Philaretos the Merciful

1. Biography

Philaretos the Merciful was born in 702 in Amnia, a town in Paphlagonia.1 A son of George, probably of armenian origin,2 and Anna, Philaretos was a wealthy landowner and a noble among the citizens of Pontos and Galatia. He was married to Theosebou and had three children, a son named John and two daughters named Ypate and Evanthia. His charitable action is the main subject of his Vita. Even when he gradually lost almost his entire fortune due to the arab raids in the region (probably in 782 or a little later)3 and other reasons, he continued to give alms to the poor, triggering off his wife’s anger.4

While Philaretos was on the brink of the financial disaster, Eirene’s emissaries (797-802) came to the region in order to choose the imperial bride of Eirene’s son, the emperor Constantine VI (780-797). In 788, Philaretos’ whole family, counting 30 members at the time, moved to Constantinople, since one of Philaretos’ granddaughters, Maria, was selected as a possible candidate and was finally chosen to be the emperor’s wife. Philaretos was granted the title of consul and his son was granted the titles of spatharios and maglabites. Maria’s two sisters were also married to nobles. Myranthia was married to a patrikios named Constantinakios, while Evanthia was sent as a bride to the Lombard duke of Benevento Argouses.5 Philaretos continued his charitable action in Constantinople, giving to the poor the assets granted to him by the emperor. Before his death, he bought a tomb in the female monastery of St. Andrew “εν τη Κρίσει”, or Rhodophylion,6 and donated all his remaining fortune to the monastery.7 He died on December 1st, 792, in Constantinople at the age of 90, four years after his granddaughter’s wedding and at a time when his grandson and later biographer Niketas was only 7 years old.

2. Ideology

Niketas abstains from mentioning anything in the Vita that would place Philaretos among the iconophile or iconoclastic party, which can be interpreted as an attempt to achieve the universal acceptance of the sanctity of Philaretos from both sides.8 Following Maria’s wedding to the emperor Constantine VI, Philaretos and his family became relatives of the imperial house, a fact that would place them among the iconophile party, since Eirene, Constantine’s mother, was the one who reinstated the veneration of the icons, putting an end to the first phase of the Iconoclasm. It is presumed that Niketas, Philaretos’ grandson, was exiled due to his iconophile beliefs to Karioupolis of southern Peloponnesus, where he wrote the Vita of Philaretos.9 The fact, however, that there is no mention in the Vita concerning the Iconoclasm has led to the theory proposed by some researchers that Philaretos and his family favored the iconoclastic party.10

3. Fortune

All of Philaretos’ assets are recorded in his Vita in every detail, along with general information about the agricultural society of the 8th century. Through this detailed list of his assets, one is informed that Philaretos’ fortune included, apart from the 48 proastia, scattered in the regions of Pontos, Galatia and Paphlagonia well irrigated land plots, covering an area, according to estimates, of 15.000 to 20.000 modios of land,11 600 oxen, 100 pairs of oxen as pack animals, 600 grazing horses, 80 horses and mules for agricultural activities, 12.000 sheep and many slaves. This list of Philaretos’ assets by Niketas is so detailed that it mentions his 250 beehives and offers information about the decoration and furnishing of his house. Through this list of Philaretos’ assets, it is evident that his fortune was based on cattle-raising, beekeeping and agriculture.12

4. Social status

Philaretos’ power was based on his wealth and political connections. Philaretos lived with his family in an old, large and luxurious house in Amnia. Its luxury and grandness impressed and attracted the attention of Eirene’s emissaries when they searched for her son’s candidate bride. The gilt table where the royal emissaries ate was made of ivory and had a capacity of 36 people. The women of the house stayed in the women’s quarters and never came out, according to the habits and way of life of the aristocratic families. Apart from Philaretos’ wealth, it is evident in his Vita that his social status was reinforced by his relations with the state officials of the region, such as a dioiketes, an official responsible for the tax collection of the region, and by the prestige and influence of such relations. Philaretos, according to his biographer, was a noble, a title based on his fortune and landowning and not on his aristocratic origin, since his father was also a wealthy farmer. It is evident that during the 2nd half of the 8th century, a noble was not only someone with an aristocratic origin but also a wealthy and prestigious landowner.13

Philaretos’ case is evident of the development of the institution of the themes during the 8th century, when a new aristocratic class emerged among the small and middle landowners. Small land plots fell into the hands of a chosen few and a local provincial aristocracy was formed, gaining its prestige from big landowning. It is the time when the great aristocratic families and houses emerge and the institution of hereditary aristocracy is introduces in Byzantium.14 Philaretos helped many of his fellow villagers who were on the brink of the financial disaster and could not pay their taxes or pay back their creditors, a fact indicative of the problems small and middle landowners faced during the 8th century and of the differentiation between the dynatoi and small landowners. When Philaretos and his family moved to Constantinople and he and his sons acquired titles, they became members of the aristocratic class of the capital. From now on, Philaretos owed his high social status not only to his wealth but also to his title and family bond with the imperial house, since he was the emperor’s father-in-law.

5. Loss of fortune

Philaretos gradually lost his fortune due to several reasons. Some landowners took advantage of Philaretos’ misfortunes and his inability to cultivate his land and pay his taxes and acquired his fortune. It seems that these landowners acted on the bounds of collective tax responsibility. Since Philaretos was unable to cultivate his land and pay his taxes, they paid Philaretos’ taxes and acquired the right to profit from his land.15 Philaretos’ fortune was reduced to a pair of oxen, a horse, a mule, a cow, a calf and two slaves. According to his Vita, Philaretos distributed his last assets to those who needed them more. His situation, according to the same source, was such that when the royal emissaries came to his house, his fellow villagers and landowners supplied him with food in order to organize a rich banquet. Despite the fact that Philaretos was among the “δυνατούς” of his time and region, he was led to bankruptcy, a fact that indicates that the situation was fluid, the power of the aristocracy of the 8th century was not yet given and established and that this new aristocracy was not yet a privileged class.

6. Sanctification

Philaretos showed no miraculous action. His generosity remains the main reason of his sanctification. He did not perform any miracles during his life. The foresight of his death and the redolence and radiance of his body at the time of his death are used in order to substantiate his sanctity. The main hagiological motif, however, that Niketas uses in order to substantiate his grandfather’s sanctity is a dream where Philaretos talks to him from heaven.16 According to his own words, Niketas writes his grandfather’s Vita in order to prove his sanctity, which is not yet given. That’s the reason why the Vita lacks the hagiological clichés and the usual moral concepts and sermons, but systematically points out Philaretos’ generosity, which seems to be the main reason of his sanctification.



1. On Amnia of Paphlagonia see Belke, K., Paphlagonien und Honorias (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Band 9, Vienna 1996), pp. 170-171.

2. The armenian origin of Philaretos is supported by Brehier, L., “Les populations rurales au IXe siecle d’apres l’hagiographie byzantine”, Byzantion 1 (1924), p. 180, and Treadgold, W., The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (California 1988), pp. 91 and 342, note 375; Nesbitt, J., “The Life of St. Philaretos (702-792) and its Significance for Byzantine Agriculture”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 14 (1969), p. 152, disagrees.

3. Fourmy, M.-H. – Leroy, M., “La Vie de S. Philarete”, Byzantion 9 (1934), pp. 99-101.

4. Fourmy, M.-H. – Leroy, M., “La Vie de S. Philarete”, Byzantion 9 (1934), p. 133.

5. Argouses of the byzantine sources is identified with Arichis of the western sources; see Vasiliev, A., “Zitie Filareta Milostigovo”, Investija Russkago Archeologiceskago Instituta v Konstantinopole 5 (1990), pp. 58-61. Fourmy, M.-H. – Leroy, M., “La Vie de S. Philarete”, Byzantion 9 (1934), p. 105, Auzepy, M. F., “De Philarete, de sa famille et de certains monasteres de Constantinople”, in Jolivet, M. – Kaplan, J. – Sodini, P. (eds), Les saints et leur sanctuaire: texts images et monuments (Byzantina Sorbonensia 11, Paris 1993), pp. 117-135, and Winkelmann, F., Quellenstudien zur herrschenden Klasse von Byzanz im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 54, Berlin 1987), pp. 192-193, identify Argouses of the Life of Philaretos with the son of the duke of Benevento Arichis, Grimoald.

6. This monastery is most probably the monastery where St. Andrew of Crete was buried on November 20th, 766; see Janin, R., La geographie ecclesiastique de l’empire byzantin III: Les eglises et les monasteres (Paris 1953), pp. 32-35.

7. On the question of why Philaretos chose a female monastery in order to be buried, the only possible answer is that the female monasteries of the time were prestigious and powerful; see Auzepy, M. F., “De Philarete, de sa famille et de certains monasteres de Constantinople”, in Jolivet, M. – Kaplan, J. – Sodini, P. (eds), Les saints et leur sanctuaire: texts images et monuments (Byzantina Sorbonensia 11, Paris 1993), p. 127.

8. See Γιαννόπουλος, Π., “Παρατηρήσεις στο “Βίο του αγίου Φιλαρέτου””, Βυζαντινά 131 (1985), pp. 501-502.

9. Fourmy, M.-H. – Leroy, M., “La Vie de S. Philarete”, Byzantion 9 (1934), p. 97, and Γιαννόπουλος, Π., “Παρατηρήσεις στο “Βίο του αγίου Φιλαρέτου””, Βυζαντινά 131 (1985), pp. 501-502, assume that Michael VI might have sent Niketas into exile when he took drastic measures against the monks following the rebellion of Thomas the Slave.

10. Sevcenko, I., “Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period”, in Bryer, A. – Herrin, J. (eds), Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (University of Birmingham, March 1975, England 1977), pp. 126-127, questions the iconophile beliefs of Philaretos and his family and the fact that Niketas might have been sent into exile due to these beliefs by a moderate emperor, such as Michael VI, who did not persecute the iconophiles. Sevcenko’s opinion is reinforced by Auzepy, M. F., “De Philarete, de sa famille et de certains monasteres de Constantinople”, in Jolivet, M. – Kaplan, J. – Sodini, P. (eds), Les saints et leur sanctuaire: texts images et monuments (Byzantina Sorbonensia 11, Paris 1993), p. 121, stating that the names of Philaretos’ descendants are mostly related to flowers and not to saints of the time and that the monasteriew where the members of Philaretos’ family were buried were prestigious and powerful during the “εικονομαχική περίοδο”. On the contrary, other researchers interpret Niketas’ stance as an expression of moderation, neutrality or indifference about the religious and political conflict of his time; see Γιαννόπουλος, Π., “Παρατηρήσεις στο “Βίο του αγίου Φιλαρέτου””, Βυζαντινά 131 (1985), pp. 501-502. Other researchers find evidence of the hagiological motif of the mad saint. Therefore, any mention of the icons and the iconoclastic conflict would not be appropriate; see Kazhdan, A., in collaboration with Sherry, L. – Angelidi, C., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850) (Athens 1999), pp. 289-290.

11. Kaplan, M., Les homes et la terre a Byzance du VIe au XIe siecle. Propriete et exploitatoin du sol (Paris 1992), p. 332, estimates that Philaretos’ land plots covered an area of 10.000 modia.

12. See Evert-Kapessova, H., “Une grande propriete fonciere du VIIIe s. a Byzance”, Byzantinoslavica 24 (1963), p. 37.

13. Loos, M., “Quelques remarques sur les communautes rurales et la grandes propriete terrienne a Byzance (VIIe-XIe siecles)”, Byzantinoslavica 39 (1978), pp. 3-18; Kaplan, M., Les homes et la terre a Byzance du VIe au XIe siecle. Propriete et exploitatoin du sol (Paris 1992), pp. 362-3; Nesbitt, J., “The Life of St. Philaretos (702-792) and its Significance for Byzantine Agriculture”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 14 (1969), p. 153. Kazhdan, A., “One more Agrarian History of Byzantium”, Byzantinoslavica 55 (1994), p. 81, claims that the term “ευγενής” meant, according to hagiological standards, the humble and pious rather than the aristocrat. He does not, however, disagree with Kaplan, since the latter characterizes Philaretos’ way of life and not his social status as aristocratic. There is no indication that Philaretos was of aristocratic origin or held any title. Kazhdan, A., in collaboration with Sherry, L. – Angelidi, C., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850) (Athens 1999), p. 287, does not interfere.

14. Ostrogorsky, G., “Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971), pp. 3-5, and Loos, M., “Quelques remarques sur les communautes rurales et la grandes propriete terrienne a Byzance (VIIe-XIe siecles)”, Byzantinoslavica 39 (1978), p. 14.

15. Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Αικ., Βυζαντινή Ιστορία Β1: 610-867 (Thessaloniki 1998) (2nd edition with updated bibliography), pp. 319-320.

16. Fourmy, M.-H. – Leroy, M., “La Vie de S. Philarete”, Byzantion 9 (1934), pp. 161-165.