Two imperial kings on the outskirts of Byzantium: A case study on the similarities between Roger II of Sicily and Stephen Uroš I of Serbia in the (post-)Byzantine context
Two imperial kings on the outskirts of Byzantium: A case study on the similarities between Roger II of Sicily and Stephen Uroš I of Serbia in the (post-)Byzantine context

Summary/Abstract: In 1219 St. Sava of Serbia was consecrated archbishop of the newly established autocephalous Serbian church by the patriarch of Constantinople in Nicaea – Manuel Sarantenos, and with the imperial approval of the Emperor Theodore I Lascaris. In this paper we propose a different perspective of this event, from the standpoint of the Byzantines in Nicaea. We ask a question, whether it was profitable for the Byzantines to establish a new and autocephalous church organization in the Balkans, in order to contest the rise of Latin political and spiritual dominance in the region after the fall of Constantinople in 1204. We examine the patriarchal missive issued on the occasion of St. Sava’s consecration in Nicaea as paraphrased by Sava’s first hagiographer Domentijan, and in further historical analysis of the source and the events which took place around the year 1219, we investigate the meaning and reasons for the consecration of new orthodox priests and deacons which Sava performed as a newly consecrated autocephalous archbishop of Serbia on Mount Athos, and especially in the monastery of Great Lavra.The paper examines kings Roger II and Stephen Uroš I as two kings closely related to Byzantium, who represented themselves in the manner of Byzantine emperors. Since these two kings, or kingdoms, are rarely juxtaposed, a case study is conducted in order to take a closer glance at just how ‘Byzantine’ or imperial were they. The starting point are the most obvious and acknowledged similarities with the Byzantine emperors, their representations in the Martorana church and the Sopoćani monastery respectively. In the rest of the paper, many other factors are examined, such as their royal titles, epithets, perceptions of these kings themselves or in the Byzantine sources, etc. Among these, at the end of the paper the special place of Jerusalem is also questioned for these two kingdoms and how important was it for their political and ideological goals.

• Details
• Contents