Homiletic Approaches and the Discourse of Resistance in Late Byzantium

This paper examines how homilies functioned as vehicles for articulating resistance strategies, mobilizing collective action, and reimagining political authority during times of siege. While ecclesiastical homilists like Isidore Glabas and Makarios Makres used homiletical frameworks to address spiritual renewal, other authors like Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and Demetrios Chrysoloras adapted homiletical forms to advance political agendas that consolidated ancient sources of legitimacy. By analyzing homilies delivered during and after the sieges of Constantinople (1402, 1411, and 1422) and Thessalonike (1383–1387, 1430), this paper points to how homiletical discourse evolved into a space where ecclesiastical and imperial authorities competed for interpretive authority over catastrophic events. Manuel II’s homilies on the Theotokos or other saints demonstrate how emperors appropriated homiletical language to reassert imperial ideology amid declining territorial control. Conversely, Chrysoloras’ thanksgiving oration following the 1402 siege shows how court rhetoricians employed devotional discourse to attribute Byzantine survival to divine intervention rather than imperial prowess. This paper argues that late Byzantine homiletical literature participated in a broader “discourse of resistance” that transcended generic boundaries and incorporated elements from siege narratives, laments, and historical texts. The shift from individual imperial virtue to collective responsibility for defense reflects transformations in Byzantine political thought, as the empire’s fragmentation required new models of social organization and spiritual mobilization.