The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

"Heavenly" and "Terrestrial" in the Byzantine model of the imperial power



UDK 321.1

"HEAVENLY" And "TERRESTRIAL" In the BYZANTINE MODEL of the IMPERIAL POWER

Belgorod

university

e-mail: pen-skoy@bsu.edu.ru

T.M. Penskaya

In article the questions connected with a problem of formation and development of the Byzantine model of the imperial power are considered. The basis for work was results of a research of a ratio in this model of two beginnings - religious and secular, "heavenly" and "terrestrial" which represented respectively iudeo-Christian and Roman and Hellenistic concepts of supreme authority are, each of which the roots consigned to the distant past. It is noted that the attempt of the Byzantine thinkers to connect two these began, different in the nature and difficult on the internal structure, resulted in discrepancy of the most Byzantine model of the imperial power. It is shown that Byzantines, realizing this discrepancy, tried to find a way out of this situation, having processed the Roman political model which got to them in inheritance in Christian spirit. At the same time they divided the emperor as the person invested by supreme authority and the Emperor operating the terrestrial kingdom just as the Lord runs the Kingdom of Heaven.

The empire which arose on ruins of the Risky empire Byzantine throughout the most part of the Middle Ages acted as an embodiment of glory and traditions of "Shabby Rome", a role model and a subject at the same time of both honoring, and hatred from the barbaric states surrounding it. It is realized or not, but they in the policy anyway sought to imitate the empire. First of all it concerned the power of the monarch as christian teaching recognized that the monarchy is the ideal form of government, terrestrial reflection of heavenly autocracy. The emperor took in political system of the Byzantine state the central place - "... the state in the Middle Ages was personified in the identity of the monarch..." 1, both for Byzantines, and for their neighbors Imperiya first of all appeared in an image of the Constantinople emperor. Studying the Byzantine model of the power of the monarch represents therefore considerable interest as sample on which barbarians equaled, forming the religiouspolitical doctrine and, as a result, the system of the state institutes. The analysis of characteristic features of the Byzantine model of the imperial power helps to understand features of folding of medieval outlook, thus, better.

The idea of the Supreme governor originating in an antique era as about "the divine husband" and about the sacral nature of its power was the cornerstone of the Byzantine concept of supreme authority. The same look was inherent also in medieval society. The French historian M. Blok noted that "a .predstavleniye about the king as about the sacred figure executed special forces, combining both the religious relation, and ma-gicheski-mystical was in fact definition of a socio-political role of kings, they were "leaders of the people"." 2. At the same time, as the French linguist E. Benve-nist specified, in the Indo-European world in an extreme antiquity there were various ideas of the tsar and throne. On its outskirts, namely in the Celtic, Latin and Indo-Aryan worlds, the tsar was a deity [See, for example: Manu's laws. VII. 8]. He was first of all Greeks' and Germans person, received throne from the Supreme gods together with corresponding it atributami3.

1 G.G. Litavrin Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Russia (IX - the beginning of the 12th century). - SPb.: Aleteya,
2000. -Page 328.
2 Block M. Feudal society. - M.: Publishing house of Sabashnikov, 2003. - Page 374.
3 Benvenist. AA. Dictionary of Indo-European social terms. - M.: Publishing group "Progress", "Univers", 1995. - Page 261, 263.

The careful analysis of the Byzantine religiouspolitical theory shows that in it traces of both the Latin, and Greek approaches to assessment of throne imposed on Christian tradition are traced. Of course, for first Christians the emperor could not be either God, or the demigod, however they considered the emperor as the protege Gospod. Paul the Apostle wrote that "the .nachalnik is Bozhy the servant, you on good... It not in vain carries a sword: he is Bozhy the servant, revenge-tel in punishment doing angry..." [Rome 13, 4]. Thus, the Roman emperor for Christians was not just a person, but the performer of Divine will. However it for the Roman tradition was insufficiently. Representations of rather special relations of the emperor and gods were widespread in the Roman Empire from the very beginning of its existence. Svetony in Caesar's biography said about it, for example, [Suet. Div. Iul. 6, 76, 88]. However at the same time the historian emphasized that Caesar at all not for desire to assimilate to gods was killed, and on suspicion of aspiration to appropriate throne. Caesar's example was infectious. So, Octavian Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian and Tit were subjected to idolization, Galba built the sort on the father to Jupiter, and on mother - to the spouse of the Cretan tsar Mi nose Paxifaye. All this did not cause any rejection among Romans [See, for example: SHA. Aurel. XLI. 2, 13]. Thus, soon enough direct idolization of emperors in Rome became rather a tradition, than a rare exception. And such relation to construction of the mortal person in a rank of the deity was not the privilege of exclusively rough plebs at all. Antique intellectuals brought under idolization of the emperor a rational explanation [See, for example: Plut. Mor. VIII. I. 3].

So, the emperor's cult as god settled in the Roman political tradition and did not cause antipathy in the Roman society. First Christians, being loyal citizens of Imperiya, silently agreed with existence of an imperial cult, but only until they did not appear before a dilemma - either belief, or execution of a civic duty. As a rule, their choice was unambiguous - the belief was on the first place. But, as as A. Shmeman noted, the Roman religion represented the state cult serving as some kind of indicator of loyalty of citizens imperatora4, the refusal to execute requirements of the authorities in the religious sphere meant open disobedience that inevitably conducted to the corresponding sanctions from the state and to the conflicts between the power and Christians. It was possible to resolve a contradiction only "having grounded" the emperor, but having given it at the same time the special status ennobling it over any mortal.

3rd century AD, possible only by end, in process of distribution of Christianity in Imperiya and rapid growth of number of Christians began to resolve this problem. It is worth agreeing with opinion of A.D. Rudokvas specifying that among this mass of new converts there were many people who were Christians only externally. This circumstance together with the fact that the most firm adherents of "pure" Christianity suffered the greatest losses in the years of persecutions caused a possibility of the compromises impossible at the beginning of Christianity. It could not but affect also the future of an imperial cult. The former indifferent relation to it was replaced by attempts to adapt it for Christian doktrine5. But the Christianity victory in the 4th century did not mean at all that the former pagan attitude towards the emperor as to God immediately died off. A.D. Rudokvas noted that transition from paganism to Christianity in the late Roman Empire was carried out in the evolutionary way that caused long coexistence different cultural fenomenov6. In new conditions pagan trends in
4 A. Shmeman prot. Historical way of Orthodoxy. - M.: Orthodox pilgrim, 2003. - Page 50
5 A.I. Rudokvas. Christian intellectual elite and emperor's cult//Intellectual elite of a classical antiquity. Theses of reports of scientific conference 8 - on November 9, 1995//the access Mode: http://www.centant.pu.ru/ centrum/puyik/confcent/l995-ll/rudokvas.htm/
6 A.I. Rudokvas. Essays of religious policy of the Roman Empire of time of the emperor Constantine the Great. 3. The fate of an imperial cult at Christian emperors//the access Mode: http://www.centant.pu.ru/aristeas/ monogr/rudokvas/rudol2.htm.

an imperial cult continued the existence. So, according to the Roman historian Sekst of Aurelius Victor the same Konstantin founded a sort cult Flaviyev in Africa [Aur. Vict. De Caes. XL. 28]. It is remarkable that if Victor wrote about Konstantin as the emperor to whom if not separate lines of his character, ".bylo nearby to god" [Vict. De Caes. XL. 15], Evtropy directly wrote that the emperor equal to the apostles who prepared himself a tomb in the middle of 12 tombs cenotaphs of apostles [See: Euseb. Vita Const. IV. 60), it was ranked as gods [Eutr. X. 8.2]. The emperor Iovian, according to the same Evtropiya's message, was also idolized [by Eutr. X. 18.2]. Traces of a pagan imperial cult are distinctly traced in work of IV/V of centuries of the writer living at a boundary Flavia Vegetion Renata "A summary of military science" [Cm: Veget. II. 5; 6]. Peaceful co-existence of pagan and Christian traditions is clearly demonstrated also this numismatics. So, on a coin of the emperor Anastasius (491-518) the goddess Victoria of Augustus with a cross in a hand is represented!

Traces of this coexistence it is traced in works of ecclesiastical writers of late antiquity. So, the Arian historian Filostorgy specified that Christians, residents of Constantinople worshipped and made a sacrifice to a statue of the emperor of Konstantina7. Went Evsevy Caesarean further away, tried to reconcile pagan tradition of idolization of the emperor and Christian dogma. The main idea which it with eloquence inherent in it defended - the emperor not God, but also not the ordinary person. It - terrestrial similarity of God, some kind of Moon reflecting the beams expiring from a sun [Euseb. De laudibus Const. 5]. Running the power the emperor equals for Gospod and his order of management of all real. Moreover, Evsevy, trying to combine a pagan imperial cult and the Christian doctrine, actually balanced Gospod and the emperor, emphasizing superhuman nature of the last [Euseb. De laudibus Const. 2].

The Byzantine thought considered Evseviya's thesis too defiant and therefore revised his concept, having given it the look which was more beseeming the Christian doctrine. Trying to reconcile the designs of supreme authority contradicting each other, the Byzantine scribes chose from the potency hidden in Evseviya's concept what in the greatest corresponded to Ancient Greek idea of the tsar as the person allocated from God with the power and its corresponding attributes. From here naturally the idea which became one of fundamental in the Byzantine outlook and outlook followed. S. Ransimen described its essence as follows: "The tsar is not God among people, but God's deputy. He is not the embodied Lagos, but it costs in the special relations with Lagos. He was especially elected by God, he is inspired by God, he is a friend Bozhy, he is an interpreter of the Word God's" 8.

In the orthodox state what the Byzantine empire thought of itself, the emperor acted the elect Gospoda, his deputy, the performer of divine outlines. God dominates over all real, and the emperor dominates on the earth - G.L. Kurbatov so characterized the main idea Byzantine political doktriny9. Ideas of the special relations between ospody and his elect gained further development. About it the emperor Konstantin of VII10 wrote, for example, in the manuals to the son.

But there is more to come. Followed from the doctrine Evseviya Kesariyskogo that the emperor's person as God's elect is sacred, and his power - a religious rite. Like God, the emperor towered over all privates mortal, and pysh-

7 Filostorgy. Church history//Georgy Pakhimer. Story about Mikhail and Andronicus Paleologakh. Patriarch Photius. Reduction of church history Filostorgiya. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2004. - Page 17.
8 S. Ransimen. Byzantine theocracy//Ransimen of Page. East schism. Byzantine theocracy. - M.: Science. RAS East Literature book-publishing firm, 1998. - Page 153.
9 G.L. Kurbatov. Early Byzantine portraits. - L.: Publishing house of the Leningrad university, 1991. - Page 44.
10 Konstantin Bagryanorodny. About management of the empire. - M.: Science, 1991. - Page 35.

the ny court ceremonial even more emphasized its inaccessibility and remoteness from wordly vanity. Everything that was connected with the emperor - everything was sacred, and any attempt at something from belonging to the emperor was svyatotatstvom11. The pereobuvaniye of the applicant for a throne from usual in red imperial obuv12 was not accidental one of mutiny symbols. And again we meet ancient heritage here. As God, the Tsar did not need special symbols for underlining of the sacral status and the special, divine nature of the power. However those attributes are necessary for the tsar as the elect Bozhiya, the person to whom God handed powers of authority to emphasize his differences from the mere mortals deprived of Gospod's attention.

But differently could not be

>, at Justinian not only the idea of the symphony, but also another, putting the emperor 10 times more any mere mortal is made out. Soon after accession to the throne of Justinian the deacon of the temple of St. Sofia Agapit presented to new lord Imperiya, "the most divine and blagochestiveyshy tsar our Justinian (it is allocated by us - P.T.)" the composition on the power of the emperor and his duties. It contained a remarkable thought - "a being of a body the tsar is equal to all people, and the power of the dignity is similar to the lord of everything, God. On the earth it has no highest over itself(himself) (it is allocated by us - P.T.)..." 13. And it is not accidental that at Justinian the Byzantine court ceremonial which was established in general at the time of Diokletian was improved and fixed as a way to emphasize greatness and power imperatora14. The description of magnificent reception which emperors held repeatedly meet on pages Byzantine hronik15. The court ceremonial which did not have analogs in the barbaric world was designed to show to guests power and indestructibility elected God Imperii. The certificates reflecting psychological effect which rendered majestic Byzantine ceremonial on barbarians, inexperienced in such questions, remained. [See, for example: lord. Get. 143-144; 15, 49; 16, 5. 3].

Obviously, as the Byzantine people was also filled, from one party, with feeling of own negligibility in the face of the deputy of God surrounded with magnificent suite (it is enough to give such example - the empress Feodora, going to treatment on waters, took the suite containing not much it is not enough 4 thousand people 16), and on the other hand - pride of the power at the head of which there is an elect Bozhy. All citizens of the emperor, from the most notable and influential dignitary even if he was also a real owner of the power at the puppet emperor, to the last shepherd or the peasant, were obliged to render to the master of the terrestrial Kingdom "bogoravny" honors [See, for example: Procop. Hist. Arc. XV. 1516]. The magnificent ceremonial accompanied the emperor everywhere, and not only in the palace, but also beyond its limits. The emperor's exit from the palace turned into extremely magnificent and majestic procession accompanied slavosloviyami17. Court ceremonies were also arranged not less solemnly and were in many respects similar to order bogosluzheniya18. Violation of this order was actually equated to sacrilege and was subject to serious punishment - so, the 84th rule St. apo-

11 In the same place. - Page 55, 57.
12 Lev Diakon. History. - M.: Science, 1988. - Page 1.
13 Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. - T. 2. 518-602 years. - SPb.: Aleteya, 2003. - Page 39.
14 In the same place. - Page 41.
15 Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Zoya and Feodor. Konstantin IX//Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Short history. - SPb.: Aleteya. 2003. - Page 3.
16 Feofan. The chronicle by Byzantine Feofan from Diokletian to tsars of Mikhail and the son his Feofilakt. - M, 1884. - Page 144.
17 Liutprand Kremonsky. Embassy to Constantinople to the emperor Nikifor Foka//the access Mode: http://vostHt.narod.ru /Texts/rus/Liut_Kr.htm.
18 N.A. Skabalanovich. The Byzantine state and church in the 11th century. - Prince 1. - SPb.: Oleg Abyshko's publishing house, 2004. - Page 269-270, 272-273.

tables said: "If who annoys the tsar, or the prince, not on the truth: yes will be punished. And if current is from clergy and will be izverzhen from a sacred rank: if the layman also is separated from communication church" 19. This rule was confirmed and later, in Matfey's "Syntagma" Vlastarya20.

The court ceremonial so became ingrained Byzantines that they could not think existence of the emperor without them. The rebels applying for an imperial diadem also followed traditsii21. Inept imitation court ceremonial only caused a sneer and confirmed illegality of claims of the rebel on tron22.

It would seem, all measures taken above designed to emphasize the special status of the emperor, his nearness to God, difference mortal had to guarantee against privates to it long and serene reign. However for all that the sanctity of an imperial dignity, sacrality of its power did not provide to the emperor of quiet life at all. There were several reasons for that, and they consisted first of all in that discrepancy of a design of the imperial power about which we spoke earlier.

First, in the Byzantine religiouspolitical doctrine the Emperor and the emperor accurately differed. It is possible to tell that between them there was approximately the same interrelation, as between an icon and a portrait. Lifting on the Emperor's pedestal, Byzantines at the same time separated a symbol from its real filling. Not each this emperor was "divine" and sovereign, - A.P. Kazhdan wrote about it, - but vasilevs "in general" as the embodiment of the principle of the imperial power" 23. And any Greek where it was, always remembered it. The example which is given by the Byzantine writer of the 5th century Prisk Paniysky is remarkable. The Greek met by it in Attila's camp in a conversation with Prisk pronounced very characteristic words: "Laws are good, and the Roman society is perfectly arranged, but governors spoil and ruin it (it is allocated by us - P.T.), without arriving as arrive ancient" 24. The criticism of acts of the specific emperor or his overthrow did not mean at all that Byzantines against the idea of the Emperor. Without him the Kingdom terrestrial was not thought at all just as the Kingdom of Heaven without Gospod.

Secondly, if the emperor - the elect Bozhy if he governs at will of God, then in will of his God and to replace. The Lord himself chooses the one who is worthy to occupy a throne. "Theoretically it came true as follows: the emperor ruled, - A.P. Kazhdan noted, - relying on the divine help; so far as God ceased to support him and found other elect, the rights of the former emperor lost any value; on the contrary, the successful usurper is a servant Bozhy, the spokesman of divine will, worthy honors and glorification" 25.

19 Book of Rules of Saints apostle, sacred Cathedrals Universal and local and sacred father. - M.: Russksh Hronograf, 2004. - Page 30.
20 Matfey Vlastar. Alphabetic syntagma. Beginning of letter B. Chapter 7//access Mode: http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0360.php.
21 Mikhail Psell. Short history. Mikhail VI. Isaak I Komnin//Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Short history. - SPb.: Aleteya. 2003. - 397 pages
22 Akropolit Georgi. Chronicle of the great logofet of Georgi Logofet//Ioann Kinnam. Short review of reign of Ioann and Manuil Komninov. Akropolit Georgi. Chronicle of the great logofet of Georgy Logofet. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2003. - Page 21.
23 A.P. Kazhdan, G.G. Litavrin. Essays of history of Byzantium and southern Slavs. - SPb.: To Alya-teya, 1998. - Page 119.
24 Prisk Paniysky. Legends of Prisk of Paniysky//Feofan Vizantiyets. The chronicle from Diokletian to tsars of Mikhail and the son his Feofilakt. Prisk Paniysky. Legends of Prisk of Paniysky. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2005. - Page 491-492.
25 A.P. Kazhdan, G.G. Litavrin. Essays of history of Byzantium and southern Slavs. - SPb.: To Alya-teya, 1998. - Page 118.

In a word, "the mutiny cannot come to an end in good luck - otherwise his name is differently", and the rebel is not always guilty that he opposed legitimate authority. All in the God's hand, Ioann Kinnam wrote, ".chto it is defined by Trade once, that cannot be upset and destroyed by human reasons in any way." 26, and Mikhail Paleolog, future emperor for now great har-tullariya, suspected by the emperor Feodor II Laskar of aspiration to usurpation of a crown agrees with it: "To whom God allows to reign, that is not guilty if call him on the kingdom" (it is allocated by us - P.T.) 27.

Moreover as N.A. Skabalanovich noted, the ambitious, resolute and courageous person was simply obliged to pay the attention to a throne as its qualities willy-nilly excited suspicion at the reigning emperor. It was possible to get rid of threat of disgrace and prosecution only of one way - to borrow tron28. And that from the fact that the rebel for the period of the mutiny became beyond the law and was subject to the death penalty and excommunication - in case of success and construction on a throne it had no value. The unction on the kingdom cleaned the usurper, removed from it all sins.

It is obvious that at such approach the usurper opposed not the Emperor at all, and the specific person occupying a throne and from which God turned away, deprived of it the protection. Thereby in case of success the mutiny lost the nature of an apostasiya, and became the visible evidence of goodwill of of an ospod to the one who decided to execute its will. And if in the West the king or the emperor always remained a figure sacral and to a certain extent inviolable even if lost a throne and the power, then in Byzantium everything was absolutely differently. The overthrown Emperor stopped being that, and turned into outcast God. The sad fate of the overthrown Andronicus I Komnin to that bright primer29. About it S.S. Averintsev wrote what cruel, sometimes public killing of ex-emperors did not mean at all, ".chto for the Byzantine there was nothing sacred; the most sacred on the earth for it was the empire. Imperiya is very Saint and the imperial dignity is sacred; but the most capable has to be invested by this dignity and the most successful and if the usurper, perhaps, is more obvious those than it abilities and his luck. Vizantiyets considered that in policy God - for the winner. The Byzantine is faithful to the power for ever and ever, but to the sovereign - only until it is sure that the person of this sovereign pragmatically corresponds to greatness of the power." 30.

Before we spoke mainly about the connected good luck, "heavenly" details of the Byzantine model of the imperial power. But owing to the discrepancy of this model noted above at it there was also rather powerful "terrestrial" component. To legitimize the power, the Byzantine emperor had to get also support of three pillars of Imperiya - the people, a synod and army. This tradition conducted the counting since the Roman Empire when the new emperor accepted reins of government, having got support of the senate, praetorians and the Roman plebs. In principle it is possible to agree with opinion of G.L. Kurbatov noting that the lack of tradition of heredity of the imperial power both in Rome, and in Byzantium as to the successor of Rome can be explained proceeding from former Roman republican traditsii31. At the same time it should be noted that roots

26 Feofan. The chronicle by Byzantine Feofan from Diokletian to tsars of Mikhail and the son his Feofilakt. - M, 1884. - Page 22.
27 Georgy Pakhimer. Story about Mikhail and Andronicus Paleologakh//Georgy Pakhimer. Story about Mikhail and Andronicus Paleologakh. Patriarch Photius. Reduction of the church history Filostorgiya. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2004. - Page 1.9.
28 N.A. Skabalanovich. The Byzantine state and church in the 11th century. - Prince 1. - SPb.: Oleg Abyshko's publishing house, 2004. - Page 258-259.
29 Nikita Honiat. History. T. 1. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2003. - Page 2.12.
30 S.S. Averintsev. Other Rome. - SPb.: Amphora, 2005. - Page 336-337.
31 Konstantin Bagryanorodny. About management of the empire. - M.: Science, 1991. - Page 35.

the this "selectivity" of the emperor went to a homeric era, in those days, when the tsar was only the person who received from gods the power when the power homeric basileev justified itself not so much their origin, how many them merits before the people. Not without reason in "Illiad" Homer enclosed significant words in lips of the Lycian tsar Sarpedon:

Son Gippolokhov! For what before all of us we are distinguished a place of honor, both marriage, and a bowl, full on feasts, In the kingdom Lycian and looked at us, how at inhabitants of the sky?

And for what we own at Xanthos destiny great,

The best earth, grapes and wheat of plentifully producing? 32

Therefore in a sense it is possible to tell that there is a certain genetic linkage between the Byzantine political model and a homeric ideal of the obshchestvennopolitichesky device which, according to the domestic ellinist of Yu.A. Andreyev, can be expressed as the certain "public contract" which principles is "the .garmoniya of the mutually counterbalanced interests of the people and "leaders" 33.

This "the public contract" (tells about it also some other vizantinist, for example, of K.V. to Hvostova34), in which the power of the emperor was based also on Divine providence, and on will of army, the people and its best part - a synod, after completion of process of Christianization of Imperiya was added also with opinion of clergy headed by the patriarch. Its voice in case of problems with a succession to the throne was rather powerful and could not but be considered by the emperor. Finally, in case of certain problems with transfer of power the opinion of one of "components" of a "terrestrial" component could become reshayushchim35. The neglect interests any of these groups could cost much. In particular support of army was important. As the French vizantinist Sh. Dil wrote, analyzing palace revolutions as one of the most characteristic lines of the Byzantine political life, noted that played a major role in them armiya36.

Thus, it is possible to conclude that in spite of the fact that the idea of the emperor apprehended by the Byzantine political thought from the late Roman and early Christian ideology as elect Bozhiya and excluded everyone a succession to the throne order certain once and for all, nevertheless, the secular tradition of inheritance of the power through appointment of the co-governor and successor inherited from Rome (and to some extent from Ancient Greece) assumed accounting of opinion of army, a synod, the people and clergy. Prot. Ioann Meyendorf neatly noticed that the lack of a certain procedure of transfer of power from the emperor to the emperor was not accidental - ".bylo feeling, as the strict legitimism, and democratic elections would limit God in freedom of election of his anointed sovereign" 37.

All this did the Byzantine model of the imperial power difficult, ambiguous and contradictory. Attempt to reach certain compromise between the habitual, become ingrained traditions of "Shabby Rome" and the innovations inherent in Rome the New, were not in vain. The emperor at the same time was both mister, and the slave, and the slave not only Gospod, but also the slave Traditsii which he had no right to break if he wanted to correspond to an ideal image of the Emperor. There is an Emperor and there are an emperor, the Supreme master as Imperiya's symbol and

32 Monuments of the Byzantine literature of the IX-XIV centuries - M.: Science, 1969. - Page 310-314
33 Yu.V. Andreyev. Early Greek policy (homeric period). - SPb.: IC "Humanitarian Academy", 2003. - Page 176.
34 K.V. Hvostova. Features of the Byzantine civilization. - M.: Science, 2005. - Page 125
35 N.A. Skabalanovich. The Byzantine state and church in the 11th century. - Prince 1. - SPb.: Oleg Abyshko's publishing house, 2004. - Page 262.
36 Sh. Dil. Main problems of the Byzantine history. - M.: State publishing house of foreign literature, 1947. - Page 63-64.
37 Ioann Meyendorf (prot.) Byzantine divinity. - Minsk.: "Sofia's beams", 2001. - Page 305.

its human embodiment. And what was available to the Emperor was not always available to the emperor. Such is in general Byzantine model of the imperial power combining two ancient traditions - Roman and Hellenistic and iudeo-Christian, secular and church, "terrestrial" and "heavenly".

List of references

1. Monuments of the Byzantine literature of the IX-XIV centuries - M.: Science, 1969. - 463 pages
2. G.G. Litavrin Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Russia (IX - the beginning of the 12th century). - SPb.: To Alya-teya, 2000. - 398 pages
3. Block M. Feudal society. - M.: Publishing house of Sabashnikov, 2003. - 504 pages
4. Benvenist. AA. Dictionary of Indo-European social terms. - M.: Publishing group "Progress", "Univers", 1995. - 456 pages
5. A. Shmeman prot. Historical way of Orthodoxy. - M.: Orthodox pilgrim, 2003. - 368 pages
6. A.I. Rudokvas. Christian intellectual elite and the emperor's cult//Ying -

tellektualny elite of a classical antiquity. Theses of reports of scientific conference 8 - on November 9, 1995//the access Mode: http://www.centant.pu.ru/centrum/pubHk/confcent/1995

11/rudokvas .htm.
7. A.I. Rudokvas. Essays of religious policy of the Roman Empire of time of the emperor Constantine the Great. 3. The fate of an imperial cult at Christian emperors//the access Mode: http://www.centant.pu.ru/aristeas/ monogr/rudokvas/rud012.htm.
8. Filostorgy. Church history//Georgy Pakhimer. Story about Mikhail and Andronicus Paleologakh. Patriarch Photius. Reduction of church history Filostorgiya. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2004. - 568 pages
9. S. Ransimen. Byzantine theocracy//Ransimen of Page. East schism. Byzantine theocracy. - M.: Science. RAS East Literature book-publishing firm, 1998. - 239 pages
10. G.L. Kurbatov. Early Byzantine portraits. - L.: Publishing house of the Leningrad university, 1991. - 272 pages
11. Konstantin Bagryanorodny. About management of the empire. - M.: Science, 1991. - 496 pages
12. Lev Diakon. History. - M.: Science, 1988. - 240 pages
13. Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. - T. 2. 518-602 years. - SPb.: Aleteya, 2003. - 400 pages
14. Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Zoya and Feodor. Konstantin IX//Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Short history. - SPb.: Aleteya. 2003. - 397 pages
15. Story of Temporary years. - SPb.: Science, 1999. - 668 pages
16. Ioann Kinnam. Short review of reign of Ioann and Manuil Komninov//Ioann Kinnam. Short review of reign of Ioann and Manuil Komninov. Akropolit Georgi. Chronicle of the great logofet of Georgy Logofet. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2003. - 472 pages
17. Feofan. The chronicle by Byzantine Feofan from Diokletian to tsars of Mikhail and the son his Feofilakt. - M, 1884. - 370 pages
18. Liutprand Kremonsky. Embassy to Constantinople to the emperor Nikifor Foka//the access Mode: http://vostHt.nared.ru /Texts/rus/Liut_Kr.htm
19. N.A. Skabalanovich. The Byzantine state and church in the 11th century. - Prince 1. - SPb.: Oleg Abyshko's publishing house, 2004. - 448 pages
20. Book of Rules of Saints apostle, sacred Cathedrals Universal and local and sacred father. - M.: Russksh Hronograf, 2004. - 448 pages
21. Matfey Vlastar. Alphabetic syntagma. Beginning of letter B. Chapter 7//access Mode: http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0360.php
22. Mikhail Psell. Short history. Mikhail VI. Isaak I Komnin//Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Short history. - SPb.: Aleteya. 2003. - 397 pages
23. Akropolit Georgi. Chronicle of the great logofet of Georgi Logofet//Ioann Kinnam. Short review of reign of Ioann and Manuil Komninov. Akropolit Georgi. Chronicle of the great logofet of Georgy Logofet. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2003. - 472 pages
24. A.P. Kazhdan, G.G. Litavrin. Essays of history of Byzantium and southern Slavs. - SPb.: Aleteya, 1998. - 336 pages
25. Prisk Paniysky. Legends of Prisk of Paniysky//Feofan Vizantiyets. The chronicle from Diokletian to tsars of Mikhail and the son his Feofilakt. Prisk Paniysky. Legends At - Paniysky's ska. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2005. - 608 pages
26. Georgy Pakhimer. Story about Mikhail and Andronicus Paleologakh//Georgy Pakhimer. Story about Mikhail and Andronicus Paleologakh. Patriarch Photius. Reduction of the church history Filostorgiya. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2004. - 568 pages
27. Uspensky B.A. Tsar and emperor. An unction on the kingdom and semantics of monarchical titles. - M.: Languages of the Russian culture, 2000. - 144 pages
28. Nikita Honiat. History. T. 1. - Ryazan: Alexandria, 2003. - 440 pages
29. S.S. Averintsev. Other Rome. - SPb.: Amphora, 2005. - 366 pages
30. Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Mikhail VI. Isaak I Komnin//Mikhail Psell. Chronography. Short history. - SPb.: Aleteya. 2003. - 397 pages
31. Yu.V. Andreyev. Early Greek policy (homeric period). - SPb.: IC "Humanitarian Academy", 2003. - 448 pages
32. K.V. Hvostova. Features of the Byzantine civilization. - M.: Science, 2005. - 197 pages
33. Sh. Dil. Main problems of the Byzantine history. - M.: State publishing house of foreign literature, 1947. - 180 pages
34. Ioann Meyendorf (prot.) Byzantine divinity. - Minsk.: "Sofia's beams",
2001. -336 pages

& #34; HEAVENLY" AND & #34; TERRESTRIAL" IN THE BYZANTIAN MODEL OF IMPERIAL AUTHORITY

This article is considered the questions connected with a problem of formation and development of the Byzantian model of imperial authority and its feature. In a basis of this work was results of research of a parity in this model of two beginnings - religious and secular, & #34; heavenly" and & #34; terrestrial" which personified accordingly Judean-Christian and Roman-Hellenic concepts of the Supreme authority, each of which the roots left in the remote past. It is noted, that attempt of the Byzantian thinkers and writers to connect two these beginnings, different by the nature and complex on the internal structure, has led to discrepancy of the Byzantian model of imperial authority. It is shown, that byzantines, realizing this discrepancy, have tried to find a way out of this situation, having processed got it in the inheritance the Roman political model in Christian spirit. Thus they have divided emperor as the person invested by the supreme authority, and the Emperor operating a terrestrial empire just as the Lord operates a Kingdom of heaven.

T. M. Penskaya

Belgorod State University e-mail:

of penskoy@ bsu.edu.ru

Donna Margaret
Other scientific works: