22. Evergetis - Dumbarton Oaks

ELEVENTH CENTURY
superiorship). Thereafter, other authors must have introduced the present division of the work into
43 chapters, re-edited certain ideologically and politically sensitive chapters like [12] and [19],
and perhaps added a few final chapters of their own. The exact balance between the contributions
of Timothy and his successors may not be determinable, unless some of the innovations contained
in chapters [12] through the end of the document can be precisely dated from external evidence.
The completion of the typikon as we have it is proposed for 1098–1118, an approximation of John
Doukas’ tenure as an Evergetian monk.
G. Subsequent Utilization by Later Authors
(22) Evergetis was undoubtedly the most influential Byzantine founder’s typikon ever written. As
noted above in Evergetis’ Institutional History, many subsequent founders utilized it either directly
or indirectly, down to the middle of the fourteenth century. Later authors utilized the whole
or significant parts of all of the components of (22) Evergetis except for these obviously particular
sections: the introduction [1], the foundation history [2], the founder’s commemoration [35], and
the appendix. Our own Appendix C: Topical Interrelationships of the Evergetian Family of Monastic
Typika provides an overview of this usage.
It was through the borrowing of its typikon rather than through the development of any kind
of monastic order that Evergetis saw its institutions and customs introduced into many of the most
influential monasteries of later Byzantium. Detailed discussions of the impact of Evergetian institutions
and customs on the successor institutions for which these founders wrote their own typika
will be found below under the respective textually linked foundation documents in our collection.
46 To provide even a brief summary here would be tantamount to writing a concise history of
Byzantine monasticism over the next two hundred years. Some general observations about the
nature of subsequent utilization are in order, however.
First, the seamless way later authors integrated large portions of (22) Evergetis into their own
works, admitting hardly any incongruities or internal inconsistencies, speaks to their superior
editorial skills. Second, many later authors were so respectful of the text of (22) Evergetis that
they utilized even its most disorganized chapters, like [13] and [14], to fashion new, better organized
regulations of their own, and on occasion even used parts of (22) Evergetis to shape regulations
opposed to the model’s own provisions. Third, even foundation documents textually independent
of (22) Evergetis nevertheless are indebted to many of its institutions and customs. This is
true even in the twelfth century, but the phenomenon becomes more noticeable in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries at the very time that direct borrowing from (22) Evergetis becomes less
common. 47 Fourth, the massive indebtedness of successor institutions to Evergetis is rarely acknowledged.
Only Isaac Komnenos, author of (29) Kosmosoteira [8] in 1152, comes close to
admitting the essentially derivative character of much of his own work. Finally, the borrowing
from (22) Evergetis soon became dependent on intermediary typika, some, like (32) Mamas that
are fortunately still preserved, and others that can be only conjecturally reconstructed. This was
because the dynamic of the ongoing monastic reform, particularly in the twelfth century, tended to
make (22) Evergetis seem outdated in the version in which we have it. Even (22) Evergetis’ close
copiers, the authors of (30) Phoberos, (29) Kosmosoteira, and to a lesser extent also (34) Machairas,
seem to have used a different version, a vulgate, as it were, of the Evergetian typikon.
[ 468 ]