We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The Canadian model of managing cultural diversity inspires many countries in the world. In this context, the present article deals with the following questions: What are the characteristics and the historical roots of Canada’s policy of multiculturalism? What are the main trends of the Canadian 'mosaic’ in comparison with the American ‘melting pot’? Could the Canadian multicultural model be successfully *implanted’ in other countries?
More...
The present paper, which is part of a larger study of Bulgarian immigration to Canada, looks at some of the most important characteristics of this immigration and discusses them against the dynamics of the overall immigration processes in Canada over the past 100 years. It examines whether and how Bulgarian immigrants have managed to become an integral part of Canada’s unique cultural, ethnic and linguistic fabric.
More...
The church of Saint Sophia in Ohrid was built by Archbishop Leo (1037–1056), “the first of the Greek” since the founding of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019), on the site of an older church. On the model of the cathedral church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he dedicated the church to St. Sophia, and its chapels to the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, Saint John the Baptist and the Holy Apostles, whose relics are kept in their Constantinople church. No doubt, the painters were brought from the capital, as well; certain scenes distinctive of Constantinople art were also painted in St. Sophia, again probably by the intervention of Archbishop Leo. His imprint is most perceptible in the decoration of the sanctuary. Certain dogmatic-liturgical themes are presented there, whose iconography coincides for the most part with Leo’s viewpoints expressed between 1052 and 1054 in his epistles addressed to Bishop John of Trani, and also the entire Western clergy including the Pope. In his polemic with the West, the Archbishop of Ohrid drew mostly from the Pauline epistles and argued that leavened bread was the only true body of Christ, and as such needed to be used in the Eucharist. There is, therefore, very little doubt why the Eucharist should be painted in the apse of the church in Ohrid instead of the Communion of Apostles. This image contains subtle iconographic meanings, very closely related to the theological discussions of the time. Two scenes from the north wall are also connected to the Communion of Apostles: the Vision and the First Service of Saint Basil, depicting the origin of Byzantine liturgy. It stems from Christ and the Apostles, for it was Christ who inspired St. Basil to compose his Liturgy, which Basil himself served in the sanctuary immediately thereafter. It was probably Leo again who had the eminent Greek hierarchs gathered around St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom painted in the apse, along with several scenes from the Old Testament prefiguring the Incarnation and the New Testament service. There is no doubt that Archbishop Leo is to be further accredited with the representations of the great number of holy bishops and with their order. They served to assert the primacy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople which constituted the center of all the local Orthodox churches. This ideal image of Christian ecumenism also included the Western Church, which was represented by the images of Roman Popes honored by the Byzantine world. Furthermore, Leo accounted for the origin of his Archbishopric by the portraits of the popes Innocent and Vigilius who recognized the autocephaly of the Vicariate of Thessaloniki and Justiniana Prima, Church organisations preceding first the Bulgarian, and then the Archbishopric of Ohrid. The Bulgarian Church — the second component which led to the creation of the autocephaly of the Archbishopric of Ohrid — was presented in the Ohrid fresco-painting by the images of SS. Cyril and Clement, whereas the constitution of the Archbishopric of Ohrid was represented by the portrait of Patriarch Eusthatius (1019–1025), during whose time the Archbishopric was established. Taking all of this into account, one should regard Archbishop Leo as the real creator of the fresco programme in St. Sophia in Ohrid: he authorized it, but also propagated certain themes which he found particularly important. Those were associated with liturgy, the issue of communion bread, the relationship between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Rome, as well as with the autocephaly of the Archbishopric of Ohrid. The frescoes are permeated with references to the events at the time of the Great Schism, in which Archbishop Leo played one of the most important roles. Today, without the historical context it would be hard to understand the frescoes in Ohrid and their iconography. Therefore, the frescoes should be dated between the years 1052, the start of the polemic with Rome and 1056, the passing of Archbishop Leo. In his cathedral church, he not only created a first-rate work of art, but also an artwork which marks the threshold of a new era in Byzantine art after 1054.
More...
The countenance and role of portraits on the partly preserved fresco in St. Sofia church in Ohrid showing manifestation of Divine Wisdom have been differently interpreted. Starting from the hagiography of St. Basil the Great, some art historians have interpreted this fresco as Christ’s and holy Apostle’s epiphany to St. Basil the Great, who is being called to the service in the holy altar. Other art historians have envisaged the composition in a wider context, primarily pointing to a special place of St. Paul in the apostolic choir, as well as to a special bond between Paul the Apostle, the most meritorious New Testament herald of the Holy Wisdom, and his best hermeneutist, St. John Chrysostom. It is certain that the painter of the St. Sofia Church found an inspiration for the presentation of Holy Wisdom in sophiological texts of the Old Testament, in St. Paul’s epistles as well as in the testimonies of St. Proclus of Constantinople re corded in the Hagiography of St. John Chrysostom. The representation of the Holy Wisdom as a girl stems from the tradition relying on the King Solomon’s tales, in which the Holy Wisdom builds a home and summons people to eat bread and wine she has prepared (9, 1–5). In this context, the representation of the Holy Wisdom should not be interpreted regardless of the image of Jacob’s ladder, since this representation, being placed in the altar symbolizing Heaven, makes present the very incarnation of the Son who came down from Heaven (John 3, 13). The liturgical context of Holy Wisdom representation is underlined by the image of St. Basil the Great, certainly the most significant Divine Liturgy maker/creator, beside St. John Chrysostom. Both of these compositions, the Jacob’s ladder and Service of St. Basil the Great, related to the epiphany of Holy Wisdom to St. John Chrysostom, enclose both aspects of “Divine Economy”: the coming of Christ into the world and his Eucharistic sacrifice in Liturgy. The position of Holy Wisdom in the altar suggests not only “symbolic interpretation of an exceptional rhetorical gift” nor just “Divine inspiration — a dream of St. John Chrysostom” since both the rhetorical gift and divine inspiration need the same life-giving source — the Holy Eucharist. The participation in the agape that Holy Wisdom prepared (as it is stated in the 3rd line of the 9th chapter of King Solomon’s tales) refers to, according to St. John of Damascus, ineffable future goods that Holy Wisdom would give to those who take her Body as their meaningful food and her Blood as their meaningful drink. The Holy Wisdom’s agape, which was prepared long before, in the words of St. Maximus the Confessor, is a final destination and purpose of the painting in the Church of St. Sofia in Ohrid.
More...
Images of St. Kliment of Ohrid seem to have already appeared in the monumental art of medieval Serbia from the first decade of the 14th century. There are more of them than it was thought earlier and they were represented in the churches of the old lands of Rascia as well as in Macedonia. Probably the earliest presentation of St. Kliment of Ohrid in Serbian wall-painting is preserved in the altar of the Church of the Ascension in Žiča. The wall-painting in that part of the church in Žiča, which is marked by certain archaic features of style, should be dated to the time of the Archbishop Jevstatije II, or more precisely, a little before 1309. St. Kliment of Ohrid was also depicted in some of King Milutin's endowments, which were decorated with frescoes by the zographs from his “royal workshop”. It is highly probable that the portrait of the said saint was represented in the programs of our Lady of Ljeviša in Prizren (1309–1313), the King's Church in Studenica, in Gračanica (around 1320) and in Hilandar (1320–1321). In all those churches, presentations were painted of the saintly bishop bearing the name Kliment, with the facial features of the patron of Ohrid. The presentation of St. Kliment in Staro Nagoričane (1316) was painted next to the presentations of St. Constantine Kabasilas and the Serbian archbishop Sava, within the framework of the composition with Officiating bishops. This presentation of Kliment, like those in Žiča, is inscribed with the definition “of Ohrid”. It is much less certain that the holy patron of Ohrid was represented in St. Nicholas ton Orphanon in Thessaloniki. The topographical definition “of Ohrid” also accompanies the images of St. Kliment in some churches of the Serbian donors from the period of the king and emperor Dušan, such as the Bela Crkva (White Church) of Karan (1332–1337), the Virgin Hodegitria in Pe} (until 1337), and Mateič (around 1350). A little later in Psača, the Markov Manastir near Skoplje and Andreaš (St. Andrew's church) on the River Treska, St. Kliment was painted without a topographical definition in the inscription but with all the essential physiognomical features of the patron of Ohrid. It is likely that St. Kliment of Ohrid was also depicted in the Church of St. George in Rečane near Prizren (around 1370), as well as in some other Serbian churches dating from the 14th century. Where 15th century Serbian painting is concerned, it was possible to reliably identify his portrait only in the recently destroyed church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin in Dolac near Klina (Metohija), dated to around 1450, and in Poganovo (1499).
More...
The fragments of three rulers’ images are preserved in the highest zone of the eastern wall of what is known as Gregory's Gallery in the exonarthex of the Ohrid cathedral. They are represented on each side of the images of the Deesis, with Christ on the throne, flanked by the images of two archangels, and two saints who mediate for the rulers. Based on the number of the ruler’s portraits, scholars assumed that these are the portaits of the Serbian emperor Dušan, his wife Jelena, and their son Uroš. Therefore, the mural paintings of the gallery are dated to the period between 1350 and 1355 because of the great stylistic similarity between the frescoes of the gallery and those on the first floor of the narthex which were painted by John Teoryanos and his assistants at the end of the fifth decade of the 14th century. One can reliably assume that the first ruler’s image from the left side of the north wall is, in fact, the portrait of the male member of the family. Such an assumption is based on the existence of the small fragment of an extremely long loros, a detail that was not observed by researchers. On the right side of the adjacent figure, a fragment of a semicircular decorative detail is preserved. This detail is reminiscent of the semicircular ornaments on the male sakkos. However, the possibility that the mentioned image is a portrait of the empress Jelena should not be excluded. Namely, one may think that the detail in question is, in fact, the fragment of a long, wide sleeve of a female ruler’s dress. Portraits of Jelena in Saint Nicholas Bolnički in Ohrid and in Lesnovo point to this conclusion. In addition, one should pay attention to the fact that the throne and the legs of Christ are intentionally directed to the south side. That is why we assume that the portait of Dušan was represented on that side, and the portraits of his son and wife who is nearer to Christ , were on the opposite, north side of the eastern wall of the gallery. Based on the existence of a supaedion, on which the figure nearest to Christ on the north side is standing, one can conclude that it is the image of the Virgin. The vertical decorative stripes on her dress are almost identical to those in the churches of Saint Demetrios in the Patriarchate of Pe}, Marko’s Monastery, Lesnovo and Konče. The assumption that the bishop represented on the opposite side of Christ should be identified as Saint Clement of Ohrid cannot be accepted without reserve. Namely, he was not represented with the long pointed beard that covers a part of his omophorion, as was the case on almost all of the images of Saint Clement. That is why the possibility that the image of some other holy bishop is in question seems more acceptable. One should especially examine the possibility that it was Saint Nicholas of Myra. Primarily, the only holy bishop that was represented in the Deesis in Eastern Christian iconography instead of Saint John the Forerunner was, as far as we know, just Saint Nicholas. As valid comparative examples, one can mention the images of the Deesis from the diakonikon of Sopo}ani, above the portal of the narthex of Saint Nicholas Domnesc in Kurtea de Arges, or the Deisis represented on the Russian icon from Tver, painted at the begining of the 16th century. It should be emphasized that Saint Nicholas was greatly respected during the reign of Dušan. This Serbian ruler had an almost personal attitude towards this saint and bishop. Evidence of this is Dušan’s gift to the basilica of Saint Nicholas in Bari, dedications of the smaller church of his mausoleum and the paraklession in Dečani, as well as from the texts of several of his charters. In some of the aforementioned documents, the mediating role of Saint Nicholas is especially stressed. Such a status was assigned to Saint Nicholas in the western part of the Dečani naos, as well. There is a “spatial Deesis” consisting of the figure of the Christ, the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist and Saint Nicholas. Finally, since Saint Nicholas was the namesake of the archbishop of Ohrid, there are grounds for assuming that it was the archbishop who wanted Saint Nicholas to be represented in the Deesis composition.
More...
The Sticherarion No. 53 from the National Museum in Ohrid is one of a few notated neumed monuments that belong to the Paleobyzantine period of musical literacy. It is dated at the end of the 11th — beginning of the 12th century, completely written in Greek. Originally, it was not exclusively intended for chanters. The neumes were added later, above the stichera automela. Concerning the notation type, Ohrid No. 53 belongs to the Coislin codex group. The most frequent neume signs suggest developed Coislin symiography. The analogy with the manuscripts dated later is also striking. Namely, there are apparent similarities between Ohrid No. 53 and Vindobonensis theol. gr. 136, which was written during the first half of the 12th century. The elements of so-called Round or Middle Byzantine notation are characteristic for both of the codices. Some of the great — or hyaeronomic signs are also present in the Sticherarion No. 53. The Ohrid neumed collection deserves its place among the family of codices from the second half of the 11th and first decades of the 12th century also for its liturgical text structure. Of special interest are those services indicating the possible Constantinopolitan origin of the collection. By indicating the typical paleographic features of Ohrid No. 53, its approximate position in the written musical tradition of Byzantium is determined.
More...
Within the process of the reorganization of the Byzantine Empire, after the defeat of the Bulgarians in 1014, the Archbishopric of Ohrid, with 33 dioceses, was established in 1025. Christianizing missions on the Balkans, originating from Constantinople, which started in the second half of the 9th century, could be traced through the literary sources, changes in the funeral character and through the remains of church architecture. Also, after the archbishopric was founded, the massive use of items of personal religiosity began. Those items can be divided into encolpia, cross-pendants, small icons, medallions, ampoules and rings. So far, from the territory of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, more than 600 items of personal religiosity have been published. Since the original archbishopric covered the territories of several modern countries, these types of finds were not published. Although their number is not final, it can be said that this is a small amount of items of personal religiosity, used by the relatively numerous Christian population on the broad territory during the two centuries. The items of personal religiosity, which had an apothropaic use, represented also a sign of belonging to a new social group. According to the available data, the most numerous are finds of encolpia and cross-pendants, certain types of which are characteristic just for some parts of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, while the other groups of items of personal religiosity are much less represented. Most of the finds with a certain archaeological background were discovered in the rural cemeteries, where inhumation according to the Christian funeral ritual was practiced. In most of the cases those finds were sporadic, with the exclusion of the necropolis near the Church of St. Panteleimon in Niš, where a large amount of finds was found. The quantitative analysis of the items of personal religiosity indicates that, most probably, for the use of those finds, the level of the urbanization of a certain town and religious centre, such as Ohrid, Prilep, Niš, Braničevo and Durostorum, had great importance. The Archbishopric of Ohrid played a significant role in the process of the Christianization of the Balkans, since during the first two centuries of its existance the new religion was firmly established. The completely Christian funerary practice, the development of the church architecture and the use of the items of personal religiosity testify to this. However, relicts of pagan customs were also registered. Those were explained mainly as the consequence of the low level of the Christianization, although it could also be explained by the necessity of the people to reach out for all the available assistance of “higher forces” during hard times.
More...
Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, was one of the most important cities in the Middle Ages, a city resembling a giant lighthouse shedding light on all of Christendom. As it was also a very important city in Serbian history, it was mentioned in the old Serbian genealogies, annals and inscriptions. In reference to the medieval Constantinople, the first news about the city on the Bosphorus relate to the 4th century, and then, after an interval of several centuries, the 9th, then 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. It refers to various events primarily connected with Byzantine-Serbian relations in the Late Middle Ages, but not only those. If we look at the individual mention of medieval Constantinople, by centuries, then the following scenario exists: 4th century — two events, 9th century — three, 13th — five, 14th six, 15th century (concluding the year 1453) — six events. Speaking about the way Constantinople was referred to, the term most frequently used was Constantine’s city, then Constantinople, followed by the term “Imperial City.” The old Serbian genealogies, annals and inscriptions, besides Constantinople, also mention cities like Belgrade, Skopje and Ni{ less frequently, and then Vienna, Budapest and Moscow in the centuries following the Middle Ages.
More...
Michael Psellos’ Chronographia is renowned as one of the masterpieces of Byzantine historiography and literature in general, but it is only in the last few decades that his subjectivity is not condemned by modern historians. Nowadays it is regarded as valuable for revealing the author’s attitudes and objectives in writing the history, especially if one considers that from the eleventh century onwards historians tend to figure in their works, starting with Psellos himself. He is, with Anna Comnene, the most prominent author in this regard, and his autobiographical “insertions” are so numerous and scattered through the text at many levels, that it can be said that he himself is the central character of his historical work. Psellos’ descriptions of characters are exceptional, and no other Byzantine historian can compare with him in this regard. Since he considered that emperors were key figures in creating history and major political changes, the Byzantine eleventh-century rulers were, at least on the surface, central figures in his historical work as well. Therefore, this paper deals specifically with their descriptions as presented by Psellos via their physical appearance and specifically one aspect of their illnesses. The descriptions of the emperors’ illnesses in the Chronographia are the means of characterizing them in a more candid and subtle manner, namely showing whether or not they were worthy of the imperial position they occupied. Therefore, we do not find any in the portraits of idealized emperors — Basil II, Constantine and Michael Doukas — nor in those of the emperors who were disqualified in other ways — Romanos Diogenes, Michael V, and Michael VI. In the strongly negative portraits of Constantine VIII, Romanos Argyros and Constantine Monomachos, the descriptions of illnesses are very detailed and brutal, and their physical appearance is otherwise disregarded (or, as in the case of Monomachos, his malady is placed in stark contrast to his beauty at the very beginning of his reign), thus showing their unworthiness of the throne. Not even the emperors whom Psellos observed as mainly positive — Michael Paphlagon and Isaac Komnenos — are spared these descriptions, which are carefully and intentionally placed so that they are connected with their misdeeds and thus indicate the punishment for their behavior. The true meaning of the emperors’ illnesses in the Chronographia is further revealed with the metaphor of the illness of the Empire, which is placed near the end of the first part of the history. Psellos here presents the decline of Byzantium in the period he deals with in the Chronographia by using medical terminology and indicating that the emperors after the death of Basil II led “the body of the state” (to swma thj politeiaj) into a state of utter decline and sickness, although Isaac Comnenus tried to cure it, but he used the wrong measures that were too abrupt. In this way, Psellos gives us guidance on how to read his long passages on the maladies of the emperors.
More...
The paper deals with the autobiographical impulse in the Alexiad of Anna Comnene. We tried to analyze certain passages in order to show in which way Anna’s personal views influenced her description and presentation of certain personages. We will show how her elaborate portrayal is not a mere rhetorical exercise, but is intended by the author as both praise and a critique of the people who influenced her life, and encouraged or suppressed her ambitions. Apart from a physical description, which she used for the evaluation of moral character, and personal judgment, the important thing is the role she ascribed to certain personages. The most beautifully depicted and praised characters were, quite intentionally, the key figures in her struggle to defend her imperial right, of which she was deprived after the birth of John Comnenus. We also analyzed two extensive passages that openly show Anna’s never surpassed imperial ambition and malice toward her younger brother John. Those are narratives about her birth, followed by the birth of Princess Maria and Prince John, and about Alexios’ final days. In both stories, Ana Comnene depicts herself as the central figure of family love, emphasizing the emotional connection she established with her parents, especially Alexios, while still in her mother’s womb. At her father’s deathbed she represents herself as the child most committed to her dying father, without forgetting to give us a sarcastic hint about the emperor’s successor who had left the palace, in order to seize the throne. We have also discussed her silence about certain events, or personages, stressing in the first place, that she rarely mentions her brother John, and even when she does, she often juxtaposes him with the overwhelmingly praised Constantine Doukas, or Nicephoros Bryennios. We found some stylistic features that show in how many different ways theauthor appeared in her own text. We have considered just the possessive pronoun “emos” which she used extensively mentioning her father, mother, husband, and her beloved siblings (i.e. Maria and Andronicus). By using this pronoun, she put herself into the story, where she appears almost always, constantly stressing her connection with the protagonists, and especially the hero, which she mentions as “emos pater” in all cases, 92 times. In the end, we are still left with many more questions than answers. It is certain that Ana’s presence in her own story has to be examined much more deeply, and that quite often, passages and notes that appear in the first place as non-autobiographical reveal a great deal about her and slightly change the perception of the final aims of her work. Therefore, we openly ask what the aim was of such an endeavor as the Alexiad? Was it aimed to be a heroization of Alexios and the construction of an ideal ruler in a new imperial ideology, or was it the self-praise of his first-born child, that even in the days of the third Comnenian ruler refused to admit the ultimate downfall of all her ambitions?
More...
The letters of Demetrius Cydones, one of the greatest intellectuals of late Byzantium, represent a very valuable source for the history of the Empire. They have proven to be a real treasury of significant information which make our knowledge and understanding of the situation within the Byzantine Empire, as well as the issues of its foreign affairs, more complete and elaborate. Having occupied a very high position at the court of both John VI Kantakouzenos and John V Palaeologos, Cydones was able to participate in the politics of the Empire at a time of the great crisis his country was undergoing. Cydones witnessed the rise and fall of Kantakouzenos, the turbulent years of John V Palaeologos’ reign, and, most importantly, the failure of the Byzantine negotiations with the West of which he himself was a strong supporter. As a witness of the turmoil Byzantium was facing in the 14th century, Cydones left very thorough accounts about the almost constant threats to the Empire caused by the Ottoman Turks. The fear and terror of an unknown future made the lives of Cydones and his countrymen hard and uncertain. Those, who, at the beginning of the 14th century were nothing but one of the many tribes on the eastern borders of the Empire of Constantine the Great, soon turned out to be very dangerous “allies” and fearsome conquerors of its territories. The battle of Didymoteicho in 1352, of which we find the accounts in two of Cydones’ letters, is certainly one of the most important battles in the civil war between John VI Kantakouzenos and John V Palaeologos. The muslim “allies” of the elder emperor prevailed over the Serbian allies of Palaeologos. As it is known, this battle paved the way for the further penetration of the Ottomans into the Balkans, and opened the gates to the conquerors of the Balkan Peninsula. It is at this point that Cydones’ interest in the Turks and his almost constant appeals to the Byzantines and the Westerners to find a way for mutual actions against the “infidels” started. In the letters Cydones’ wrote to his friends (John Laskaris Kalopheros, Georgios Synadenos Astras, John Kyparissiotes, Simon Atoumanos), we find numerous warnings that the gates of the Great City might soon become a prison for its inhabitants. Therefore, according to Cydones, a serious defense had to be undertaken with the help of the Westerners in the form of a crusade. The negotiations turned out to have led to small crusades of the Cypriot king, Peter I Lousignan, and Amadeo VI, the count of Savoy, but they brought no true relief to the Empire. The danger was becoming ever more serious and fear was spreading very fast. The great disappointment of the “Roman journey” 1369–1371, led to an even greater disillusionment after the battle at the Maritza. The bloody outcome of this decisive battle was, as we presume, recorded in one of the letters of Cydones’ correspondence. The “Turkish threat” together with Cydones’ appeals to both the Byzantines and the Westerners for cooperation in the fight against the “infidels” is one of the central themes of Cydones’ correspondence. These letters reveal a man of action, an intellectual who, unlike most of his contemporaries who searched for eschatological explanations for the misfortunes that befell their country, tried to find realistic answers and a solution to the problem of the Turks. They provide us with an insight into the discrepancies between the three different worlds and uncover Cydones’ personal views on the foreign policy of Byzantium.
More...
The sakkos of ecclesiastical dignitaries is festive attire of a rectangular cut, joined at the sides, with very short sleeves. Previous researchers have pointed out that only three Byzantine writers wrote about it. They were Theodore Balsamon, chartophylax of St. Sophia in Constantinople and the Patriarch of Antioch (second half of the 12th century), Ohrid Archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos (first half of the 13th century) and Archbishop Symeon of Thessaloniki (first decades of the 15th century). There is no preserved written source that would testify which Serbian church dignitaries wore the sakkos and when they received the right to wear it. The only sources on the use of the sakkos in the Serbian Church are the preserved representations of its highest dignitaries. St. Sava of Serbia and his successors — archbishops and later, patriarchs — were depicted wearing the sakkos. The oldest paintings date back to the reign of King Milutin (Figs. 1–2). Some time later, in 1334, the ancient city of Ohrid was included in the Serbian state. Its archbishops enjoyed the right assigned to them much earlier, to wear the sakkos, and they retained that right. So in the Serbian Church, the sakkos was worn by the archbishops and later patriarchs, and the Ohrid archbishops, as well. The oldest preserved pictures of the Serbian archbishops clad in the sakkos are the representation of St. Sava of Serbia in the narthex of the Virgin Ljevi{ka church (Fig. 1), decorated between 1307 and 1313, and the portrait of Archbishop Sava III in the illustration of the Christmas sticheron in the passage that leads to the narthex in @i~a (Fig. 2), painted between 1309 and 1316. That means that awarding the right to wear the sakkos occurred in 1313, at the latest. It certainly was not only a religious but also a political gesture. Byzantine state policy toward Serbia and probably church policy as well, significantly changed for the better during the reigns of Emperor Andronicus II and King Milutin. That created fertile ground, enabling the Serbian church dignitaries to receive the honor to wear the most festive ecclesiastical vestments. The Byzantine emperor, apparently, could have had a major influence on the process of bringing such a decision. However, the question arises as to which patriarch of Constantinople granted this right to the Serbian archbishops. At the beginning of the 14th century, the ecumenical patriarchs were John XII Cosmas (January 1, 1294 to June 21, 1303), Athanasius I (second time, from June 23, 1303 to September 1309) and Niphon I (May 9, 1310 to April 11, 1314). At that time, the throne of the Serbian archbishops was occupied by Eustatius II (1292–1309) and Sava III (1309–1316). Very little is known about these Serbian archbishops. On the other hand, there are numerous sources about the Church's policies and attitudes of the mentioned Constantinople patriarchs. Eustatius II could have received the right to wear the sakkos from John XII Cosmas or Athanasios I. For a long time, the former was fiercely opposed to the marriage of the Serbian king and the daughter of the Byzantine emperor. The latter maintained a very strict attitude. He left data on almost all of his moves in numerous letters, in which such a decision is not mentioned. Therefore, the probability that the first Serbian archbishop who received the sakkos was Eustatius II is negligible. Sava III could have obtained that right from Niphon I. That patriarch, along with an inclination for the easy life, pursued a conciliatory policy and pragmatism. So it is possible that, on the initiative of the emperor, he made the decision that the successors to the throne of St. Sava of Serbia should have the right to wear the sakkos. If this assumption is correct, then the Serbian archbishops received the honor to wear the most festive ecclesiastical garments after the appointment of Niphon I to the throne of the Constantinople patriarchs, which was performed on May 9, 1310. Anyway, this occurred after many changes in the political relations between the Byzantine and the Serbian state during the reigns of Emperor Andronicus II and King Milutin. In those crucial years the Serbian Church advanced from an organization whose canonical foundation was denied at the time of Michael VIII Palaeologos, to the archbishopric whose leaders received the right to wear the festive sakkos, like those worn by the ecumenical patriarchs at the time of Andronicus II.
More...