The Coronation of the Emperor on Middle

Byzantine Coinage: A Case of Christian

Political Theology (10th–mid 11th c.)*

Vangelis Maladakis (Thessaloniki)

Political authority in Byzantium has been constructed around the dominant

ideology of the divine provenance of the ruler’s sovereignty; Byzantine
society is ruled by an emperor with the assent of its institutional organs
(army, senate, demos)1. Nevertheless, his election is not exclusively decided
by their will, rather it is divine2. The prudent monarch is an image of God-
μίμησις Θεοῦ3- and the terrestrial basileia is a reflection of the celestial4.
Therefore, Byzantine political ideology legitimates the authority bestowed
by God and imposes it de jure on the citizens. The de jure, and therefore de
facto, reception of the legitimacy of a sovereignty granted by God derived
from the tendency of the medieval mindset to conceive the secular state in
mystical and transcendental terms. The emperor is characterized as θείος
(divine) and “the important difference between God’s chosen king and
Christ -King is that the first becomes Deus per gratiam, while the second
is Deus per naturam5.
Such political beliefs influenced fine arts in a two-way relationship;
firstly, by creating a sacred art that infiltrated politics, and secondly, by
„theologizing“ political discourse. The metaphysical faith that God made
man in his own image underpinned Byzantine political thought. Ancient
Greek terms like τάξις (order), ἱεραρχία (hierarchy) and οἰκονομία
(economy)6 took on new meanings and served as theoretical support of the
political ideology.
The system of political theology developed within Byzantine thought is
reflected in fine arts and especially in the art of the imperial court7. During
middle Byzantine period the direct references made by imperial art to the
notion of the „celestial kingdom“ become more frequent and systematic.
Within this framework the acceptance and spread of the iconography of
the coronation of the emperor acquired an important place in the political
theology8.

342
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

In fact, the figurative „application“ of the concept of the divine provenance

of authority, namely the coronation of the emperor, by divine figures, found
in Byzantine art its ideal field of promotion 9. The reason is obvious: the
sacred and the profane were not distinct concepts in the art of the Eastern
Roman Empire10. The art of the imperial court was sacred art as long as its
iconography associated the emperor with the holy; on the other hand, sacred
art became political in the sense that associated Christ with the emperor and
monarchy in general. Therefore, we have a basic element for the transition
from the pagan polytheism to Judaic- Christian monotheism11.
More particularly, in regard to coinage it should be stressed that the primary
topic of Byzantine coins is the imperial idea; in the context of a centralized
governing system, the aspect that was promoted was its principal unifying
factor: the institution of the emperor12. Even at the depictions of coronation
the emperor is perceived more as a symbol cum institution13 than human
ruler; from the moment that the human ruler becomes representative of
God, through coronation, his personal effigy looses its importance.
Therefore, the display of the iconography of imperial coronation on
coinage embodied an important conception of the eastern Roman state:
the κατ’εἰκόνα parallelism of the human authority to the celestial. The
historical circumstances that imposed the display of such an iconography
on coins from 10th up to 11th c.14 will now be traced.

***
The justinianic idea of Pax Byzantina15 that revived initially by Basil I
was the main political practice of the whole Macedonian Dynasty. The
successful military expeditions of the Macedonians consolidated the status
of the state at home and abroad. Their conquests were a satisfactory counter-
weight to the ideological damage inflicted by both Constitutio Constantini16
and the coronation of Charlomagne in 80017. It is exactly at this period that
the idea of the „family of princes“18 begins to be propagated systematically
in Byzantine political thought with the blessings of the court. At the top of
this pyramid was enthroned the Byzantine emperor.
The second, and probably most serious threat confronted by the Macedonians
after 1025, was that of internal rivals, the representatives of the so- called
military aristocracy19. They co-existed with the Macedonians and, sometimes
through reconciliation, and in others through rebellion, they finally prevailed
and seized the throne in the late 11th c.20 I am referring to the Comnenoi.

343
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

The Macedonians, in order to protect their position and the survival of their
dynasty, engaged in efforts of administrative re-organization. The result
was a new political dynamic: the bureaucrats of the capital became the
counter-balance to the aristocrats of the provinces; the dynasty promoted
a satisfactory number of higher dignitaries to counter-balance the feudal
system.
At this point it should be stressed that the aristocrats found allies at their
anti-dynastic revolts in the large and powerful army of the themes21. These
consisted of native free peasants-soldiers who, side by side with the local-
born aristocracy, fought against an oppressive tax-gathering state.
Defending the dynastic legitimacy and the hereditary succession was to be
propagated not only to the domestic aristocrats and the foreign enemies,
but also to the lower masses as well as to wider social groups. Apart from
written texts, the notion of God’s chosen emperor and guarantor of the
state and religion was spread through works of art22 and addressed to all
potential usurpers of state authority and of the imperial throne.
Obviously, the leading figures among the Macedonian emperors chose
to be displayed being crowned by sacred figures in works of art23. It is
admitted that we talk about clearly figurative encomia, which side by side
with the already popular textual encomia, imprinted the principles on
which imperial propaganda was based24.

Fig. 1. Alexander. Solidus, 912–913, class II.
***
The first emperor who
struck coins bearing a
representation of his
coronation was Alexander
(912–913), brother of Leo
VI25. In spite of his brief
reign, he issued impressively
struck solidi of great
iconography26. In his very
rare gold issues –of which
we have now only few27 (fig.
1) – Alexander introduced
the depiction of imperial
coronation by a saint: the

344
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

emperor is represented
standing, frontal, dressed
with the loros, bearing
on his head a crown with
pendilia and holding a
globus cruciger; St John the
Baptist stands on the right28
with his body represented Fig. 2. Alexander. Miliaresion, 912–913.
in three quarters, wearing a
tunic and having his himation bent on his chest (melote); he holds a cross
on his left hand and he crowns the emperor with his right one. This new
iconography chosen by this specific emperor has to be understood in the
light of its historical connotations. It is clear that Alexander intended to
emphasize the restoration of hereditary order, following the usurpation of
his position. Because the legal heir Constantine would be expected to take
the throne at his coming of age, Alexander needed to claim that the reign
had been granted to him directly by God. Moreover, the same emperor
introduced an innovation of great importance: he used the word autocrator
for the very first time in his silver miliaresion (fig. 2). The inscription
«ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΕΝ Χ(ΡΙΣΤ)Ω ΑΥΤΟΚΡ(ΑΤΩΡ) ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΥΣΕΒ(ΗΣ)
ΒΑΣΙΛ(ΕΥΣ) ΡΩΜ(ΑΙΩΝ)» is explicit29. It is worth stressing that
Alexander avoids mentioning the existence of Constantine VII in both of
his issues.
If the previous example of coronation is considered a unicum in numismatic
iconography, the type of the coronation of the emperor by Christ himself,
which was initiated with the solidi30 of the usurper Romanos I Lacapenos,
issued in 921, were to appear many times in the future (fig. 3). Through
his solidi types, Romanos I attempted to legitimate his place as co-
emperor, alongside the legal heir Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos, by
presenting himself crowned by Christ. Therefore, in these issues there is
no identification of the emperor with Christ any more. In contrast with
the coins of Alexander, where the emperor takes the place of Christ being
„baptized“, here the emperor is portrayed as having an authority delegated
by God. Romanos I Lacapenus, a native of Lacape in Asia Minor and typical
representative of the feudal aristocracy of the provinces, was proclaimed as
the co-emperor of Constantine VII and legal heir of the Byzantine throne.
Between the years 919–944 he attempted to overthrow the legal dynasty
by establishing his own one31. Clearly, what was in danger was not the
imperial institution anymore, but the dynastic legitimacy32.

345
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

Fig. 3. Romanos I Lacapenos. Solidus, 921, class V and VI.

The next emperor who chose the representation of coronation on his

coinage was John I Tzimiskes (969–976). It is well known that it was
the conspiracy instigated in 969 by John against his uncle, Emperor
Nikephoros II Phocas (963–969) that resulted in the cruel murder of the
latter33. John had realized soon that his reign was weak and thus took a
series of measures including the extermination of his political enemies, the
nomination of his people to positions of trust and the exile of Theophano,
widow of Nikephoros II. In addition, his marriage with Theodora,
daughter of Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos, led to his entrance into the
Macedonian dynasty. As a result, he managed to create a positive image for
the senate, the bureaucrats and dignitaries, the Church and the lower classes
of the society. In order to exploit the religious sentiment of the people he
skillfully employed the numismatic propaganda. In his gold histamena34
(fig. 4) which he issued after taking power, he represented himself being
crowned by the Virgin; both figures are displayed in bust; the emperor
holds an akakia or a long patriarchic cross. More importantly, the Manus
Dei is an interesting innovation to the type. It blesses the coronation and
implies the presence of God in the ceremony, attributing special theological
meaning to the iconography35. I consider this not a matter of fashion but
a deliberate choice, motivated by the felonious way John I captured the
throne and his desire to be expiated. This way, the crime36 was justified to
the citizens as the fulfillment of God’s wish that, with the blessing of the
Virgin, John Tzimisces became emperor. Finally, from an artistic point of
view, the issues are characterized by the natural corporal proportions of

346
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

Fig. 4. John I Tsimiskis. Nomisma histamenon, 969–976, class I.

the figures, the successful depiction of decorative details (e.g. costume,

imperial insignia and regalia, folds of Virgin’s maphorion) and a general
miniature perfection.

***
The indisputable military achievements of the Macedonians and the model
of administrative organization led to the centralization of Constantinople.
There, was gathered the political, social, financial and intellectual life of
the whole empire37. The intensive centralization and the extensive power
of the political dignitaries of the court created the conditions that led to
the gradual decline of political institutions; a decline that, as it was later
proved, only the military aristocracy could control, but only to a degree
and only for a century, until 1204.
In the period between 1025 and 1081 the iconography of the imperial
coronation was spread widely both in coinage and other works of fine art.
The popularity of the subject shown in the increased numbers of coins
issued was enhanced by another factor as well: coronations were not
displayed anymore incidentally, but systematically in the service of the
political propaganda of each individual emperor.
The first display of coronation of the 11th c. (1028) is to be found in the
coinage of Romanos III Argyros (1028–1034)38. A political dignitary of
aristocratic origins, Romanos III was selected by Constantine VIII, brother

347
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

Fig. 5. Romanos III Argyros. Nomisma histamenon, 1028–1034.

of Basil II, as a spouse for his daughter Zoe, with the intention to preserve
the hereditary succession of the Macedonians. The most important
historical source on Romanos III is Michael Psellos, who presents him
as a presumptuous and conceited arrivist39, a typical representative of the
politically rising aristocracy who aspired to power. His vanity, covered
under the veil of deep religiosity and worship for the Virgin, inspired the
building of the church of Theotokos Peribleptos Monastery, a church more
magnificent than those of Solomon and Justinian I40. His demonstrated
devotion to the Virgin made him choose a previously used coronation
iconography to his histamena41 (fig. 5). It had been applied about sixty
years earlier in the coinage of John I Tzimiskes. However, the new type
is slightly different; the figures are displayed standing, not in bust; the
emperor holds a globus cruciger, not an akakia or cross; there is no Manus
Dei over his head; the Virgin sometimes has a nimbus, at other times not.
The emperor is depicted frontally with all his insignia, while the Virgin’s
figure is sometimes tall, at other times not. In general, they are remarkable
issues where the limited space of the flan is used successfully.
Nomismata histamena (fig. 6) that depicted the coronation by the Virgin
had been struck by Michael VI Bringas Stratiotikos (1056–1057)42. As a
typical representative of the court he gave his oath to continue the policies
of his predecessor, Theodora, and to be a docile agent of the circles that
promoted him43. His old age and indecisiveness, characteristics which made
him a pawn of the palace eunuchs and particularly of Leo Strabospondylos,

348
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

Fig. 6. Michael VI Bringas Stratiotikos. Nomisma histamenon, 1056–1057.

may explain the iconographic choice in the coinage of the period44. I would
claim that the iconography of the coronation by the Virgin is a choice of
the governing court. It aimed to reinforce the status of Michael VI and to
acknowledge him as God’s chosen ruler. As far as the iconography itself
is concerned, Romanos’ III one was the one that was adopted. In the few
surviving issues of Michael VI the execution is bad and the dies are being
struck in such a way as to crop the figures’ feet.
Michael VI Bringas, representing the so called „court party“, came up
against the military party, which finally managed to bring in power its first
representative, Isaac I Comnenos I (1057–1059). He organized a rebellion
at Gounaria in Cappadocia and took the throne from Michael VI.
The capture of the throne by Isaac I Comnenos meant the first short-lived
victory of the military against the court party. The ideological change
was reflected eloquently in the numismatic iconography (fig. 7) by the
representation of Isaac I in military outfit, holding a drawn sword instead
of the customary imperial costume45.With the new choice, Isaac I tried to
abolish a centuries-old iconographic convention, and more importantly,
a consolidated concept of the Byzantine political theology: the divine
provenance of authority46. The new emperor gained his throne with the
force of the arms and the military party. The attempt was not destined to
be long-lived, because the conditions that could offer social and political
support to the military aristocracy had not yet matured47.

349
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

The court party came once

again to power enthroning
one of the representatives
of the court: Constantine
X Doukas (1059–1067)48.
His extremely demagogic
policy, the cutting down of
defense expenses and the
wholesale awards of public
offices re-established the old
order49. Among other things
that recalls the period before
Fig. 7. Isaac I Comnenos. Nomisma histamenon, Isaac I, is the numismatic
1057–1059, class II. iconography; once more the
depiction of the coronation
of the emperor by the
Virgin was the chosen type
in one of the two types of
nomismata histamena50
(fig. 8). Worth noticing is
the resemblance of this
representation to those of
the previous emperor who
belonged to the court party,
Michael VI Stratiotikos.
Obviously, the resemblance
was deliberate in order to
Fig. 8. Constantine X Doukas. Nomisma histamenon
(concave), 1057–1069, class II. stress the idea of restoration
and the continuation of
legitimacy that had been damaged during the previous two years by the
reign of Isaac I Comnenos. Moreover, the intention of Constantine X to
strengthen the newly-born dynasty was clear51, given the conditions of
political instability. Imitating the model of Michael VI and, in a wider
sense, the importance of the current Macedonian model that established
the type of the coronation in coinage, gave continuity to the well-known
political propaganda concerning dynastic legitimacy bestowed by God52.
Therefore, the ideological changes that took place over a period of less
than four years could be found as well in the iconographic choices of the
coinage of the same period.

350
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

Trying to secure, through

his sons, the continuation
of the dynasty which he had
established, Constantine X
Doukas pressed his wife
Eudokia Makrembolitissa
by a written oath to not to
remarry53.
It was thought that the
presence of a determined
male governor and capable
commander was needed
in order to quell the fear Fig. 9. Romanos IV Diogenis. Nomisma histamenon
aroused by the Ottoman (concave), 1068–1071, class I.
menace in Asia Minor.
Under the pressure of the court Eudokia broke her oath54. General Romanos
Diogenis, partner of Eudokia, was chosen by the court party to lead the
empire (1068). Nevertheless, dynastic continuity had to be stressed as
well55. The desire to balance the two factors is reflected on the coins and
other works of art of that period56. As far as coins are concerned, a nomisma
histamenon (fig. 9) that was issued between 1068 and 1071 displays the
coronation of Romanos IV Diogenes and Eudokia Makrembolitissa by
Christ57. By this method the perceived psychological need for a male ruler
on the throne was filled and at the same time the dynasty of the Doukai was
not undermined, since on the other side of the coin the three co-emperors,
sons of Constantine X Doukas: Michael, Andronikos and Constantine were
depicted58.
To conclude; the ideological orientations of the Macedonians and Doukai
during the 10th and the crucial 11th century are reflected eloquently in the
numismatic iconography. The reflection is not restricted to the mainstream
propaganda of the dynasty as a whole, but to the very ideological
presumptions and political aims of each single emperor, who chooses to
be displayed crowned by a holy person. The late 11th c. marks the fall of
the Doukai and the promising military aristocracy comes in power. The
iconography of coronation will take new dimensions in the „brave new
world“ of the Comnenian Dynasty.

351
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

_______________________

* This paper is a part of a more extensive master’s thesis submitted to the Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki (Dept. of History and Archaeology) on January 2001.
Valuable help was provided by my advisors Prof. Dr. Th. Pazaras and Prof. Dr.
Dionysia Missiou in Thessaloniki, as well as by Prof. Dr. J. Koder and Prof. Dr. W.
Hahn during my stay in the University of Vienna in winter 2000. A brief summary of
my thesis is published in V. Maladakis. Η εικονογραφία της στέψης του αυτοκράτορα
στα βυζαντινά νομίσματα (10ος–14ος αι.). – Εγνατία 7 (2003) Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα
της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Α.Π.Θ. Τεύχος Τμήματος Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, σ.
384–385. William Danny (Oxford) kindly read the English and largely improved it.
I wish to extend to all above my sincerest thanks. The figures of the paper are after
DOC; for the oral permission of the reproduction I thank the Director of Byzantine
Studies in Dumbarton Oaks Dr. Alice-Mary Talbot.
1
On the election of the emperor I provide a small choice of the vast literature:
H. G. Beck. Senat und Volk von Konstantinopel, Probleme der byzantinischen
Verfassungsgeschichte. – Sitzungsberichte, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
philosoph.-hist. Klasse. München, 1967; A. Christophilopoulou. Εκλογή, Αναγόρευσις
και Στέψις του Βυζαντινού Αυτοκράτορος, Πραγματείαι της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών,
22, 2. Athens, 1956; A. Christophilopoulou. Περί το πρόβλημα της αναδείξεως του
Βυζαντινού αυτοκράτορος. – Επιστημονική Επετηρίς της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του
Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών, 12, 1961–2, σ. 181–207; M. V. Anastos. Vox Populi Voluntas
Dei and the Election of the Byzantine Emperor. – Ιn: Studies in Judaism and in Late
Antiquity, 12, Christianity Judaism and other Graeco–Roman cults, 2. Leiden, 1975,
pp. 181–207; the latest and most comprehensive review of all above is provided by
D. Feissel. „L’empereur et l’administration imperiale“. – In: Le Monde Byzantine, I,
L’Empire romain d’ Orient (330–641), ed. C. Morrisson. Nouvelle Clio. Paris, 2004,
p. 79–110.
2
Generally on imperial ideology see the old but indispensable O. Treitinger.
Vom Oströmischen Staats und Reichsgedanken. – In: Die Oströmischen Kaiser- und
Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im Höfischen Zeremoniell. Darmstadt, 19562, S.
247–274 and W. Ensslin. Gottkaiser und Kaiser von Gottesgnaden.- Sitzungsberichte
der Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos. – hist. Abteilung, Heft 6.
München, 1943 and reprinted in H. Hunger (ed.). Das byzantinische Herrscherbild.
Darmstadt, 1975, S. 54–85; R. Guilland. Le Droit Divine à Byzance. – In: Études
Byzantines. Paris, 1959, p. 207–232. Also O. Hiltbrunner. Die Heiligkeit des Kaisers,
zur Geschichte des Begriffs sacer. – In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien, II. Berlin, 1968,
S. 1–30 and the recent Kl.-P. Matschke. „Sakralität und Priestertum des byzantinischen
Kaisers“. – In: Die Sakralität der Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und
Räume, ed. F.-R. Erkens. Berlin Akadamie Verlag. Berlin, 2002, S. 143–163.
3
On this image of Byzantine emperor see H. Hunger. Prooimion. Elemente der
byzantinischen Kaiseridee in den Arenden der Urkunden. Wien, 1964, S. 58–63.
4
¢γαπητòς Διάκονος. PG 86, col. 1164 A.
5
V. Nikolaidou- Kyrianidou. O απόβλητος και ο θεοπρόβλητος. Πολιτική
ανάγνωση της ακολουθίας του Σπανού. Αθήνα, 1999, σ. 217 (the translation is mine).
On a theological analysis of the terms see E. H. Kantorowicz. Deus per Naturam,
Deus per Gratiam. A Note on a Medieval Political Theology. – Harvard Theological
Review, XLV, 1952, p. 253–277; E. H. Kantorowicz. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study

352
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

in Medieval Political Theology. 7th ed. Princeton, 1997, passim.

6
On the use of those terms in theological and political vocabulary of the Byzantine
state and their correspondence with ancient connotations see H. Ahrweiler. L’ idéologie
politique de l’empire byznatin. Paris, 1975, 129ff. Esp. on τάξις, sεραρχία as they
have been analyzed by pseudo – Dionysios Areopagites see PG, 3 col. 119–369 and
369–584; on his writings and his theology see H. Goltz. Hiera Mesiteia: Zur Theorie
der hierarchischen Sozietät in Corpus areopagiticum. Halle (Saale), 1972 and E.
Stein. Wege der Gotteserkenntnis. Dionysios der Areopagite und seine symbolische
Theologie. München, 1979.
7
On the meaning of these terms see: A. Grabar. L’Empereur dans l’Art Byzantin.
London, 19712, p. 189–195; on the display of the image of the emperor in Byzantine
art see in general K. Wessel. Kaiserbild. – RbK, 3, 1976, col. 722–853; esp. for the 12th
century with stress on sources see P. Magdalino, R. Nelson. The Emperor in Byzantine
Art of the Twelfth Century. – BF, 8, 1982, pp. 123–183.
8
For an overview of imperial reality from the point of view of ceremonies and
the proportions of the pair „imperial court- Celestial Kingdom“ in middle Byzantine
period see M. McCormick. Analyzing Imperial Ceremonies. – JÖB, 35, 1985, pp. 1–20
esp. on the display on fine arts p. 9ff and H. Maguire. Images of the Court. – In: Glory
of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art (ed. H. C. Evans, W. D. Wixom). New York, 1997, pp.
183–191; very useful is H. Maguire (ed.). Court Culture from 829–1204, Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection. Washington D.C., 1997 esp. the essay of H.
Maguire. The Heavenly Court, pp. 247–258.
9
On the political characteristics of the middle Byzantine art and a more theoretical
contribution to the subject see A. Cutler. Sacred and Profane: The Locus of the Political
in the Middle Byzantine Art. – In: Arte Profana e Arte Sacra a Bizanzio (a cura di A.
Iacobini, E. Zanini), Milion 3, Argos. Roma, 1995, p. 315–337.
10
On the philosophical principles that stimulated the application of early Byzantine
political theory to fine arts see F. Dvornik. Early Christian and Byzantine Political
Philosophy. Origins and Background. Vol. II. Washington D.C., 1966, p. 656 ff. On
the interdependent pair „imperial art-sacred art“ see A. Grabar. L’Empereur…, p.
196–243 passim. See also A. Grabar. L’Art Profane à Byzance. – In: Actes XVIe
Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Vol. I. Bucarest; 1974, p. 7–32 and esp.
p. 9–16, where, concerning the pair „secular art-sacred art“, he says: (l’art impérial)
est pour nous un art profane, tandis que les Byzantines y voyaient l’expression d’un
culte du monarque dont le caractère religieux n’avait été jamais oublié entièrement.
11
With regard to the political character of monotheism see a mention in Treitinger.
Kaiser- und Reichsidee, op. cit. p. 44 and more specifically E. Peterson. Der
Monotheismus als politisches Problem. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen
Theologie im Imperium Romanum. Leipzig, 1935.
12
D. Missiou. The Coins of the Period of the Iconomachy as an Expression
of Political Ideology. – In: Οβολός 2, Νόμισμα και Θρησκεία, Αρχαίος κόσμος –
Βυζαντινός κόσμος. Πρακτικά Ημερίδας. Αθήνα, 1997, p. 177. On the function of the
coins in imperial propaganda see A. R. Bellinger. The Coins and Byzantine Imperial
Policy. – Speculum, 31, 1956, pp. 70–81; more generally on specific aspects of
propaganda, see A. Kazhdan. Certain Traits of Imperial Propaganda in the Byzantine
Empire from the Eighth to Fifteenth Centuries. – In: Prédication et Propagande au
Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident. Penn, Paris, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquia, III,

353
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

Presses Universitaires de France. Paris, 1980, pp. 13–27.

13
Extensive discussion on the origins of the symbolism of imperial institution is
offered by A. Alföldi. Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik. Kleine Beiträge zu
ihrer Enstehungsgeschichte. – Museum Helveticum, 7, 1950, S. 1–13; 8, 1951, S. 190–
215; 9, 1952, S. 204–243; 10, 1953, S. 103–124. On the early Christian origins of the
proportion celestial-terrestrial kingdom see the theological approach of G. B. Ladner.
Handbuch der frühchristliche Symbolik. Gott, Kosmos, Mensch. Wiesbaden, 1996
passim and esp. the chapter with the characteristic title: Anthropologische Symbolik:
Symbole der Menschlichen Gemeinschaften. Das christliche Römerreich im Verhältnis
zum Reich Gottes, S. 187ff. Important essays on all the forms of imperial image are
offered in the classical collection of H. Hunger (ed.). Das Byzantinische Herrscherbild.
Darmstadt, 1975. Esp. on the image of emperor on Byzantine coinage C. Morrisson,
G. Zacos. L’Image de l’Empereur Byzantin sur les Sceaux et les Monnaies. – In: La
Monnaie Miroir des Rois (Hôtel de la Monnaie). Paris, 1978, p. 57–72; C. Morrisson.
Images du Pouvoir: L’empereur byzantine dans la numismatique. – In: Monnaies
Byzantines du Musée Puig, Musée Numismatique Joseph Puig. Ville de Perpignan,
1991, p. 15–24.
14
The representation of the coronation of the emperor keeps on existing still after
12 c. The matter has been discussed for the period of Latin Occupation (1204–
th

1261) by I. Touratsoglou, P. Protonotarios. Les Émissions de Couronnement dans

le Monnayage Byzantin du XIIIe Siècle. – RN6, XIX, 1977, p. 68–76. Coins with
the coronation of the emperor – proskynesis had been issued after the Restoration of
Constantinople for one more century (mid. 14th c.). The new historical conditions and
the situation of the empire after 1261 offer new dimensions to the subject, that I plan
to discuss in a future study.
15
On this idea of Macedonian political ideology as it has been imprinted in
historiography see G. Moravcsik. Sagen und Legenden über Basileios I. – DOP, 15,
1961, S. 59–126.
16
On the most famous forger document of the west medieval literature see H.
Führmann. Constitutum Constantini. – Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 8, 1981, S.
196–202; T. C. Lounghis. Η Ιδεολογία της Βυζαντινής Ιστοριογραφίας. Athens, 1993,
σ. 89–92 and σ. 105–109.
17
On the after-effects of this coronation see R. E. Sullivan. The Coronation of
Charlemagne: What did it signify? Lexington, 1959 and C. N. Tsirpanlis. Byzantine
Reaction to the Coronation of Charlemagne (780–813). – Βυζαντιακά, 6, 1974, pp.
345–360.
18
See the old ones G. Ostrogorsky. The Byzantine Empire and the Hierarchical World
Order. – Slavonic and East European Review, 35/84, 1956, pp. 1–14; G. Ostrogorsky.
Die Byzantinische Staatenhierarchie. – In: Seminarium Kondakoviarum, 8, 1936,
S. 41–61; A. Grabar. God and the Family of Princes presided over the Byzantine
Emperor. – Haruslaust, 2, 1954, pp. 117–123 and finally R.-J. Lilie. Byzanz. Kaiser
und Reich. Köln – Weimar – Wien, 1994, S. 119 ff.
19
On the character and the goals of aristocrats in the middle and late Byzantine
period see G. Ostrogorsky. Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium. – DOP, 25,
1971, pp. 3–32 and on the period I am interested in esp. on pp. 3–17; also M. Angold
(ed.). The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Centuries. Oxford, 1984 and finally J.-Cl.
Cheynet. Pouvoir et Contestations à Byzance (963–1210). Paris, 1990, p. 249ff.
20
The importance of the threat lies in their plans; their famous family-names –

354
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

Skleroi, Argyroi, Phokades, Doukai – appear in sources (texts, seals) already in 9th
c. Coming from the province, where they own land, they make clear their plans to
seize the central authority and not to undermine or weaken it, a process that has been
outlined in Western Medieval Europe and lead to the final feudalism, in contradiction
to Byzantium. On the characteristics of the eastern feudal aristocracy of 10th–11th c. and
its relation to the centralized state, see G. Ostrogorsky. Pour l’histoire de la féodalité
byzantine. Bruxelles, 1954, p. 20–54 passim; Z. V. Udal’cova. Die Besonderheiten des
Feudalismus in Byzanz. – In: Besonderheiten der byzantinischen Feudalentwicklung.
Berlin, 1983, S. 11–56.
21
On the role of the themes see I. Karayiannopoulos. Die Entstehung der
byzantinischen Themenordnung. München, 1959.
22
On the „propagandizing“ art of Macedonian dynasty see C. Jolivet-Lévy. L’image
du pouvoir dans l’art byzantin à l’époque de la dynastie Macédonienne. – Byzantion,
LVII/1, 1987, p. 441–470 with references to the function of coinage.
23
Representations of coronation are displayed pretty often in the Macedonian
aristocratic art: Basileios I is crowned by Archangel Michael in the codex Par. gr.
510, f. Cv; Leo VI is crowned by the Virgin in the ivory of the Museum für Spätantike
und Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin, and by Christ in the casket of Palazzo Venezia,
Rome; Constantine Porphyrogennitos receives the crown by Christ in the ivory
plaque of Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, and the imperial couple Otto II and
Theophano in the ivory plaque of Musée Cluny in Paris and in a medal now in Helsinki;
Basileios II is crowned by Christ and Archangels in a triumphal illumination of the
Psalter Cod. gr. Z17, IIIr of Bibliotheca Marciana, Venice; a thorough presentation of
all above, comparative study and exhaustive literature is offered by C. Jolivet-Lévy.
L’image du pouvoir…, p. 441–470 esp. p. 445–456. It is clear that the creation of such
a work of art or the issue of coin series with coronation representation has nothing,
or little, to do with the real ceremony; such representations are symbolic and only for
exceptional cases would one suppose that a work of art was created with the occasion
of a real ceremony (commemorative); on the subject see C. Jolivet-Lévy. L’image du
pouvoir…, p. 446 and C. Walter. Art and Ritual in the Byzantine Church. London,
1982, p. 119, where the coronation representations are characterized as ideological
rather than historical.
24
On the function of the relation „image-word“ in imperial propaganda see J. -
M. Sansterre. La parole, le text et l’image selon les auteurs byzantines des époques
iconoclastes et post iconoclaste. – In: Testo e imagine nell’ alto Medioevo (Settimane di
studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo, 41). Spoleto, 1994, p. 197–240.
25
The iconography of coronation is not a 10th c. iconographic invention. It is well-
known that the choice of coronation of an athlete or emperor by a Nike (Victoria)
is common in ancient Greek and Roman art; or even the Manus Dei that neither
blesses nor crowns the emperor but gives the wreath of victory [cf. the medallion of
Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna that represents the emperor Constantine the
Great being crowned by the Manus Dei; see K. Wessel. Hand Gottes. – RbK, II, 1975,
col. 950–962]. The interpretative approach of both Nike and Manus Dei is enrolled in
military and athletic (triumphal) connotations rather than those of delegation-legislation
of political authority (A. Grabar. L’Empereur…, p. 114–116 makes clear the distinction
between couronnement triomphal and couronnement- investiture). Another rare
representation of coronation is that of emperor Anastasius and Ariadne by Christ on a
medallion in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. It is sure that it is about a commemorative

355
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

issue of matrimonial character rather than political [cf. A. R. Bellinger. Roman and
Byzantine Medallions in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. – DOP, 12, 1958, p. 151, No
43; W. J. Tomasini. The barbaric tremissis in Spain and Southern France: Anastasius to
Leovigild. New York, 1964, pp. 8–11, pl. DI]. On the evolution of the iconography in
early Christian art see A. Grabar. L’Empereur…, p. 114–122.
26
Ph. Grierson. DOC 3.2, p. 523, pl. XXXV 2.1–2.2.
27
C. Morrisson. Monnaies et sceaux des Macédoniens aux Comnènes. – In:
Byzance: L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises. Exh. cat., Musée du
Louvre (ed. J. Durand). Paris, 1992, p. 401–402 and Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.2, p. 523.
28
Concerning the identity of the saint, it has been proposed: St Alexandros,
patriarch of Constantinople (see Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.1, p. 523 and C. Morrisson.
BNC, p. 558), as name-saint and protector of the emperor; patriarch of Constantinople,
Nikolaos Mystikos (852–925) [see A. Sommer. Der Patriarch von Konstantinopel
auf einer byzantinischer Münze: Ein Solidus des Kaisers Alexander. – Schweizer
Münzblätter, 39/ Heft 154, 1989, S. 41–44] who solemnized the coronation of
Alexandros; this suggestion is considered impossible; finally, it is suggested John
the Baptist due to iconographic criteria [N. Thierry. Apports de la numismatique
byzantine à l’iconographie impériale: quelques innovations monétaires. – Bulletin
de la Société Française de Numismatique, 41/10, 1986, p. 124–125 and N. Thierry.
Le Baptiste sur le solidus d’Alexandre (912–913). – RN6, 34, 1992, p. 237–241]
that has been prevailed more or less over the late literature raising the connection
to the middle Byzantine iconography of Baptism of Christ, first „performance“ of
his divinity (¸πιφάνεια) see A. Wenger. Notes inédits sur les empereurs. – REB, 10,
1952, p. 51–54 on the connection of coronation to Baptism; moreover Ph. Grierson.
The Date of the Dumbarton Oaks Epiphany Medaillon. – DOP, 15, 1961, pp. 223–224
and K. Hoffmann. Taufsymbolik in mittelalterlichen Herrscherbild. Düsseldorf, 1968,
S. 10–11. The scandalous parallelism of Alexander to the Christ himself in the eyes
of the public that for sure had in mind the well-known iconographic type of Baptism
by the monumental painting, has driven to the not at all strange disappear of this
type from the issues of the following emperors, as H. Maguire. Style and Ideology in
Byzantine Imperial Art. – Gesta, XXVIII/2, 1989, pp. 226–227 supported.
29
See C. Morrisson. BNC, p. 559; Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.1, p. 525.
30
Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.2, p. 544, XXXVI 5.1–5.2.
31
See I. Karayiannopoulos. Ιστορία Βυζαντινού Κράτους, v. B, Ιστορία Μέσης
Βυζαντινής Περιόδου (565–1081). Θεσσαλονίκη, 19935, σ. 352ff. Having solved the
tetragamic matter, Romanus I proclaimed himself in 920 at first Cesar and then co-
Emperor, and in 921 he crowned his wife, Theodora, Augusta and his son Christopher
Augustus, while in 924 he crowned Augusti as well his other sons, Stephen and
Constantine. The procession of the legal dynasty’s supplanting is imprinted in
iconography and inscriptions of the period; see H. Goodacre. The story of Constantine
VII, Porphyrogenitus, from his solidi. – Numismatic Chronicle5, XV, 1935, p. 114–119
and A. R. Bellinger. Byzantine Notes 6. The Coins of Constantine Porphyrogenitus
and his Associates. – American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes, 13, 1967, pp.
148–166 and Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.1, 5, p. 26–529.
32
See A. Christophilopoulou. H Αντιβασιλεία εις το Βυζάντιον. – Σύμμεικτα
Κέντρου Βυζαντινών Ερευνών / Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, 2, 1970, σ. 43–61.
33
The most important source on this political murder and John I Tsimisces’ is Leon
diaconos, K. B. Hase (ed.), CSHB, Bonn 1828, 87.21ff.

356
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

34
Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.2, p. 592 ff, pl. XLII 1a–6c.
35
The depiction of Manus Dei is not something new neither in art in general – it is
already common in roman imperial iconography – nor in numismatic iconography; it
appeared for the first time on coins of Constantine V; see A. Grabar. L’Empereur…, p.
113–115. On the above attribution objections have been expressed by D. Missiou. The
coins of period of iconomachy, op. cit., p. 186 who attributes the coins to Constantine
IV Pogonatus; also cf. D. Missiou. Ποιος ήταν ο Κωνσταντίνος Πωγωνάτος. –
Βυζαντινά, 15, 1989, σ. 315–342. Manus Dei was introduced in the iconography of
coronation from a divine figure in the issues of John I Tzimiskes.
36
On the felonious activity concerning the seize of the throne see A. Marcopoulos.
Αίμα στο παλάτι. – In: Sp. Troianos (ed.). Έγκλημα και τιμωρία στο Βυζάντιο. Athens,
1997, σ. 257–272 with the relevant literature.
37
The historiographer Nicetas Choniates decribes eloquently: πόλις πόλεων,
πασ™ν |φθαλμ{ς, Dκουσμα παγκόσμιον, θέαμα ‰περκόσμιον, Tκκλησι™ν γαλούχημα,
πίστεως Bρχηγός, |ρθοδοξίας ποδηγ{ς, λόγων μέλημα, καλο‡ παντ{ς Tνδιαίτημα, J.
A.van Dieten (ed.). Berlin, 1975, p. 763.
38
On the family of Argyroi and esp. Romanus III see J.-F. Vannier. Familles
bynantines. Les Argyroi. Paris, 1975, p. 36–39 and recently, J.-Cl. Cheynet, J.-F.
Vannier. Les Argyroi. – ZRVI, 40, 2003, p. 57–90.
39
Michael Psellos [(ed.) E. Renauld. Chronographie, ou histoire d’un siècle de
Byzance (976–1077). Paris, 1967, I, 3.2] informs us that Romanos’ III self-confidence
about his so-called deep philosophical education combined with martial skills, have
lead him sometimes to present himself as Marcus Aurelius delighting in philosophical
discussions and sometimes to have the military command in expeditions (e.g. his
tragicomical march against the Arabs in Syria). On the reliability of Michael Psellos
history see T. Lounghis. H Iδεολογία της Βυζαντινής Ιστοριογραφίας. Athens, 1993,
σ. 147–196 passim.
40
Michel Psellos, Chronographie, (ed.) E. Renauld. Op. cit., I, 3.14ff.
41
On attribution matters to Romanos III cf. Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.2, p. 711–714,
pl. LVI 1a.2–1d.11.
42
These histamena of Michael VI were incorrectly attributed to Michael V by W.
Wroth. BMC, p. 498, vol. II, pl. LVIII 5; the correction came by Ph. Grierson. DOC,
3.2, p. 721 and 754–755, pl. LXII 1a.1–1b.3, and prevailed over the late literature.
43
I. Thurn (ed.). Ioannis Skylitzae, Synopsis Historiarum. Berlin, 1973, p. 480.
39ff, is clear: (...)Tπομοσαμένου πρότερον καp αˆτο‡ μεδέν τι πράξαί ποτε τ\ς Tκείνων
δίχα γνώμης τÝ καp θελήσεως.
44
Ioannis Skylitzae, Synopsis…, p. 480. 37 informs us about the balance developed
in palace: το‡το δS πεποιήκασιν (the courtiers) uνα σχ\μα μόνο καp Ђνομα αˆτός
(Michael VI) Vχf τ\ς βασιλείας, αˆτοί δT διεξάγωσιν, ›ς βούλονται, τ@ κοινά καp
πάντων τυγχάνωσιν κύριοι.
45
Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.2, pp. 759–760, pl. LXIII 2.1–2.5. Roman „tradition“
demanded the emperor to be displayed in coinage in military dress. The last emperor
who used this iconographic type was Leo III (717–741); afterwards imperial ceremonial
costume (cloak, loros, crown etc.) would be used more often. See G. Galavaris. The
Symbolism of Imperial Costume as Displayed on Byzantine Coins. – American
Numismatic Society, Museum Notes, 8, 1958, pp. 101–105.
46
The reception of the message was clear: } δS Κομνηνός τi βασιλείJ TγκαταστAς
Tαυτ© τ[ν τα‡της Tπιτυχίαν καp οˆ τ© θε© Tπεγράψατο, καp το‡το δήλον Ѓτι τ© ξιφήρf

357
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

Tαυτόν Tνεχάραξε, μόνον οˆχί βο™ν Ѓτι το‡το μοq τ[ν βασιλείαν, οˆχί Wτερόν τι
προˆξένησε (Ioannis Zonaras. ¸πιτομή ºστορι™ν, 3, 665–666). Also E. Tsolakis (ed.).
Η συνέχεια της Χρονογραφίας του Ιωάννη Σκυλίτζη. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1968, p. 103, 3–4
reports: (Comnenos) αˆτίκα τ© βασιλικ© νομίσματι σπαθηφόρος διαχαράττεται, μή τ©
θε© τ{ πAν Tπιγράψας, Cλλά τi rδίJ rσχύι καί τi περί πολέμους TμπειρίJ.
47
See I. Karayiannopoulos. Ιστορία…, σ. 556–557; A. Kazhdan. Certain Traits…,
p. 14; T. Lounghis. Επισκόπηση…, σ. 278.
48
Constantine X, in spite of his origins in military rank, was in favor of the members
of the court party, during the reign of Isaac I Comnenos. On the Doukai family and
their policy see the classical study of D. I. Polemis. The Doukai: A Contribution to
Byzantine Prosopography. London, 1968 esp. on the first representative in the throne
see pp. 28–34.
49
On the demagogic policy and the „opening“ of the senate to wide masses see
the fundamental Sp. Vryonis. Byzantine Δημοκρατία and the Guilds in the Eleventh
Century. – DOP, 17, 1963, p. 287–314.
50
Ph. Grierson. DOC 3.2, p. 769–770, pl. LXIV 2.1–2.4.
51
On the contribution of Eudocia to the stabilization of the Doukai dynasty, as it
arises from the iconographic choices, the coin inscriptions and the sources information
see S. Mesanović. Η Ευδοκία Μακρεμβολίτισσα και τα νομίσματα του Κωνσταντίνου
Ι΄ Δούκα. – Σύμμεικτα Κέντρου Βυζαντινών Ερευνών / Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, 12,
1998, σ. 87–93.
52
There is a series of representations that depict the iconography of the coronation
of this very couple; Firstly, the miniature in codex Barberini gr. 372 [A. Cutler. The
Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium. Paris, 1984, p. 55 and I. Spatharakis. Three Portraits
of the Early Comnenian Period. – Reprinted in Studies in Byzantine Manuscript
Illumination and Iconography. London, 1996, pp. 18–40 and more specifically, in p.
20–21)] representing Constantine, Eudocia and their son Michael VII to be crowned by
Christ and three angels, a commemorative representation dedicated to the proclamation
of Michael to basileus (1060). Secondly, a miniature in Parallela Patrum (Par. gr. 922,
fol. 6r) depicting Virgin crowning the imperial couple and angels its two sons, Michael
and Constantios (see K. Wessel. Die Kultur von Byzanz. Frankfurt, 1970, S. 343, Abb.
199). Thirdly, a representation on a silver gilt reliquary of St Demetrios in „Moscow
Klemlin“ Museum bearing the couple crowned once again by Christ (The Glory of
Byzantium [I. Kalavrezou], pp. 77–78, No 36 with earlier literature).
53
N. Oikonomides. Le serment de l’impératrice Eudocie (1067). REB, 21, 1963,
p. 101–128 (= N. Oikonomides. Documents et études sur les institutions de Byzance
VIIe- XIV siècle. London, 1976, essay No III).
54
All the backstage activities concerning the promotion and raising on throne of
Romanos Diogenis is known by Continuatus Skylitzae, E. Tsolakis (ed.), op. cit., p.
122. 13ff.
55
Michael Psellus [Chronographia, Renauld (ed.), II, 157] reports: šήθη γάρ šς εr
βασιλέα ποιήσειεν Ѓν δέον Bντλεqν σέσωκεν, Tαυτi τό πAν το‡ κράτους περιποιήσαιτο,
καß οˆκ Dν Tκεqνον Dλλο φρονεqν παρ’ Ѓπερ αˆτή βούλοιτο δίκαια μSν ‰πολαμβάνουσα,
διημαρτήκει δS το‡ σκοπο‡.
56
On the identification of the persons depicted crowned on the famous Cabinet des
Médailles ivory see I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner. Eudokia Makrembolitissa and the Romanos
Ivory. – DOP, 31, 1977, pp 307–325 esp. p. 315ff.; see also the objection expressed by
A. Cutler. The Date and Significance of the Romanos Ivory. – In: Byzantine East, Latin

358
 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VІІ–1

West: Art Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann (ed. C. Moss, K. Kiefer).
Princeton, 1995, pp. 605–610. The whole matter is brought back by J. Ott. Krone und
Krönung. Die Verheißung und Verleihung von Kronen in der Kunst von der Spätantike
bis um 1200 und die geistige Auslegung der Krone. Mainz am Rhein, 1998, S. 89–92.
See also the useful article by M. G. Parani. The Romanos Ivory and the New Tokali
Kilise: Imperial Costume as a tool for Dating Byzantine Art.  – CahArch, 49, 2001, pp.
15–28. We have some seals of the same couple bearing the same representation, see G.
Zacos, A. Veglery. Byzantine Lead Seals. Basel, 1972, I, pp. 83–84, Nos. 93a-d, pl. 24
and one more of a differentiated type op.cit. p. 82, No 92, pl. 24.
57
Ph. Grierson. DOC 3.2, p. 789, pl. LXV 1.1–2.4.
58
Ph. Grierson. DOC, 3.2, p. 786 is clear: (...) the influence of Constantine X’s
family dominates the whole of Romanus’ coinage in gold. His histamena, indeed,
are technically not his at all, but ones of Michael and his brothers, for it is they
who occupy the obverse -the convex face- and the representation of Christ blessing
Romanus’ marriage to Eudocia is simply the reverse type.

Коронацията на императора върху монети

от средния византийски период:
пример за християнска политическа
теология (Х–средата на ХІ в.)

Вангелис Маладакис (Тесалоники)

В статията се изследва функцията на иконографията на коронацията

на императора от Христос и Дева Мария върху византийските монети –
от тяхното появяване в началото на Х в. до средата на ХІ в.
Цялата система на политическата теология, разработена в рамките
на византийското мислене, е отразена в изкуството на императорския
двор. През периода на Македонската династия преките референции към
пропорциите на „небесното царство“ в изкуството на императорския
двор са станали по-чести и систематични. В рамките на тези пропорции
приемането и разпространението на иконографията на коронацията на
императора получава важно място в политическата теология.
Що се отнася до изкуството на монетите по-специално, трябва да бъде
отбелязано, че в центъра на византийската монетна система е идеята за
императора. Нейният основен и обединяващ фактор, императорската
институция, се съдържа в контекста на централизираната система. При

359
 Vangelis Maladakis • The coronation of the emperor on middle byzantine...

описанията на коронацията императорът се възприема по-скоро като

символ на институция, отколкото като управляващ човек, защото, след
като управляващият човек стане представител на бога чрез коронацията,
неговият персонален образ губи своето значение.
Византийската политическа идеология легитимира своята власт като
предоставена от бога и я налага de jure на гражданите. Приемането от
правна, а следователно и от фактическа гледна точка на тази идея и на
легитимността на неговата върховна власт, предоставена от бог, произти­
ча от склонността на средновековния начин на мислене да възприема
състоянието на света като мистично и трансцедентно. Императорът
се характеризира като θείος, а „важната разлика между богоизбрания
владетел и Христос владетеля е, че първият става Deus per gratiam, а
вторията е Deus per naturam“.
Концепцията за защитата на легитимността на династията и на уна­
следяването на трона в постиконоборческата епоха е трябвало да бъде
разпространена не само сред аристократите от вътрешността на страна
и враговете в чужбина, но също и сред по-нисшите маси на общест­вото,
както и сред по-широки социални групи. Освен в писмените текстове,
идеята за богоизбрания император и пазител на държавата и ре­лигия­та
е била разпространявана чрез монетите и е била насочена към потен­
циални узурпатори на държавната власт и на императорския трон.
Очевидно не е било изненадващо, че водещите фигури от византий­
ските императори от средния византийски период, с изключение на
Александър, Роман I Лакапин, Йоан I Цимисхи, Романос III Аргир,
Михаил VI Стратиотик, Константин X Дукас и Роман IV Диоген, са
из­брали да бъдат изобразени короновани от Христос или Дева Мария
в произведения на изкуството и по-специално върху монети. Тук се
обсъжда фигурална encomia, която включва принципа, върху който се
основава императорската пропаганда заедно с вече популярния метод за
възхваляване в писмени текстове.

Превод от английски език на Людмила Ковачева

360