Madgearu Church

8/8/2019 Madgearu Church

1/15

THECHURCHORGANIZATION TTHELOWERDANUBEBETWEENN AND 1()2()

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

Severalstudieson the ByzantineChurchorganizationat the Lowwerepublishedn the ast25years.New sealswere oundand oldersoreinterpreted.The discussionwasopenby theAustrianByzantinistwemhis shoitpaperon the nterpretationndchronology f the eadsealshato the archbishop eorge f Bulgarial.He expressedhe dea hatGeorheadof the archbishopricreated y Tzirniskes t Dristrawith thepurposthe former Bulgarianpahiarchate.A similar point of view was indeproposed y theBulgarian istorianPavelGeorgievn his special apenihe studtdedicatedo theChurch rganizationf theBulgar


2/15

next nihe studtdedicated

AlexandiuMadgearu

Bamea ointedout immediatelyhis discoverynto a shortpaperdedicsurvivalof thecity Tomisand o its metroPolitaneatdudng he 7th-10Finally, he last opinion belongs o P. Diaconuz, ho made someBarnea'saper.With this occasione resumedhe previousdiscussioChurchorganizationstablishedyJohnTzimiskes.However,here s still much o do asconcernshe knowledge f torganizationn Paradunavon.hepresent tudy ries o Sivea comprehof thefi$t periodof the Churchorganization stablishedy theByzanregions onqueredrom Bulgaria. henew sourcesnd he new nterPrmakingpossible nother pproach f theperiodbetween 71and hemoBasil I hascreatedheautocephalousrchdiocesef Ochrida.Theold Churchorganizationeasedo existbetweenhe LowerDthe Balkan ange n the same ime with the town life, in the fust decadcentury.The Avar and Slavic nvasions ed to the gradual withdr


3/15

Th Chur.h Orqanizrtionat th Inwer Drnube between97l and 1m0

and Pliskaattesthime.Stephanosuled belore976,becauset is knownchanged rom thevery beginning he name onrnoupolisn Preslao. e syactedagainstall thathisenemyTzimiskesdidto.The statusof the Bulgawas lessened from an autocephalouspatriarchate to a mehosubordinatedo Constantinople. he political significance f this act s oByzantine reconquista implied the integration of the local churPaFiarchate f Constantinople.PeEeDiaconuhasshown hat he our sealswhichbelongedo a ceatdtiepisl


4/15

Alarndru Madge.tu

second dict(sigilli,on)rom May1020 rantsd o thearchbishopricf Ochrotherhan4 theByzantine ishopric f Drista inheritedhe ormerBulgariaDrisha was also the residenceof a theme commander'Johnestablishedwo provincesat the Lower Danube n 971:WestemMesothe northemDobrudja)and Dristra (in the southern egion).Thethemwas later unified with the province of Thrace.Few years after theoffensiveof 1000-1001,hethemeof Drishawas detachedromThraceangreater province together with the former Westem MesopotamiaPandunauon as not yet established. heprovincekept the nameof thcitys. The sealsof Theodore, imil,l:y'.rosnd sttateguol Dristraaredatetwo decadesof the 11s centuryle.Another stroteSosf Dristra was rSkyliEes n 1017 Tzitzikios)m.t seemshattheprovinceof Dristrawas sameperiod by a certainConstantine'..)Politet patikios andkntcpanwhosesealwas recentlyPublished2r.


5/15

Tb. Churh Orgddz.tion 4 th. lorv.t DaNbt hw..n 97l md lom

dated n the last decades f the 10tt' entury and at the beginningof therestorationof the metropolitanseatof Tomis(which existedn the 5tt'cenbe taken into considerationonly since ohn Tzimiskes.A later datecentury,after the reign of Basil I, is lessprobable,becausehe sealsyParchaeologicalesearches adeat Constanla id not displayed elicsablea greatdevelopmentof this center.However, t is clear that this settrevivedaround hemid 10t' cenfury2'.on Bameabelievedhat Tomis sutown during the 7dL10thenturies2s,ut his point of view is not foundedargumentof thepresence f the name orris in the chronicleof Nikephowith evenboccurredat thebeginningof the 8h century s mistakenx.P.DiaconusupposedhatJohnTzirniskes ascreated he mehoPoTomis n the same ime with that of Ioannoupolis-Preslavz.t is still pothe seat of Tomis was founded by a bansfer from Preslav,decidedb


6/15

AlexandrnMadcearu

The bishopric of Dristra was subordinated o this metropolitremainedn this structureuntil 1020,whenthe metropolitanbishopricoabolished. ristranextbecamehe mainurbanandrelieious ent;r n tof ParadunavoryhileTomis/Constantiaeclined oonlTherefore, John Tzirniskes organized a mehopolitan seat(Ioannoupolis)n theterritoryconqueredy him from Bulgaria.We sthis seatwas movedat Constantan 986or even n 976,as an epaprovince Westem Mesopotamia,which remainedByzantineafLrmehopolitan eatsurvivedalter1000, ut not alsoafter1020, ecausBasil I datedMay 1020 oesnot record i. (Thisedictmentionsor Dothebishopric f Dristra).Weconsiderhat themehopolitan eatof Tomiswasabolishedn 1establishmentf theprovinceParadunavonndin relationwith the chanin the organizationof the archbishopric f Ochrida(seebelow).The p


7/15

The Church Organizationat th Lower Drnube between971and 1020

Theactionsdecidedby Basil I are knownfrom the threeedic7019-102032.nfortunately,none of them was preservedn original.only theconlirmation ivenby MichaelVIII Palaeologusn August127in itsturn n three opieswritten n the16th-17thenturiess. ythis eassupposehat somenameswereerroneouslyransmitted.heedictswethe supplication f the archbishopohn.He requestedheexactdelimidiocese nd the approval or exemption uomoikomodionor certainpriests (/


8/15

Alanndru Madgearu

decided o abrogateheprivilegesgrantedby Basil I and to replace hearchbishopohnwith theGreekLeory he BulgariansevoltedagainsthimAccording o the edict of May 1020,Dristrawas the singlebishoeastempart of the Paradunavonheme,while the westemareawassubibishopric f Vidin.Thebishopof Dristrahad had the right to have n his service4040 paroikoiexemptedrom the land tax. No namesof parishesare givenbut it is specified hat this diocesehasseveralkasfra.Thereare no proexistenceof other bishoprics n Dobrudja,other than Dristra, in thedecades f the 11thcentury.Thebishopricof Axiopolis (attestedo the 1ltt'centurys)was mostprobable reatedater,when he town life deParadunavonNo dear proofs exist for a bishop at Carvtr4 not evesupposedome esearchers)3e.The westernpart of Paradunavonwas put under the jurisdict


9/15

The Church Organization t lh Lower Danubebetween971 nd 1m0

Two points of view were expressedn the dateof the war: 101028-1034. ome researchersrzre supporting the later chronologybeaccordswith the information hat Achtum was allied with the "Greconsequence/hey consider hat the war againstAchtumwas possibleoperiod of decline of the Byzantinepower,after 1025.Thebig problemwas indeed Achtum allied with the ByzantineEmpire?Things are nbecausehe relation recorded n the tenth chapterof Legendaajor Sanctseveralconfusionsandanachronisms, hich are distortingthe chronolocontextof the events.For nstance, doubtful informationsays hat Achtthe forhesses everin ndVidin.This s an anach,ronismread by hansposfrom the 13o-14nenturies, henboth ortresses elongedo Hungary. Asfact, no fortsessexisted at Severin during the 10trL11tt'enturies).HoByzantinearmy conqueredVidin in 1002.This means hat it is not pmastership f Achtum overVidinafter1002. hemost mporhntobjectiono


10/15

Alct|ndtu M.dg..ru

Somehistoriansrs ustain ndeed hat the relation rom chapter10oMa.1'orontainsa graveanachLronism.n their opinion,the "Greeks"are inBulgarians,whosenamewas replacedbecausehe former Bulgarianstatelong time a Byzantine erritory when the text was written (the end ocentury).The name"Greeks"was n this casea genericdesignationor thmonks, without ethnictraits. It follows that the date of the war betweeand Stephen should beplacedaround 1002.TheattackagainstGlad (93first part of a south-Danubian ffensivedirected oward the Morava vallsameway, theattackagainstAchtum was ust an episodeof a greatercamby Stephen againstBulgaria n 1002.Two coalitions were formed in the Danubian area in 1000-agglessorswere the Byzantine Empire and Hungary (a young staexpansional mbitionshaveiustbegan).Both ntended o take over thecothis area.On the other side was Bulgaria,most probablyhelped by the PIn this conllict, the placeof the duchy led by Achtum in the Banat wa


11/15

The Church Organization t the LowerDanubebtweng7l .nd 10m

idntifid in tle neighbourhoodof Branitevo:Moptiproro6 Morava/MXOevtdpopoq Smederevo/Semendria),p6rc (Grocka) and Bp(Brodskopolje).he place arpud),uyyuwas not identified.The sixtBfororogor Arpforcogst.. Gy6ni,whomadea careful tudyof the edicthatDiblskosasa name nheritedrom heancient ibiscass2.t)ibiskc was searcld sonewherenear the river Timig (Tibiscuproposedts ocation t Cuvin,based n argumentshatwill bepresentThe locationat Jupa-fibiscumwas sustainedby many HunRomanianhistorianss3. thers believed that Dibiskos should beTimi$oarasl,ecausehis wasan mportantown,since he 12tt' enturyobservehat this town was recordedn the sources,ince1212,withThcmes, emeq r Tymesss.onstantinePorphyrogenitusransmitted heof therivels nameat the middleof the 10thcentury Trpionq)s.This


12/15

AlxandruM.dcearu

More suitableseems o be the locationat Jupa-Tibiscum.his supposiargued,althoughsome actscansupport t. Jupas locatednearCaranseimportantRomarrianentren the mediaevalBanat a lourishing own ducmtury)s7.Placedat the crossing f two roads hat reachedhe south-Da@yCema valley and by the basinCarag-Ezeriq),aransebegs not veBranidevo foueer, it is rrue rear than Timitoara. (We should remcomrumicationBranidevo Timi;oarawould be hinderedby the marshexistedbefore he Modem Ages southwardsof Timiqoara. imigoarawtoward the Muregvalley,not toward the Danube).The ocationof Dibisseemsmore ikely than at Timigoara. owever, he archaeologicalesearanyproofs or the ocationof this chuch cenheatJupas.Wepreviouslyadmittedsehe ocationof DibiskosatJupaas t wassthosestudiesmentioned bove. n fact,acareful nquiryshows hat the mosolutionwas hat firct givenby M. Gy6ni.A Greekchroniclerom 1519 a


13/15

The ChurchOrganiz:tion.t the lrwer D.nube between97l rnd 1020

We would like to rernind that the edict of Basil II conffumedasituatiorLwhich is said to be contemporary o the reignof Samuel. n thparish of Dbiskm betonged o the Bulgariandiocese f Branidevgat the10o century and in the first yearsof the 1lth century. BecauseCuvinbridgeheadn front of Smederevo nd Morava, he existence f this paable o provethe extension f this diocesenside he Banat.

On the other han4 it is moreprobable hat the Banat or at least tpart, where severalorthodox churches rom the 11th-12thenturiesareCenad,PAncota, dvdniruMiniq, Mocte4 Pecica, zitreg)62asunder themehopolitan ishopricof Tourkia,of Greek ite (asu{fraganef the Constapatriarchy and not of the archbishopric oI Ochrida). This mehopinherited the older bishopric ounded by Hierotheos,n the mid 10tn ehave been already shown into anotherstudy that the tenitory of the H


14/15


15/15

ThChul.h Orgriiz.tion .t th. L,owcr r[sb. Hw.cn 97l .nd lom

BZ:"Bvzantinische eitschriJt",MtinchenEB: fiudes Balkaniques",ofiaEBP:EtudesWzantinis t posFbyzantires,ucurettiJOB: Jahbuchder Osterreichischenyzantinistik",WienMB: MitropoliaBanatului", imitoaraRdI:"Revistade storie", Bucure$tiRESEE:RevuedesEtudesSud-Est uop6ennes", ucue$tiRI:"Revistaistorici", BucuregtiSCIVA: Studii qicercetari e storievechegiarheologie",BucuregtiSMIM:"Studii qimaterialede storie medie",BucuregtiST: Studiiteologice", ucue$tiZRVI: ZbomikRadova izantololkognstituta",Belgad

Documents

Madgearu Church