 361: the soldiers raised the new emperor on a shield, proclaimed him Augustus , and crowned him with a standard-bearer's neck torc in lieu of a diadem, since he had none.^[20] The custom of raising on a shield, borrowed from the Germanic peoples, remained frequent for military usurpers until Phocas ( r. 602–610), but fell out of use thereafter.^[21] A more formalized version of the same process was observed for the coronation of Valentinian at Ancyra in 364. Later he was elected by the ground forces's leaders, Valentinian mounted a tribunal in front of the assembled troops, was clad in the imperial vestments and diadem, and proclaimed by the soldiers as Augustus . He then addressed the troops, promising them a donative. A similar procedure was followed in 367, when Valentinian crowned his son, Gratian, every bit co-emperor.^{[22] [23]}

Early period, 5th–6th centuries [edit]

The next coronation ceremony recorded is that of Leo I the Thracian, in 457. The coronations of Leo I, Leo Ii (473), Anastasius I Dicorus (491), Justin I (518) and Justinian I (525) are described in the 10th-century De Ceremoniis past Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos ( r. 913–959), copied from an earlier work ascribed to the 6th-century official Peter the Patrician;^[24] in addition, the ceremony for Justin II (565) is recounted in considerable detail in Corippus' laudatory verse form De laudibus Iustini minoris.^[25]

When an emperor was chosen for a vacant throne, the selection of the new ruler fell to the senior courtroom officials (such equally the magister officiorum and the comes excubitorum ) and the Senate, which comprised the about senior dignitaries and ex-officials, who bore the rank of vir illustris . In 491, the officials delegated their potency to the reigning empress-dowager, the Augusta Ariadne, who chose Anastasius I. Their choice had to be assented to by the soldiers of the palace regiments, and was finally canonical past acclamation by the populace of Constantinople at the public coronation ceremony in the Hippodrome of Constantinople.^[26] Whereas emperors raised to a vacant throne were thus elected past the Senate and the ground forces, with the sanction of the people, co-emperors were selected by the reigning emperor, and although the Senate may have been consulted, the choice was ultimately the ruling sovereign'southward. Although this was in upshot a dynastic choice, the new emperor's correct to the throne derived not from his nascency, only past the will of his predecessor.^[27]

Coronation of Leo I [edit]

The coronation of Leo I took place in Constantinople's Campus Martius outside the metropolis walls, and otherwise was most identical to the ceremony used by Valentinian: Leo mounted a tribunal and as crowned with a torc by a campiductor ; the standards were raised and Leo was acclaimed past the soldiers as God-crowned Augustus ; he donned the imperial cloak and diadem, and took a lance and a shield; the officials came to pay homage ( proskynesis ) co-ordinate to their rank; and an official addressed the troops on the new emperor's behalf, promising them the customary donative.^[28] In stark dissimilarity to the purely war machine affair of Valentinian'south acclamation, the coronation of Leo I was a noncombatant matter: the Senate ratified his nomination, and the new emperor received the crown. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Anatolius, was present, but did not play whatever role in the proceedings, in contrast to his successors.^[29] Julian's coronation with the torc, originally an advert hoc necessity, had now been revived and institutionalized equally a deliberate act, which was followed in subsequent coronations likewise.^[30] Post-obit his coronation, Leo returned to the urban center, where he visited the patriarchal cathedral of Hagia Sophia. There he deposited his crown upon the altar, and as he left the church, the patriarch placed the crown on his head.^[31]

Ceremonial of the 5th–sixth centuries [edit]

After Leo I, the ceremonies described in the sources took place at the Hippodrome,^[31] except for Justinian I, who was crowned in a hall of the Swell Palace known as the Delphax.^[32] They shared broad similarities:

Arrival at the Hippodrome [edit]

Once the election was affirmed by the Senate, the new emperor proceeded from the Great Palace to the royal box ( kathisma ) in the Hippodrome, in the visitor of the patriarch and other high dignitaries.^{[33] [34]} In case of the coronation of a co-emperor (Leo II and Justinian I), the emperor and then called for the magister officiorum and the patricii to bring the new co-emperor. When this was washed, the new co-emperor was seated on the reigning emperor'southward left, and the patriarch on his right.^{[35] [32]} The new emperor was dressed in a genu-length white tunic ( divetesion ) with gold clavi , girded with a gold and jewel-encrusted belt ( zonarin ); purple stockings and gaiters ( touvia ); and the ruddy imperial buskins ( kampagia ), embroidered with gilded and decorated with rosettes.^[36]

Raising on a shield [edit]

Emperors acceding to a vacant throne were raised on a shield and crowned with a torc by a campiductor , whereupon the military machine standards were raised and the emperor acclaimed.^{[37] [38]} The raising on the shield was not used in Leo I's accession, but was performed for the usurper Hypatius during the Nika Riots.^[30] In add-on, this ritual featured in the succession dispute following the death of Anastasius, and earlier Justin I emerged as the preferred candidate. The majestic bodyguard of the Excubitors raised a tribune named John on a shield, simply he was opposed by the Blues faction and stoned; likewise, the Scholae Palatinae troops tried to raise their own candidate, a magister militum , to the throne and proclaimed him atop a tabular array in the palace, earlier they were attacked by the Excubitors and their candidate killed.^[39]

Coronation with the diadem [edit]

After the acclamation, the new emperor assumed the residue of the imperial garb, namely the royal, talocrural joint-length cloak, decorated with a golden square ( tablion ) and attached past a bejeweled fibula clasp. The patriarch said a prayer, and the emperor was crowned with the diadem, which by this time had evolved to an elaborate gem-encrusted circlet. This blazon of dress is exemplified by the well-known mosaic of Justinian I at the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna.^[forty] When co-emperors were crowned by a reigning emperor, the diadem was emplaced past the latter; otherwise information technology was the patriarch who placed the diadem on the new emperor.^[41] In the case of the coronation of Anastasius I, he retired to a nearby hall in the Groovy Palace for this part of the ceremony, while Leo I and Justin I were crowned with the diadem in the Hippodrome, but covered by the soldiers' shields.^[42]

Acclamation and purple address [edit]

The newly crowned emperor returned to the kathisma , and, bearing a shield and lance, was acclaimed by the people every bit Augustus .^{[43] [44]} Unlike Leo I, the afterwards emperors were hailed as Augustus only later the formal coronation by the patriarch, rather than after the kickoff acclamation following the raising on the shield.^[45]

A secretary ( libellensis ) then addressed the assembled people and army in the name of the new emperor, a voice communication which included the promise of a donative. Invariably, that was the same amount as Julian had promised: v gold pieces and a pound of silver to each human.^[46]

Backwash [edit]

Anastasius' coronation also records that he immediately went to the Hagia Sophia, where he took off his diadem in the metatorion (a chamber or series of chambers in the cathedral's upper story) and gave it to the praepositus sacri cubiculi . The latter then returned the diadem to the emperor, who deposited it in the church's altar, and made rich gifts to the church. While this is not explicitly mentioned for the other ceremonies of the flow, the exercise was probably continued until the coronation itself began to exist performed in the Hagia Sophia.^[47]

Centre period, 7th–12th centuries [edit]

Anachronistic delineation of a coronation past being raised on a shield, from the Madrid Skylitzes. Usually identified equally the coronation of Michael I Rhangabe due to its position in the text, the image probably depicts the coronation of a co-emperor (left) by a senior emperor (right), and may be drawn from an unrelated original source.^[48]

The middle period is characterized by the move of the coronation to churches, and the gradual formalization and definition of the ceremony and the associated ecclesiastical rite.^[49] Coronations in churches were inaugurated with Phocas in 602, who was crowned by Patriarch Cyriacus at the church of St. John at Hebdomon, on the outskirts of Constantinople. In 610, Heraclius was crowned past the Patriarch Sergius I at the church of St. Philip in the palace precinct, and in 638, Heraclius crowned his son Heraklonas co-emperor at the church of St. Stephen in the Daphne Palace.^[50] From Constans II in 641 on, however, most senior emperors were crowned in the Hagia Sophia. The only exceptions were co-emperors, who were sometimes crowned in the Great Palace (Constantine 5 in 720) or the Hippodrome (Constantine Six in 776). Empresses were frequently crowned during the aforementioned ceremony every bit their husbands, or had been crowned along with their fathers; otherwise they were usually crowned in ane of the halls of the Great Palace, or at the church of St. Stephen of Daphne.^{[2] [l]}

The ceremonial of the 7th and 8th centuries is unknown, every bit no detailed description of a coronation has survived.^[51] Nevertheless, by the tardily 8th century, a specific ecclesiastical rite had emerged. First recorded in the patriarchal euchologion (liturgical book) of c.  795, the liturgy appears to have remained unaltered until the twelfth century.^[51] In addition to the church liturgy, Constantine 7'due south De Ceremoniis (I.38–50) contains detailed information most the coronation anniversary itself, though not the entire inauguration anniversary ( ἀναγόρευσις ).^[51]

At the same time, the raising on a shield appears to have been abandoned.^[21] Phocas was raised on the shield by the Danube ground forces when they mutinied and proclaimed him emperor, merely not as part of his actual coronation in Constantinople. The do is no longer mentioned thereafter, and is notably missing in both the De Ceremoniis and the euchologia . Constantine VII only writes of the practise as a custom of the Khazars.^[52] The only exceptions to this, until the 13th century when the practice was revived (see beneath), were the 11th-century rebels Peter Delyan and Leo Tornikios.^[21]

Map of the ceremonial center of Constantinople: the Not bad Palace complex, the Hippodrome, and the Hagia Sophia. The structures of the Cracking Palace are shown in their approximate position as derived from literary sources. Surviving structures are in blackness.

Procession through the Bang-up Palace and homage of the Senate [edit]

The emperor, dressed in the skaramangion tunic and the sagion cloak, began his coronation procession at the Hall of the Augusteus in the Great Palace, escorted past the eunuch officials of the privy chamber, the kouboukleion , headed by the praipositoi .^{[53] [54]} At the Onopodion hall, the assembled patrikioi awaited him and wished him 'many and good years'. They then proceeded to the hall of the One thousand Consistory, where the rest of the senators were assembled. There the patrikioi and the rest of the senators performed the proskynesis to the emperors, and again wished them 'many and good years'. Passing through the hall of the Scholae, where the racing factions, dressed in ceremonial apparel, stood and made the sign of the cross.^[53]

Distribution of coins [edit]

The royal procession then exited the Great Palace and crossed the Augustaion square to the Hagia Sophia in a formal procession, scattering coins to the crowd, perhaps an development of the donative. This does non appear in Constantine Vii's work.^[55]

Donning the coronation apparel [edit]

Arriving at the Horologion hall of the Hagia Sophia, the emperor inverse clothes, putting on the divetesion tunic (now a much more richly embroidered and stiff tunic than its tardily antique namesake) and the tzitzakion mantle, and re-donning the sagion over them.^{[55] [53]}

Accompanied by the patriarch, he entered the main church building via the Silver Doors, lighting tapers on the fashion, proceeded to the holy doors of the sanctuary, where he made his devotions and lighted more tapers.^[55]

Coronation [edit]

The emperor, over again accompanied past the patriarch, mounted the ambo, where the crown and the imperial imperial cloak ( chlamys ) had been deposited.^{[53] [56]}

The emperor bowed his head, while the deacon of the Hagia Sophia recited a litany ( ektenia ). At the aforementioned time, the patriarch silently performed the Prayer over the chlamys .^[57] Subsequently ending the prayer, the patriarch took the chlamys , handing it and the fibula squeeze over to the members of the kouboukleion , who proceeded to dress the emperor with it.^{[53] [57]} In case of the coronation of a co-emperor or an empress, the patriarch instead gave the chlamys to the emperor, who invested them with the help of the praipositoi .^{[57] [58]}

The patriarch so recited the Prayer over the crown, before taking the crown in both hands and crowning the emperor with it, while proclaiming 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'. The assembled audition responded with 'Holy, holy, holy' and 'Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace' thrice.^{[59] [60]} In the example of a co-emperor's or empress' coronation, the patriarch took a 2d crown, gave information technology to the emperor, who then crowned the new co-ruler, while the choirs shouted 'worthy!'.^{[59] [58]}

Acclamations and homage of the dignitaries [edit]

The emperor (and co-emperors) and then received the sacraments from the patriarch, after which the various military standards, standing on either side, were lowered, and the senators and choirs, bow in adoration of the emperors.^{[58] [61]}

A serial of ritualized laudatory acclamations followed, praising God and the emperor(s). These included the polychronion ('Many years to then-and-so, groovy emperor and sovereign!').^{[62] [63]}

The emperor, wearing the crown, so moved to sit on the throne ( sella ), and the various dignitaries came and paid homage to him by performing the proskynesis and kissing his knees, in twelver groups past club of precedence: first the magistroi , then the patrikioi and strategoi , and then the protospatharioi , and so on down to the subaltern officers of the tagmata regiments and the Imperial Fleet.^{[sixty] [62]}

Constantine VII's description is at odds with the euchologia , since he implies that a regular mass "according to the custom of festivals" followed after the homage, rather than before, but this may simply be the result of his assuming that the coronation ceremony takes identify on a religious festival, whereas the euchologia do not. Indeed, while most new emperors were crowned as before long as possible, festival or no, the coronations of co-emperors or empresses, a specific festival day was chosen.^[64]

In case an empress was crowned separately from her husband, most the identical ceremony was followed, but the crown was imposed on her caput by the patriarch rather than the emperor.^[65]

Belatedly period, 13th–15th centuries [edit]

This menses is characterized by the add-on of the unction of the new emperor.^[49] This was a feature of coronation rituals in Western Europe from the seventh century, but is not explicitly recorded in Byzantine sources until later 1204, resulting in considerable scholarly debate as to its origins (see below).^[66]

Another feature of the period was the revival of the aboriginal practise of raising the emperor on a shield as part of the anniversary. First mentioned under Theodore I'southward grandson, Theodore Two Laskaris ( r. 1254–1258), it is likely that it had been revived already by Theodore I. The practice was institutionalized for all subsequent coronations, with the new emperor—sitting, rather than standing, on the shield—being raised on a shield held by the patriarch and other dignitaries before he entered the Hagia Sophia to exist all-powerful and crowned.^{[21] [67]} Under the Empire of Nicaea, co-emperors were not crowned, but this was resumed by the Palaiologos dynasty.^[2]

The Hagia Sophia cathedral in Constantinople (modern Istanbul) was the main coronation church of the Byzantine emperors, from the mid-7th century to the cease of the Empire

Chapter VII of Pseudo-Kodinos' work provides a total description of the Palaiologan-era coronation ritual. A less detailed clarification is besides included in the History (I.41) of John VI Kantakouzenos, while the De Sacro Templo of Symeon of Thessalonica discusses the religious elements of the ceremony from a theological point of view. Dissimilar for the centre Byzantine menstruum, no source survives for the actual prayers and hymns used during the ceremony, but it can be assumed that the prayers at least had not changed much from the previous era.^[68]

Co-ordinate to Pseudo-Kodinos, the person to be crowned spent the night prior to the coronation at the Bang-up Palace, along with his familiars and the court dignitaries.^[69] This is exceptional, since the Smashing Palace at the time was no longer the principal residence of the emperors, which had moved to the Palace of Blachernae in the northwestern corner of the city in the belatedly 11th century;^{[seventy] [71]} the Not bad Palace does not otherwise figure amidst the ceremonies in Pseudo-Kodinos' work.^[72] At dawn on the side by side twenty-four hour period, the imperial relatives, aristocracy, and officials assembled at the Augustaion, the square between the Great Palace and the Hagia Sophia, along with the populace of Constantinople and the army.^{[68] [69]}

Coronation oath [edit]

At the "second hour" (mid-manner between dawn and mid-morning time) of the coronation day, the emperor went to the Hagia Sophia, where he handed over to the patriarch a hand-written coronation oath. It began with a pledge of adherence to the Orthodox doctrine and canon law (Pseudo-Kodinos provides a full text, including the Nicene Creed), a promise to respect the privileges of the Church building, and to govern with justice and benevolence. The same was repeated orally before the patriarch.^{[73] [74]}

Distribution of largess [edit]

At the same fourth dimension, a peculiarly chosen senator—i.due east., a holder of a courtroom title or office^[75] —mounted the steps of the Augustaion square and began distributing coins to the assembled populace, in the class of small packages ( epikombia ) with 3 gilt, 3 silverish, and three bronze coins.^{[76] [77]}

Raising on a shield and acclamation [edit]

Afterwards delivering the pledge to the patriarch, the emperor left the Hagia Sophia and went to the hall ( triklinos ) known every bit the Thomaites, one of the sections of the patriarchal palace which extended along the eastern side of the Augustaion and was connected to the southward gallery of the Hagia Sophia. In that location he was raised on a shield and thus displayed to those assembled in the Augustaion. The forepart of the shield was carried past the senior emperor (in case of a co-emperor's coronation) and the patriarch, and behind them were imperial relatives or high officials, from the despots downwards. Following the acclamations of people and army, the new emperor was lowered and returned to the Hagia Sophia.^{[76] [77]}

Donning the coronation dress [edit]

Upon entering the cathedral, the emperor changed his clothes in a peculiarly synthetic small wooden chamber (equivalent to the earlier metatorion ), donning the regal tunic ( sakkos ) and the loros , after they were first blessed by bishops. His head was left bare, but he could wear a simplified circlet ( stephanos ) or "anything else he might recollect fit".^{[78] [79]}

After exiting the chamber, the new emperor (and his male parent, the senior emperor, depending on the occasion) mounted a wooden platform, constructed next to the bedchamber and covered in red silk, whereupon a gear up of special aureate thrones of particular height was erected. The emperors sabbatum on the thrones along with their wives. If the empresses had already been crowned, they wore their crown, otherwise the new empress also wore a stephanos .^[lxxx]

Unction [edit]

In the meantime, the patriarch conducted the liturgy. Before the trisagion , he and other church building dignitaries mounted the ambo. Then the liturgy was interrupted and the church fell silent, whereupon the patriarch summoned the emperors to him. The emperor ascended the ambo from the western side, i.e., towards the patriarch recited the prayers for the unction of the emperor. On completion of the prayer, the new emperor removed his headdress, immediately followed by the entire congregation, which stood up. The patriarch proceeded to anoint the new emperor, shouting "holy!", which is echoed thrice by the congregation.^{[78] [81]}

Coronation [edit]

The crown, which until then was kept in the sanctuary by the deacons, was then brought to the ambo. The patriarch took it un his hands and placed information technology on the head of the new emperor, proclaiming him 'worthy' ( axios ), which again is echoed thrice by the congregation. The patriarch recited another prayer, and the new emperor descended the ambo from the eastern staircase (towards the sanctuary).^{[78] [82]}

If the new emperor had a consort, she was crowned at this bespeak. The consort stood up from the platform, where the imperial family sat, and went to the soleas, a walkway connecting the ambo to the sanctuary. She was held on either side past two close relatives or, failing that, two courtroom eunuchs. Afterwards existence himself crowned, the new emperor took the empress' crown—likewise held by ii relatives or eunuchs, and blest past the patriarch—from the patriarch'southward hands, descended the stairs, and crowned her. The new empress immediately performed the proskynesis in sign of submission, and the patriarch read some other prayer for the regal couple and their subjects.^{[78] [83]} Otherwise, if a consort married an already crowned emperor, she was crowned during the marriage ceremony in a similar procedure.^[84]

Great Entrance [edit]

Both emperor and empress now mounted the imperial platform and saturday on their thrones, the emperor property a cross and the empress a baion ^[84] (a golden staff decorated with pearls and gems in the shape of a palm branch).^[85] The imperial couple remains seated in the rest of the liturgy, except when trisagion was sung or the Epistles and Gospels read.^[84]

When the hymns to the Peachy Entrance began, the senior deacons summoned the emperor and brought him to the prothesis . There he put a aureate mantle ( mandyas ) over his other clothing, and on his left hand he took a staff (the narthex ), while on the correct he still held the cross. Both the golden drape and the staff signified his ecclesiastical rank as depotatos . Thus dressed, the emperor led the Entrance procession around the nave, flanked on either side by a hundred "axe-bearing Varangians" and a hundred young armed noblemen, and followed by the clergy carrying the sacred ornaments and offerings. The procession ended when the emperor arrived at the soleas. While the others remained behind, the emperor alone went on to meet the patriarch at the holy doors. The two bowed their heads in greeting, whereupon the second deacon, with the censer in his right paw and the patriarchal omophorion in the other, censed the emperor, and, while the latter bowed his head, exclaimed, "May the Lord God remember in his kingdom the reign of your Majesty, always, now and forever and unto the ages of ages. Amen", echoed past all the other deacons and priests. The same was repeated for the patriarch, then the emperor removed the golden pall, assisted by the referendarios (the patriarch'south messenger to the emperor), and returned to the platform with the residuum of his family.^{[86] [87]}

Communion [edit]

The emperor remained at the platform, seated autonomously from the Nicene Creed, the Lord'southward Prayer, and the Elevation. Following the Acme, if the emperor was not prepared to district, he sat downward until the end of the liturgy.^{[88] [89]}

If the emperor wanted to partake of the communion, the principal deacons summoned him to the sanctuary. Taking a censer, he censed the altar crosswise, and and so censed the patriarch. The latter saluted the emperor, took the censer, and in plow censed the emperor. Then the emperor removed his crown and handed it to the deacons.^{[88] [89]}

The communion of the emperor took place in the manner reserved for the clergy: at some signal in the 13th/14th centuries, the practice was established that the laity began received the communion (consecrated bread and wine) mixed together in a chalice from a spoon, just the emperor and clergy retained the older practise of receiving the bread and wine separately.^{[88] [90]} The patriarch, afterward communicating himself, communicated the emperor, delivering a slice of the bread into his hands; and afterwards communicating in the chalice, the patriarch besides communicated the emperor, holding the chalice while the emperor drank from it. The emperor then put on his crown again and exited the sanctuary.^{[91] [92]}

Departure and aftermath [edit]

At the end of the liturgy, the emperor received the bread known as antidoron with the rest of the congregation. He was and so blessed past the patriarch and the bishops, kissed their hands, and went to the gallery reserved for the catechumens, where a wooden platform was erected, with "ordinary" thrones and hidden from view with gold curtains. The new emperor and empress (and, if living, the emperor's father and mother) ascended the platform while hidden from view. The cantors so cried "raise, raise" (" anateilate, anateilate "), and the curtains were raised, showing the imperial political party to those assembled in the gallery of the catechumens, who acclaim the emperors.^{[93] [94]}

Later on the acclaim was finished, the imperial party descended from the platform, and led the procession to the Groovy Palace. The emperors and empresses, wearing their crowns, were mounted, while the residue of the dignitaries proceeded on foot. Pseudo-Kodinos notes that the emperors' horses used to be decorated with covers around the neck and hind quarters ( chaiomata ), and red silk streamers above their fetlocks ( toubia ), but that in Pseudo-Kodinos' fourth dimension, the one-time were no longer used.^{[93] [95]} The royal party was preceded past lances with wooden rings, decorated with red and white silk streamers, whose bearers were singing as they went. During the coronation liturgy, 3 of these lances were located on either side of the ii choir platforms erected on either side of the nave of the Hagia Sophia.^{[93] [84]}

At the Great Palace, the coronation banquet took identify, for the purple family unit just, while the lower court dignitaties attended, simply did not dine. The megas domestikos was responsible for serving the emperors, or, if he was not bachelor, one of the despots, sebastokratores , or kaisares .^[96] On the following day, the emperors left for the primary royal residence, the Palace of Blachernae. In that location another senator distributed epikombia to the people, while the new emperor himself threw gilt coins to the court dignitaries and their sons, assembled in the palace courtyard.^[97] Festivities at the palace continued for several days thereafter—co-ordinate to Pseudo-Kodinos, 10, unless otherwise specified past the emperor—with banquets at which all court dignitaries dined.^[98]

Religious elements [edit]

Starting in the 5th and 6th centuries, the coronation ceremonies were infused more and more with Christian religious symbolism: apart from the presence of the patriarch, the emperor's speech and the responses of the crowd came to feature religious invocations.^[99]

Role of the Patriarch of Constantinople [edit]

The deed of imposition of the crown by the Patriarch of Constantinople was introduced at the coronation of Emperor Leo I the Thracian in 457—and not, as asserted in afterwards Byzantine tradition and yet repeated in older scholarship, at the coronation of Marcian in 450.^{[100] [101]} The Patriarch of Constantinople's part in the ceremony, and its possible constitutional significance, has been the discipline of considerable scholarly speculation.^[two] Examining the fifth-century coronations, the German historian Wilhelm Sickel considered that the patriarch was acting as a land functionary, namely as the foremost not-imperial personage of the capital, and that the human activity of conferring the crown past a cleric was preferred as less likely to arouse jealousies than if a secular official had washed the same.^{[102] [101]} Even though they acknowledge that the Byzantines conceived of imperial power as a "gift from God", many modern scholars follow Sickel'due south opinion, and stress that although coronation by the patriarch granted prestige and legitimacy, from a constitutional signal of view, information technology was non strictly necessary.^[103] This view was summarized by Westward. Ensslin in his affiliate on the Byzantine authorities in the Cambridge Medieval History: the acclamation was the "decisive human activity in appointing an emperor", but unlike the Pope'southward role in coronations in the Holy Roman Empire, "in the Eastward the Patriarch at first acted as the representative not of the Church building but of the electors, and his participation was not regarded equally an essential element in making an imperial election constitutionally valid". Even so, Ensslin conceded that over fourth dimension, the coronation anniversary "took on an increasingly ecclesiastical complexion," and that the patriarch'due south office "came increasingly to exist regarded as a usage sanctified past custom".^[104]

Other scholars, such as J. B. Coffin (who notably vacillated in his views), Thousand. Manojlović, George Ostrogorsky, André Grabar, and Peter Charanis, have voiced the different stance that the patriarch's participation had a constitutional significance, to the effect that the new ruler had to be a Christian, and that the conferment of the crown signalled the Church's credence of him.^{[105] [106]} The common view today remains that the patriarch'due south participation reflected "the church's prestige and individual patriarchs' political stature",^[2] just Peter Charanis has pointed out that throughout Byzantine history there are numerous indications that a patriarchal coronation alone conferred full legitimacy to an emperor. Thus in 1143, Manuel I Komnenos, although already crowned by his male parent, John Ii Komnenos, in the field, repeated the coronation upon his render to Constantinople. After the Fourth Cause, Theodore I Laskaris, founder of the Empire of Nicaea, was unable to exist crowned emperor until he had filled the vacant position of Patriarch of Constantinople; in 1261, the coronation of Michael 8 Palaiologos in Constantinople gave him enough legitimacy for the removal of the rightful dynastic emperor, John Iv Laskaris, from ability; and in the civil war of the 1340s, John Vi Kantakouzenos crowned himself emperor in 1341 in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, but had to repeat the anniversary after his victory in the war, in Constantinople, after installing a willing patriarch; and a few years subsequently, the coronation of Matthew Kantakouzenos as co-emperor had to be postponed until a new, more pliable patriarch was plant.^[107] Another significant case was the refusal of Patriarch Polyeuctus to crown the usurper John I Tzimiskes, who came to the throne past assassinating Nikephoros Two Phokas in 969. Polyeuctus demanded that he cast off Phokas' empress, Theophano, who had conspired with Tzimiskes, reveal the name of the assassin, and repeal Phokas' laws restricting the autonomy of the Church, earlier consenting to crown Tzimiskes emperor.^[108]

The same perception also carried over into usa influenced past Byzantium. In 913, in an try to foreclose him from attacking Constantinople, Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos performed a type of coronation on the Bulgarian ruler, Simeon, at Hebdomon. Although the exact nature of that coronation is disputed, the location of the ceremony, which had previously been used for Byzantine regal coronations, and the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople performed information technology, signalled the conferment of the championship of emperor (or tsar) on Simeon.^{[109] [110]} Indeed, both Simeon and the later 2d Bulgarian Empire felt compelled to create their own, Bulgarian patriarchs, as an integral part of their royal aspirations.^[111] Likewise, when the Serbian male monarch Stefan Dushan wanted to declare himself emperor in 1346, he first appointed a Serbian patriarch, who then performed the imperial coronation at Skopje.^{[112] [113]}

Apart from the human action of coronation itself, the patriarch played another important role, through the coronation adjuration demanded of the new emperor. This is showtime recorded in the coronation of Anastasius I, when atriarch Euphemius required of the new emperor a written oath that he would maintain the Church and the Orthodox religion. This act was clearly infrequent, arising from the well-known Monophysite beliefs of Anastasius, and Euphemius' opposition to his candidacy.^[114] Like oaths are sometimes attested in afterward centuries (for Phocas in 602, Leo III the Isaurian in 717, Michael I Rhangabe in 811, and Leo V the Armenian in 815),^[99] but the adjuration was non regularized until the late Byzantine period, and is attested as belatedly every bit the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos.^[115] This adjuration was not just a safeguard of religious orthodoxy, simply also independent guarantees of the Church and its privileges and promises to rule with justice; co-ordinate to Charanis, it was the "nearest Byzantine document to a constitutional charter".^[116]

Charanis points to the acceptance by emperors of terms gear up past the patriarchs, equally a clear sign that they regarded a coronation by the patriarch "an human activity necessary for the completion of [their] enthronement", and argues that "it is difficult to draw whatever other inference than that the coronation of a newly designated emperor was an ecclesiastical human activity essential for the completion of his enthronement and was performed by the patriarch in his role of the highest official of the church".^[117] Charanis as well argues that the papal coronation of Charlemagne every bit emperor in 800 is some other piece of evidence in supporting the view that the coronation anniversary was both religious and necessary for the conferment of the imperial nobility, since the Pope was evidently post-obit Byzantine precedent.^[118]

Introduction of the unction [edit]

The Anointing of David, miniature from the tenth-century Byzantine Paris Psalter

The act of unction during a coronation followed well-known Biblical tradition, namely the anointing of David.^[66] A number of middle Byzantine sources brand references to anointing of emperors, for example for Basil I the Macedonian, but this usage is metaphorical and inspired past the Biblical example; the deed of unction is not mentioned either past Constantine Seven or past the euchologia .^{[119] [120]} The primeval possible dates to actual unctions are references by the historian Niketas Choniates to Manuel I Komnenos beingness anointed in 1143, and Alexios 3 Angelos entering the Hagia Sophia "to be anointed emperor according to custom" in 1195. Information technology is impossible to say with certainty whether these cases are meant literally, or are too metaphors derived from Biblical tradition.^{[121] [122] [123]} The first Byzantine ruler known with certainty (as well through accounts written by Choniates) to accept been anointed likewise as crowned was Theodore I Laskaris, the founder of the Empire of Nicaea, in 1208.^{[66] [124]}

While the mention of an unction for Manuel I Komnenos is generally regarded as a metaphor or word-play,^{[122] [123]} this is less sure for Alexios Three. However, George Ostrogorsky firmly argued in favour of a post-1204 innovation at the court of Nicaea, in imitation of the ritual used at the coronation of the Latin Emperor Baldwin I,^[125] and has been followed by other scholars since, such as Dimiter Angelov, who placed its adoption in the context of the rising importance and influence of the Church vis-à-vis the imperial role in the final centuries of the Byzantine Empire'due south existence.^[126] Yet, Donald M. Nicol pointed out that Theodore I Laskaris, beingness intent on restoring Byzantine traditions, was unlikely to have copied a ritual from the Latins occupying Constantinople, and that when writing about the coronation of Laskaris' rival, Theodore Komnenos Doukas, every bit emperor in Thessalonica in 1225, the contemporary sources seem to consider the unction as a normal, time-honoured and fixed office of a new emperor'south accretion, along with the acclamation and the coronation. According to Nicol, this indicated that the practise was mayhap introduced in the belatedly 12th century, although still nether Latin influence.^[127]

The substance used in the unction was also debated: in the 1220s, the Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatenos, who crowned Theodore Komnenos Doukas, was also engaged in a dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople (in exile at the Nicaean court) over whether the emperor was to be all-powerful with oil ( elaion )—according to Chomatenos, this was the traditional way—or chrism ( myron ) such every bit used during baptism, and used in the coronation of Theodore I Laskaris. The use of chrism was definitely adopted by the end of the 13th century.^[128] Unlike Western practice, where the body was anointed with chrism and the head with oil, the Byzantine unction of the emperor consisted merely of the patriarch tracing the sign of the cross on the emperor's head.^[129] Co-ordinate to the Byzantine authors, this signified the emperor's status equally the "anointed of Christ" and head of all Christendom. The human activity sanctified the emperor, highlighted past the repeated assertion 'holy!' ( hagios! ) by the patriarch and the people during the coronation anniversary.^[130]

Representation of coronations in art [edit]

Ivory plaque showing Constantine VII being crowned by Christ

Imperial coronations are frequently found in Byzantine art, across a wide range of objects, from paintings and manuscript miniatures to ivory carvings and coins.^[131] In most cases, and especially in coins and ivory plaques meant to commemorate the coronation (and possibly handed out as gifts), the emperor or imperial couple, are shown beingness crowned by Christ, the Theotokos, or an archangel. This is meant to symbolize the special connexion between the emperor and God, and the notion of the emperor beingness chosen by God.^[131] In dissimilarity, the coronation scenes in the illuminated manuscript of the Madrid Skylitzes are meant to illustrate the narrative, and testify the event in a historical setting, with the Patriarch of Constantinople performing the coronation.^[131]

Influence [edit]

The coronation of Dmitry Ivanovich as buyer by his grandfather, Ivan 3 of Muscovy, in 1498, was inspired by Byzantine rituals, such every bit those described in De Ceremoniis for the royal coronation, also as for the creation of a Caesar, a rank which oft was given to Byzantine heirs-apparent at the time.^[132] When the One thousand Prince of Muscovy, Ivan the Terrible, was crowned Tsar of Russian federation on 16 January 1547, the 1498 anniversary was drawn upon, as well as a description of Manuel II Palaiologos' coronation in 1392 past the archdeacon Ignatius of Smolensk, as well as other 14th-century Byzantine sources. The religious part of the ceremony and the regalia used—a royal robe, a mantle, sceptre, etc.—were copied most exactly. Some elements, namely the acclaim past the people and the raising on a shield, were omitted, while the distribution of largess was misinterpreted and the newly crowned ruler instead showered with coins.^{[133] [134]}

Citations [edit]

1. ^ Tsamakda 2002, pp. 179, 286.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e} ODB, "Coronation" (Thou. McCormick), pp. 533–534.
3. ^ ^{a b} MacCormack 1981, p. 164.
4. ^ MacCormack 1981, p. 224.
5. ^ MacCormack 1981, pp. 161–165.
6. ^ MacCormack 1981, p. 161.
7. ^ Sickel 1898, pp. 511–512.
8. ^ MacCormack 1981, pp. 161–162.
9. ^ MacCormack 1981, p. 34.
10. ^ Sickel 1898, pp. 511–513.
11. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 359–364.
12. ^ Charanis 1974, p. 77.
13. ^ ODB, "Emperor" (K. McCormick), pp. 692–693.
14. ^ ^{a b} ODB, "Acclaim" (M. McCormick), pp. 10–11.
15. ^ MacCormack 1981, pp. 165–169.
16. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 364–365.
17. ^ Brightman 1901, p. 365.
18. ^ Sickel 1898, pp. 513–516.
19. ^ MacCormack 1981, pp. 46–48, 175–176, 212.
20. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 365–366.
21. ^ ^{a b c d} ODB, "Shield-raising" (M. McCormick), p. 1888.
22. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 366–367.
23. ^ Sickel 1898, p. 516.
24. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 37–41 provides brief translations of these ceremonies in English.
25. ^ Brightman 1901, p. 369.
26. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 42–44.
27. ^ Boak 1919, p. 44.
28. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 37–38.
29. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 368–369.
30. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 374.
31. ^ ^{a b} Boak 1919, p. 38.
32. ^ ^{a b} Boak 1919, p. 41.
33. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 371, 377.
34. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 38–41.
35. ^ Brightman 1901, p. 373.
36. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 375–377.
37. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 39–40.
38. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 371, 374–375.
39. ^ Boak 1919, p. 40.
40. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 375–376.
41. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 369, 376.
42. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 376–377.
43. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 371, 376–377.
44. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 39–41.
45. ^ Boak 1919, pp. 44–45.
46. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 371–372, 373, 377.
47. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 372, 377.
48. ^ Tsamakda 2002, pp. 44–45.
49. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 360.
50. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 377.
51. ^ ^{a b c} Brightman 1901, p. 378.
52. ^ Ostrogorsky 1955, pp. 252–254.
53. ^ ^{a b c d e} The Book of Ceremonies, p. 192.
54. ^ Guilland 1967, pp. 269, 271.
55. ^ ^{a b c} Brightman 1901, p. 379.
56. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 379–380.
57. ^ ^{a b c} Brightman 1901, p. 380.
58. ^ ^{a b c} The Book of Ceremonies, p. 194.
59. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 381.
60. ^ ^{a b} The Volume of Ceremonies, p. 193.
61. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 381–382.
62. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 382.
63. ^ The Book of Ceremonies, pp. 193, 194–196.
64. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 382–383.
65. ^ Brightman 1901, p. 383.
66. ^ ^{a b c} ODB, "Anointing" (Yard. McCormick), p. 107.
67. ^ Ostrogorsky 1955, pp. 254–256.
68. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 387.
69. ^ ^{a b} Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, p. 211.
70. ^ Macrides 2011, p. 226.
71. ^ ODB, "Great Palace" (C. Mango), pp. 869–870.
72. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, p. 211 (note 599).
73. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 387–388.
74. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 210–215.
75. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 296–297.
76. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, p. 388.
77. ^ ^{a b} Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 214–217.
78. ^ ^{a b c d} Brightman 1901, p. 389.
79. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 218–219.
80. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 218–221.
81. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 220–223.
82. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 222–223.
83. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 222–227.
84. ^ ^{a b c d} Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 226–227.
85. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 223 & 225 (note 648).
86. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 389–390.
87. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 226–233.
88. ^ ^{a b c} Brightman 1901, p. 390.
89. ^ ^{a b} Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 232–233.
90. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 232–235 (esp. note 680).
91. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 390–391.
92. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 232–235.
93. ^ ^{a b c} Brightman 1901, p. 391.
94. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 234–237.
95. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 236–237.
96. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 236–239.
97. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 238–239.
98. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, pp. 238–241.
99. ^ ^{a b} Brightman 1901, pp. 371, 373–375.
100. ^ Ensslin 1942, pp. 101–115.
101. ^ ^{a b} Charanis 1974, p. 78.
102. ^ Sickel 1898, p. 518.
103. ^ Charanis 1941, pp. 51–52.
104. ^ Charanis 1974, p. 80.
105. ^ Charanis 1941, pp. 50–51.
106. ^ Charanis 1976.
107. ^ Charanis 1941, pp. 60–64.
108. ^ Charanis 1974, pp. 84–85.
109. ^ Charanis 1941, p. 65.
110. ^ Hupchick 2017, pp. 171–172.
111. ^ Soulis 1984, pp. 28–29, 30–31.
112. ^ Charanis 1941, pp. 65–66.
113. ^ Soulis 1984, pp. 31–32.
114. ^ ODB, "Anastasios I" (T. E. Gregory), pp. 86–87.
115. ^ Macrides, Munitiz & Angelov 2013, p. 211 (notation 605).
116. ^ Charanis 1941, pp. 56–sixty.
117. ^ Charanis 1974, pp. 83–85.
118. ^ Charanis 1974, pp. 85–88.
119. ^ Brightman 1901, pp. 383–385.
120. ^ Ostrogorsky 1955, p. 246.
121. ^ Brightman 1901, p. 385.
122. ^ ^{a b} Ostrogorsky 1955, pp. 247–248.
123. ^ ^{a b} Nicol 1976, pp. 37–38.
124. ^ Nicol 1976, pp. 38–39.
125. ^ Ostrogorsky 1955, pp. 248–252.
126. ^ Angelov 2007, pp. 384–392.
127. ^ Nicol 1976, pp. 38–44, 50–52.
128. ^ Nicol 1976, pp. 44–49.
129. ^ Nicol 1976, pp. 48–49.
130. ^ Nicol 1976, pp. 46–49, 51–52.
131. ^ ^{a b c} ODB, "Coronation. Representation in Art" (I. Kalavrezou), p. 534.
132. ^ Miller 1967, pp. 570–571.
133. ^ Miller 1967, pp. 571–574.
134. ^ Majeska 1978, pp. 354, 356–357.

Sources [edit]

• Angelov, Dimiter (2007). Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204–1330. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-85703-one.
• Boak, A. E. R. (1919). "Majestic Coronation Ceremonies of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries". Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. thirty: 37–47. doi:10.2307/310612. JSTOR 310612.
• Brightman, F. E. (Apr 1901). "Byzantine Majestic Coronations". The Journal of Theological Studies. 2 (7): 359–392. doi:10.1093/jts/os-Ii.7.359. JSTOR 23949289.
• Charanis, Peter (1941). "Coronation and Its Constitutional Significance in the Later Roman Empire". Byzantion. 15: 49–66. JSTOR 44168516.
• Charanis, Peter (1974). "Church-State Relations in the Byzantine Empire as Reflected in the Role of the Patriarch in the Coronation of the Byzantine Emperor". In Blane, Andrew; Bird, Thomas Due east. (eds.). Russia and Orthodoxy: Essays in Laurels of Georges Florovsky, Vol. 3: The Ecumenical World of Orthodox Culture. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. pp. 77–xc.
• Charanis, Peter (1976). "Imperial Coronation in Byzantium: Some New Testify". Byzantina. 8: 37–46. ISSN 1105-0772.
• Constantine Porphyrogennetos: The Book of Ceremonies. Byzantina Australiensia. Translated by Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2017. ISBN978-xviii-76-50342-0.
• Ensslin, W. (1942). "Zur Frage nach der ersten Kaiserkrönung durch den Patriarchen und zur Bedeutung dieses Aktes im Wahlzeremoniell". Byzantinische Zeitschrift (in High german). 42: 101–115. doi:10.1515/byzs.1942.42.1.101. S2CID 194042002.
• Guilland, Rodolphe (1967). "Titres des eunuques". Recherches sur les institutions byzantines [Studies on the Byzantine Institutions]. Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten 35 (in French). Vol. I. Berlin and Amsterdam: Akademie-Verlag & Adolf Yard. Hakkert. pp. 266–299. OCLC 878894516.
• Hupchick, Dennis P. (2017). The Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars for Early Medieval Balkan Hegemony. Silver-Lined Skulls and Blinded Armies. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-3-319-56205-6.
• Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Printing. ISBN0-19-504652-8.
• MacCormack, Sabine G. (1981). Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: Academy of California Press. ISBN0-520-03779-0.
• Macrides, Ruth (2011). "Ceremonies And The City: The Courtroom In Fourteenth-Century Constantinople". In Duindam, Jeroen; Artan, Tülay; Kunt, Metin (eds.). Majestic Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective. Brill. pp. 217–235. doi:ten.1163/ej.9789004206229.i-444.56. ISBN978-90-04-20622-9.
• Macrides, Ruth; Munitiz, J. A.; Angelov, Dimiter (2013). Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and Ceremonies. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. ISBN978-0-7546-6752-0.
• Majeska, George P. (1978). "The Moscow Coronation of 1498 Reconsidered". Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 26 (iii): 353–361.
• Miller, David B. (1967). "The Coronation of Ivan IV of Moscow". Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 15 (4): 559–574. JSTOR 41045749.
• Nicol, Donald Thousand. (1976). "Kaisersalbung. The Unction of Emperors in Tardily Byzantine Coronation Ritual". Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 2: 37–52. doi:x.1179/030701376790206234.
• Ostrogorsky, George (1955). "Zur Kaisersalbung und Schilderhebung im spätbyzantinischen Krönungszeremoniell". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte (in German). 4 (2/3): 246–256. JSTOR 4434456.
• Sickel, Wilhelm (1898). "Das byzantinische Krönungsrecht bis zum 10. Jarhundert". Byzantinische Zeitschrift (in German). Leipzig. vii (3): 511–557. doi:10.1515/byzs.1898.7.3.511. S2CID 191571621.
• Soulis, George C. (1984). The Serbs and Byzantium During the Reign of Emperor Stephen Dušan (1331–1355) and his Successors. Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN0-88402-137-8.
• Tsamakda, Vasiliki (2002). The Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid. Leiden: Alexandros. ISBN978-nine-0806-4762-6.

Further reading [edit]

• Beihammer, Alexander; Constantinou, Stavroula; Parani, Maria, eds. (2013). Courtroom Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives. Leiden and Boston: Brill. ISBN978-90-04-25686-6.
• Christophilopoulou, Aikaterini (1956). Ἐκλογή, ἀναγόρευσις καὶ στέψις τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ αὐτοκράτορος [Election, Announcement and Coronation of the Byzantine Emperor] (in Greek). Athens: Academy of Athens.
• Hebblewhite, Mark (2017). The Emperor and the Army in the Afterwards Roman Empire, Advert 235–395. Routledge. ISBN978-1-4724-5759-2.
• Kaldellis, Anthony (2015). The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: Harvard University Printing. ISBN978-0-674-36540-7.
• Nelson, J. (1976). "Symbols in Context: Rulers' Inauguration Rituals in Byzantium and the Westward in the Early Middle Ages". Studies in Church History. 13: 97–119. doi:10.1017/S0424208400006628.
• Walter, Christopher (1975). "Raising on a Shield in Byzantine Iconography". Revue des études byzantines. 33: 133–176. doi:10.3406/rebyz.1975.2028.
• Walter, Christopher (1976). "The Significance of Unction in Byzantine Iconography". Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 2: 53–73. doi:x.1179/030701376790206153.

Share this post