Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T19:21:50.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Byzantine Godfather*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Ruth Macrides
Ruth Macrides*
Affiliation:
University of St. Andrews
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ties of ritual kinship have long been the object of interest and intensive study by anthropologists who have shown their ceremonial, social and economic significance but also the great variety which exists cross-culturally. Historians of Renaissance Italy and the mediaeval west have taken up the investigation, discovering spiritual relationships to be valuable indicators of the range and type of social contacts.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 11 , 1987, pp. 139 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Mintz, S.W. and Wolf, E.R., ‘An Analysis of Ritual Co-parenthood (Compadrazgo)’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6 (1950) 341–368 Google Scholar; Gudeman, S., ‘Spiritual relationships and selecting a Godparent’, Man, n.s. 10 (1975) 221–237 Google Scholar; ibid., ‘The Compadrazgo as a Reflection of the Natural and Spiritual Person’, Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (1971) 45-67; Hammel, E.A., Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the Balkans (Englewood Cliffs 1968); Anderson, G., ‘Il Comparaggio: The Italian Godparenthood Complex’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13 (1957) 32–53 Google Scholar; Sertel, A.K., ‘Ritual Kinship in Eastern Turkey’, Anthropological Quarterly 44 (1971) 37–50 Google Scholar; Campbell, J.K., Honour, family and patronage (Oxford 1964) 217–224 Google Scholar; Boulay, J. du, ‘The Blood: Symbolic relationships between descent, marriage, incest prohibitions and spiritual kinship in Greece, Man n.s. 19 (1984) 533–556 Google Scholar; Just, R., Spartohori: The constitution of an Ionian island village community (unpublished D. Phil, thesis, University of Oxford 1981)Google Scholar; Kenna, M.E., ‘The idiom of family’, in Mediterranean Family Structures, ed. Peristiany, J.G. (Cambridge 1976) 347–362 Google Scholar; Aschenbrenner, S., ‘Folk Model vs. Actual Practice: The Distribution of Spiritual Kin in a Greek Village’, Anthropological Quarterly 48 (1975) 65–86.Google Scholar

2. Weissman, R.F.E., Ritual brotherhood in Renaissance Florence (New York, London 1982)Google Scholar; Lynch, J.H., Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton 1986).Google Scholar

3. The foundation has been laid by Patlagean, E., ‘Christianisation et parentés rituelles: Le domaine de Byzance’, Annales ESC 33 (1978) 625–636 Google Scholar, reprinted in the author’s Structure sociale, famille, Chrétienté à Byzance (IVe-XIe) (London, Variorum 1981) XII; also Ph. Koukoules, IV (Athens 1950) 43-69; ‘Anadoque’ in Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie I,2 (Paris 1907) cols. 1872-1880.

4. Compare the Byzantine evidence with the 300 references to baptismal kinship in Latin sources before 900 AD (Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 44) and see Weissman, , Ritual brotherhood, 16–19 Google Scholar, for an analysis of a fourteenth-century Florentine’s network of social contacts.

5. Pargoire, J., ‘Anadoque’, Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie 1, 2, 1876-1878.Google Scholar

6. Patlagean (as in n.3) 628-630; Michailides-Nouaros, G., (Thessalonike 1952) 251–313 Google Scholar; Dmitrievski, A., Opisanie Liturgicheskich Rukopisei I (Kiev 1895) 215 Google Scholar.

7. Nesbitt, J. and Wiita, J., ‘A Confraternity of the Comnenian Era’, BZ 68 (1975) 360–384 Google Scholar; Dmitrievski, , Opisanie II (Kiev 1901) 1051.Google Scholar

8. See references in n.14.

9. N. 24: Noailles, P. and Dain, A., Les Novelles de Léon le Sage: Texte et traduction (Paris 1944) 92–95 Google Scholar; see Balsamon’s discussion of the novel in his commentary on c.53, council in Trullo: Rhalles, G. and Potles, M., II (Athens 1852, repr. 1966) 430–431 Google Scholar. In novels 26 and 27 Leo VI extended the right of adoption to eunuchs and women: ed. Noailles-Dain, 100-111. See Beaucamp, J., ‘La situation juridique de la femme à Byzance’, Cahiers de Civilisation médiévale 20 (1977) 173–174 Google Scholar, for the significance of these laws.

10. Ysebaert, J., Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origin and Early Development (Nijmegen 1962) 138.Google Scholar

11. Goar, J., Euchologion sive rituale graecorum (Venice 1730, repr. Graz 1960) 561–563 Google Scholar. Compare with the language used of adoptive parents and adopted children in formulae for adoption contracts: G., Ferrari, Formulari Notarili inediti dell’età bizantina (Rome 1912) no. 40, p. 65 Google Scholar; Sathas, C.N., (Paris, Venice 1877 repr. Athens 1972) no. 18 pp. 628-630; no. 19 pp. 630–631.Google Scholar

12. von Lingenthal, CE. Zachariae, Geschichte des Griechisch-Ròmischen Rechts (Berlin 1892, repr. Aalen 1955) 69–71.Google Scholar

13. N. 24, ed. Noailles-Dain, 95, 16-22.

14. Balsamon, commentary one. 53, council in Trullo: Rhalles-Potles, II, 429-431, and discussion by A. Schminck in Fontes Minores 5 (1982) 203-204 and notes; Chomatenos, ed. J.B. Pitra, Analecta sacra et classica spicilegio Solesmensi VI (Paris, Rome 1891, repr. Farnborough 1967) cols. 69, 551, 725-726; Pediasimos, ed. A. Schminck, ‘Der Traktat des Johannes Pediasimos’, Fontes Minores l (1976) 11.336-374 (pp. 155-156); Harmenopoulos, Hexabiblos 4.8.6.

15. Blastares, Syntagma, Rhalles-Potles, VI, 138. See Goody, J., The development of the family and marriage in, Europe (Cambridge 1983) 194-200, esp. 194–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Burnish, R.F.G., ‘The role of the godfather in the East in the fourth century’ Studia Patristica 18 (1982) 558–564 Google Scholar; Lynch, Godparents and Kinship 83-140.

17. The word appears in the sixth century for the first time, as far as I know: see John the Faster, MPG 88 col. 1893 The same is true of the Latin equivalent, compater (commater, compaternitas): Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 194. These linguistic developments along with the stipulation of the first marriage prohibitions in the same period indicate the growing importance of the institution and the separation of natural from spiritual kin.

18. Kenna, The idiom of family (as in n. 1) 352 and n. 1 (an Aegean island).

19. The first references to koumbaros in Greek texts date from the fifteenth century and link the word with its western origin: Mazaris’ Journey to Hades, ed. L. Westerinck et al. (State University of New York at Buffalo 1975) 28: . K. Krumbacher, ‘Ein vulgàrgriechischer Weiberspiegel’, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Munich 1905) 335-433 (text: 375-412) 1. 1199 (see 154 infra.). For the poem’s composition in fifteenth-century Crete see Beck, H.-G., Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Munich 1971) 193–194.Google Scholar

20. See notes 21, 42, 91.

21. The sultan Kaikhusraw, godson of Alexios III, kept the peace with Alexios’ son-in-law, the emperor Theodore I Laskaris, because he considered the empress Anna a sister: Akropolites, HGeorge, ed. Heisenberg, A. I (Leipzig 1903, repr. Stuttgart 1978) 14, 8–23 Google Scholar.

22. See p.157 below and n.91. In a letter to the emperor Constantine Doukas, Psellos refers to the empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa, the daughter of his spiritual brother, as ‘niece’: C.N. Sathas, V (Paris, Venice 1876, repr. Athens 1972) 347. On Psellos’ network of friends, see Ahrweiler, H., ‘Recherches sur la société byzantine au Xle siècle: nouvelles hiérarchies et nouvelles solidarités’, Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976) 109 Google Scholar.

23. Case presented before the patriarch Nicholas III (a. 1092): Grumei, V., Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcale de Constantinople I (Paris 1947) N. 968 Google Scholar; see the account of the case by Balsamon, Rhalles-Potles II, 430-431.

24. Theodore Stoudites, MPG 99, col. 1820; Tzimiskes, Typikon (a. 972): Actes du Prôtaton, ed. Papachryssanthou, D., Archives de l’Athos VII (Paris 1975) no.7, 212, 92–94 Google Scholar; Athanasios the Athonite, Typikon: ed. Meyer, Ph., Die Haupt-urkunden fiir die Geschichte der Athoskloster (Leipzig 1894, repr. Amsterdam 1965), 113, 21–22 Google Scholar; Manuel II, Chrysobull-Typikon (a. 1406): Actes du Prôtaton, ed. Papachryssanthou, no. 13, 260, 60-62. The prohibition is repeated also by the char-tophylax Nikephoros: Gautier, P., ‘Le Chartophylax Nicéphore, oeuvre canonique et notice biographique’, REB 27 (1969) 172 Google Scholar. For this prohibition in the west, see Lynch, J.H., ‘Baptismal Sponsorship and Monks and Nuns, 500-1000’, American Benedictine Review 31 (1980) 108–129 Google Scholar.

25. The typikon of Ioannes Prodromos (ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Noctes Petropolitanae |St. Petersburg 1913, repr. Leipzig 1976] 80, 18-81, 20) contains a cautionary tale of a godfather-monk. A prominent example of a monk who became a godfather is Euthymios who was godfather to Constantine VII, according to the Vita Euthymii (ed. P. Karlin-Hayter [Brussels 1970] 71, 8-18.

26. Prochiron auctum 8.79; 8.90: Zepos, J. and Zepos, P., Jus Graecoromanum VII (Athens 1931, repr. Aalen 1962) 70 Google Scholar; 72. In the early church, until the late fifth century, the sponsors were usually the parents of the child: Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 130-134, 277-281. Lynch (134, 280-281) states that both Latin and Byzantine Christianity forbade parents to sponsor their own children by the eighth century. His authority for this prohibition in Byzantium seems to be the law of Leo V (see n. 27). However this law does not expressly forbid parents to sponsor their own children. A case in the Peira (49.24) shows that a man who lived with a woman and had children with her was seen to have acknowledged the children as his own by sponsoring them in baptism: Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum IV, 203-204.

27. For the text see Simon, D., ‘Zur Ehegesetzgebung der Isaurier’, Fontes Minores 1 (1976) 22,17-23,28;30–40 Google Scholar; for the attribution to Leo V, see Kresten, O., ‘Datierungsprobleme ‘isaurischer’ Eherechtsnovellen. I. Coll. I. 26’, Fontes Minores 4 (1981) 37–106 Google Scholar.

28. Canon 53: Rhalles-Potles, II, 428-429.

29. On the paranymphos or anadochos in marriage see Symeon of Thessalonica: MPG 155, 509D; Ph. Koukoules, IV, 107; ‘Anadoque’, in Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie, 1,2, 1878-1879.

30. Rhalles-Potles, V, 380; new edition by K. Pitsakis forthcoming in Fontes Minores. In Byzantium there does not seem to have been any attempt to match the sex of the child and that of the godparent.

31. John the Almsgiver was godfather to all the children of a patrikios (see n.50); the emperor Theophilos to all the children of his strategos Manuel (see n.78); Nikephoros Phokas to all the children of Theophano and Romanos (see n.100); an antiprosopos in the thirteenth century to all the children of the emperor Theodore Komnenos Doukas and his wife Eirene (see n.101).

32. Joseph Bryennios, ed. Th. Man-dakases, III (Leipzig 1784) 107: Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich 1959) 749 Google Scholar.

33. See the discussion by Lingenthal, Zachariae von, Geschichte des Griechisch-Rómischen Rechts, 69–71 Google Scholar; Zhishman, J., Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirche (Vienna 1864) 271–274 Google Scholar.

34. Council in Trullo, c. 53: Rhalles-Potles, II, 428-429.

35. Ecloga, ed. L. Burgmann (Frankfurt 1983) 2.2 (p.170).

36. See the discussion and references above, p.142, notes 13, 14; also Schminck, A., ‘Drei Patriarchalschreiben aus der ersten Hàlfte des 13. Jahrhunderts’, Fontes Minores 5 (1982) 193–214 Google Scholar, esp. 202-204; Simon, D., ‘Fragen an Johannes von Kitros’, I (Rethymno 1986) 273–276 Google Scholar. A further marriage prohibition, that between the spiritual siblings of the same godparent, is recorded in the Écloga privata aucta: Zepos, , Jus Graecoromanum VI, 1.4 (p.12–13)Google Scholar. There is no indication, however, that Byzantine godparents baptised only children of the same sex in order tô reduce the number of forbidden marriages. See Just, Spartohori (as in n. 1) for this practice in contemporary Greece.

37. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 204-209.

38. Constantine V: Theophanes, ed. C. de Boor I (Leipzig 1883, repr. Hildesheim, 1980)400, 2-17; Constantine VII: Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn) 370, 13; Skylitzes, ed. I. Thurn (CFHB) (Berlin.and New York 1973) 184, 16-185, 25. For multiple godparents, see also a case from the high aristocracy, below n.105.

39. Grabar, A. and Manoussacas, M., L’illustration du manuscrit de Skylitzes de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Madrid (Venice 1979) fig. 134 Google Scholar.

40. See the discussion in Burnish, The role of the godfather in the East in the fourth century (as in n. 16) 558-564; Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 117-140.

41. Dionysios the Areopagite, MPG 3, 393B, 413C; Elias of Crete, Rhalles-Potles, V, 380; Symeon of Thessalonica, MPG 155, 212CD.

42. Constantine Akropolites, unpublished Logos for St. Panteleimon, cod. Ambro-sianus, H. 81 Sup. 216, f. 216:

43. Miklosich, Fr. and Müller, J., Acta et diplomata graecamedii aevi (Vienna 1862, repr. Aalen 1968) II, no.632, pp.474–475 Google Scholar; Darrouzès, J., Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, 6 (Paris 1979)Google Scholar No.3194 (a.1401).

44. For the practice on an Aegean island: Kenna, , The idiom of family (as in n.l) 355–356 Google Scholar.

45. Choniates, Michael, 7a ed. Sp. Lampros, II (Athens 1879/80, repr. Groningen 1968) 285–288 Google Scholar.

46. Miklosich, and Muller, , Acta et diplomata, II. 475 Google Scholar: , a business association, see Oikonomidès, N., Hommes d’Affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XlIIe-XVe siècles) (Montreal 1979) 69,77,112 Google Scholar.

47. Miklosich, and Miiller, , Acta et diplomata, II, no.614, 448–449 Google Scholar; Darrouzès, Regestes, N.3174. For George of Ankona as a houseowner in Constantinople, see Miklosich and Millier, II, no.572, 388.

48. Miklosich and Millier, If, no.615, 449.

49. Sertel, Ritual Kinship in Eastern Turkey (as in n.l) 41; Lynch, J.H., ‘Hugh I of Cluny’s Sponsorship of Henry IV: Its Context and Consequences’, Speculum 60 (1985) 805 Google Scholar: ‘parents chose sponsors for their children at least in part to gain them as coparents for themselves’.

50. Leontios of Neapolis, Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean de Cypre, éd. Festugière, A.J. (Paris, 1974), 357, 74–76 Google Scholar: … Symeon Metaphrastes (MPG 114,916A) transforms

51. ‘Deux Typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues’, éd. H. Delehaye in Mémoires de l’Académie royale de Belgique 13 (1921) 102. On Matthew of Ephesos see S.I. Kourouses, (1271/2-1355/60) (Athens 1972).

52. Mullett, M., ‘Byzantium, a friendly society?’, forthcoming in Past and Present (1987)Google Scholar.

53. Ed. Mandakases (as in n.32) 107.

54. Compare with the evidence for western mediaeval Europe: Lynch, Godparents and Kinship 205-208, and contemporary practice: Aschenbrenner, Folk Model vs. Actual Practice (as in n.l) 73; Campbell, Honour, family and patronage, 223; Ken-na, The idiom of family, 354-357.

55. E.g. Basil I : Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn) 842; Heraclius: Nicephorus, Opúsculo Histórica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig 1880) 12, 20-28; Alexios I: Anna Com-nenaed. Leib (Paris 1967) II, 48,26-49,1; 66,2-5; 80,31-81,50; 111,105,10-13; Manuel I: Miller, W., Recueil des historiens des Croisades (Paris 1881, repr. Farnborough 1967) II, 746,11. 749–754 Google Scholar.

56. See p.155 below and Beck, H.-G., ‘Byzantinisches Gefolgschaftswesen’, Sit-zungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Munich 1965) 3–32 Google Scholar, reprinted in the author’s Ideen und Realitaeten in Byzanz (London, Variorum 1972) XI.

57. Dölger, F., ‘Die “Familie der Könige” im Mittelalter’, ‘Die mittelalterliche “Familie der Fürsten und Völker” und der Bulgarenherrscher’, ‘Der Bulgarenherr-scher als geistlicher Sohn des byzantinischen Kaisers’, in Byzanz und die europaische Staatenwelt (Darmstadt 1964)Google Scholar.

58. Malaias (Bonn) 427-428.

59. George Akropolites, ed. A. Heisenberg, 14,24-17,25.

60. Skylitzes, ed. Thurn, 405; Glykas (Bonn) 588,15-19.

61. Theodore Stoudites, MPG 99, 961B-964A.

62. Life of Ignatios, MPG 105, 491 C. The concept of the transmission of character from the priest to the baptised child is inherent in the modern Greek saying

63. See Mullett, Byzantium, a friendly society? (as in n.52) on Kekaumenos’ views of friendship.

64. Litavrin, G.G., Sovety i rasskazy Kekavmena (Moscow 1974) 170,27-172,25 Google Scholar. On toparchs and the historical context of this passage see Lemerle, P., ‘Prolégomènes à une édition critique et commentée des “Conseils et Récits” de Kekaumenos’, Académie royale de Belgique, Mémoires 54 (1960) 80–81 Google Scholar.

65. See the discussion by Mullett, , Byzantium, a friendly society?, and Aschenbren-ner, , Folk Model vs. Actual Practice (as in n.l) 82–83 Google Scholar, with regard to ‘strategy’ in choice of godkin.

66. Ed. Litavrin, 172,24-25.

67. Ed. Litavrin, 268,14-270,26.

68. De Administrando Imperio ed. Moravcsik, G., trans. Jenkins, R.J.H. (Washington, D.C. 1967) 112, 54-56; 156,81-158,1 Google Scholar.

69. Ed. Schmitt, J. (London 1904) 260,11.3932–3937 Google Scholar.

70. Leake, W.M., Travels in the Morea (London 1830, repr. Amsterdam 1968) 338 Google Scholar.

71. Hammel, , Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the Balkans, (as in n.l) 82–85 Google Scholar.

72. Typikon, of Tzimiskes, , Actes du Prôtettori, ed. Papachryssanthou, 212,92 Google Scholar; chrysobull-typikon, of Manuel II, Actes du Prôtaton, 260,62 Google Scholar and n.24 above.

73. Pseudo-Symeon (Bonn) 660,17-661,12; Theophanes Continuatus, (Bonn) 199,8-200,14.

74. For a discussion of the passage see Scott, R.D., ‘Malaias, The Secret History, and Justianian’s Propaganda’, DOP 39(1985) 100–101 Google Scholar.

75. Krumbacher, Ed., Ein vulgàrgriechischer Weiberspiegel (as in n.19), 11.1199–1204 Google Scholar.

76. Davis, J., People of the Mediterranean (London 1977) 230 Google ScholarPubMed.

77. Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn) 23,21-24,1.

78. Ibid., 120,21-23.

79. Ibid., 253,15-16; Skylitzes, ed. Thurn, 96,29-97,2.

80. See the discussion of the passage by Magdalino, P., ‘Honour among Romaioi: The Framework of Social Values in the World of Digenis Akrites and Kekaumenos’, in Contributions to the Study of Honour in Greece, ed. Peristiany, J. Google Scholar, forthcoming.

81. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ed. A., Sbornik Statej Posvjasennych V.N. Lamanskomu I (St. Petersburg 1907) 243 Google Scholar. On Constantine Doukas: Polemis, D.I., The Doukai (London 1968) no.44, p.91 Google Scholar. Nicol, D.M., The Despotate ofEpiros (Oxford 1957) 54–57 Google Scholar, for Apokaukos’ relations with him.

82. Kenna, E.g., The Idiom of the Family (as in n.l) 351, 355–356 Google Scholar.

83. Actes de Xéropotamou, ed. Bompaire, J. (Paris 1964) no.9, 80,24 Google Scholar.

84. in L. Polites, II (Athens 1981) 115, 31-42. See Lynch, , Godparents and Kinship 48 Google Scholar, for comments on the language of spiritual kinship in beast epics.

85. Explicitly stated in the chrysobull-typikon of Manuel II, 260,62 (as in n.72).

86. See n.51 above.

87. Actes de Chiiandar, ed. L. Petit, supplement to VV 17 (1911) no.27, 59-64, esp. 62. See the discussion of the will by Magdalino, P., ‘The Byzantine Aristocratic Oikos’, in The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed. Angold, M., BAR 221 (1984) 99–100 Google Scholar.

88. Magdalino, , op.cit., 92–105 Google Scholar; Morris, R., ‘Monasteries and their patrons in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, BF10 (1985)Google Scholar (= Perspectives in Byzantine History and Culture, ed. Haldon, J.F., Koumoulides, J.) 185-232, esp. 215–225 Google Scholar.

89. Herlihy, D., Medieval Households (Cambridge, Massachusetts 1985) 88–92 Google Scholar; Abulafia, D., ‘The Merchant Dynasty in the Medieval Mediterranean’, in Family and Lineage, ed. Corner, D. (University of St. Andrews, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

90. Kurtz, E. and Drexl, Fr., Michaelis Pselli Scripta Minora I (Milan 1936) 80–81 Google Scholar; Leroy-Molinghen, A., ‘La descendance adoptive de Psellos’, B39 (1969) 284–317 Google Scholar, esp. 293-294.

91. MichelPsellos Chronographie, ed. and trans. Renauld, E. (Paris 1967) II, 154, 11 Google Scholar ff.: See also Polemis, Doukai no.48, p.34.

92. Historia, ed. J.L. Van Dieten (Berlin and New York 1975) 219, 71 ff. Michael Choniates wrote his funeral oration: ed. Lampros, I, 24-71. This case raises the question of naming practices. Niketas Choniates is only one of two examples (George Akropolites and godson George: p. 148) I have found in which godparents and godchildren have the same Christian name.

93. Vita Eythymii Patriarchae CP, ed. and trans. Karlin-Hayter, P. (Brussels 1970) 113,14–19 Google Scholar.

94. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ed. A., Nodes Petropolitanae (St. Petersburg 1913, repr. Leipzig 1976) 275,23-276,2 Google Scholar. See also Apokaukos’ letter to Theodore in which he refers to ‘embracing his daughter from baptism’: ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 276, 28-277,3.

95. MPG 102, 765C; Vogt, A., ‘La Jeunesse de Léon VI le Sage’, Revue Historique 174 (1934) 392 Google Scholar note 1, suggests that the passage refers to Leo VI’s baptism by Photios.

96. Chronographia (Bonn) 228,14-18. See the comments by Lynch, , Godparents and Kinship, 199 Google Scholar, on such violations of the norms.

97. N.968 (a.1092): Grumei, Regestes I; N.1208 (a.1208): Laurent, Regestes, 1,4, and Schminck, A., Fonte Minores 5 (1982) 193–214 Google Scholar; N.2098 (c. 1315-1319) and N.2244 (a.1343): Darrouzès, Regestes 1,5.

98. Ed. Pitra, cols. 69-72; 549-554; 641-644.

99. Just, Spartohori, (as in n. 1) and du Boulay, The Blood (as in n. 1) 536 ff. report local reckoning of marriage prohibitions for spiritual kinship to be even more restrictive than that of the church.

100. Leo the Deacon (Bonn) 50,1-18; Skylitzes, ed. Thurn, 261; Michael Glykas (Bonn) 568,1-569,14. According to the Chronicle of the Morea, the empress Eirene (Yolanda), wife of Andronikos II, was sent to live in Thessalonica because she had stood as godmother to one of Andronikos’ illegitimate sons. See Nicol, D.M., The Despotate of Epiros 1267-1479 (Cambridge 1984) 54–55 Google Scholar and n.85.

101. Ed. Pitra, cols.69-72.

102. Vie d’Olympias, ed. Malingrey, A.M., Sources chrétiennes 13 bis (Paris 1968) 416, 20-25; 426 Google Scholar.

103. Fourmy, M.-H. and Leroy, M., ‘La Vie de S. Philarète’, B9 (1934) 155, 32-157, 32 Google Scholar.

104. Ed. Kurtz, F., Zapiski imperatorskoi Akad. nauk, po ist.-phil. otd. ser. 8, VI/1 (1902)3,9–11 Google Scholar.

105. On the families of these saints see Patlagean, E., ‘Sainteté et Pouvoir’, in The Byzantine Saint, ed. Hackel, S. (London 1981)98–101 Google Scholar. The example of uncle-godparents irt the case of a twelfth-century aristocratic child, Isaac Komnenos, seems to confirm this. See K. Varzos, II (Thessalonike 1984) 438 n.7.

106. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 184; Boulay, du, Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford 1974) 162–165 Google Scholar; Campbell, , Honour, family and patronage, (as in n.l) 223 Google Scholar; Aschenbrenner, Folk Model vs. Actual Practice (as in n.l) 69.

107. Kazhdan, A., ‘Small Social Groupings (Microstructures) in Byzantine Society’, XVIInternationaler Byzantinistenkongress, Akten 32/2 (Vienna 1982) 3–11 Google Scholar. But see Horden, P., ‘The Confraternities of Byzantium’, Studies in Church History 23 (1986) 25–45 Google Scholar, who stresses the importance of other forms of association for Byzantine society.

108. Davis, , People of the Mediterranean (as in n. 76) 222, 233–234 Google Scholar; Campbell, Family, honour and patronage (as in n.l) 217 ff.