276
THE MISSIONARY TASK
OF THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR
P. CHRISTOU/Thessaloniki
Planche X. Repers de la buUe precedent(!.
18
The Byzantine State demonstrated a remarkable mIssionary actIvity: It promoted the Christian faith throughout half the countries of
Europe and carried it into the depths of Asia and Africa. And together
with Christianity it also transplanted civilization. The achievements
of that activity were partly reversed in the subsequent course of history,
but what remained of them is sufficient to forestall the tendency of historians to disregard them.
A seemingly curious phenomenon is to be observed, which, if not properly evaluated, may bring about a wrong estimation of the importance
of the missionary work of the Byzantines. It is the fact that the initiative
in this field always lay with the administration, in fact the emperor
himself and not the Church.
The mission of Cyril and Methodius to Moravia is a characteristic
example. As related in The Life of Cyril I the sovereign of that country,
Rastislav, sent a delegation to emperor Michael III with a letter declaring that the Moravian people had renounced paganism and now adhered to the Christian rule, but there was no miln suitable to teach them the
true faith. «Despatch then, Sire, such a bishop and teacher, for it is from
you that the good rule is communicated to every country». The emperor
then after consultation summoned Constantine the Philosopher, as Cyril
was called, and entrusted him with the leadership of the mission but
he remonstrated that he would be willing to go to that country only
provided the Moravians had an alphabet suited to their language. The
emperor then made the following interesting remark: «My grand-father,
my father and many others searched but found none. How could I succeed
in this ?) And the account goes on with the narration of the wonderful
invention of the slavonic alphabet by Cyril himself and the subsequent
departure of the missionary group to Moravia (863 A. D.).
It is clear from this text that not only in this particular case the patriarchal throne was then occupied by a figure of no less prestige and
ability than that of Photius, was it the emperor who was in complete
command, but also that Michael did nothing but follow an
old tradition on the subject. The manifold endeavours which brought
1. Life of Constantine the Philosopher 14.
The Missionary
P. K. Christou
280
into the christian community numerous peoples of diverse orlglll III
Europe, Africa and Asia go to the credit of emperor Justinian 2.
It was a work of emperor Heraclius the conversion to Christianity
of the Southern Slavs, including the Croatians, who, according to Constantine the Porphyrogennetus, were prosetylized (~bothby sending from Rome
as well as ordaining archbishops and bishops and presbyters and deacons
from amongst them» 3. Other Slavonic tribes of Dalmatia were converted
by Basil I, the Macedonian, who also despatched (~aroyal dignitary accompanied by priests and baptized them alII>4. The same policy was
applied in the cases of the conversion of the Bulgarians and the Russians
and this can be witnessed in every other related case. Historical sources
invariably ascribe the initiative for missionary work to the empe! Jr,
completely ignoring the leaders of the Church.
There is always an easy answer at hand to the question of how such
an initiative of the sovereign of Byzantium in a field of purely religious
nature can be explained. The promotion of the Christian faith, it can be
said, constituted an excellent pretext for advancing the political designs
of Byzantium. That is the reason why the emperors, instead of leaving
this work in the hands of the leaders of the Church, undertook it themselves. They thus had a free hand to select the right men, apparently
as missionaries but, in reality, as agents of Byzantium 6.
The trouble with this answer is that it remains a theory, while, on
the other hand, it is refuted by the facts. To return to the case of Cyril
and Methodius, it wiJl be argued that if these able and competent missionaries had been mere agents of the Byzantine government, then all their
efforts would have been aimed chiefly elsewhere, namely, the promotion
of the Greek language among the Slavs, establishing branches of the Greek
Church in Central Europe, and propagating the expansion of the Byzantine rule in that area. How could these men practice exactly the opposite
by striving for the introduction of the slavonic language in the worship
of God, by founding independent churches wherever they worked, and
by willingly and effectively co-operating with the local political rulers 6 ?
2. Cf. the episodes or this achievement in Procopius, De bellis I, 18, 47; I, 19,
36. VI, 14, 33. De aedificiis III, 6, 196; VI, 2, 17 and elsewhere.
3. Ad Romanum filium, Bonn, 148.
4. Ibid 129.
5. cr. e.g. Bruckner,
35 rr.
6. cr. P. Christou,
Die Wahrheit
fiher die Slapapostel,
Tubingen
1913,
iE(!a:n:oGToAij.
Kv(!iUov
"al
Me/i66ov
p.
el.
281
Emperor
This remark, properly adjusted, is also true of all other byzantine
missions. The theory therefore according to which the missionary work
of the Byzantine Empire was political in character cannot be seriously
supported. Now, if the expansion of Christianity happened to serve
incidentally other interests of Byzantium as weH, this by no means constitutes the reason why the emperors undertook this work, but merely
helps to explain the great fervour with which the work was accomplished.
One cannot overlook the difficulties which would arise if the Church
were to undertake this task, considering the condition of the Church
itself. Firstly there was the division of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Just to limit ourselves to one point, let it be noted that any missionary
activity in Asia would come under the Patriarchate of Constantinople
if it took place in the Caucasus, under the Patriarchate
of Antioch
if it was carried out in Mesopotamia and under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem if in Arabia. Secondly there were no more apostles free from any
ecclesiastical bonds to dedicate themselves to missionary work, while
the monks of the East devoted their time either to their personal spiritual culture in solitude or to social work in the cities, but anyway not
to missionary work. Finally the Church demonstrated an inability to
face problems of political character, which usually arise in the course
of missionary work in foreign countries. Those preaching a religion which
is still little known, can travel far and wide without being very conspicuous. But those preaching a religion which has attained official recognition and is related to a glorious empire, easily become the centre of
attention and even suspicion when working in alien countries. On the
other hand foreign rulers while perhaps reluctant to receive delegates
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were by political necessity constrained to accept and occasionally even to invite church delegates of the
powerful empire of Constantinople. It is only under this light that certain measures of the Byzantine state, not purely missionary, can be
explained. Thus it was the emperor Michael III - to mention only one
case - and not the patriarch who, in the second half of the ninth century, sent forth Photius and later Cyril to the Chalifate of Bagdad to
negotiate certain affairs of the local Christians.
These conditions facilitated the growth of the theory concerning
the apostolic character of the emperor, which constitutes part of the
general concept of christian theology.
T1}v
((Ai e:n:u5/(b~EI' Tij.
Task of the Byzantine
KEVT(!I"YiV EiJ(!dJ:n:1]1'JJ,K v(!iAAtp "al
pp. 10 - 28.
M EBooirp,
1'61-'0<;
/;6PTIO<;,
Thessalonild
1966,
282
P. K. Christou
The Missionary
Quite in accordance with their habit to look for analogies between
things heavenly and things terrestrial, the Byzantines saw in their earthly
empire an image of the kingdom of God: «~IX(nAdlX flh oov dxov(~e:~
xp&:ro~
8e:ou»,
according to the words of Nicephoros Blemmydes 7.
It was Origen who had pionneered along this path in a most interesting
passage of his, where he speaks in terms of macropolis and micropolis 8.
And naturally the earthly king is a true image of the heavenly king 8.
Besides it was from Him that the king derived his power, as the Byzantines were convinced, and this conviction was given its final form during
the 4th century following a whole series of formulations dating back
to the days of the Old Testament and as recently as Eusebius. Constantine the Great confesses to labouring under a feeling of great responsibility towards God 10, arising from his belief that it was God who had
invested him with ruling powers over all earthly things ll. He also declared his firm conviction)hat he was appointed and appropriately instructed by God for the realization of His will on earth. But as it was a common belief among the Byzantines that royal power originated (,Dei gratia),
and this might well be thought to conflict with the accepted doctrine
of the hereditary succession to the throne, the emperor Constantine
Porphyrogennetus saw to it that the two beliefs were incompatible with
the divine choice, because this is accomplished prenatally in the maternal
womb, «XlXe' o"n 1X\)"r6~ O'e: t;e:M;IXTO XIXL ,ho fL~TplX~ ,xcpwp~O'e: XlXt ~v IXOTOU ~1XO"~AdIXV w~ ,xYlXeo~ ll7tEp 7t(XVTIX~ O'ot E8wxe:v» 12. And it was only
natural that the authority granted also included the administration of
the affairs of the Church in so far as they concerned this world.
It was not long afterwards this doctrine was liturgically ratified 13.
Ever since the year 450 or at least 457 A.D., the coronation, this formal
ceremony of the emperor's induction was performed by the patriarch,
by placing the royal crown on the sovereign's head. After the 7th
7.• BctcnAdet (llv oov dxov[~&t xp,h~ 0&ou., Nicephorus
officiis 2, PG 142, 659.
8. Contra Ce/sum 8, 74, GCS II, p, 291.
Blemmydes,
De regis
9. Eusebius of Caesaria, Tricennalia 3, GCS p. 201t Dialogue De scientia PoUtica, Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, 2, 571 - 609, ch. 5, 13.
10. Ad Aelafium 14, 65 ft, H. von Soden - H. von Campenhausen,
Urkunden
zur Entstehungsgeschichte
des Donatismus, in Lietzmann,
Kleine Texte, 122, Berlin
1950.
11. Eusebius of Caesaria, De vita Constantini 2, 28.
12. Ad Romanum filium, Bonn, p. 67.
13. O. Treitinger,
Die ostromische Kaiser- und Reichsidee,
Jena,
1938;
Aic.
.:
Task of the Byzantine
Emperor
283
century this ceremony took place in the Church of Saint Sophia. Eventually the religious character of the coronation was strongly emphasized by the introduction of such practices as the emperor's obligation
to a public declaration of faith 14 and his being anointed with chrism.
Thus the emperor was considered and called (,ee:01tp6~A'YJTO~» and ('XP~O'TOq) as having been smeared with holy oil.
The entire ceremony of the coronation corresponded to that of
the ordination of clergymen, though it did not invest the Emperor
with clerical rights, i. e. with the right of performing sacraments. Royalty
and priesthood were two offices clearly distinguished from each other in
Byzantium, where not only the title of pontifex m'aximus borne by the
roman emperor had been relinquished, but also the theory concerning authority (,after the order of Melchisedec,),which had subsequently been adopted, was later rejected 16. This last theory prevailed only for a short time
during the 5th century, and the fact that certain emperors during the
7th and 8th centuries persistently claimed the right to be considered
as heads of the Church testifies to its having been already renounced.
This division of the authorities was solemnly accepted and proclaimed by the Byzantine State. Justinian writes that «fLey~O"'t"IX tv ,xvepW1tO~~
EO"'t"t 8wpIX
8e:ou
1tlXpOC"I"'ij~ ocvwe~v
8~ofLevlX
cp~AIXVepW1t(IX~, le:pwaUV"rJ
which, both deriving from the same source, adorn human
life. Of these the one applies to the divine while the other to human
affairs 16. This is even more definitely stated in the «Epanagogue»,
according to which, the emperor and the patriarch administer two
distinctly different but nevertheless closely connected institutions the
perfect harmony of which bring forth peace and prosperity 17. Thus the
king and the patriarch, these earthly images of Chrigt, each bore his
own special office, both of which -royal and priestly- are jointly borne
by Christ himself.
The byzantine emperor, therefore, neither was a priest, nor was
he considered as such. Neither was he a layman, however, as an ordinary
member of the congregation could not possibly hold such a prominent
Te: XlXt ~IXO'~AdlX),
Christophopoulou,
'E"J.oy/J, dvayoeevOt. "al rn:bpt. TOU fJvCa.'TlVOV avrn"earoQo.,
Ilpctx-r,y.a 'Axct81JfLlctr;'A61JvC:;;v,
22, 1956.
14. G. Codinus, De officiis, Bonn, 87.
15. Cr. Pope Gelasius, Tractatu$ IV, II. ed. Thiel, p. 567 r. Maximus the Confessor,
Relatio motionis, PG 90, 117.
16. Novella 6, preface.
17. 2,8. Zach. von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum 4, Leipzig, 1865, p. 183.
284
P. K. Christou
The Missionary
position in it. The emperor did hold a certain high rank in the Church,
aJthough an efforts to find an appropriate
title defining his position
were finalJy of no avail. The title of (<XOIVO~
btlO"Xo1to~»suggested by Euwhile that
sebius 18 did not prevail, as it sounded too ecclesiastical,
of «rnLOTrJfloVctPx'1J9)
19 which was widely used much later, was soon discarded because it rendered the emperor an officer of law and order.
The title of «apostle» sounded more appropriate
to the Byzantines and it was officiaJly conferred upon Constantine
the Great, both
in the hymn below dedicated
to him and elsewhere.
((Tou CITOLUPOU
crou '1"0'1-rU1tO'l
tV OUPOL'Iij>
6EOLO"ctflE'IO~
TI)v x"-ijcrL'I
xoct w~ 0 II OLUAO~
oux t~ cb6pw1t(,)'1Ik~ctflE'IO~
o tV ~otcrLAEUcrIV
cX1t6cr'l"oA6~
crou, KUPLE,
~otcrLAEUOUcrot'l
1t6AIV
-.n X,ELplcrou 1totpe6E'I"o'
~v 1tEplcrw~E
8LeX1tot'l'l"0';tV dp~vn
7tpEcr~dotL~-rij~ 0EO'l"6xou,
20.
fl6vE CPLAct'l6pW1tE»
The Gospel of St. Matthew
(28, 29) ends with
Jesus Christ's
com-
mandment
to the apostles to go forth and by preaching make disciples
of aJI the heathens. Now that there were no more apostles, and each bishop
limited his activity to his own diocese, it seemed that it was the
emperor who had inherited the duty of organizing missions. This was
probably the aspect expressed in the title «XOLVO~
t7t[crX07tO~»as defining
the apostolic faculty of the emperor and denoting not a bishop general,
as it is usuaJly interpreted,
but a bishop with no territorial limitations,
a missionary bishop.
And ever since the founding of the Byzantine Empire, the emperor
demonstrated
by his deeds that he reany was heir to these duties. Con18. De vita Conslantini I, 44. Cf. J. A. Straub,
in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 21 (1967) 39 - 55.
285
Emperor
stantine the Great, in one aspect, can truly be considered to have defi·
nitely brought about the christianization
of the whole empire as wen
as to have promoted the Christian faith beyond its boundaries.
He was
therefore a true successor to the task of the apostles. Such is the view
expressed among others in the Letter to Theophilus, a spurious
text
attribu ted to John of Damascus: ((0 tV ~OLO"LAEUcrL
'l"OUXpLcr'l"OU
cX1t6cr'l"OAO~
0 Meyot~ ...
w~ cr-rUAOV
1tUPcrocpotvij
TI)'1yvoocrL'I-rij~IJ1tEpoucrlot~
KwVcr'l"otV'I"L'IO~
xoct ~WotPX,LXij~
oflooucrlou TpLct8o~'l"OL~7tepOLO"LV
t~e1tEfl<¥Ev))21.
It is pointed out that this is not the case of a metaphorical
use of
the title due to the similarity of the missionary achievements
of Constantine and the rest of the emperors, to those of the apostles. Wishing
to make it clear that Constantine's
mission originated
from God he
compares his summons to that of St. Paul. And it is this summons,
not his actions, which gave the emperor his missionary
taculty. The
model of a top apostle is also used in relation to the emperor in the
preface of Ecloga 22, in which there is even a comparison
between the
royaJ and the apostolic administration:
(('E1td OU'l '1"0Xpct'l"O~-rij~ ~otcrLAdot~~flLV tYx.ELplcrot~,w~ 'Y)u86x'Y)
crE, 8ELYf.lot
'l"OU'I"O
-rij~ tV cp6~<p1tpO~otU'I"O'l
cXYotrd]crEW~
~floo'l t1tOL~crOL'I"O
XOL'I"eX
IIe'l"pov, TI)v XOPUCPOLLO'I"ct'!"'Y)'1
'1"00'1 cX1tocr'l"6AWV
cXxp6'!"'Y)'I"ot,
7tOLflOLl'lELV
XEAEUcrot~
'1"0 1tLcr~6'1"ot'l"oV
7tOLflVLO'l
... ». Besides the
iconoclastic
Synod of 754 names the kings «tCPotfllMOU~
'l"ooVcX7tocr'l"6AWV,
23.
w~ IJ1tO0wu opLcr6ev'I"ot~
xoct IJ1tO'l"OUII VEUfll7.'I"OC;
crocpLcr6ev'I"I7.~»
The title of «apostle» is certainly more honourable than that of the
«bishop», in as much as it includes an the duties of an archbishop.
Were it to be bestowed upon the emperor, as the sole apostle, it might
involve his domination
over the Church. And this is the reason why
this title, too, failed to prevail. Nevertheless
it became permanently
a common conviction that it was the emperor's apostolic duty to act
in the interests of the Christian faith within as wen as beyond the boundaries of the realm.
These ecclesiastical duties of the Emperor emanated from the rank
he bore in the Church, which is best expressed in the phrase «tV XPLcr'l"ij>'l"ij>0Eij> 1tLcr'l"0~~otcrLAEUq).
It can be said that of an the duties related to this title the most
important
«Constantine
Task of the Byzantine
one was the missionary.
By stating
in his declarations
of
as XOtvO<;bdaxo7to<;.,
19. Cr. B. Stefanides, «01 8pot'rntO"TI)[L1j' Xot!'e7ttO"TIj[Lov<xpX1j<;'
ev Bu~ot.•• (<p», 'E7ttTIjPV;'ETottp. BU~otVTtVwV
!:7tOU~WV,7 (1930) 153 - 158.
20. Apolytikion on St. Constantine's
day, Menaion 21st of May. Cr. The Synaxarion and the Doxastican of aposticha of vespers, in which he is named an «IO"ot71:6O"To),<><;
•.
21.
22.
Leipzig,
23.
Epistola ad Theophilum, 3, PG 95, 348BC.
Zach. 'Ion Lingenthal,
Collectia librorum
1852, p. 10.
Mansi, Sacr. Conci!. Collectio, 13, 225.
juris
graecoromani
ineditorum,
286
P. K. Christou
faith before being crowned by the patriarch that he <<Will
be a defender
and an avenger of the ChurcID)24, he meant that he would promote
its work from every aspect, both positive and negative, defending it
against its enemies and spreading the faih tamong the pagans.
This missionary work was not performed without the co-operations
of the Church. It was so compJicated a task that no civil authority
could ever accomplish it. It included the training of the missionaries,
the organizing of particular missions, the catechism of converts and
the establishing of new Churches. The emperor was responsible for only
the second of these, namely that of organizing the missions, which was
doubtless the most difficult of aU. On the whole, a remarkable spirit
of co-operation invariably prevailed between the Church and the State.
We have a striking example of this in the christening of Boris of Bulgaria, during which, patriarch Photius was the baptiser while emperor
Michael acted as god-father. Whenever the emperor himself took the
initiative he acted, as shown above, in his capacity of a dignitary of
the Church and on its behalf, i.e. not as the emperor but as a king
faithfuJ to Christ. This is the reason why he never acted according to
what was prescribed by the political interests of Byzantium. It wouJd
have been only a walk-over for emperor Michael III to occupy Boris's
Bulgaria but he refrained from it. He was satisfied with christianizing
its people and bringing them into the civilized world. The emperor
performed his missionary task by adhering to strictly ecclesiastica]
criterions, namely those of the Greek Orthodox Church which are derived
from its ideals of a confederate union.
Thus an independent Church was established in each and every
country converted to Christianity, which recognized the local language
and remained under the rule of the local regime. It was this policy
which gave birth to the modern Orthodoxy with its numerous autocephalous Churches, loosely connected to each other from the point of
view of organization but completely united from the aspect of dogma
and liturgy.
24. G. Codinus, De officiis, Bonn, 87. cr. Epanogoge, 1,4, Zach. von Lingenthal,
Jus graecoromanum 4, p. 181.
L' TDEE
IMPERIALE
ET LA TRADITION
V ASILKA
A BYZANCE
ETATIQUE
BULGARE
TAPKOV A - ZAIMOV A ;Sofia