Postulations of Thessalonica

The **Postulations of Thessalonica** were a series of speeches, panegyrics and verbal statements delivered by monks of Mount Athos in the streets of Thessalonica, second city of the Byzantine Empire, beginning on 18 August 1302, under the spiritual leadership of the monk Eusebios of Ephesus, whose mirror of princes *On the Nature of the Imperial Offices* was later published and distributed in vernacular written form. The Postulations of Thessalonica were essentially a *kaiserkritik* against Romanos VI Melissenos and marked the birth of the religious Eusebian movement, in a timeline of events that would ultimately contribute to the crisis and downfall of the Melissenid dynasty in 1312 and lead to the Council of Nymphaeum between 1312 and 1313.

## In-game text

The religious tribulations and spiritual strife that would be characteristic marks of the Rhomanian society and even politics in the first half of the fourteenth century were born on the feast day of Saint Theodore of the Romans, August 18th, 1302, only a couple of weeks removed from New Year’s Day, in the crowded central market and forum of Thessalonica, the Empire’s second city. They came to the world through the pompous oratory of a collection of monks come from the mountain monastery of Mount Athos, who spread the word across the *Symbasileousa*’s cobbled streets and saw their voice reach far beyond the city walls. The Romans were no strangers to public and open denouncement of imperial policy, and even occasionally the person of the Emperor, but only few had the widespread range and lasting consequences of the Postulations of Thessalonica. Those would lay ample groundwork for the Empire’s religious doctrine and directives for the next decades and bring inglorious closing years to Emperor Romanos VI’s controversial and unpopular, if highly efficient, reign.

Why, then, were the Postulations of Thessalonica widely accepted and reproduced throughout the Rhomanian society and elites to the point of heavily influencing imperial policy and setting the terms for future Church doctrine, when other similar condemnations had failed to change much in the past (with the notable example of Nikephoros Blemmydes’ great quarrel with Theodore II Laskaris)? A significant part of its fallout must be credited to the specific circumstances of Romanos VI’s rule. The questioned legitimacy of his regime, which was inherited from his grandfather Romanos V's perceived usurpation of the purple in 1284, brought to the fore ubiquitous discontent that would have been readily dismissed otherwise. The Emperor’s inability to capitalize on his grand successes, as the great conquests of Antioch and Iconium, as well as Atouman’s conversion, coupled with his failure to convincingly vinculate his image and identity to that of the Great Laskarids, provided fertile ground for his opponents. His achievements were clouded by a veil of cynicism; what was Antioch, when compared to Emperor Skantarios’ death? What was Iconium, when the last Christians were expelled from the Levant and the Scythians spread their false faith everywhere they went? Worst of all, why deny Roman arms and Christ the glory of reconquering Bithynia, and why welcome Atouman into the imperial house by marriage? As Theodore II Laskaris had written in his innovative and rather depressing *Explanation of the World* thirty years previously, all the good deeds were corrupted by time and forgotten, whereas the bad ones, however minor and petty, clung to the rocks in the sea of life and became all there was to man’s imperfect sight. His conclusion was that a ruler was fated to be hated, even for his goods actions, and thus should not be concerned with the inevitability of a corroded public opinion. Whereas Romanos VI Melissenos was not hated as much as misliked, to man’s imperfect eye the bad in his deeds far outweighed the good.

Nevertheless, there had been Emperors far more unpopular than Romanos VI in the Empire’s long and rich history, and only few of them had seen events of the magnitude and aftershocks as the Postulations of Thessalonica. One must look past the great picture, then, and investigate the particularities that allowed that progression of events. Specifically, it would be ingenious to look at the man at the helm of the Postulations, the first to formulate and propagate them before getting in touch with the monks of Mount Athos. He was a monk himself, blind by the sweeping of the circumstances, who went by the monastic name of Eusebios. He was the hegumen and patron of his monastery in the outskirts of the city of Ephesus, near to the Asian coast, where he had spent the past two decades of his life. He had been the pupil of George Akropolites and two Ecumenical Patriarchs, Arsenios I Autoreianos and Gregory II of Cyprus, and was an avid reader (or rather, listener) of not only the Bible, deceased master theologians and even the profane ancients, but also of the thirteenth-century monk and prolific writer Nikephoros Blemmydes, who had been Theodore II’s tutor in his youth and later became his bitterest opponent.

Most importantly, Eusebios of Ephesos had not been born with that adopted name. His was another, an imperial name. *Porphyrogennetos*. Born in the purple. In another life, two decades before, he had been John IV Laskaris, Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans.

The firstborn child of Theodore II Laskaris and the Augusta Theodora Komnena, long-forgotten at his monastic exile at Ephesus, had always been prone to higher learning and spiritual introspection. Even as a child, John Laskaris was keen-minded and sharp of intellect, qualities favorably noted by his tutors and his father, the Emperor Theodore. When young John became sole Emperor in 1278, his reign was set to be one of enlightenment and cultural flourishing under the guidance of a Philosopher *Basileus*… but it was not to be. Brought down by the manipulations and machinations of the then domestikos tes anatoles Romanos Melissenos and the brutal palace coup executed by the traitor Michael Palaiologos, as Skantarios Laskaris marched on Constantinople, the former John IV was forced into monastic exile. After Palaiologos had battered down the golden gates of Blachernae and butchered George Mouzalon and his family, John had had his sight taken from him at Palaiologos’ whim, who erroneously believed Skantarios Laskaris would reward him for his “loyalty” to the purple. As he was exiled to Ephesus, parting in friendly terms with his younger brother in spite of the circumstances, the now monk Eusebios had two decades to reflect on the misery of life. He mourned his brother’s death at Seleucia, forced himself to tolerate Romanos V’s usurpation in disquieting silence, and waited. He waited to see what God had in store for him, and why He had not taken his life together with that of George Mouzalon, his father and his brother.

He sought his answers in spiritual introspection, as he was wont to do even at the time when he was the Emperor of the Romans. For the next two decades, Eusebios of Ephesus searched his soul for the ultimate source of divinity in the terrestrial plane. Drawing from Emperor Theodore II’s philosophy, Eusebios was one of the pioneers of the later fourteenth-century Church doctrine known as hesychasm. Accordingly, time corrupted everything, and thus everything in the world was imperfect to human senses. Indeed, human senses themselves were plagued by inconstancy and imperfection, and thus could not be trusted to investigate God’s creation. However, God was incorruptible by the destructive and relentless forces of time, and thus the ultimate expression of his divinity on Earth must have been similarly incorruptible. Thus, Eusebios of Ephesus looked at his soul as his only perfect and divine possession in the terrestrial plane, and deemed that conversing with the soul through intense meditations was the only way to communicate with God. Perhaps his blindness can be blamed for his shunning of his human senses, but Eusebios’ early hesychast theology brought him closer to the monks of Mount Athos, who were rapidly coming to the same conclusion; their friendship would be invaluable, and specially primordial for the Postulations of Thessalonica.

Perhaps the answer he had been seeking came to him after two decades of monastic soul-searching, or perhaps Eusebios thought the time was right to take his vengeance against Romanos Melissenos’ grandson. All that matters is that when the blind monk Eusebios of Ephesus spoke at Thessalonica, he was listened to as John Laskaris, one-time rightful Emperor of the Romans, favorite son and favored successor of the Lion of Philomelion. After all, it was not by coincidence that John-Eusebios chose to address the people of Thessalonica on his father’s death anniversary and saintly feast day, and nor was it a coincidence that his words would cause ripples which had the potential to tear the very fabric of the Melissenid regime.​

The oral statement delivered by Eusebios of Ephesus and the monks of Mount Athos at Thessalonica during their speeches in the markets, forums and churches found its written counterpart in *On the Nature of the Imperial Office*, an nigh anti-panegyric written by the blind monk in the traditional form of a mirror of princes. Although Romanos VI’s name is never mentioned directly, the caricature within the work mirrors the Emperor implicitly (and one cannot forget that the mirror of princes was addressed to Romanos VI himself, as well as his son Theodore Melissenos Laskaris). Eusebios’ manifold critics are delivered in the form of naming what the imperial conduct ought to be in an ideal and hypothetical world, offering suggestions to an imaginary prince, a clear substitute for Emperor Romanos himself. Although many of Eusebios’ other works are written in the highly complicated form of Attic Greek, *On the Nature of the Imperial Office* was composed in vernacular, undoubtedly to facilitate its comprehension by listeners and readers alike.

Ironically, the mirror of princes begins almost as a celebration of Romanos VI’s reign. Eusebios writes of peace and war, and follows the trend present since the late eleventh century in similar literature claiming martial ability to be one of the most essential traits of the one occupying the imperial office, if not the most essential. Arguably, war and peace were one of Emperor Romanos VI's strongest points, thanks to his various Asian campaigns and his preservation of peace whenever it was possible. Peace, indeed, was always deemed to be a grander state of affairs than war by previous mirrors of princes, a judgment which Eusebios reaffirms as he celebrates the Emperor’s victories and his commitment to peace. However, Eusebios innovates in recuperating Aristotelian notions of just wars and defending that peace, while preferable, was always inferior to a just war, for if peace and war were antonyms, so were justice and injustice. If a war is just, then must not a peace opposing a just war be unjust? He proceeds to imagine a hypothetical scenario of a foreign and heathen prince entitling himself the Emperor of the Romans in spite of his rightful allegiance to the Emperor at Constantinople. There would be no juster war than the one that defends and expands the Church and the word of Christ whilst protecting the Polity of the Romans, Eusebios writes, and thus any peace between the Emperor and the heathen pretender would be a clearly unjust peace. Refusing to pursue such a just war, then, would not only be the same as committing an injustice against both God and the Polity of the Romans, but would also be an act of impiety and cowardice by the Emperor of the Romans, who ought to be pious and courageous. Naturally, the similarities between Eusebios’ hypothetical scenario and the conversion of the Nicene prince Atouman are striking, if not identical. After all, Atouman had professed the Muslim faith and claimed himself the Sultan of Rum before bowing to Emperor Romanos. For Eusebios, the latter’s reluctance and ultimate denial at pursuing the just war against Atouman was, therefore, an ungodly and craven act, which protected an unjust peace rather than the Church and the Polity of the Romans.

Eusebios of Ephesus resumes his mirror of princes by listing all the nineteen virtues of an Emperor, which had been (mockingly) listed by Emperor Theodore II himself in the 1250's. The influence of the scholar and theologian Nikephoros Blemmydes, Theodore II’s intellectual arch-enemy and one of the main inspirations for Eusebios of Ephesus, is evident here, as the mirror places great importance on the imperial virtues, particularly Blemmydes’ favored ones: moderation, mildness, generosity, calmness, compassion, friendship and philanthropy. Eusebios adds self-control and self-awareness to his list of virtues, drawing from the ancient Athenian philosopher Isocrates, at the same time as he adamantly upholds the notion of Plato’s Philosopher-King (as John IV would have been, one must remind oneself). In short, Emperor Romanos VI was deficient in all of those virtues. He was not known for his generosity, as he denied the Romans the spoils and heavenly gifts of a just war in favor of an unjust peace. He lacked any compassion and friendship, being grim and withdrawn, and a man of few smiles. He did no charity, and neither was he as forgiving as a Christian should be. Finally, the Emperor was far removed from a philosopher, and thus unprepared to rule. The Emperor of the Romans was supposed to be an imitator of God on Earth, Eusebios writes, and an Emperor who did not espouse His virtues in his imitation would not only be a fraudulent ruler, but would live a blasphemous life that, due to his office and supreme authority, condemned the entirety of the Polity of the Romans to purgatory, an inexcusable end to God’s chosen people.

The Emperor, as the fundament of the people, had a collective responsibility vis-a-vis his subjects to emulate the nineteen divine virtues. Eusebios agrees that the Emperor’s right to rule descends from divine right itself, but reminds all that the nature of the imperial office in the Polity of the Romans was a public one. The Emperor did not rule merely by divine right, but by the acclamation of God’s chosen people, the Romans, and thus he was accountable for his actions before the People of Rome. An Emperor was subject to the Polity’s laws (where the supposed obligation to make just war resurfaces), and was expected to hand out justice impartially and impersonally to all (and yet how come is Atouman of the Turks welcomed into the purple?). Furthermore, given the public nature of the imperial office, the Emperor was obliged to always seek the public good, rather than merely personal good. An unjust peace was as far removed from the public good as possible, Eusebios argues, and the open welcoming of Mohametans into the Polity of the Romans was a similar disaster, one which endangered the Romans’ missionary mission on Earth. Eusebios reasserts the mortality and humanity of the Emperor - even if the justice of men should fail, the Emperor would be dragged naked before God as all men would in the Last Judgment. Either way, the Emperor was accountable for his crimes and sins.

Eusebios of Ephesus’s *On the Nature of the Imperial Office* contained further criticism of Romanos VI’s imperial policies: his private ownership of the vast Melissenid estates in Asia, when the Emperor was solely a public official administering the wealth of the Empire for the public benefit, and not his own private one; the so-called decline of the public officials in recent times (while in simultaneous praise of the late George Mouzalon, John IV's chief minister); the employment of heathens and heretics in the imperial army, when it should be a purely Roman force; the Emperor’s constant indulgence of the Latins and their interests, against Roman public good (citing examples analogous to the slaughter of the Varangian Guard in Hungary and the unpopular treaty with Venice); Eusebios of Ephesus went as far as to imply that an Emperor’s adultery could explain all the misgivings of the Polity of the Romans in his hypothetical world (another concept he borrowed from Nikephoros Blemmydes), especially if it was incestuous adultery - an implication which soon bound Romanos VI to the Dowager Empress Irene of Bohemia in an illicit carnal relationship in court gossip, which only worsened the Emperor’s image amidst his subjects.

*On the Nature of the Imperial Office* and its distribution, orally in the Postulations of Thessalonica and in written form through a mirror of princes, was one of the most defining moments of the early fourteenth century in the Roman Empire. The implicit and yet clear attacks against Emperor Romanos VI and his policies, especially in regard with his tolerance for Muslims and his diplomatic efforts rather than military reconquest in Asia Minor, would soon become truisms in Rhomanian everyday life. Although only minimally based on solid facts, Eusebios of Ephesus’ discourse was convincing and engaging, and would spell significant troubles for the Melissenid regime in the decade to come. The Roman fourteenth century opened with a thunder - only the destructive forces of time, however, would tell if it was to be the century of the Eusebians.

## References

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/before-the-fall.36591/page-88#post-9347314