THE VIRTUES OF THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR (PART I)

In the political theory of the Byzantines, the holder of royal power had to be distinguished for specific virtues, in order to justify, in the conscience of his subjects, his election (by God and through the constitutional factors) to the supreme office. More specifically, the emperor was required to be distinguished for his pious disposition, for his absolute devotion to correct doctrine, and for his sincere concern to guide his subjects along the path of piety.

Accordingly, he was obliged to demonstrate, by every action and every word of his, his adherence to the demands of justice, his sincere concern for the preservation of the peaceful legal order and of social cohesion, as well as his impartiality in the exercise of his duties. Beyond these, throughout the whole duration of his reign he had to provide indisputable evidence of his effectiveness with regard to the defense of the empire against every threat, of his philanthropic sentiments toward his subjects, of his sound moral character, as well as of his ability to manage prudently the fiscal resources of the empire and to select the appropriate persons for the crucial positions of the state apparatus.

These fundamental principles of Byzantine political thought, which are traceable already from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea, enjoyed universal acceptance not only from the ordinary citizens and the state officials of the empire, but even from the holders of royal power themselves. This emerges effortlessly from the study of the official expressions of imperial ideology (prefaces of legislative works, coins and imperial seals, imperial orations, mirrors for princes, pictorial representations of emperors), as well as from the official titulature that was used for the holder of royal power (e.g., God-crowned, most pious, victor, philanthropic, God-loved, God-loving).

Konstantinos Paidas, The Theoretical Model of Sovereignty in the Historical Work of Joseph Genesios "On the Reigns", Byzantina Symmeikta, volume 26, pp. 213-214