Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography (Variorum Reprints)

Variorum Revised Editions: DENIS A. ZAKYTHINOS Le Despotat grec de Moree: Histoire politique Le Despotat grec de Moree: ...

Author: Donald M. Nicol

92 downloads 1665 Views 22MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Variorum Revised Editions: DENIS A. ZAKYTHINOS Le Despotat grec de Moree: Histoire politique Le Despotat grec de Moree: Vie et institutions M.-M. ALEXANDRESCU-DERSCA La campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402)

In the Variorum Collected Studies Series: mOR SEVCENKO Ideology, Letters and. Culture in the Byzantine World mOR SEVCENKO Society and Intellectual Life in Late Byzantium DAVID JACOBY Societe et demographie aByzance et en Romanie latine DAVID JACOBY Recherches sur la Mediterranee orientale du XIIe au XVe siecle Peuples, societes, economies W. H. RUDT DE COLLENBERG· Families de I'Orient latin, XIIe-XIVe siecles ANTHONY LUTTRELL Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, 1291-1400 ELIZABEm A. ZACHARIADOU Romania and the Turks, 1300-1500 PAULWITTEK La formation de I'Empire ottoman GEORGE T. DENNIS Byzantium and the Franks, 1350-1420 FREDDY THIRIET Etudes sur la Romanie greco-venitienne (Xe-XVe siecles) BARISA KREKIC Dubrovnik, Italy and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages ALAIN DUCELLIER L'Albanie entre Byzance et Venise, Xe-XVe siecles

Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography

Donald M. Nic.QJ

Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography

Professor Donald M. Nicol

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1986

British Library CIP data

Nicol, Donald M. Studies in late Byzantine history and prosopography. - (Collected studies series; CS242) 1. Byzantine Empire - History I. Title

949,5'04

DF609

ISBN 0-86078-190-9

Copyright © 1986 by

Variorum Reprin ts

CONTENTS J

ix-x

Preface

Kaisersalbung: The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine Coronation Ritual

,

37-52

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies II. Oxford, 1976

,'.

II

The Papal Scandal

141-168

Studies in Church History XIII: The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. Derek Baker. Oxford, 1976

III

Symbiosis and Integration. Some Greco-Latin Families in Byzantium in the 11 th to 13th Centuries

113-135

Byzantinische Forschungen VII. Amsterdam, 1979

IV

Published in Great Britain by

Variorum Reprints 20 Pembridge Mews London Wll 3EQ

Printed in Great Britain by

Galliard (Printers) Ltd Great Yarmouth Norfolk VARIORUM REPRINT CS242

Refugees, Mixed Population and Local Patriotism in Epiros and Western Macedonia after the Fourth Crusade XVe Congres international d'etudes byzantines, Rapports 1. Histoire. Athens, 1976

V

The Relations of Charles of Anjou with N ikephoros of Epiros By zantinische Forschungen IV. Amsterdam, 1972 .

3-33

170-194

vii

vi VI

269-283

The Abdication of John VI Cantacuzene

XIII

Polychordia. Festschrift Franz Do/~er zum 75. Geburtsta~, ed. Peter Wir! , (= Byzantinische orschungen I1). Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967

VII

XIV

A Paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics Attributed to the Emperor John VI Cantacuzene

XV 511-526

~zantine Studies! Etudes

186-200

79-91

Byzantium and Greece

2-20

InA/oural Lecture in the Koraes Chair of odern Greek and Byzantine History, Langulce and Literature, at Universi~ Lon on King's College, October 1 71. ondon, 1971

et

Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes IX. Bucharest, 1971

Hilarion of Didymoteichon and the Gift of Prophecy

The Prosopography of the Byzantine Aristocracy The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed. MichaelAngold. BAR International Series 221. Oxford: B.A.R., 1984

1-16

The Doctor-Philosopher John Comnen of Bucharest and his Biography of the Emperor John Kantakouzenos

IX

1-11

Byzantinoslavica XXXV. Prague, 1974

Byzantinoslavica XXIX. Prague, 1968

VIII

The Byzantine Family of Dermokaites. circa 940-1453

XVI

Greece and Byzantium

1-18

The Twelfth StephenJ. Brad.emas, Sr., Lecture. Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1983

Byzantines V.

empe, Arizona, 1978

X

XVII

Thessalonica as a Cultural Centre in the Fourteenth Century 'H 8Eaaal\ov(Kll f.LETatu 'AvaTol\ij~ KaL ':\WEUl~. llpaKT.Kci IuIWuLou TEuaapaKOVTaETllpO:OO~ Tij~ 'ETa,pE.:a~ MaKE6!mKliiv 11Touliliiv (1980).

Index

Thessaloniki,1982.

',iX

Byzantium and England.

Constantine Akropolites. A Prosopographical Note

1-11

249-256

Dumbarton Oaks P~ers XIX. Washington, D.e., 965

xn '\'

Philadelphia and the Tagaris Family

This volume contains a total of 330 pages.

'1<' ,"1("':\"

9-17

Neo-Hellenika I. Amsterdam, 1970

',:,' ::

.-'.,

,',..:.-

·,,'1,"

~-

179-203

Balkan Studies XV. Thessaloniki, 1974

121-131

•

PREFACE

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

The articles in this volume, as in all others in the Collected Studies Series, have not been given a new, continuous pagination. In order to avoid co~fusion, and to facilitate their use where these same studies have been referred to elsewhere, the original pagination has been maintained wherever possible. Each article has been given a Roman number in order of appearance, as listed in the Contents. This number is repeated on each page and quoted in the index entries.

Most of the studies in this volume reflect their author's past and continuing interest in the prosopography and genealog.y of Byzantine families; in the life and work of that much-malIgned emperor and monk of the fourteenth century, John VI Cantac~zene; and in the last centuries of Byzantium in general. I claim no monopoly of any of these subjects, however; and it may be useful to record some of the more recent contributions made by others to some of the topics herein disclosed. No. V has now been set more within its context by the publication of my own The Despotate of Epiros, 1267-1479. A Contribution to the history of Greece in the middle ages (Cambridge, 1984), in which, with the help of P. Sous tal and J. Koder, Nikopolis und Kephallenia (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Ill: Vienna, 1981), I was able to correct some of my geographical errors. No. VI has been the subject of two articles on the chronology of the reign of John VI by Albert Failler in Revue des etudes byzantines, XXIX (1971) and XXXIV (1976), though he did not address himself to the mystery of the Genoese intervention in the affair. Almost simultaneously with the publication of no. VIII, E. Voordeckers published 'La "Vie de Jean ~antacuzene" par Jean-Hierothee Comnene', lahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, XX (1971), in which he showed that the text of the work is taken from Pontanus's Latin translation of the memoirs of John VI. In no. XI I was guilty of recording as unpublished a letter of Manuel Moschopoulos to Constantine Akropolites; it had in fact already been published by Ihor Sevcenko in Speculum, XXVII (1952), 136--140. The subject of Philadelphia (no. XII) has been greatly illumined by PeterSchreiner, 'Zum Geschichte Philadelpheias im 14. Jahrhunderts (1293-1390)" Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XXV (1969), 375-431. Alexander Kazhdan (in Byzantinoslavica, XXXVI (1975), 192) has noted two more eleventh-century members of the Dermokaites family (no. XIII) and added some bibliographical material to my own. The last three studies here reproduced were delivered as lectures and are of a more discursive and perhaps entertaining nature. The last, on Byzantium and England, must now be complemented by the

I

x works of Krijne Ciggaar, notably her dissertation on Byzance et I'Angleterre (Proefschrift: Leiden, 1977) and her article on 'England and Byzantium on the Eve of the Norman C<.mquest', AngloNorman Studies, V (1982), 79-96; and by the articles of 10nathan Shepard, especially 'The English and Byzantium: a study of their role in the Byzantine army in the late eleventh century', Traditio, XXIX (1973),53-92. The opportunity has, however, been taken in this reprint to correct misprints in a number of the articles. Finally, I wish to express my thanks and indebtedness to a number of journals and institutions for kindly granting permission, explicitly or implicitly, to reproduce the articles in this volume. They include: the editors or publishers of Balkan Studies; Byzantine Studies/ Etudes Byzantines; Byzantinische Forschungen; Byzantinoslavica; Dumbarton Oaks Papers; Neo-Hellenika; Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes; Studies in Church History; The Byzantine Aristocracy;

Mme P. Zepos on behalf of the XVth International Congress of Byzantine Studies; and the Directors of the Stephen 1., Sr., and Beatrice Brademas Scholarship and Lecture Fund. DONALD M. NICOL

London, March 1986

I ~"

Kaisersalbung. The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine Coronation Ritual

The anointing of emperors (Kaisersalbung) in the late Byzantine coronat,ion ritual formed part of the subject of an often cited article by Professor George Ostrogorsky in 1955.' The purpose of these few words is to re-examine the evidence for this practice and to suggest some different conclusions. Ostrogorsky argued that anointing with oil was never a part of the Byzantine coronation ceremony before the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and that all references to unction in the literature of the twelfth century should be interpreted in a figurative or metaphorical sense and not literally. Much the same arguments were advanced in greater detail by F. E. Brightman in 1901. But, as Brightman observed, 'it still remains difficult to say when the metaphorical use of xP(€IV passes into the literal'.2 When Niketas Choniates writes of the Emperor 1. G. ?~trogorsky, 'Zur Kaisersalbung und Schilderhebung im spiitbyzantlmschen Kronungszeremoniell', Histaria, IV (FtstlChrift jilT Wilhtlm E'IJJ"~, 1955), 246-56 (reprinted in G. Ostrogorsky, ZUT B,'l.IJTlliooe/rm Geseh"hte. Ausgewiihlte Akine Sehriften (Darmstadt, 1973), pp. 14'-5')' •. Ostrogorsky, op. CII., 246f. F. E. Brightman, 'Byzantine Imperial Coronatlo.ns', Journal of Theological Studies, 11 (19°1), 385. Cf. Aikaterine Chnstophdopoulou, ·Edoy~. dvay6pcvo.( Kal orb/J'( rov !lv(a.T••ov aVT~KpdropodAthens, 1957), pp. 169f. See also L. -P. Raybaud, Le gouvemtmml et I admlnutra/.on centrale de {'empire byUlnlin soU! les prtmim PaI.o.s (1,,8-1)54) (Paris, 1968), pp. 69-73, though the author seems to have been unaware of Ostrogorsky's article. The essay by I. Goschew, 'Zur Frage der KrOnungszeremonien und die zeremonielle Gewandung der ByzantiniKhen

I

Manuel I having 'anointed' the Patriarch who anointed him this, is, as ostrogorsky remarks, clearly a metaphor or a play on words.' But is it so certain that the same is true when Choniates writes of Alexios III going to SI. Sophia 'that he might be anointed according to custom and be invested with the imperial regalia' ?'!t is said that the verb XP(f"lV is here used once again in a figurative sense, since the phrase 'according to custom' cannot literally refer to anointing, there being no evidence from the sources for the anointing of any of the predecessors of Alexios Ill. This is an argument ex silentio. It may perhaps be mere chance that no sources specifically report the anointing of any twelfth-century emperor before Alexios Ill. After 1 ~o4, however, there seems to be no doubt that the practice was established as a part of the Byzantine coronation ritual. Theodore I Laskaris, founder of the Empire at N icaea, is said to have been anointed as well as crowned by Michael Autoreianos, whom he had appointed as Patriarch. The evidence for this fact comes not from the historian of Nicaea George Akropolites, but once again from Niketas Choniates.~ In the Silention which Choniates composed, and in his Speech on the proclamation of Theodore as Emperor, there are clear references to anointing. In the Silention there is mention of 'the Davidian unction' (Llav{iif"lov TO XP{o/Ja).6 In the Speech there is und der Bulgarischen Herrscher hn Mittelalter', Bytantinobulgarica, 11 (1966), 145-68, con.tams s.everal maccuraCles and adds nothing new to the subject. The the me of unction is discussed by Ch. Waiter, 'The Slgmfic:'nce of Unction in Byzantine Iconography', below pp. 53-73. 3· Nlketas Chomates, HlStona (CSHB), p. 70 line 12: ... "pofJA~B£I~ od. 6 M,xaljA "aTp,dpx~~ t{ arJTii~ TO. xpioaHa XPi£l Ta tepa toa'PIKdI'Ho.l'tAaBpa. The text, of thIS passage. is rendered with a significant difference by Isaac Habert, ~pXlepaTlKd •. Liber PontificallS Eccl"iae Grateae (Paris, 1643), p. 6'7: t~on?graph,cal eVidence for

. . . rQII1ULI(1aIlTOc,; avroJl t7rlllCW

KVp{OV

reP aVToKparop1KcP O'Tf'lPallcb,Uan DC;

Kal

xpi" Ta tepa toa'PIKdI'Ho.l'tAaBpa. ' 4· Choniates, Hutoria, p. 603 line 7 : ... 6"OJ~ KaTa TO I'B,l'o. {Jao,Ata XP,oB" Iml 1I"f'pl,lJdAAnal Ta rou Kparovc; avp{Jo).a.

(J:IpZlg, C::eorge ~kropolites, ed. A. Heisenberg, Georgii ACTopolitae Opera I 19 3, p. writes onl~ of the proclamation and coronation' of 0

11,

~~;:;~f ~ Angold, A Bytanhne Government in exile. Government and Society

"I

anho NlCaea , 1'°4-1.61 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 1.-13. 6 •r . nlCe/ae C matat Oration" et Epi.lul d J . Fontium Historiae Byzantinae: Berlin a:J' ~ . A. van Dleten (COIYus '<>-'8: (6

Y f:leo~) TIj. Bepl'lj. 6pl'lj. Kai TO. rJ,,~p To~aA~~~ijA~~7T~~ la"ol~:~a~I::~ 38

the expression: tc; (jaolAta XP{OVOIV avroKparopa. 7 It is hard to see why the same Niketas. Ch(;mi~tes ~hould .~se the same ter":ls for unction metaphorzcally m hIS historical wrItmgs and literally In his rhetorical works. Ostrogorsky explained this discrepancy by supposing that Choniates was writing. his Histo? before anointing had become a part of the Byzantine coronation ntual, and his rhetorical works afterwards. s This supposition implies that both the Silention and the Speech were written after Theodore's coronation had taken place. But this now appears to be false. J. L. van Dieten in his recent edition of and commentary on the Speeches and Letters of Niketas Choniates dates the Speech in question to the summer of 1206, after the Emperor's return from battle, and the Silention to the beginning of Lent in the year I ~08.9 Both works were therefore composed before Theodore's coronation and the references to his anointing point to the future and not to the past. The evidence in fact suggests that Theodore Laskaris was already recognized as Emperor and had adopted the title of Basileus in some of his dominions by 1205, even though Akropolites describes him as Despot up to the time of his coronation, and even though he was not crowned until 1208. ID As Akropolites relates, the coronation was performed by the Patriarch, whose appointment Theodore had secured in advance. The interpretation which Ostrogorsky put upon part of the letter that Theodore wrote to the Greek clergy on this subject has already been challenged by F. Doiger. " The Emperor there expresses the hope that a Patriarch will be Trpoo/)€{a!JE'Vor;. de; TI)v fJaorAEiav TQVT'1V dll'1P7rdrcE'1 1f£PIQ}1f~JI Aavi6E'lDV 1'()

>.

xpiol'a Kai TIj. dpxalpeoia. TavTi{ovoa. 6.,p~od
39

elected before Holy Week, the week in which it was the custom for the holy chrism of the myron (Tt) 6eiov Toii /Jvpov XP{o/Ja) to be prepared and consecrated by the Patriarch's hand. This statement does not, as Dolger pointed out, refer to the anointing of the Emperor ('die heilig~ Sal~ung mit ~em Myron ') b.u~ to the consecration of the chflSm ItSelf whICh was tradItIonally performed by the Patriarch once a year, in Holy Week. 12 The last such consecration should have occurred in I ~o 7, at which time there was no Patriarch. New chrism therefore had to be prepared in Holy Week of 1208, whether it was intended for baptism or for coronation. IS The holy chrism or myron was normally reserved for the sacrament of confirmation after baptism. Its use in the ritual of coronation will be discussed below. But it is clear that in I ~08 Theodore Laskaris was anxious to secure the appointment of a fully competent Patriarch with.out further delay so t!tat his own position as ~mperor could be given the proper blessmg of the Church; and If one is to take the words of Niketas Choniates literally in this context then the Patriarch's blessing was to include the anointing of the new Emperor. . It is ~ard to believe, however, that this part of the mau~rauon of an Emperor was an innovation in Byzantine pract~ce. The first properly constituted Emperor and Patriarch In exdc: after 1204 would surely have taken pains to see that everythmg was d.o?e according to the tradition, even perhaps to the extent of revlVlng customs that had long since lapsed in the . 11. See .P. Menevizoglou, To ';4Y'ov Mupov tv Tii 'OpSo66{QJ 'AvaTo!,oil Eod~o,~( Avd!'OT~ B!aTd60>v.14: Thessaloniki. 1972), pp. 119f. andp=im; L. P~bl, pu pOUV~Ir de consacrer le Saint Chreme', and 'Composition et consec~atlo? du SaIDt C~reme', EO, III (,899). 1-7, 12g-42; E. Hermann, 'Wann 'st d,e Chrysamwelhe zum ausschliesslichen Vorrecht der Patriarchen geworden" . (Sofia, '940), pp. 50g-15; Id " .Sb omill v p 4IIIIt' 114 Prof. P. Nillov Ango ,op. CII., p. 43. Ch'5~t iSds~rely to the~ circumstances (the appointment of a head of the . ~. I an e preparation of the holy chrismlthat Michael Choniatesrefers ID IS etter to Basil Kamateros, w. Sp. P. Lambros, M,xa~! 'AoOI',vdTOV TO;' :::T;V TII _EO>(61"V~' 11 (Athens, ,88o), p. 258 lines 10-4: o{ov 6~ oduivo TO " ° a, TQJ BaolA.. oE'Pa!~v tlnS';va, Ti/ oaS' "I'at l,pOlouv" oal I'qotTl "·tnopiv TO l'paT'KOv XP(Ol'a 0 . .6vv,;'0. tdllrEr .,.toSa, d "11 • • _ ....loG d Oo.,,~ , , ,AA T",.O TOV who "pOV E ..,. at ~lro!auE" .6 /Jao(!E'o. IEpd.EVl'a. Basil Kamateros was uncle of the WIfe of Theodore Laskaris seems to ha d' d th ' Emperor to tak these measures. ' ve a v'se e

ceremonies of Constantinople, such as that of raising the Emperor on a shield at his proclamation. 14 .It is ~ven ~arder to believe, with Ostrogorsky, that the Byzantlnes In exile woul~ have adopted or imitated the practice of KaiJeTJalbung from their foreign rival and usurper in Constantinople. I., The anointing of Baldwin of Flanders at his coronation as Latin Emperor in St. Sophia in I ~04 is vividly described by Robert of Clari. 16 It was performed according to the usage established in western coronation ritual long before the thirteenth century.l! But this gives no ground for deducing that the anointing of Theodore Laskaris, heralded as early as 1205 by Niketas Choniates, was to be in imitation of that of Bald win. Nor is itat all certain that the practice of anointing was adopted or adapted in the Byzantine ceremony only after I ~04. Indeed there appear to be reasons for '4. The first certainly attested case of an Emperor being raised on a shield in the thirteenth century is that ofTheodore 11 Laskaris in 1254. Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, I, p. 105 lines .0--1; Nikephoros Gregoras, Bywntill4 Historia (CSHB), I, p. 55 lines '-3. Ostrogorsky's suggestion (op. cit., 255) that this ceremony was revived at Nicaea in imitation of the Schilderhebung of Baldwin of Flanders at Constantinople in "04 is unacceptable. Neither Geoft'rey of Villehardouin nor Robert of Clari mentions any such ceremony at the coronation of Baldwin, despite the assertions ofJ. Longnon, L 'empire lalin de Constantinople et la principaute de Moree (Paris, 1949), pp. 50f., and others--most recently B. Hendricb, 'Les institutions de l'empire latin de Constantinople (1104-126,): Le pouvoir imperial', Byzantill4, VI (1974), 101-3. On the iconographical and other evidence for Schilderhebung and its revival in the thirteenth century see C. Waiter, 'Raising on a shield in Byzantine iconography', REB, XXXIII ('975), 315-56. '5. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 2 5f: 'Dennoch zeigen wohl die Q.uellenangaben, die wir anfOhren konnten, mit genOgender Sicherheit, dass die Sitte der Kaisersalbung im Kaiserreich von Nikaia bestanden hat.... Diese Sitte, die ~ich in der Geda.nke?ordnung .der Byzantiner so fest eingeRlgt hatte, war Jedoch ohne Zwelfel 111 Byzanz 111 Nachahmung abendUindischer Vorbilder entstanden' . ,6. Robert de Clari, La conquite de Constantinople, ed. P. Lauer (Paris, 1914), § XC:VI, p. 95; ed. C. Hopf, in Chroniques grico-romanes inidites ou peu conn.... (Berhn, 1873), p. 74. Kalojan of Bulgaria was likewise anointed and crowned ~ccording to the Latin rite by the cardinal legate Leo of Santa Croce at Tmovo ID November 1204. See R. L. Wolft', 'The "Second Bulgarian Empire". Its Origin and History to 1204', SPeculum, XXIV 11949), 197; J. R. Sweeney, 'Innocent Ill, Hungary and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medieval Diplomacy', Church History, XLII (1973), 310--34 (especially 8'3-4 and references). '7· See, e.g., H. A. Wilson, 'The English Coronation Orders' JuurrUJJ of TheoIot,ica/ Studies, 11 (190 I), 481-504. '

41

I ted before Holy Week, the week in which it was the CUstom : ~the holychrism of the myron (TO /ldov roil pupou xp{opa) to be ;epared and consecr~ted by. the Patriarch's hand .. This statement does not, as Dolger pomted out, refer to the anointing of the Emperor('die hej]jg~Sal~ungmit ~em Myron') but to the consecration of the chnsm I1self which was traditionally performed by t~e Patriarch once a year, i~ Holy Week. 12 .The last such consecrallon should have occurred In 12 0 7, at whICh time there was no Patriarch. New chrism therefore had to be prepared in Holy Week of 1208, whether it was intended for baptism or for coronation." The holy chrism or myron was normally reserved for the sacrament of confirmation after baptism. Its use in the ritual of coronation will be discussed below. But it is dear that in 1208 Theodore Laskaris was anxious 10 secure the appointment of a fully competent Patriarch with?ut further delay so t~at his own position as Emperor could be gIVen the proper blessmg of the Church; and if one is to take the ',I'ord~ of Nik.etas Choniates literally in this context then the Patriarch s blessmg was to mclude the anointing of the new Emperor. . It is ~ard to believe, however, that this part of the 1Oau~rallon of an Emperor was an innovation in Byzantine pract~ce. The first properly constituted Emperor and Patriarch m exile. after 1204 would ~urely have taken pains to see that everythmg was done accordmg to the tradition even erha t the extent of reviving customs that had long si~ce laCsed i~:h~ u. See P. Menevizoglou, To /tylOv Mu ov EV ' • ·EkKA~ol~(·AvdA ..ra BAard6"v. 14: Thessal~niki I;; )Op806d{r 'AvaroAIK/i L. P~bl, :Ou pouvoir de consacrer le Saint Ch;e ," p~. ,~9 . and~aJJ!m; consecration du Saint Chreme' EO III (8 ) me, an omposlllon et 'WannistdieChrysamweihe ' , . I 99,1-7,129-4'; E. Hermann, geworden?', SborniA v pamet~: ;;:;,c~lesshchen Vorrechl der Patriarchen Angold,op.cil.,P'4S. . . Nlkov (Sofia, 1940), pp. 509-15; 18· I1 is surely 10 these cir ( ~hu~ and the preparation o~~!:;s::~ces the appointment of a head of the m hIS leuer 10 Basil Kamater d S Ychnsm) Ihat Mlchael Choniales refers X.",drov r~ E(j)(o~
;

',.d••

ceremonies of Constantinople, such as that of ralsmg the Emperor on a shield at his proclamation." It is even harder to believe, with Ostrogorsky, that the Byzantines in exile would have adopted or imitated the practice of KaiscTJalbung from their foreign rival and usurper in Constantinople. I \ The anointing of Baldwin of Flanders at his coronation as Latin Emperor in St. Sophia in 1204 is vividly described by Robert of Clari. '6 It was performed according to the usage established in western c?ronation ritual long before the thirteenth century. 17 But this gives no ground for deducing that the anointing of Theodore Laskaris, heralded as early as 1205 by Niketas Choniates, was to be in imitation of that of Bald win. Nor is it at all certain that the practice of anointing was adopted or adapted in the Byzantine ceremony only after 1204. Indeed there appear to be reasons for . 14. The first certainly attesled case of an Emperor being raised on a shield m Ihe thirteenth century IS. that of The~dore 11 Laskaris in 12 54. Akropolites, ed. HelSenberg, I,.p. 105 hnes .0-1; Nlkephoros Gregoras, Byz.antina HiJlma (CSHB), I, p. 55 hnes 1-3: Ost~o~orsky.'s suggestion (op. cit., 255) thal this ceremony was reVived al NlCaea m ImllaUon of the Schilderhebung of Bald win of Flanders al. Constanunople m 1.04 is unacceptable. Neilher Geoffrey of VIllehardoum nor Robert of Clari mentions any such ceremony at the coronauon of Baldwm, despite the assertions of J. Longnon, L'empire lalin d. Constantmople et la ~nnapauti de Moree (Paris, 1949), pp. 50f., and others--most recently B. ~endnckx, 'Les ins~itut~ons de rempire lalin de Constantinople (1204-1261). Le pouvOIr Impenal, Bytantma, VI (1974), 10'-3. On the Iconographical and other evidence for Schildl!Thebung and its revival in the ~hlrteenth c~ntury see C. Waiter, 'Raising on a shield in B tine Iconography, REB, XXXIII (1975), 315-56. yzan .15· . Ostro.gorsky, op. cit., '52: 'Dennoch zeigen wohl die Q.uellenangaben, die. Wlr anfuh~en k~nnte~, mlt genugender Sicherheit, dass die Sitte der ~alSersalbung Im KalSerreICh von Nikaia bestanden hat .... Diese Silte die ~Ich m der Geda~kenordnung der Byzantiner so fest eingefllgt halte, 'war Jedoch ohne Zwelfel m Byzam in Nachahmung abendlandischer Vorbilder entstanden' .

16. Robert de Clari, La conquite de Constantinople, ed. P. Lauer (Paris 1924)

w;

§ XC:VI , p. 95; ed. C. Hopf, in ChroniqutS greco,romanes inidites ou p ..;,.....

(Berhn: 1873), p. 74: K~loJan of Bulgaria was likewise anointed and crowned accordmg to the Latm me by the cardinal legate Leo of Santa Croce at Tr m ~?vember ~'04. See R. L. Wolff, 'The "Second Bul rian Em ire'~°;o ?ngm and HIStory 10 1204', Speculum, XXIV (1949), ~7; J. R. ~wee~ ts ~?~ocent I,n, Hungary.and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medi~i refe~:~'J.' Church HIStOry, XLII (1973), 320-34 (especially 323-4 and T~~' s:'Se· gd·,' H. A. Wilson, 'The English Coronation Orders' JoumsJ o ogre tu It,, II (lgOI), 481-5°4. '

41

of

elected before Holy Week, the week ~n whi.ch it was the custom for the holy chrism of the myron (nl OE"IOP TaU /iVPOU XP(O/ia) to be prepared and consecrated by. the Patriarch's hand .. T.his statement does not, as Dolger pOInted out, refer to the anoIntIng of the Emperor('die heilige Salbung mit ~em Myron') b.u~ to the consecration of the chrism itself which was tradlUonally performed by the Patriarch once a year, i~ Holy Week." .The .Iast such consecration should have occurred In 1207, at whICh tIme there was no Patriarch. New chrism therefore had to be prepared in Holy Week of 1208, whether it was intended for baptism or for coronation. IS The holy chrism or myron was normally reserved for the sacrament of confirmation after baptism. Its use in the ritual of coronation will be discussed below. But it is clear that in 1208 Theodore Laskaris was anxious to secure the appointment of a fully competent Patriarch without further delay so that his own position as Emperor could be given the proper blessing of the Church; and if one is to take the words of Niketas Choniates literally in this context then the Patriarch's blessing was to include the anointing of the new Emperor. It is hard to believe, however, that this part of the inauguration of an Emperor was an innovation in Byzantine prac~ce, The first properly constituted Emperor and Patriarch m exile after 1204 would surely have taken pains to see that everything was d.o?e according to the tradition, even perhaps to the extent of revlVlng customs that had long since lapsed in the • 10. See .P. Menevizoglou, To :
rn

trCplopall TO {cpar",oll xp(opa •K,vdVVE"UOII tICAI1f£(; ),nfo(ial, dA,ld T;'c; tIC TaU

!hAOV pupov £~od,.la~ ~"oAav"v rd paoIA"o. l£paT£Vlla. Basil Kamateros, o was uncle of the w,fe of Theodore Laskaris, seems to have advised the Emperor to talte these measures.

ceremonies of Constantinople, such as that of ralsmg the Emperor on a shield at his proclamation. 14 It is even harder to believe, with Ostrogorsky, that the Byzantines in exile would have adopted or imitated the practice of KaiserJalbung from their foreign rival and usurper in Constantinople. I' The anointing of Baldwin of Flanders at his coronation as Latin Emperor in 51. 50phia in 1204 is vividly described by Robert of Clari. 16 It was performed according to the usage established in western coronation ritual long before the thirteenth century." But this gives no ground for deducing that the anointing of Theodore Laskaris, heralded as early as 1205 by Niketas Choniates, was to be in imitation of that of Baldwin. Nor is it at all certain that the practice of anointing was adopted or adapted in the Byzantine ceremony only after 1204. Indeed there appear to be reasons for '4. The first certainly attested case of an Emperor being raised on a shield in the thirteenth century is that ofTheodore 11 Laskaris in "54. Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, I, p. '05 lines ,0-,; Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantina Historia (CSHB), I, p. 55 lines '-3. Ostrogorsky's suggestion (op. cit., 255) that this ceremony was revived at N icaea in imitation of the Schilderhebung of Baldwin of Flanders at Constantinople in 1204 is unacceptable. Neither Geoffrey of ViIIehardouin nor Robert of Clari mentions any such ceremony at the coronation of Baldwin, despite the assertions of J. Longnon, L 'empire la/in de Constantinople et la principauU de Morie (Paris, '949), pp. 5of., and others---most r.ecently B. Hendrickx, 'Les institutions de l'empire latin de Constantinople (1204-1261l: Le pouvoir imperial', Byzantina, VI ('974), '0'-3. On the iconographical and other evidence for Schilderhebung and its revival in the thirteenth century see C. WaIter, 'Raising on a shield in Byzantine iconography', REB, XXXIII ('975), 3'5-56 . . '5·. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., '5~: 'Dennoch zeigen wohl die Q.uellenangaben, die w,r anfuhren konnten, mll geniigender Sicherheit, dass die Sitte der Kaisersalbung im Kaiserreich von Nikaia bestanden hat.... Diese Sitte, die sich in der Gedankenordnung der Byzantiner so fest eingefOgt hatte, war Jedoch ohne Zwetfel m Byzanz m Nachahmung abendlandischer VOTbilder entstanden' .

,6. Robert de Clari, La conquite de Con'tantinople, ed. P. Lauer (Paris, 1924),

§ X~VI, p. 95; ed. C. Hopf, in Chroniques grico-romane, iruidites ou peu cann"'" (Berhn, ,873), p. 74. KaloJan of Bulgaria was likewise anointed and crowned ~ccording to the Latin rite by the cardinal legate Leo of Santa Croce at Tmovo m November 1204. See R. L. Wolff', 'The "Second Bulgarian Empire". Its ?rigin and History to 1204', Speculum, XXIV (,949), '97; J. R. Sweeney, I?nocent l,n, Hungary.and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medieval D'plomacy, Church HIStory, XLII ('973), 320-34 (especially 323-4 and references). '7· See, e.g., H. A. Wilson, 'The English Coronation Orders' Journal of Theological Studies, 11 ('90'), 48'-504, '

41

believing that the Byzant~ne. Kaisersalbung of the thirteenth 'ther an imitation of western procedure nor a . . IS century was nel recent innovation in the Byzantine ntual. . . On both of these points it is instru~tlve. to exam me t~e evidence from the other Byzantine state m eXile after 1~04, m Epiros and Thessalonica. There the 9uest~on of crow,:ung an Emperor did not arise until the vICtonous campaigns of Theodore Komnenos Doukas had culminated in th~ capt.ure of Thessalonica from the Latins in 1224. However unlIkely It may be that the Emperors at Nicaea should conscio~sly ha~e adopted from their enemies any procedure affe~tln~ the.'r imperial status, it is still less probabl~ that their rival m Thessalonica would have followed their example; for the Greeks of Epiros were even more outspokenly anti-Latin than those of Nicaea. Theodore Doukas was crowned Emperor at Thessalonica some time after 1224. Nikephoros Gregoras reports that he assumed the imperial title and that he was 'anointed' by the then Archbishop of Bulgaria.'" Most of the 18. The sources make very little specific mention of anointing at any of the imperial coronations in Nicaea. George Akropolites says nothing about it. Gregoras, however, records that Theodore 11 Laskaris was anointed by the Patriarch: Gregoras, I, p. 5sline 23: d {Jao,A,evc; Trapa roj) 1rarpuipxov XPloOdC; .al ro arltpor; dva6qadl'fVOr;. Furthermore, the anointing of Michael VIII is clearly implied by Pachymeres (see below p. 46 and n. 30); and, for what it is worth, a short chronicle listing the Patriarchs between 1204 and 1254 says the same ofJohn Vatatzes: {,mTa l'avo~A tl tp.Aoadtpor;, .al rq, Nlor; 'EHqvol'v~l'wv, II (1910), § 27, p. 134. Nikephoros Blemmydes composed a poem in honour of the birth ofTheodore lI's son John Laskaris. In this he makes much play on the word 'anointed', implying that the new prince was already anointed by virtue ofhis descent from a line of anointed Emperors. Niceplwri Blemmydae Cumculum Vilae el Carmirra, ed. A. Heisenberg (Leipzig, 1896), p. 110 lines 8-9: XPlf7TOV "ar~p ICA'IPorJX'ICGJt; aordva{, adrOlcpaTClJp, I t" yap XPIUTOV Xp,aroc; eOTl' Kat oD xp.oror; I. rovrov. Angold, op. cit., p. 45. 19· Gregoras, I, p .• 6 lines 6--8: aurioa 6~ .al pao.Adar; lavr~ "fp.ri8qo.v 6vopa, leal xp{na, /JarJlA,lI,mc; 1rapd rou r'l""'4v14 fI)1I rqc; BOIlAyap/ac; dpX""'O'07r~V 61186vovror;. For the date ofTheodore's coronation L. Stiemon

'Les origines du Despotat d'Epire (suite). La date du couronnement d~ Thi'odore Doukas', Acles du XII' Congre, Intt!7l6li07ral des Eludes Byzantiru" II (Belgrade, 1964), pp .. 197-202, proposed the end of .227 or early in ... 8. Some doubt about thIS. chronology .s expressed by Karpozilas, op. cit., p. 74, who ~ no~ argued In favour of the formerly accepted date of 1225: A. Karpozllos, The date of coronation ofTheadore Doukas Angelos', Byzantirra,

evidence lor Theodore's coronation, however, derives from the writings of John Apokaukos, Metropolitan of Naupaktos, and Demetrios Chomatianos, Archbishop of Ochrida, who himself performed the ceremony. Both of these learned prelates appear to have regarded the anointing of an Emperor as a normal and customary part of the Byzantine coronation ritual. Apokaukos, writing to Theodore after the capture ofThessalonica, laments the fact that his infirmity may cause him to miss the coronation and anointing of the new Emperor. 20 The decree promulgated by the synod of bishops at Ana at about the same time sets out the reasons why Theodore should be proclaimed, crowned and anointed as Emperor. The document specifically mentions three procedures-proclamation, coronation and unction.'1 And at the end of it the bishops of Epiros assert their right to acknowledge, crown and anoint Theodore as their sole Emperor." The statements of Demetrios Chomatianos are still more revealing. He was delegated to perform the coronation ceremony after the Bishop of Thessalonica, Constantine Mesopotamites, had declined the honour." He claimed to be empowered to do so by virtue of the special privileges inherent in his office. One of the prerogatives of an Archbishop of Ochrida was, he declared, the right to crown and anoint Emperors. 24 Whatever the justice of this claim, which was said to VI (1974), 251-6 .. Cf. D. M. Nicol, The Delpotate of EPiTo, (Oxford, 1957), pp. 65-6. 20. John Apokaukos, ed. V. G. Vasilievskij, 'Epirotica saeculi XIII', VV, III (1896), 288 lines 7-8: ... I'q6' IPOUOVTOV tAdua'l'f r~ 6vorvxql'a, ri>~ rij~ oij~ arerpqqJop(ac; d1Z'oAf"up8dllai!-lE'" Kai Tijt; xp(a€CJJC;.

2 .. Ibid., .85 line '7: ... T~V dvaVdpfVU.V 6qAa6~ Kai UTfl'l'aTorpopiav Kai xpia.v .. ..

22. Ibid., p. 286 lines 8-11: ... Kal TOVTOV I'dvov {Jao.Ua 0I'OAOYOVl'fV, Kai Tovrov urctpOl'f" .al rovTov Xpi0l'fv. Cf. Nicol, D"polale of EPiTos, pp. 65~, 9 1-2. 23· Nicol, op. cit., p. 65. 24· Demetrios Chomatianos, ed. J. B. Pitra, Analecla Sacra el Clas,ica Spicilegio. SO/elmemi Parala, VI (Paris and Rome, 1891), cols. 494-5. Cr. Akropohtes, ed. HelSenberg, I, p. 34 lines 1-5: d 6~ BovAvapia~dpXIf7rioKO"O~ tJ"I'~TplOr; r~ {Jao.AlKov 7rfp.6.660Ke. rovrov 6u16ql'a, cb~ trpaoKEV, a~r6vol'o~ OIV Kall'q6fVl f68vva~ drpffAWV 6ovva., Kal 61(\ ravra '{ovoiav tXflV {Jao.Uat; Xpiflv oV~Tfav .al OlrOV Kai6rc {JovAolTo. Gregaras, I, p. 26.

43

date back to the days ofjustinian, Chomatia~os clearly believed that the anointing of Emperors was an anClen.t and cust~mary f the coronation ritual. That the Patriarch at Nlcaea, h:rr.n~nos n, who rudely challenged the claim, believed the me is evident from the letter of protest that he wrote to ~homatianos after the event. The Patriarch asked f?r pro~f of a precedent for the coronation of an Emperor by an Archbishop Of Bulgaria'. But more particularly he quest~oned the nature of the oil and the chrism (myron) that Chomauanos had used for anointing Theodore. He objected that it could not possibly be the right stuff, since all the old stock of properly consecrated chrism in Thessalonica must long ago have been exhausted, and a new supply could only be prepared and blessed by a Patriarch.25 Germanos and Chomatianos were both sensitive about their status and their rights; but neither seems to have doubted that Byzantine Emperors had customarily been anointed at their coronations. There is no hint that this was an innovation, still less that it was a practice borrowed from the Latins. 26 On the other' hand Chomatianos, who was a more erudite canonist than the Patriarch, does appear to draw a distinction between anointing with oil and anointing with the myron. In his reply to the Patriarch he asks how it is that Germanos is not concerned to dispute the source of chrism prepared for baptism but only of that for the anointing of Emperors, 'judging all such preparations to be invalid unless they flow from the hand of the Bishop of Constantinople'. 'Everyone knows', he writes, 'that the anointing ,?f Emperors (11 {JaoIAI"" xp{ou;) is a part of the office of the hierarchy. In the event that an Emperor is not anointed by. the Pa~iarch: then the ri~al may be performed by any of the bishops Immediately subordinate to him .... On the other .hand it is not the prevailing custom that the man proclaimed ~ Emperor should b~ anointed with chrism (myron) but only WIth consecrated od. Nevertheless if we (in Thessalonica) had to anoint Emperors with chri~m we would 15· ~omatiano., ed. Pitra, cols. 484-5. .6. Ib.d., col. 490, where Chomatianos refers 10 'the ancient customs (~) in ~nstanti~le regarding the induction of Emperors and the deaion of Paaiarchs • .• (."".4 t. K...Df.........,..61.. c!pl'..r.. Ill" er.; u ~lr/OrII;".."IAI..., ."'"pax..,nae•.; " ..TpldPl'(J1JI .•• ).

have no need of manufactured or synthetic stuff. . . . We could use that which flows in rivers from the tomb of the great martyr Demetrios .... But in any case even the manufacture of such myron from its many odoriferous ingredients is not, as you seem to think, your monopoly (as Patriarch) . . . for it can be prepared by any Orthodox bishop, as the 6th canon of the Council of Carthage decrees. . .'.27 The distinction that Chomatianos makes between oil (fAolov) and chrism (/lVpov) can hardly be dismissed as mere hairsplitting, eager though he was to score points off the Patriarch. He specifically emphasises that it was not the custom for Byzantine Emperors to be anointed with the myron but only with normally consecrated oil. 2I In this respect it is possible that it was the Patriarch at Nicaea who was guilty of an innovation and perhaps of unwittingly adopting western practice. In English and French coronations, for example, unction had been 27. Ibid., cols. 493-4. Cf. Nicol, op. cit., pp. 93-4; Karpozilos, 'Ecclesiastical Controversy: : :', p. 84; Menevizoglou, op. cit., pp. 12g-40. Council ofCarthage, Canon VI, in G. A. Rhalles and M. Podes, ErJv.aypa .&lv lI
tarl pup", xp{e,,8a. .b. d~ .q. p..,,{Ae.o. d.dpp",.rv dy.aapt.", t7rd"p""' .... Christophilopoulou,

"pox~Aoupe.o., tAa{", 6t tepoi~ op. m., pp. 2"-12, notes the

difference of opinion on the matter between Chomatianos and the Patriarch and ventures the suggestion that Chomatianos was n?~ pr~perly acquainted wit~ former. Byzantine practice and adopted that prevallmg 10 the West, where SImple 011 and not chrism was used for the purpose. The significance of the statements of Chomatianos was also notioed by M. Jugie, Thtologia dogmatica Christimlorum orimlalitrm, III (Paris, 1950), pp. 151-3.

+5

I

dministered in two fonns, oil and chrism, at least since the :ighth century.29 At all events, Byzantine texts relating to the coronation of Emperors in and after the mid-thirteenth ce?tury almost all tell of anointing 'with the myron' as an estabhshed custom. The practice is attested at least as early as the coronation of Michael VIII. Pachymeres reports that when the Patriarch Joseph made his will it was discovered that the document's references to the Emperor (Michael VIII) had omitted the important epithet lIyloe; which signifies that the Emperors have been anointed with the myron (cbe; XPIO(JtVTae; "vprp TOVe; /JaoIAcie;). Investigations revealed that the word had been included in the Patriarch's original draft but that it had been deliberately left out by the monks who copied it, since they were shocked at such hagiolatry of an Emperor whom they regarded as a heretic. The inference must be that Michael VIII was anointed with the myron at his coronation in December 125 8.50 In the case of Michael VIII's son Andronikos 11, who was crowned as CO-Emperor in 1272, the evidence is lacking, although John Cantacuzene confidently describes Andronikos as 'one anointed by God'. 51 But the accounts oflater coronations leave no room for doubt. In 1294, for example, Michael IX P~laio!ogos was 'anointed with the holy myron' as co-Emperor WIth hIS father. 52 In 1325 Andronikos III was similarly anointed "9. Cf. H. A. Wilson, 0p. dt., 48.f. 80. Pachymeres, D. Micluul. Palatowgo, p. 507 lines 3-4. For the date and d~m.tanc~s see P. Wirth, 'Die Begrundung der Kaisermacht Michaels VIII. Pa~alO~ogo. ,JOBG, X ('96.), 85"11'; N.MphoroJ GregoraJ, RhomIJ.iJche GeJChicht. (HlJto~ R~al1!e), ii.bersetzt und erliiutert von J. L. van Dieten, I (Bibliothek der .grlechlSch~n ~re.:atur, 4: Stuttgart, '973), pp. '0'-2, 136-7. The ratnarc~ A~semo~ m hIS TtJtamtntum (MPG, CXL, 948-57) mentions only the coro~uon ofMlchael VIII and not, a. van Dieten implies (op. dt. P.237) the Schlldtriltbung. ' , 8" Jo~n C~tacuzenus, HiJtonat (CSHB), I, p. 45 line. 17-.8: rrpiiJTo. JIdp I'd xc.pa 1(I"'1oal "ard: /Jao.AtOJt Kol rtP 6erp K£xp.opellov.. . . SI. Pac~ymere., D. Andronico Palatologo, p. '96 lines 17-.8: Xp(.. 6' 6 "'p~~Xq~ Ttp 6.(tp. "dptp T6. T;;~ fJaolAEia~ ov""..doxo.Ta. L. G. Westerink, 'Le B~S1bkosdeMUlme Planude', BS,XXIX('968), p. 4slines "79-9"' 'D~6to< ~;( rra.6da~ cI~.~ l6o(•• lX'" ... adT(Ka. 6 "dAa. "d ...~ Md. trro(JoV" ..

"t.

cupoio., lull

'ftp

ICank 116povt; xplopaTI XP{CI ICal lITtffJ£I rip ortrp£l . .•. Kal 6

:.r~p tI< T6. . Ka' fJaoIA
46

'with the holy myron' as co-Emperor with his grandfath~ by the Patriarch Esaias." In 1341 John Cantacuzene adVIsed the widowed Empress Anne of Savoy that her son John (V) Palaiologos should be 'anointed with the holymyron and that his head should be adorned with a crown'.s. In 1346 and again in 1347 John Cantacuzene was himself crowned and anointed as Emperor with the holy myron. T.he first ceremony was performed at Adrianople by Lazaros, Patriarch ofJerusalem, the second at constantinople by the Patriarch Isidore. Cantacuzene makes a point of observing that his second coronation was not strictly necessary, since he had already been crowned by the Patriarch of Jerusalem whose anointing of him 'with ~he holy myron' (xp(o.'e; TOU aYlov "vpov) was enough to confirm him as Emperor. But In order to leave no pretext for his calumniators to say that he had not been crowned in Constantinople in accordance with the ancient custom of Emperors, the ceremony was performed a second time. s5 In 1353 John Cantacuzene's own son Matthew had to be anointed with the myron 'according to custom' before he could be deemed to be co-Emperor. s6 At much the same period Pseudo-Kodinos in his chapter on the coronation of an Emperor describes how, after the recitation of the prayers proper for the anointing of Emperors (nie; brl XP(OCI {JaoIU(J)" ('955), p. 65 and n. 4. Raybaud, 0p. dt., p. 7', takes no account of the evidence of Apokaukos and Chomatianos and is therefore at fault in stating that 'le seul sacre atteste au xm< (siecle) est celui de Michel IX, en .1195 bie)'. 33. Cantacuzenus, I, p. 198 lines 8-.0, p. 1151 line u. Cf. Gregoras, I, p. 373. Vrsula V. Bosch, KaiJer AndroniAoJ Ill. Palaiologos. Vmuch einer DaTJtellung der byzantiniJChen GeJChichte in den Jahren 1)21-1)41 (Amsterdam, '965), pp. 35-6. 34· Cantacuzenus, 11, p. 64: ... Xp(... re "vptp riP dy(tp K,lI tlrt" .. T~. "cqJaAI)II "QraICoopEiIl.

35· Cantacuzenus, 11, p. 564; Ill, p. 29 lines 9-'4. For the dates and M. Nicol, Tilt Byzantine Family of KanlaAOUUJItn (Canto.cuzenuJ) ca. I10tr-1460
47

I

the Patriarch anoints the head of the Emperor, tracing the sign of the cross with the holy myron, and saying in a loud voice 'hagios'.S7 The author of the protocol on the coronation ofManuellI in 1391 describes how the Patriarch 'anoints (the Emperor) with the myron of spikenard and places a cap on his head' (Kalxp{n arJrov riiJ pvprp rou vap{)ov Kal rpoptVEl OIlrov KOVKovAIOV).S8 The Patriarch Antonios IV, in his celebrated letter to Basil I of Moscow in 1393, emphasizes that the Byzantine Emperor, though in straitened circumstances, is still the Emperor of all Christians, still elected and prayed for by the Church and anointed with the great myron. so Symeon of Thes~lonica, writing in the fifteenth century, devotes a chapter of hIS De. SaCTo .Templo ~o the metaphysical reasons why an Emperor IS anomted WIth the myron and inaugurated with prayers.·o I! w,:)\.~ld have been helpful if Symeon had commented upon t?e ~ngm as. we.1I a~ the metaphysics of this practice. One slgmficant ,Pomt m hIS account, however, is that the Patriarch traces the sIgn of the cross on the Emperor's head with the myron, auvre8npevac; erJxac;',

"'''"o~ h"Bvp06".,. edrvxijao., .b. 6t ao. ge6~ OdT6~ 6,,1 TO.. tept.,. T~' /loa.Ae{o~ tyxnp{(e• ... Kol ~~.Iepl!. taTe"dv.,ae KOpV"~V. ... Gregoras, Ill, p. 104 I~nes 11-16,. says SImply. that the imperial crown was placed on

Mat~ew s h~ad by h,s father, assmed, according to ancient custom, by the Patriarch Phdotheos who had recently succeeded Kallistos'. . 87· Pseu~?-Kodinos, Trailed" OffictS, ed.]. Verpeaux(Paris, '966), P.15 8 ~~ 19"'18. 0 6t troTp.dpxq~ xp{e. aTovpoe.6w~ T~' Ke"aA~. rov /loalAtOJ~ TiP . e rp p6prp, t7"Aty",. peydAn TiJ ""'vii T6 «4ylO~'. Ct: Cantacuzenus I P 198 IIDes 8-10. I

,

•

l.tJ~seud~i~odinos, Cid. Verpeaux, Appendix VI ('Protocole anonyme du 9""5.

W

, 17

sur e couronnement de Manuelll'), p. 855 lines 5-7,

89· Miklo.ich and Muller, Acta.t Diplornata Gratea M.dii A.vi 11

.

~:~:.~::~ ~~7:::"!;;!;:~ x:~o;ov{av t~e. 6 /loa.Aeb, tropo * t~KA~;io: ~:i

vel.a. /lofllAeb, Kal ad,oKpd;"'/.~~ ~;' Trp :eYdArp xp{ero. pdprp Ka{ xe.po (TO> ... E. Barker, Social and Palilieal ;d".... 6q1a6• • w. Xp.fIT.o ..... '94-6, and]. W. Barker M4nwllI P~ antium (Oxford, '948), pp.

TIuJ:PZ 7:'

r

:!d~9!~~d·::' C;~d:~~f~'!t Iran~!"tii~~r~!:~~fr: ~:;~~

40. S~ Th",lIiImimuu Archiepu:~ ,w, ." ~ mISunderstanding. T""/JIDIlIjwCMlStcratUmt) '" 'jmaOmnia,mMPG,CLV(D.SIJCJ'O ~~re1no&ra•. Menev~cagl:;uCXopLV!, 8.58: iha.lxplera.p6prp 6/laalAeb<;, 1<01 , .Ot·,P·1I5·

but that he anoints 'his head only', thus demonstrating that the Emperor is the anointed of Christ and 'the head of all ' (Tn "ErpaAii arJroii oravpoel{)wc; tYXEel ro pvpov. {)ElKVVC; WC; cS XploTbC; arJrbv lXP,oe . .. Kai KerpaM)v 1I'Ibraw {)e{[(Vvol. Llla rOUTo yap K41 ptJvo v Xpiel rqv KErpaAqv ..• ).41 Th~ sig~ifican~e lies. in the contrast with the western coronation ritual In whIch the Emperor's body was anointed with chrism and his head with oil. Theophanes, followed by Constantine Manasses, remarks upon the odd manner in which the Pope anointed Charlemagne with oil 'from head to foot'. 42 This was never Byzantine practice. Nor does it seem that Byzantine Emperors were ever anointed in two kinds. Demetrios Chomatianos believed that anointing of the Emperor's head with oil was the normal and traditional procedure; and the use of the words xp{opa, XP{OI(;, XP{ElV in other sources of the twelfth as well as the thirteenth centuries should perhaps be understood in this sense, literally and not metaphorically. The terms did not need to be qualified by the addition of the words 'with oil' since this would have been taken for granted. It is misleading to assume that the Greek word xp{opa is the equivalent of the Latin word chrisma, since the fonner is frequently used to mean the act of unction, whether with oil or with myron, while the latter always means the chrism or the stuff of unction, i.e. the Greek myron. The XP{olla with which a Byzantine Emperor was anointed seems at first to have been normally consecrated oil. The use of the holy myron, the chrism of post-baptismal confirmation in the Greek rite, was a later development. And the sources suggest that it is in this respect that something new crept into the Byzantine coronation ritual in the thirteenth century. The innovation was not in the act of unction itself but in the stuff with which it was performed. It cannot be by accident that in every case in which the verb XP{ElV is used in accounts of Byzantine coronations after the midthirteenth century it is qualified by the words rQl ge{rp (dy{rp) pvprp. The first properly attested case is that of the coronation of Michael IX as co-Emperor in 1294. But the remarks of 4" Symeon ofThessalonica, op. cit., 858C. 4" Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, .885-5), I, pp. 47 1-8; Constantine Manasse., Compendium Chronicum (CSHB), p. 195 lines 45'5-'9·

49

Demetrios Chomatianos to the Patriarch of Nicaea some seventy years earlier and the references in Pachymeres to the anointing of Michael VIII seem to indicate that the practice of confirming Emperors with the myron was already introduced at Nicaea before 1261. Exactly when it became established procedure is not clear. But some explanation of the reasons for its introduction into the ceremony may at least be suggested. L.-P. Raybaud proposed that the ceremony of anointing might have been introduced into the late Byzantine coronation ritual by usurpers of the throne as a means of sanctirying their actions. 43 This is an attractive theory, but the facts seem to be against it. John Cantacuzene was certainly glad to be able to say that he had been anointed as Emperor; and it seems probable that Michael VIII, as Raybaud says, was in the same case. But evidence exists, slight though it may be, that their predecessor, Theodore 11 Laskaris, was also anointed at his coronation; and he was no usurper." It is certain too that Theodore Komnenos Doukas was anointed as Emperor at Thessalonica, which takes the practic~ bac~ to the .first quarter of the thirteenth century. From the vlewpOl~t ofNlCaea Theodore was certainly a usurper. But he ,,:as not so m the eyes of those who proclaimed, crowned and anOl?ted him; .and they believed that they were acting in full accord with Byzantme tradition. So far therefore as concerns the anointing of ~~perors with oil there are grounds for thinking that the transItIon from the figurative to the literal sense of the verb xp(nv had occurred before 1204. The statement of Niketas Choniates about the coronation of Alexios Ill, cited above, should perhaps be taken to mean exactly what it says--that the Emper?r went in to St. Sophia 'that he might be anointed acco~dmg to custom and be invested with the imperial regalIa'." If the ceremony of anointing with oil can be traced back to the twelfth century: t~en it becomes more possible to accept that it ~ay have been Imitated or adapted from the western coronation rItual. Some of the Emperors of the Komnenos dynasty were 48· Raybaud, op. elt., pp. 7'-8. 44· Gregoras, I, p. 55 line "8. 45· Nlketas Choniates HiJtoria 6 r . Christo hilo 0 I '. ,p. 08 me 7 (cited above, n. 4). word. JCh p .u oU'boP ' Cthlt., p. ' .. I,. argues for a literal interpretation of the Ontates a out e anOlntmg ofAlexios Ill.

50

much more prone to adopting Latin practices t.han were their successors at Nicaea. But anointing with the chnsm of the holy myron was, it appears, a later developm.e~t, and one that had a much deeper significance for the. relIgIOus character of th.e Byzantine coronation ce~emony. ~ t IS temptmg to s.uppose that It originated in the Empire at .Nlca~a and that It bec~me an established part of the coronatIon ntual after 1261, untIl m the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it had become an indispensable element in the making of an Emperor. There is ~o evidence that it became so as a result of western mfluence or III imitation of Latin coronation ritual. The myron was applied, as Symeon of Thessalonica says, to the Emperor's head, not to his body; and the Emperor was anointed in the sign of the cross and acclaimed by the Patriarch and the people as 'holy'. Most probably the practice is to be seen as yet another manifestation of the increased influence and authority claimed and exercised by the Church in political affairs in the late Byzantine period. The comparison that Demetrios Chomatianos makes of the anointing of Emperors with the unction of baptism may not be without its significance. Theodore Balsamon, writing about 1190, maintained that the act of anointing cleansed an Emperor from the sins that he had committed before his proclamation, just as the guilt of original sin is cleansed by the unction of baptism. Thus, in 969, the Patriarch Polyeuktos had contrived to cleanse John Tzimiskes even from the guilt of murder by anointing him as Emperor. 46 It is arguable that Balsamon was referring back to the tenth century the practice of his own day in the matter of anointing Emperors. But at all events the word that he uses is XP(u/la and not /lvpov--implying a-comparison with the unction of baptism and not with that of confirmation. The anointing of the Emperor's head with the holy myron was to enter the coronation ritual after Balsamon's time. The act seems to have been deliberately modelled on the chrismation or postbaptismal unction of a neophyte which, also administered in the sign of the cross, 'set the seal of the Holy Spirit' (ufPpayit;6rupciit; 46. Th€odore Balsamon, CanoneJ, in MPG, CXXXVll, 1156: ... Elrc/ r~ xpio/Ja rov dyiov fJatrrio/Jaro~ rA IrP~ roDfo d/Japf"/Jafa dlraAdlp€' ..• Ird"QI~
51

11 IrvE'filJaror; ay{ov) on the newly-baptized person. So it is that Symeon of Thessa Ionica explains it in the coronation ceremony by saying that the Patriarch 'sets the seal on the Emperor with the myron' (rip IJEV IJVPrp (J(ppay{(wv aorov). 47 As Pachymeres says in the case of Michael VIII the word hagiOJ in the Emperor's title was the guarantee that he had been anointed with the myron, which by the thirteenth century had already become a necessary element in his inauguration. 48 The repeated chanting of the word hagioJ by the Patriarch, the archdeacon and the people prescribed by the fourteenth - and fifteenth-century coronation formulae, as well as by Symeon of Thessalonica, acclaimed the anointed Emperor as one blessed and confirmed by the only authority higher than his own.4' Makarios of Ankyra goes so far as to say that his anointing with the myron made the Emperor, as the anointed of the Lord, not only holy (hagioJ) but also the equal of a bishop, a priest and a teach~r of the fait~.50 The Emperors were not now, as they had been In the past, Simply de facto the elect of God. Their power and their position was now seen to derive from the Church not merely by anointing with oil but by chrismation with the holy myron, ~hose manufacture was the monopoly of the Patriarch and whICh alone confirmed the reception of a true Christian by the Church. University of London,

King's College 47· Symeon of Thessalonica, op. cit., 353B. Chrismation with the holy ?"ron was performed separately to confirm the recantation and reception back mto th.e Church of certam types of heretics, categorized in Canon 95 of the Counc,lm Trullo: Rh.lIes and Podes, op. cit., 11, p. 53 0 . 4 8. Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, p. 50 7. . 49· Pseudo-Kod~nos, ed. Verpeaux, pp. '.58 lines 'g-'9, 354 line 21-355 Itne 5· On the Slgmficance of the words (Jtppayl~, (Jtppayl(ru ibid p "3 n 1 Syme~n of Thessaloni ca, op. dt., 353C: ... Kal ::4Ylo~ dV~Kpd(;', ~ElKvD~ tIC ~ov ~)I~OV Ka9aycd(nal, ~ymeon ma,kes much the same point in his De sacris 1na/lombu, when contrastmg the ordmation of a bishop with the chrismation o an emperor: MPG, CLV, 4~ 7A: d I'
Td

°1

.iT;

THE PAPAL SCANDAL

T

HE Greek word skandalon means a stumbling-block, an offence. As such it is used frequently in the septuagint and me new testament. In Byzantine texts at least from the elevenm century the word is employed as a collective noun to denote the many obsracles mat stood in me way of union between the Greek and Latin churches. In the thirteenth century, however, it is often qualified by me phrase 'relating to or concerning the pope' -'TO Ka'TCx 'TOV lTarrav m
See, for instance, George Pachymeres, IH Michdelt Pal«ologo, pp 359, 366; De And,on;,o Palatologo, pp IZ, 17, 10> (CSHByz). 'Le, docuinent' [byzantin. du xne sikle sur la primautl! romaine1.

• U·) DarrouUs, I

RES, >3 (I96S) pp 42-88. On the Byzantine view of the primacy of Rome in general see M. Jugie, 'La primauto!

11 11

The Papal scandal In earlier times the Byzantines were content to accept the verdict of their great patriarch Photios who in the ninth century had detected no more than five errors in the Roman creed and ritual. It was left to Michael Keroullarios to extend the list to the number of twenty-three, though he was provoked by the long catalogue of charges against his own church itemised by cardinal Humbert in 1054. Not all his co~leagues would agree that the Latins were so multifariously misgUIded. Peter of l ....doch sensibly concluded that most of the twenty~ree alleged errors were trivial and probably the result of western Ignorance. The two most serious faults were again the addition to the creed and the use of unleavened bread. But neither he nor Keroullarios nor for that matter Photios regarded the primacy of Rome as a scandal.' . The enc~clical ofKeroullarios was the first of many such documents. LIsts of Latm errors based upon it were multiplied and circulated; and amon~ ~rdmary people and the rabble of monks in Byzantium it was the tnv~~ that made the most exciting reading. All were agreed that the addItion of the Filioque to the creed was wrong, even if few could understand the theological. subtleties of the case. But it was easy enou~h to see that the Latms were at fault in such matters as the ma~nage of ~e .clergy and all too easy to be persuaded that they chrIstened theIr infants with saliva, ate the flesh of wol d ank th· . d hd ves, r elr ~wn un~e an was e their dirty trousers in tlleir cooking pots. basIc text m the development of this form of anti-Latin literature IS the so-call~d Opu~culum contra Francos, or Treatise against the Franks an~ other Latln.s. This document, attributed by its manuscript and its ~ltO~O Ph~tlos, probably dates in reality from the eleventh century . a ss~mma~or of prejudice it has a lot to answer for. Its twent ~ :ght sections Itst a total of thirty-six Latin aberrations As usual t~ rst two cltarges, and therefore tile most serious, relate t~ the additio~

!'-

~~e clans l'eglise byzantine a partir du IXe siecle ' . . d uruon av~c Rome, au concile de Florence' DTC Jwqu a la demlere tentative Dvornik, Th. Idea of Apostolicity [in Byz:"ti~m • ; \ I (1936) cols 357-77; A~drewl, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 4 (Cambrid an t e Legend ~r the Apostle pnmaute ,omaine, Unam Sanetam 49 (P' ~ass., 1958) and Byzance .t la Byzantine Theology'l. in J. Meye~dorff. ~~:m!~.J Meyendorff, 'St. Peter [in zme, The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Ch' h ' N. AfanasSlef, N. KoulomlMology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal ~rc ~ndon [963) pp 7-2 9 and, Byzantine The five complaints oCPhotios are contained ew Y~rk: 1974). ~ [02, cols 721-42. Keroullarios's letter to Pet:S e;kl~ca~to the eastern patriarchs, ~20, cols 781-816. See [S,] Runciman The Baste: Se t,lO and Peter's reply are in

[F.I

l)'

4,

':5 .

the EMtem Churches dll,ing the Xlth and Xllth

142

. hlSm. lA study of the pap"'y and ce.tunesl (Oxford 1955) PP 52-4, 65-6.

to the creed and to the unleavened bread. But the Opusculum has nothing to say about the primacy of Rome. 5 When and how did the question of the prjmacy come to rate as a scandal? The Byzantine church had always accorded to the see of Rome a primacy of honour, with pride of place among the five patriarchates, the pentarchy of the oecumenical church, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The twentyeightll canon of the coUllcil of Chalcedon had declared, to the satisfaction of the Byzantines at least, that the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople were equal to those of his colleague in Rome. The exalted rank of both sees was held to derive from the historical contingency that first one and then the other had been the capital city of the Roman empire in which the cllUrch was founded and had its being. The apostolic fOUlldation of the church of Rome was accepted as a fact as it was in the case of Antioch, though the apostolic succession of its bishops from saint Peter was another matter. The right of appeal to Rome by other sectors of the church was sometimes allowed, especially when it seemed convenient. But the Byzantines never agreed that the pope had a universal jurisdiction extending over the whole oikoumene. The only universal authority in the church was that of an oecumenical council at which all fIve patriarchs were present or represented. They believed that all bishops were equal. Some might be marginally more equal than others. But neither Rome nor Constantinople had a right to the supereminently unequal status claimed by the papacy. Photios, who had a normal Byzantine respect for the primacy of the see ~f Rome, was concerned about the theological and other err.ors bemg propagated by its incumbents. If the pope was in error, as III .the ~atter of the Filioque, then clearly he must forfeit the respect ~or hIS pnmacy, as well as the respect and recognition of his colleagues m the pentarchy. To later Byzantine theologians the problem became m~re and more acute as they became aware of the ever more elaborate claIms put f~rward by the reformed papacy. It is no accident that the first Byzantme documents dealing specifically with the primacy of &

o.pus~ulum [c~ntra. F,anc~s, ed J. Hergenroether}, Monumenta gracca ad Photium tjus t hlSton.am pertinentia (Rawbon 1869) pp 62-71. It was translated into Latin b H qu

.~ther1anus

when he was. a,t the Byzantine court in 1178. The translati!n : incorporated b~ the Dorruruc~ Bartholomew of Constantinople into his T,actGl1U contra G,~cos ,in .J2.j2. For Its probable date and authorship see Beck, S S-

[A.I Argynou, Remarques s~ quelques listes [grecques ~num~rant 1.. hW!si.. ~tme!'l'

BF 4 (Amsterdam 1972) PP 9-30, .sp PP 13-15.

143

•

11 11

The Papal scandal Rome date from the early twelfth century. Prev!ous anti~Lati~ polemic had concentrated on the points of difference m doctrme, ntual. and custom. Such differences were magnified when the crusaders arnved in the east. Their greed, arrogance and cont?mpt fo~ the Greeks w.ere the worst possible advertisement for Latm Chnstlaruty. PhYSical contact with these barbarous foreigners fortified the worst fears and prejudices of the Byzantines. The lists ?f Latin aberrations g~ew longer and more detailed. A.new complamt.was ~at Roman pnests carried arms and took part m war, murdenng with one hand and celebrating the sacrament with the other.8 But the crusades also brought home to the Byzantines the full and tangible significance of the pope's claim to universal supremacy over the church. And it was to counter this claim that their theologians turned to producing what amount to pamphlets De primatu papae. Darrouzes has analysed a number of such tracts produced in the twelfth century; and, as he observes, a starting-point for Byzantine criticism of what seemed to be a new Roman conception of the primacy came in the pontificate of Urban IT, the prime mover of the first crusade. 7 In the course of the twelfth century then the question of the primacy of Rome in the church came to worry the Byzantines more than it had ever done before. It came indeed to constitute a major scandal or obstacle to understanding and union. The early crusades stoked the fires of prejudice on both sides. The fourth crusade in 1204 made them almost inextinguishable. Those at the receiving end of the fourth crusade found it hard to believe that its perpetrators were Christians at all. Contemporaries referred to them as 'the Latin dogs', the 'forerunners of antichrist'. The sack of Constantinople, the con~uest ~d dismemberment of the empire coloured all subsequent relatiOnships between Byzantium and the west, political, ecclesiastical ~d emotional. ~anatical ?~thodox propagandists who had always sazd that the Latms were VICIOUS were rriumphantly vindicated. Nor would the Byzantines believe that the crusaders had exceeded the orders of pope .Innocent m. For they knew quite well that the pope, though deplonng the savage~ of his soldiers in Constantinople. reg~ded the conquest ~f the City and the establishment of a Latin empire as part of God s plan for the reunification of Christendom

.~~ A~xi", od B. Leib, 3 vols. (Paris 1937-4S) bk X. cap 8, •

pp 218-ao. Kaoullarioa, US'".m p 64, § 3· Th. pomt may lint have been made by MichaeI , ..... __ ..... , PG 120, col '?93; but with the crwades it acquired g....tet force. uonu....... La documentl , pp 47'-9. •

e The Byzantines were now to be treated to the practical under Rom . . ' application of the fully developed. theory of uruversal pap~l soverelgnry. It may be instructive to ex.amme some of the: Byzantme statements b ut the primacy of Rome m and after the thirteenth century to see ~~at impact the disaster of the fourth crusade had on the thinking of its victims. I have consulted some twenty-five Greek documents on or about the subject written between 1204 and 1400. But there is much work to be done in this field. A surprising number of the relevant texts are still in manuscript or only partially edited or printed in Greek and Russian publications of such rarity. as to ~e almost inaccessible. In 1872 the learned Greek archlmandnte Andronikos Demetrakopoulos published a book entitled Orthodoxos Bel/as." This is a sort of Who's Who of all the Greeks who committed their anti-Latin arguments to writing from the time of Photios to the end of the eighteenth century. It is a work of patriotic devotion, pious erudition and profound prejudice. It was designed partly as a hellenic counterblast to the enormous compendium of Leo Allatius, De ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione, published in 1648.• Allatius, as a Greek uniate, had looked for the points of convergence between catholic and orthodox writers through the centuries. Demetrakopoulos looked for the points of divergence and considered AIlatius, a Greek from ehios, to have been a traitor to hellenism and a popish lackey. But his book remains a valuable guide through a still relatively unexplored field, for he took great trouble to search the libraries of Europe and often to list the manuscripts of the unpublished works of his anti-Iatin heroes. It is understandable that many of these works are to be found not in the Vatican but in the libraries of Orthodox countries, Greek. Slav, Roumanian or Russian. Whether Orthodoxos Hellas is a proper title for a compendium planned to perpetuate Greek Orthodox bigotry is a matter that I would rather not go into now. I am merely recording my debt to a learned Greek archimandrite who died in Germany just over a hundred years ago. The fourth crusade was a shocking and bewildering experience for me Byzantines. But they must have seen it coming. The Greek parriarch of Constantinople at the time was John X Kamateros, Just • A. K. DemetrakopouJos, 'Ope66o~os 'E~as ~'Ol "'pi ,/iIv 'ID~..,v ypalfiGV1"Co>V .cml< Aa-dv",v Kal mpl";;;v avyypa~~c!rr.,v M/ilv (Leipzig 1872, repr Athens 1968). t Allatius, [Leonis Allatii De ecclesiae occ;dentalis QtqJ4e orientalis ptrpetua constnSione Lilni (Cologne 1648) repr with an introduction by KaIlistos T. Ware (Gregg Inter""tional Publishers 1970).

''''1

145

II II

The Papal scandal

.

° he had engaged in a correspondence

II99- 12 O before the event, mIU ilie primacy of the see of Rome. This in ·th Innocent about h pope bl Thr h ut the twelfth century t ere seems to . If' marka e oug 0 b Itse IS re th' I exchange on the subject etween a pope be only o~e oh ~; Innperson~t's tWO letters to the patriarch John have d a patnarc . oce 'I' h I I an k 11 B t the patriarch s rep les ave on y recent y long been nown. u I . lished 12 The second and longer of t le two sets out to questIOn 'proposition that the see of Rome. enjoys not only . b I I't de of power and uruversal JUrISdIctIOn as the prtmthacy fut laI sohP enhI : to whose fold the Greeks must return or moero. curce, ,. I' k h 'd tl e ark of salvation. Where m the gospe S, as S t e . remam outs! e 1 . hid atriarch, 'does Christ say that the church of the Romans IS t e lea P d ' I other of all the churches? . . . There are five great an uruversa m .' I. h churches which are dignified wIth patrtarchal rank, among w llC she is the first as among sisters of equal honour. The fn~e patnarchates are like the five senses, each performing a distinct function ... or hke a five-stringed instrument, each string with its own sound but capable of the harmonious music of salvation when struck by the plectrum of the Holy Spirit.... The primacy of honour accorded to the church of Rome comes not through Peter having been proclaimed bishop there or having died there, but because the city of Rome was once exalted by the presence of the emperor and the senate, neither of which is to be found there any more'. 13 There is nothing startlingly new in the patriarch's letters. He makes the following well-worn points: that the true head of the church is Christ; that the church on earth is governed by a pentarchy of patriarchs, among whom the bishop of Ron:~ has a pri~acy. of honour; that this primacy depends upon polmcal and histoncal circU1llStances; and that in any event there is a strong case for W1

:;nc~~dent

10

Correspondence between pope Alexander III and the patriarch Michael of Anchialos.

in 1I73. ed G. Hofmann. 'Papst und Patriarche unter Kaiser Manuel I Komnenos'. EEBS, 23 (1953) pp 74-82. "Letters of Innocent III of II98 and II99, PL 214, cols 327-9, 758-65; ed [Po Th.] HlIuiCyrukyj, Acta Innccent;; III ("98-1Z16), P[ontificia] c[ommissio ad] rledigendumJ c[odicem] i[uris] c[anonici] o[rientalisl, Fontes ser Ill, 2 (Vatican City 1944) nos S, 9,

pp 180-2, 187-95. Papadakis and [Alice Mary] Ta!bot, 'John X Camaterus [confronts Innocent Ill: an unpublished corre.pondence'], BS, 33 (197)) pp 26-41 (Greek text, pp 33-41). See Grumel, Regestes, nos II94. 1I96, pp 190-3; [P.] Wirth, 'Zur Frage [eines politischen Engagements Patriarch Johannes' X. Kamateros nach dem vierten Kreuzzug'], BF, 4 (197') pp '39-52, P 244; A. Andrea, 'Latin evidence for tbeacoeosion date of John X Carnzterus', BZ, 66 (1973) pp 354-8. 11 Papadakis and Talbot, 'John X Camaterus', pp 36-7, 40. 11 lA.]

. th church of Jerusalem first in time and rank and the countlllg e. h d All this had been said before. Even the church of Antloc secon. b [. d Iy m arison of the pentarchy to the five senses can e oun . as ear co p . h . f: t' t was made by a Latm to Illustrate as the runth century, w en m ac I h fir t . f Rome among the other patriarchates as t e s h f the church.14 What the patriarch John the pnmacy 0 among the senses, t e eye 0 b L . d olitely emphasise to the pope is the difference etween ann ;~sd'reek interpretations of the word' catholic', since in the Orthodox . h of the Christian churches, however humble, possesses the vIew eac b' h h same fulness. of grace and catholiciry and no one IS op, owever important his see, can monopolise the title of catholtc for any part of the whole. to d d Four years after this letter was written the. crusaders ente~e an sacked Constantinople. The patnarch was dnven out a~d hi~ place was taken by a Latin elected by the conquerors. In his e~le the patriarch John Kamateros wrote a bitter account of. the sufferlllgs of his ciry and the humiliation of his church. It survIves III an anonymous pamphlet entitled 'How the Latin prevailed over. us', ,which recent research has convincingly identified as the patnarch s own composition. '6 He describes himself as a vagrant, without a city and without a throne. He deplores the horror of the conquest as an eye-witness, the plunder of churches an? the rerlac~ng of Greek priests by Latins. He recalls how he was Insulted III his own palace Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Mansi, 16, col 7, cited by Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity. p 277. Compare Peter of Antioch's letter to the patriarch of Aquileia, PG 120. cols 757, 760. 16 Western sources record that in March 1203 the patriarch John with the emperor promised under oath to submit the church of Constantinople to Rome and to go and receive the pallium from the supreme pontiff. Hugh of Saint-Pol, Chronia regia colonensis, ed G. Waitz, MGH, SRG (Hanover 1880) p 208; Robert of Auxerre. Chronicon, MGH, SS, 26, P 270. The story, if not apocryphal, is surely exaggerated. C. M. Brand, Byzantium co~f,onts the West 118o-uo4 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968) pp 243-4, accepts it as evidence that the emperor and the patriarch 'sent their submissions to Innocent Ill'. But see the more cautious remarks of Grumel, Regestes. no II97. p 193, and Wirth, 'Zur Froge', pp 244-5. 11 Anonymous. ne-pt "TOO 6'1Too~ 'axvae xaS' 'I'\",wv 6 A<X'TivoS ed archimandrite Arsenij. Tr; stati neizvestnago greleskago pisateUa nalala XIII "eka (Three documents of an unknown Greek writer of the beginning of the thirteenth century for the defence of Orthodoxy and the refutation of the Latin innovations in faith and religion) (Moscow 18 92 ) pp 84-IIS. For its ascription to the patriarch John Kamateros see Beck p 664. and e.p (J. M.] Hoeck and [R.-J.] Loenertz, Nikclaos-Nektarios [von Ouanto Abt von 14

Casole. Beitrage zur Geschichtt de, ost-westlichtn Beziehungen unfer Inno%ttI% Ill. tmd Priedrich n.] (Etta! 1965) P 31 and n 6; Wirth, 'Zur Froge', P 246. Extracts from the document >re printed in [M.] Jugie, Theologia dogmalica [christ/anorum ori,"hlli"", Gb ecclesi. dissidentium], 4 (P>ris, 1931) P 391.

JI 11

The Papal scandal by the popc's legate to Constantinople. But above all he protests against the appointment of a Latin pattiarch in his place. There is an irony in this p~otest, since po?e Innocent III too was f~r from happy about the dectlOD of a VenetJan prelate as the first Latm patriarch of Constantinople in I2.04. But the pope was upset only about the method and the person of the appointment. What bewildered and angered the Greek patriarch was the pope's assumption that he was empowered. to make or to ratify such an appointment at all. By :what authonty could a pore of Rome elect or demote his colleagues In the pentarchy? Brooding on the enormity of this crime the patriarch lost whatever respect he may earlier have expressed for the theory of the primacy of Rome. He denies it categorically and goes fu~er by denyi~g also the primacy of Peter among the apostles. This absolute denIal of the primacy of Peter is, as Meyendorff' has remarked, an extteme case, unique in all Byzantine Iiterature,u To su~ extremes of irrational bitterness were the Byzantines driven by their tteatment at. the hands of the Latins. The pattiarch will allow to the see ~ ~. CIty of R~me only one mark of primacy and that is the SpeCIal pnvllege of bemg remembered as the city that murdered the holy apos~e Peter by.hanging him head downwards on a cross. Gr~ m Constantinople continued to regard John Kamateros as thetr ~PJrJtJJaI head until he died in exile in May 1206. But even U;;der alien rule. they saw no good reason why they should not be a o,:"ed to appomt a new patriarch of their own faith and langua e Thetr clergy ap~roached the Latin emperor, Henry of Flanders~ ~ : : ; : ~Ible man. B~t he could not grant permission unless t wledged obedIence to the pope. They therefore wrote a eourteo~ letter to Innocent III asking him to let them elect their =::ar~ so that. a council of the church could be arranged to been broughpomts of dis~te between Greeks and Latins. For they had meth d f t up .to bdleve that a council was the proper and only o 0 removmg scandals in the church d th . be represented until the h a d ' ' .an etr case could not y a patnarch of thetr own race and speech. 18

nu:

It MeyendorK,

I'Dnoc:eat

Peter', P 17. See Dvomik m', 'Stattitude to the election of Tb'

B

•

yzllllCt M 01 I. P'IIIfIIUII, P 141. On

R. L Wolft; 'Politics in the Latin . oma. orosini as Latin patriarch see u I (1954) pp :123-304. patrlarchate of Constantinople 1204-1261', DOP, letter of the Greek clergy of C . ~ Bpilllphl.. for his ~ple to Innocent m: Greek text in Nh:hola. GIItIII,"" la 1okhtUt"'" /Grise_ !:,;,Jed ~.l ~berg, N .... Qu.II.n [ZIIt rdIommiCJII], I: [Dot Bpilllphl.. la NIItD'- M.lII1illl"" BruII,J"""""'). W (1920) .bh 5 pp 63-6.

siJ

mnm

IfS

Shortly afterwards Innocent III received a collective letter from: the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople. It followed much the same lines. They accepted the harsh fact of political subjugation to a Frankish emperor, with whom they were quite prepared to co-operate if only for survival. But in spiritual matters they too saw no reason why they should not have a patriarch and bishops of their own appointed in the time-honoured manner; and they called for an oecumenical council for the discussion of common problems, at which their patriarch would answer for them.19 Pope Innocent III never, it seems, deigned to answer these letters. It has been argued that by ignoring them he lost his chance of winning the allegiance of the church and people of Constantinople by making 'a grand conciliatory gesture'. 10 A new scandal or stumbling-block had now been seen to be erected in the field of ecclesiology, the papal scandal. A new Greek patriarch was in fact elected in 1208 but not at Constantinople. His see was at Nicaea, which was to become the capital of the Byzantine empire and church in exile until its emperor drove the Latins out of Constantinople in 1261. n The primacy, or the overriding authority, of Rome as manifested in the fourth crusade and its consequences became the largest stumbling-block between Greeks and Latins in the years after 1204In August and September 1206 a series of dialogues took place between the Latin patriarch Thomas Morosini and the brothers Nicholas and John Mesarites. Nicholas, a deacon and later to become bishop of Ephesos, condemned the Latin patriarch's appointment as uncanonical and argued strongly against the pope's power to make such appointments. 12 He refuted the claim that such authority stemmed from saint Peter. For Peter had never been bishop of Rome.

c...:

.. C,_orum.d I.noanti.... II1 [Po R. EplsloI. saip'" posl 'aptam .lAIinls c.....""'1I11Op01i ,.,._ Honri,o.Imper.,o,.). PG 140. cols :>93-8 (from]. B. Cotelerius, Etdl_ Monu...n'" (ParIS 1677-9~) 3, pp 514 $ltj). For the dating oftheseletten see HeiseDber •• N .... .Qurllen, I. pp 13-14; Hoeck-Loenertz, Nilcoloos-Ntlclmlos. pp 49-51. g. Run~, The E.,/em Schism, pp 154-5. For a dUl'erent assessment of Innocent see u.J Gill, 'Innocent m [and the Greeks: Aggressor or Apostle?'] RoI."ons btlw,,!, 11.." .and Wes/ in lhe Middle Ages, ed Derek Baker (Edinburgh I ' ) pp It IS S1gnificanl that it was not until after the appointment of al.'Ju patnllch m U~4 ~t Innocent m officially accepted the second rank of Constantinople among the p~tlal sees of the pentarchy. See the fifth C3DOI1 of the lateran collllCil

nr

u:

pr~ent ?S-IO~.

of 12.1 S, Man.n:, 22, col 99Q. .. See now M. Angold, A Byzan/lfll! Go.."....nt in &ill Go"""""""."" Socii lhe LtuIcorids of NI,..., ,.0f-u61 (Oxford 1975). . ty ....... .. N'1Cb~ Mesarites, 'DU; l?isputation des Nikolaos Mesarita mic dem Kardinallegateu Beneclikt and dem Iateinischcn Patriarcheu Thomas Morosini am 30. August zaall',

149

11 Il

The Papal scandal By trying thus to glorify Peter the Italians merely humiliate him. For they confine the teacher of the whole oikoumene to being bishop of one city. thinking to exalt themselves as his successor. Foolish of them. for it shows that they do not know whence or how the see of Rome came by its privileges. It was not through Peter ... but through the fact that Rome was the capital city and contained the senate when the grace of truth first dawned. If you Italians would consult the records you would find this documented and cease to stray from the truth.... Nicholas then proceeds to compare the claims to primacy of Antioch and Jerusalem. though he weakens his case by bringing in the alleged sojourn of saint Andrew in Byzantium and his mythical foundation of the see of Constantinople. 'But'. he continues. 'if you come back at me with "Thou art Peter and upon this rock . . .... take note that ~~ was not said of the church of Rome. That is a Jewish ~r .of ~ a,nd debases the grace and divinity of the church by limitmg It to districts and ~unt~es instead of recognising its working thro?ghout the whole UDlverse. By confining the meaning of 'the rock t~ the chw:ch of Rome alone you force yourselves into a narrow mterpretatIon of the promise of Christ and the prophets. that the message of the apostles would reach the ends of the earth and the church .be ~ounded on a firm, ~o~. as one catholic and apostolic church IIISplred by the Holy SplClt- not a Petrine or Roman church not a, ~yzanttn: or Andreatic or Alexandrine or Antiochene Palestunan or Asian or European or Libyan or Hyperborean Bosporan church: as empty-headed Roman ignorance would have it. but one extending over all the oi/eoumene to which the voice of the apostles anthed the power of the gospels' words went out. even to the limits of world·."'

0;

ed Heisenberg. N... Quel"", •. [Di Vi' L-··'L. __ Prltri4nhmWRhl un4 Ktdstr. t. ~lonsvtrlNUllH""\J"''' VDm jO. August 1206. (Greek text ) , ......g In Niktri. ,..8). SBAW (1923) abh • pp 3-aS NCLo~:- pp Is-as· Meyendorf£. 'St Peter'; PP 20-1; Hoeck-Loenertz Ni""'••s.......... pp 41-4. • .. Much of the text of the latter part of this dialo 'ed ' p 24 _ 1-31) appean almost verb' ,gue , Heisenberg. N... Qu.II... a. '1:0 tbooe who say that Rome is the : . ID aoooymo~. pamphlet addressed b_ edited by M. GordiUo .Photi falsely ascnbed to Photio~ It has sit auctor opuscoli n..... ~ , .._~et Romanus. Num Photius habendu. 'G ..... -TV.'~' &$ ~ 'P&1IIl 1JfIib'ro$ 8p6vosl' OCP 6 ( , pp 3-39 \ reek text PP II-17); earlier ed by [G,) RhaIIe5 and • • 19401 [tWmy1Ml 'rioI. Bd.,. Kalltp&\. Ka,o..,.) 4 (Athens 8 ) [M.l Potle•• Srn/.,"'" Photioo hu bom deoied by [F.) 'I'M ~ S4 p~ 409-1S· Its ascription to (Combridae 1948) pp US-'7' 'I'M 14r4 • • ,. on S,hum. (Hi'IIlry 4rUI Ltgend) ,,;....d. P 143; and by AposJolkity. pp 247-S3; and By",_ ., '" doc:umaJIs'. pp 8S-8. Hocck-Loencnz. M

'.

=.

'!"

Dvornit

Darzouza. .fa

ISO

John Mesarites. in his dialogue with the Larin patriarch in September 1206. contended that the pope's jurisdiction was limited territorially like that of the other patriarchs and that he was never authorised to appoint bishops in places not subject to him; and again the plea was made for the right to elect a Greek patriarch of Constantinople. 14 The papal legate who was present protested that it was absurd to imply that the pope's actions could be contrary to the canons. The Roman church. unlike that of Constantinople with its many deviations. had never held a wrong opinion or countenanced a heresy. His Greek audience were then quick to remind him of the case of pope Honorius who had been anathematised by the sixth oecumenical council in 681. This seems to be the first occasion on which the condemnation of Honorius was adduced as an argument against the primacy, or at least the infallibility. of Rome. It was an argument to be used with caution since, the eastem patriarchs, as the Byzanrines were always ready to adrrut, were far from blameless in the matter of heresy. os A German chronicler of the fourth crusade records how the armada from Venice ~ut in at Corfu in 1203 on its way to Constantinople ~d that the bishop o~ the island invited some of the Latin clergy to dmner. ~e conversatIOn got round to the primacy of Rome and the ~r~k b,lshop gave it as his opinion that he could think of no JustIficatIOn for the see of Rome being specially privileged unless it were that Roman soldiers had crucified Christ. 18 The story may be garbled or apocryphal. But it may well have been the same bishop of Corfu ~ho w.ro~e to pope Innocent m some ten years later. His name was Basil Pe~adlte~. In 1213 Innocent sent out invitations to the fourth lateran council which was to be held in two years time. They went Nik.I••s-Nektori.s. P 43 ••till describe it as waTschrinlich photlonmhen but it is P babl u to be dated, to the thirteenth century, • ro y John Mesantes. Di.logu. between the monks of Propontis and Mount St Awrentioo (led by John Mesantes) and the Latin patrian:h Thomas and c:ardinaI Benedict ::, ~~bet '~~ ed Heisenbetg. Neue Qr"rle•• I. PP S:&-63 (Greek text). ~ .. et oenertz, N ....I..s-Nektatl.'. pp 44-9, DanouUs seem. to be at fault in writiog that 'La pIelIliae Cl ' le Honorius est invoqui par un Grec comme un ar 011 ••• que cas du papa late as 13S7, U,) Darro..u. 'Con£erence la ~ument cantle la primaun!' was as en .) REB • SUI pnmaun! [du pape 1 Con"'n';n~1e 13S7 • .19 (1961) [=Milmrges R.ym4rUljonl.) p 8:0 The f -~r. by John Mesuite. in 1206 and by the patriarch hilo, 11 latin patriarch of Constantinople ha no. m to the .. Anonym! H.lbmtmkmi, De .. ,ut 1~34- See, below P IS4libel"" ed P D Want D!.~one In er.mam ., """",. reIi,.!""",, de

a~uced

c;.m;. ~ ~us ==

er.rm. ,. , . lIullam . aliam ,. causam. """ .... ",er.. ,1IIUIIrIIIin.pelildll4t (Geneva 18 .. ocire primatus vel . ' I. 77) P 14' romani milites Chrlstum crucilixmmt'.

prcrogatmun sedis r o _ nisi qllOd

ISI

po

11 Il

The Papal scandal ,n bisho'" and abbots, Greek as well as Latin, archbish°rs, to the r. l'uThe nl G k

'th nrovince of Constantmop e . 0 y ree gh tbrouout er . dbb bish ku to have replied was BaSlI of Corfu. Any ou t a out op .ownfhis letter (and doubts have been expressed) is resolved the occaSJon ... parin 0 its opening remarks with the text 0 f the pope,s mVltatton coun~. The Greek is a straight translation of the Latin. Basil's letter is little kuown and therefore perhaps worth quoting a~ length. IS Your letter spoke of driving the beasts out of the vmeyard of the Lord of Hosts and of convening an oecumenical council according to the ancient custom of .the fathers. . '... An~ I applauded the intention of y?ur holiness,. filled as It .IS With apostolic zeal. But on consid~l~g whether I~ can b.e realISed my meagre intelligence fmds that It IS at present Impossible. For why I shall tell you. An oecumenical council is composed of a gathering of the five apostolic thrones and their dependent bishops. But if one of the thrones is vacant, and that one of the superior ones, how can such an assembly be called oecumenical? Your holiness surely knows the privileges of the throne of Constantinople . . . that it is granted equal honour and is in no way inferior to that of Rome. If this be so then your council will be substantially deficient if no patriarch of Constantinople is present. Now our see of Constantinople is still widowed; and with no patriarch having been proclaimed how can his synod go to Rome?l•... A regiment of troops cannot join batde

::0

.. letter oflDnocent Ill. PLo .,6. <018315; Halulfynskyj. Acid lnnocentii Ill. no 206. p 444· .. Batil (Pediadi...). ut'" /0 tilt popt (hmocmt 111). eel Sp. K. Papageorgiou. 'I,""pla .E1oO.~ 'ri\s KJpoVpas cmo 'ri\s ~ u\tri\s \IIxP' ..oa Wv (Kerkyra 1920) pp 30-3; earlier eel by A. K. Demetrakopoulo•• in ·Ee".ov ·HIllpW.6}'1ov (Leipzig 1870) P 187. The incipit of the pope', invitations to the council i, given in PL 216, cob 823-4: 'Vineam Domini Sobaoth multiformes moliuntur bestiae demoliri •• .'. Batil', letter begins thus: 'EI\E)'i }'
"*

nr.

hmrollJ1O "nlIv ~....

without its colonel ... and it is the law of the chur~ that b~shops cannot act without their metropolitans nor metropolitans Wl~out their patriarchs. 80 • • • If then your h?liness wishes a co~ll to be canonically convened, let a patriarch first be canoruc~ly elected for Constantinople, that is to say by its own synod, Just as the other patriarchs are elected and appointed by their own synods. Meanwhile, which of the Gr.eek bishops. will co~e ~ your council? Those whom your holmess has driven o.ut. Will the metropolitan of Athens come, whom your holmcss has expelled from his see and replaced by another? What of the bishops of Thessalonica or Zamata who have suffered the. same from your holiness-not to itemise each of the several bIshops whom you have evicted. some of whom are still alive, wandering from place to place like refugees. living monuments of your unlawful behaviour. Thus you have sent adulterers among the undefiled churches of Christ, having divorced them from those to whom the Holy Spirit had united them.... So it is not possible for an oecumenical council to be held, since the Greek synod with their patriarch have been cast out by your holiness.... The body of Christians has Christ at its head; and the five patriarchs are the five senses around the head.... A body deprived of one of its senses is maimed. So also is the church if deprived of one patriarch. And since your holiness spoke of the beasts trying to trample on the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts you might have specified the nature of the beasts ... For each wild animal has its own form of savagery. Arius fought one way, Sabellios another, Makedonios yet another ... So also does the man who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, for he is in conBict with the creed as laid down by the seven councils ... The taunt at the end of this letter shows that the questions of the primacy of Rome and of the pope's authority had not obscured the oldest scandal of all, the addition of the Filioque to the creed. The two matters were indeed inseparably connected. When in I214 some papal legates asked Nicholas Mesarites what he regarded as the root cause of the schism he replied: 'The cause of the scandals is the fact that your part of the church has chosen to sow tares among the pure

• At the time this letter was written (1.'3 or U1-V there wo. a potrim:h at Nieaeo Micbael IV AutoreisnoJ (died a6 August m.j), who was .uooeeded on ~B Septem"'; 1214 TbeocIOle n Ein:nikm. But the bishop ne Corfu, whose political Ulegiance Ioy with the ri..1 Byzaminc Rgime in exile in Episos. did ant recognise the clairn of the paIrian:bI at Ni.,... to the title ne oe<WIICIIic:aI. The Latin p;rtIiarcbate of

.0 This point is dso mode in the letter ne the Greek cleigy to ImIocent m eel HeiIeDbera. N_ Qu.Ilm, I, p 6s. '

IS2

IS3

!'Y

Constantinople was vacant £tom July UII (when nomos Morosini died) UDtil November U1S; but it is improbable
11 11

The Papal scandal 'sh bl'shops and abbots Greek as well as Latin. to IDearchblOPS. • • h nl G k throughout 'the province of Constantinople. 27 T e 0 y ree bish kn wn to have replied was Basil of Corfu. Any doubt about .0 fhis letter (and doubts have been expressed) is resolved th e op occasIOn 0 f h •... . 'ts opening remarks with the text 0 t e pope s mVltatlon oncompanng'1 l The Greek is a straight translation . 0 f the L' B '1' to the counCI . . atm. aSI 28s letter is little known and therefore perhaps worth quoting a.t length. Your letter spoke of driving the beasts out of the ~meyard of the Lord of Hosts and of convening an oecumerucal counc!l according to the ancient custom of .the fathers. . '... And I applauded the intention of y?ur hohness •. filled as It lS With apostolic zeal. But on conside~l~g whether I~ can be reahsed my meagre intelligence fmds that It IS at present Impossible. For why I shall tell you. An oecumenical council is composed of a gathering of the five apostolic thrones and their dependent bishops. But if one of the thrones is vacant. and that one of the superior ones. how can such an assembly be called oecumenical? Your holiness surely knows the privileges of the throne of Constantinople ... that it is granted equal honour and is in no way inferior to that of Rome. If this be so then your council will be substantially deficient if no patriarch of Constantinople is present. Now our see of Constantinople is still widowed; and with no patriarch having been proclaimed how can his synod go to Rome?29 ... A regiment of troops cannot join battle

without its colonel ... and it is the law of the church that bishops cannot act without their metropolitans nor metropolitans without their patriarchs. 80 • • • If then your holiness wishes a council to be canonically convened. let a patriarch first be canonically elected for Constantinople. that is to say by its own synod. just as the other patriarchs are elected and appointed by their own synods. Meanwhile. which of the Greek bishops will come to your council? Those whom your holiness has driven out? Will tile metropolitan of Athens come. whom your holiness has expelled from his see and replaced by another? What of the bishops of Thessalonica or Zarnata who have suJfered the same from your holiness-not to itemise each of the several bishops whom you have evicted. some of whom are still alive. wandering from place to place like refugees. living monuments of your unlawful behaviour. Thus you have sent adulterers among the undefiled churches of Christ. having divorced them from those to whom the Holy Spirit had united them.... So it is not possible for an oecumenical council to be held. since the Greek synod with their patriarch have been cast out by your holiness.... The body of Christians has Christ at its head; and the five patriarchs are the five senses around the head.... A body deprived of one of its senses is maimed. So also is the church if deprived of one patriarch. And since your holiness spoke of the beasts trying to trample on the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts you might have specifled the nature of the beasts ... For each wild animal has its own form of savagery. Arius fought one way. Sabellios anotller, Makedonios yet another .. , So also does the man who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. for he is in conflict with the creed as laid down by the seven councils ..• The taunt at the end of this letter shows that the questions of the primacy of Rome and of the pope's authority had not obscured the oldest scandal of all. the addition of the Filioque to the creed. The two matters were indeed inseparably connected. When in UI4 some papal legates asked Nicholas Mesarites what he regarded as the root cause of the schism he replied: 'The cause of the scandals is the fact that your part of the church has chosen to sow tares among the pure

.. Letter of Innocent Ill, PL, 216, col 826; Hal.Jcynskyj, At.. InnocentU Ill, no 206, p 444· .. Basil (pediadite.), utte, to tll< pop. (Innocent nI), ed Sp. K. Papageorgiou, 'l< cWrijs I'IxP' ,00 ..w (Kerkyra 1920) pp 30-3; earlier ed by A. K. Demetrakopoulo., in 'EOv'KCV ·HI"poMy.ov (Leipzig 18']0) p 187. The incipit of the pope's invitations to the cOWlcil is given in PL 216, cols 82.3-4: 'Vineam Domini Sabaoth multiformes moliuntur bestiae demoliri . . .'. Basil', letter begins thus: 'EA£y. yap ,0 ypa••~a, 6... 'cv a.,w.o;va Kvplov Ia~a",e 1tapCXOKEV6)ovo. K'r1\vn dnTo_ IIlv """"pl~s KEp.vpas lIacriM'os I> n.5.a51~s Eis ,~v lfpeajlv-rlpaV 'P"'.nv hmrolnw ,ov dOTOSnoov. U At the time this letter was written (12.13 or 1214) there was a patriarch at Nicaea, Michael IV Autoreiano, (died.6 August U14), who was succeeded on.8 September '''14 by Theodore U Eimliko.. But the bishop of Corfu, whose political allegiance lay with the rival Byzantine n!gime in exile in Epiros, did not reoognise the claim of the patriardu at Nicaea to the titlt: of oecumenical. The Latin patriarchate of

Constantinople was vacant from July un (when Thomas Morosini died) until November UIS; but it i. improbable that Pediadites had this in mind. ID This point i, also made in the letter of the Greek cleigy to Innooent eel Heisenberg, Neue Qu.Il.... 1. P 65.

Isa

IS3

m.

------------------------,........--

--

11

The Papal scandal wheat of apostolic and patristic doctrine. . . . And if you did not pretend to be deaf you would know that ~e tares are those w~c? you implanted in the creed ... by assertmg that ~~ .Holy Splrlt proceeds also from the Son. This is the reason for the dIVIsion between the churches:· ' As time went on the Greek patriarchs at Nicaea confidently claimed the title and the authority of Constantinople. The patriarch Germanos IT in 1229 condemns the arrogance of the Latins in setting up the bishop of Rome in the place of Christ as head of all the churches-intolerable vanity in a race of men that has promoted so many crimes and errors, first among which is the addition to the creed.•• In a letter to some monks in Constantinople (recently published by Gill) Germanos warns them against being deceived into thinking that the heresy of the Latins is of small account, for it is in fact 'almost the recapitulation of all the heresies' that me devil has introduced into the church.·· Germanos took it upon himself to excommunicate all Greek priests in Constantinople who submitted to the obeclience of Rome. But he felt this to be more reasonable than the action of the Latins in imprisoning mose clergy who refused to submit. Writing to me Latin patriarch about 1234 Germanos appeals to him to show mercy to those priests incarcerated by his predecessor. 'Prison is for malefactors ... and mey have done no wrong.... They have done no more than obey the order of their own church. Eimer you should set them free or prove that they are violating the canons by not submitting to me church of Rome-me church which has altered the creed by adcling to it and which, for that reason alone, me Greeks should shun like me /lames' ... Nicholas Mesarite•• Ne.e Q..II.... 3. [Die &rich! des Ni""I••s }ksariks .her die p.Utisch....M kirchliche. Ereigniss. des].I.res IZlfJ. SBAW (1923) abh 3 p 36. 11 Germano. n. Second 1etter to the Orthodnx inhabitants of Cyprus, PG 140. cols 613C-:uB. 617A-B. See Laurent. Rtgtsks. no I2S0. pp sl>-7. ..J. Gill, 'An unpublished lett.r of Gormanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (I2U-I240)', B. 44 (1974) pp 138-SI. esp p 143 lines 18-30. .. Germanos n. letter to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople (Nioolas de Castro). ed Th. Uspenskij. ObrlJZ....i••Ior'g. b.lgarskag. carslv. (Organi..ti•• •f Ih. SecoM Bulgarian Empire) (Odes.. 1879) appendix. pp 7S--8; partial edition by Demetra!topoulo•• '0pe680~ pp 40-3. See Laurent. R.gtstts. no 1277. pp 83-S. See also Germanos D'.1etten of 1232 to pope Gregoxy IX and to the cardinals. ed A. L. Tiutu, Aa. Hmwrii III el Gregorii IX, PCRCICO. Fontes ser ID. 3: (19S0) no. 179'. 179b, pp _ 249-S" Laurent, Rtgtslts. nos I2S6. 1257- The Greek version of the latter muains unedited. Gormanos ther. gives a rather optimistic pictuxe of the nation. that ale in communion with the Greeks: Bthiopians, Syrians, Iberians, Lazi. Alan•• Goths, KIxazan, RIIIIians and BuIgarian.....·.t hi omne. tamquam matti no.trae obediunt Ec:cIeIiae, in mliqua orthodoxia inlmobileo hactenw manentes·. 11

·Was.

154

The Greeks bitterly resented me enforcement upon them of the Latin faith. When writing to Innocent ID they had asked: 'Why do you try to bully us like dumb beasts unquestioningly to change our ways rather than allowing us to speak and exchange reasoned argument wim you?"· It was bad enough for mem to be made to take an oam of submission to a foreign patriarch but worse still when that patriarch was answerable to a pope who condoned what they had always thought to be a mistaken if not heretical addition to the creed. This was a matter which fundamentally affected the nature of aumority in me church. For, as the Byzantines never tired of reiterating, me Filioque had been accepted by one of me five patriarchs alone wimout me consent of his four colleagues, and the bishop of Rome had no licence to force me whole church to subscribe to an innovation introduced by his aumority alone. a. Gradually the Byzantines of the thirteenm century were to discover mat the church of Rome was responsible for aumorising still further innovations or novelties (kainotomiaJ), which was me word regularly used for heresies. After me fourm crusade Greek pamphlets enumerating me errors of the Latins proliferated. Some, especially, mose of a more popular nature, make no mention of me primacy of Rome. 87 The longest list is that compiled by Constantine Stilbes, bishop of Cyzicus about 1204, who describes one hundred and four Latin aberrations, malpractices, or novelties. a8 Of particular interest in this work is me detailed catalogue of crimes committed by me crusaders in Constantinople, for all of which, says Stilbes, no penalty was .. PG 140. col 296•• This point is made in the letter oC an anonymous patriarch of Constantinople to a patriarch of Jerusalem. ed A. N. Pavlov. Kritileskie .pyly p. istorij ·dre"'!ielej G...... Russk.j p.lemiki pr.li. Lali.jam (Critical studies on the history of older Greco-RUISiao. polemic against the Latins) [Izvleteno iz XIX. ot~eta 0 prisuU.nij nagrad pfa UvarovaJ (St Petersburg 1878). suppl no 6. pp IS8-68. P 167: ·Th.r. was a time when he (the pop.) was our primate. when he was of the ..me mind and opinion. Let him give proof of his Iik....mindedness in the faith and he shall have the primacy as of old• when it was the faith that kept the ranks and not force and tyranny. Without this he will never get what he wants from Us'. The date and authorship of this letter. which dweUs mo~ on the primacy of Peter. i ••till uncertain. It was formerly attributed to the patriarch Nichola. III writing to Symeon n of Jerusalem about 108S-90 But Darrouu•• 'Le. dncuments·. pp 43-51. argued for dating it in the thlxteenth century and ,ssigning it to Germano. 11 writing to Athanasios of Jerusalem between 1:&29 and IZ3S. More recenrly Laurent. Reg.. p 109. has argued on internal evidem:c Cor placing it in the patriarchate of Joseph I about 1>73. .. See Argyriou. 'Remarques sur quelques listes', PP .., stf. .. U·) Darroum, 'Le Memoire de [Constantinl Stilba (conlre Ieo Latins'], RBB, u (tgtl3) pp SO-lOO (Greek text and translation. pp 61-91).

"s.

ISS

11

p 11

Il

The Papal scandal inlIicted upon them by their church. Whence one .must concl~de ~at their hierarchy favour such wickedness and are gwl~ of abettl.ng It. 39 On the primacy he is content to say that the Latms proclal~n and believe that the pope is not the successor of Peter but Peter himsel£ They put him above Peter and all but divinise him decla~~g him t? be lord of all Christendom; and they demand recogmtIon of his divinity on oath from the church universal and from every diocese everywhere·. 4• But Stilbes was ~ first to re~ord what was to ~e Greeks the curious novelty of mdulgences. The pope and theIr hierarchy'. he notes. 'absolve murder. perjury and other sins for the future and in time to come. which amounts to opening the door to every kind of impropriety "for those absolved. And what is even more laughable. they grant absolution to sinners for stated periods of years in the future. maybe two or three. or more or less. They play this game for the past as well. forgiving sins for stated periods of years. months or days. They cannot cite any justification for this practice in ecclesiastical law. uu1ess it be perhaps the quantity of gifts paid out to them by the recipients of this inefficacious absolution· ... The same point was taken up later in the century by Meletios the Confessor in his still unpublished treatise Against the Latins. Meletios marvels at the claim of the Italian pope to be able to forgive sins not ouly in the past but also in the future. U There were other mysterious Latin innovations which only slowly came to the notice of the Orthodox in the course of the thirteenth centoty and for which. when the union of the churches became a matter of political necessity as it did in the 1270S. they had to invent Greek words and phrases. The doctrine of purgatory. for instance. was patiendy, explained to them by a biliugual Franciscan called John Parastton; and in the profession of faith submitted to the pope before the second council of Lyons in 1274 the Greek words 1I'OIIpycrnbPIOV and Ka9CXf1T1'lPIOV make almost their first appearance. U

Similarly, the Greek words IlETOUC1looC1IS, I.\ETOUC1I00a9cn ,,!"ere coined (none too happily) at the same time to translate the LatIn te~ ~or transubstantiation, another novelty for the Greeks; and the de6nitI?n of the pope's plenitude of power (plenituJo ~otestatis) had ~ be clu~lly rendered in Greek as TO Tiis t~oUC1las 1TATJpoolla-for this concepnon toO was to the Greeks a novelty, or a srumbling-block. cc Every novelty, every innovation that they were obliged to accept heaped the scandal still higher, until it came to be known among them simply as 'the papal scandal'. In 1261 the Byzantines recovered their capital of Constantinople. The Latin empire and the Latin patriarchate ceased to exist except in tide. But almost at once the restored Byzantine empire was faced with the threat of invasion from Italy, of a campaign for the restirution of the Latin regime which, so long as the Greeks remained in schism, could easily be qualified as a crusade. These were the political circumstance.s that dictated th~ long negotiatio~ .that led to the union of Lyons ID 1274. The basIS of those negotIatIons was a document delivered to the Byzantine emperor Michael vm by pope Clement IV in 1267. This contained a detailed profession of faith which the emperor must· endorse before the pope would receive the Orthodox church and people back into the fold of Rome, thereby saving them from a crusade for the forcible salvation of their wayward souls. There were to be no discussions about matters of faith or doctrine. The pope expected the emperor simply to effect the reductio of the Greeks to Rome without further ado. U The Byzantines understandably disliked this form of ultimatum. Their objections were clearly expressed by their patriarch Joseph in three documents of 1273: an apologia by way of a statement to the emperor, an anti-Latin affidavit. and a profession of faith. It is strange, for all that has been written about the second council of Lyons. that

• Dattollds, 'Le Wmoire de Stilbi;,', P 86. "00 P 6,. "Ibid P 69. .. Qa MdedoJ lOO Bock P 1\79; D. M. Nico~ 'The Byzantine reaction to the Second Council of Lyons. 1374', SCH, 7 (1971) pp 13~; ePllcrlCllM"IICfI "",I 'HellCfl 'El"'uw".o..6E1a, 8, col 949; Argyriou, 'Remarques sur que1que. lUtes', pp 33--4. .. Tbc Greek and Latin tats of MicbaeI vnr. profeasion of faith are prinled in lA. L.] 11II1II, (Aa. Urb.oti IY, CItmtmis W, Gregorii X (116'-1276)], PCRCICO Pontes .... m. 5, pt I: (1953) no 41, pp u6-33: p U9: .•• 'IfOIIpyaTfolplou, ~_ IOlI8afmIplou, IIIItd>r 6 ~ '1-11115 ~"'. 6~. . . . . purgatorii, hoc at atharterii .......dmodum liater Jobanneo (Parutronl nobis noti6cavit ••. '). So.... forty years oodier Gearp Budmeo, bishop of CodiJ, while in l!aIy engaged in a discuaion on the

subject of Purgazory with a Franciscan. He left bis own account of the cIiICUIIion, whidl was probably the first of it. kind. Text in M. Roncaglia, ~".. 1Ja,-', mIItopoUt. '" Corfo., rl BMlltillmy '" l'Ordtr P,,,,,,iscaln, SlUdi • Tes,; P,,,,,,u,...I, 4 (Rome 19n) pp S6-7I; see also A. Mustoxidi, Dtlle Cos< Corciml, I (Corl'u 1848) pp 403-7. for tile date see Hoeck-Locnertz, Nilwl.os-Nrk'arlos, pUS. .. Tbc first appearance of the Greek word _ _ is in Michael VIn's po(aoioa of faith in !Z?4 (see above n 43), eel 11II1II, p !ZO. Jugie, nu"'gi. d"""",",,, 3, pp 1114-9 ('De voce _1_1s') . .. Letter of Clement IV to Michael eel 11UN no 33, pp 61-9. CompaIe \ettcr of Gtegory X. eel 11UN, no 33, pp 97-100. See [B.] Robq, Dk UU [zwU
r ...

156

vm.

157

p 11

11

The Papal scandal only one of these important documents has so far been fully published and properly edited.'· What is clear from all of them, however, is that the patriarch and his advisers held the first cause of the schism to be the unauthorised addition of the Filioque to the creed. So long as the head of the Roman church upheld this distortion of theology and refused to discuss the matter it was impossible to accept his three other basic requirements. These were that the Greek church should acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome, recognise his right of appellate jurisdiction over all the church, and commemorate his name in the liturgy. Joseph's answer to these three propositions was (I) that the pope's primacy is confmed to his own ecclesiastical domain and has nothing to do with Constantinople; (2) that he cannot exercise a right of appeal over the whole extent of the pentarchy; (3) that to commemorate his name in the liturgy would be to accept his orthodoxy, which is impossible since he sanctions the corruption of the creed." Not all the Byzantine objections to the proposed union of the churches in the 12705 were so reasoned. The monks of Constantinople and e1sewhe~ positively courted martyrdom in the defence of their unadulterated faith by disseminating forbidden anti-Latin tracts. The prisons were crowded with the victims of the emperor's persecution. The patriarch Joseph lost his job and was replaced by a more tractable patriarch in the person of John Bekkos, who was prepared to do his .. The Apologia of Joseph I. composed by the monk Job JasileS with the help of the historian George Pachymeres, has been published in part by Demetrakopoulos, 'Op8660~ '~, pp S~, and by [J.) Drioeke. 'Der Kircheneinigungsversuch [~ ~wers Michael vm Paliologos'], Zritsch'ift fo, wj,,..,ch'!ftlich. n.ologi., 34 (LeiPZIg 1891) pp 33:>-S· See also C. Cbapman, Michel Pallolog.. rest..,ateu, tk I'tmpirt byzanlirr (paris 1926), pp IID-II j D. M. Nicol. 'The Greeks and the Union of the CburcheJ: The Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyom 1261-1274' Mediev.1 SlJ4di., pre_od 10 A. Gwynn, ed J. A. Watt, J. B. Morrall, X. Man;,; (Dublin 1961) pp 4611-9: Roberg, Di. Union. pp 111-12; Laurent, Reges,.,. no 1400, PP 194-'7, (where the ~wc.ript' are ruled). Joseph's affidavit was published by V. Laurent, Le SOIment ant.-Iatio du patrlarche Joseph Ier (Juin 1273)', EO, :>6 (19~7) pp 396-407; Laurent, ReI""" no 1401, p 197. His profession offaith was printed by Nektarios, patriarch of Jeruaalem, TT.pl .TIII cipx~1 TOil 1rUrra
F.

emperor's will by promoting the union of the churches. But even among the few unionist~ the three propositions outlined by Josep~, the pope's primacy, his fight of appeal and the commemoration ofhis name, represented a scandal. 08 The mess~ge comes through loud and dear in the Greek documents relating to the council of Lyons which Gill has recently published. 'The very strong impression left after reading these official documents ... is that the only thing that bothered the Greeks. faced with the question of the union of the Churches, was the canonical position of the pope-the three points, primacy, appeal and commemoration'.·· Saint Thomas Aquinas. who died on his way to that council, composed the most famous of ~ny I?~minican treatises called Contra e"ores Graecorum. It was his op1l1l0n that disbelief in the universal primacy of the see of Rome was an error similar to that of disbelief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. 5• The union of the churches was in the end proclaimed at Lyons in July 1274. A small Greek delegation there accepted, in the name of their emperor and church. all the basic requirements of the papacy as they had been proposed by Clement IV. There was no argument and no discussion either of theology or of the scandal concerning the pope. The Greeks were simply 'reduced'. The reaction in Byzantium was violent and widespread. As the unionist patriarch John Bekkos later admitted, everyone. man. woman and child, thought the peace in the church to be more a division than a union. 51 But when the danger of invasion from Italy had passed and when the emperor Michael who had forced the issue died in 1282, the union, already disowned by the pope. was solemnly and loudly denounced by the Byzantine church and people. Orthodoxy was restored. Those who had been persecuted in its defence became the heroes of the hour. •• These were the tbJee capital requirements of the pope (..a ~pl", ..,6:7\",..) as outliaed in the Apologia of ]oseph, ed Driioeke, 'Dcr Kircheneingungsversuch·. p 333. and elsewhere. See George Pachymeres, De Mich4e1e Pa"""ogo, pp 386-7 (CSHByz): 1l'pom;l"" 1IacA~Tq> ""I ~"'1I1OC7Vvq>. "J. Gill, 'The Church union of the Council of Lyom (U741 portrayed in GRek documents', OCP, 40 (1974) pp S-4S. P .,. •• Thomas Aquinas, Contra more, Gr_MUm. od P. Mandonnet, S. TIoom4e ~ift.n. Op"",ula Omnia. 3 (paris 1927) Opusculum 27, P 3~2: Similis. autem enor est dicentium Christi Vicarium, ROmaD20 Ecelesiae Pontilicern non habere univenalia Ecclcsiac primatum, errori dicentium, Spiritum Sanctum a FiIio non procedere. See A. Douclaine,

I IlContra Gra.ecos". Premier. krits poUmiques des Dominicains d'OrieDit .APP. (19S I) pp 3~7-93 . .. John Bekko. (Veccw), Do dqlni/io.. .... PG 142 cols IIS1-3.

158 159

31

7 11

II

The Papal scandal One of them, it is worth noting, is to this d~y commemorated as a confessor in the Orthodox calendar." The unIon of.Lyons was In the sh t term a political triumph for the emperor Mlchael VIII and a sp:tual triumph for pope Gregory X who convened it. But in the longer term the chief benefi~iary was the Orthodox church. For It emerged from its ordeal, as It had emerged from the disaster of tI.le fourth crusade, with a stronger hold than ever on the hearts of Its faithful. The prestige of the Byzantine church was immeasurably strengthened and the authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople was soon to extend far beyond the shrinking frontiers of the empire into the Slav and east European countries of the 'Byzantine Commonwealth' . After the restoration of Orthodoxy in 1282 a generation of Byzantines grew up with the comforting illusion tllat the church of Rome did not exist. For over forty years there was no direct communication between Constantinople and the papacy. Byzantine theologians immersed themselves in the ever intriguing problems of the Holy Spirit and then, in the fourteenth century, in the questions of the divine light and the energies of God raised by saint Gregory Palamas and the hesychasts. Debates about the primacy of Rome or the authority of the pope were no longer topical. They took place only on the occasions when tile emperor made overtures or the pope sent legates to Constantinople to reopen the subject of union. Between 1340 and 1370, for example, seven statements of the Orthodox position were made either in the form of tracts or of dialogues with the Latins. The best known is that by Barlaam of Calabria.' 3 This presents the traditional Byzantine case for the collegiality of bishops, the political reasons for the primacy of Rome, the equality of privileges between Rome and Constantinople, the limited jurisdiction of the papacy, the independent appointment of patriarchs, and the proper use of the term catholic, which is not interchangeable with the word Roman. Barlaam's only new contribution is to introduce as an example and a warning the case of 'that shameless woman who became pope'. 64 This is one of the rare Byzantine references to the legend of pope Joan. But then Barlaam was a westerner, a Greek from ~uthem Italy; and in due course, when exasperated by the Byzantines, he went over to Rome and turned his Orthodoxy on its head : Mdetio. the Confessor i. commemorated on 19 January. Barlwn, C•• (A6yos mpl -rils -roll ritra &PX~s) PG, ISI, cols IaSS-llo. .. Barlaam, C..". Lati••" CO!"7+

".r..n.....

160

. treatise in Latin written against the Greeks. The two texts, for and IDainst the primacy of Rome, are prInte . d one above the 0 ther In . ~:gne' s Patrology and might serve as briefs for the defence of either case. Two other short essays by Barlaam on th~ matter. of the 'macy written before his conversion to Rome, remaIn unpublished. n pnThe alarming , success of the Turks, who made th· ell firs t b'd n ge head in Europe at Gallipoli in 1354, led some Byzantines, the emperor among them, to look to the Latin.west for help. The popes responded by sending emissaries to Constantmople to persuade the Greeks of the advantages of being reduced to Ro~e, and to assure them that no ~elp could be provided until such reduction had occurred. The Byzanttnes particularly resented the ~mplication that they were being ravaged by the enemies of the cross hke sheep by wolves because they had left the salutary circle of the Roman church. As one of their monks very rightly pointed out to a papal legate in 1357, t~eir ensla~ement by the Turks was being brought upon them by their own SInS and shortcomings and had nothing to do with their alleged disobedience to the pope. Had they not in the past scored many a victory over the infidel without submitting to the church of Rome?'· Another papal legate, Paul of Smyrna, started the same hare in a discussion with the former emperor John Cantacuzene in 1367. 'The true faith', he said, 'does not exist outside the jurisdiction of the pope. The proof of this fact is that, since you left his communion, the infidel has overcome you and conquered all your land'. 67 It was easy enough for the emperor to reply that the worst damage done to the empire by the infidel, the conquest of Syria and Antioch, had been done long before the schism. He was concerned not to score debating points but to fmd what were the 'causes of the scandal' and to submit those causes to common discussion in a council of the whole church. 'No one', he said, 'desires union more than I. ... But what prevents this desire from being accomplished is the fact that never since the .. Meyendorff, 'St PeteI', p zz, n 47, cites 'he various manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Extracts from one (paris, Biblioth~que Nationale MS gr. u.l8) are printed in Jugie. Theologia dogttultica. 4. pp 331 and n I, 392.-3. .. Darrouze., 'Conference .ur la primaute", pp 89-90. It was often rudely said that the Byzantine empire had gone into military decline ever since, and as a result the

oc.

schism. See tbe .tatement of the anonymous writer cited by AUatius, cols 78S-6: ' .. , ever since the patriarch Sergio. struck the pope ChristopbeI (leg Sergios IV) oft'bis diptychs because of hi. beretical innovation, you will find that the empire of Constantinople has never prospered in its military ventures'. Meyendorl£, 'Projets [de concile oecum~nique en 1367: un dialogue in6dit _ Jean Cantacuzate et le Mgat Paul'], DOP, '4 ('960) pp '47-770 P '74 lines :&02-4.

"cr·]

161

p 11

II

The Papal scandal schism have you [the Latins] sought its accomplishment in a friendly and fraternal manner. Always you have adopted a magisterial, authoritarian attitude, never allowing that we or anyone else can contest or contradict what the pope has said or may say in the future, since he is the successor of Peter and therefore speaks with the voice of Christ."· Only at an oecumenical council in the presence of all five patriarchs can the causes of the schism really be resolved, for only thus will the Holy Spirit inform the leaders of the church as it informed the apostles. The claim of the pope to be able to speak for the whole church is the scandal that prevents this. A few years before this statement Neilos Kabasilas, bishop of Thessalonica, had composed his treatise On the causes of the dissensions in the church and on the primacy of the pope. 59 Its Greek title reveals the same sense of where the cause of scandal lay: 'A demonstration of the fact that the only cause of the division which still exists between the church of the Latins and ourselves is the pope's unwillingness to submit the bone of contention to the arbitration of an oecumenical council and his desire to set himself up as tlle sole judge and master of the controversy, relegating the rest of us to the status of pupils hanging on his words .. .'. Neilos is careful to point out that the dispute is not about the primacy of the see of Rome as it used to be interpreted in the past. It is about the development of that theory to the point where the Romans want to sit in judgment as masters. 'The pope, they say, is the supreme bishop and shepherd and father. He has the power to SUUlDlon councils and also independently to make decisions affecting the whole church'. If this were true then the early councils of the church were superfluous and need never have happened. 60 The same argument is used by Makarios, bishop of Ankyra, about the year 1400. His essay on the primacy is the most prolix and exhaustive treatment of the subject by a Byzantine writer before the fall of Constantinople. It was printed in Roumania in 1692 , is hard to come by and has yet to be properly edi ted and studied. 81 A nearer Meyendodf, 'Projets'. p 172 lines 102-14. Neilos Kabasilas, [Nili Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensi Ubri duo De eausis dissensionum in Eccles;", et de Papat primatu,1 PG 149. cols 683-700, 700-]0. •• Nei1o. Kabasilas, cols 68SC-88B. "Makarios of Ankyra, Againstth. Latins (TI6111]1I<X, TO Ill' Kae6~ou km Tils T6\. flerrl"",. _o8o~las ...), ed Dositheos of JerusaJem, T6~os kaTaMayijs Gassy 169') pp I->OS. 18

It

!he latter put of this work is directed against the heresies of Barlaam and Akindyoos m the matter of hesycha.t theology. Makarios accompanied the emperor Manuel 11

162

temporary of Neilos Kabasilas was Matthew Angelos Panaretos,

cot wyer. Not all of his many works have been published, and his

:hr:e tracts on the primacy remain in man~ript.·· The points of emphasis of these three writers vary. But their general conclusIons. as expressed by Makarios, are the same, namely that .the cause. of ~e separation of the Latins from the other four patnarcha~ IS their uncanonical addition to the creed made on the aUthonry of the pope alone. 63 • , • But during the last hundred years of ByzantIUm s eXlstence, before the sins of the Orthodox were finally visited upon them by the Ottoman sultan in 1453, the primacy of Rome was not in the forefront of their minds. For every treatise on the primacy there must be ten on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Every Byzantine theologian worth his salt, lay or cleric, wrote at least one essay on this absorbing problem. As Sir Steven R~ciman has ,,:,ritten: 'To many pious persons, in the East as well as In the West, It h~s seemed strange the unity of Christendom should have been splIt by a preposlOon • Demetrios Kydones, prime minister of several emperors in the fourteenth century, was one such pious person in the east. Kydones was converted to the Roman church by his reading and translations of Thomas Aquinas. It was an intellectual conversion based on reason rather than burning conviction. He felt bound to explain it to his

t?:!

on his celebrated visit to Paris and London in 1400-2. Demetrakopoulos. '0p6660~ 'E~M< pp 88-9; L. Petit, in DTC, 9,', cols 1441-3; Beck pp 74'-'. Some extracts of his statements on the primacy of Rome are printed in Allatius. cols 2.1S. 266, 267, .68,296, '97,323, I127, and in Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, pp 396-8. Like Kabasilas, Makarios declared that 'if all bishops had been subject to Rome and the pope could do what he liked then the decrees and canons were in vain and the assemblies of local and oecumenical synods over the ages were superfluous'. Allatius col 296. 11 [P.] Risso, ['Matteo Angelo Panareto e cinque suoi opuscoli'], Roma t l'Orimtt, 8 (Rome 1914) pp 91-IOS, 16'-79, 231-7, '74-90; 9 (1915) pp II2-20, >0>-<1; 10 (1915) pp 63-77, '46-64, '38-jI; II (1916) pp .8-3S, 63-80, 154-60. For his treatises on the primacy see V. Laurent, in DTC, II (193') col 1844; Risso, 8 (1914) pp 175-6; .n (1916) pp 32-3. In general see Laurent, DTC, II cols 1841-9; Beck, p 745; Jugtc. Theologia dogmatica, I, pp 446-8; G. Noval<, in 6p11cnmml
from the Ev. of t~ Tu,kith Conquest to t~ Greek Wor of lrukpmdtMe (Cambridge 1968) p 90·

> JI

11

The Papal scandal 11

G ks in a series of apologies which are among the most . r 65 F hi h le ow ree remarkable documents of late Byzantme Ite~a~re. or m t e Rome was a simple matter of logistics to be stated and . f pnmacy 0 . . accepted in legal terms. The church, like an army, needs on.e smgle leader whom all will obey. Otherwise anarchy will prevall.·· He saw the symptoms of such anarchy in the childish squabbl~ about the minutiae of theology; and he found the: endless luc~bratlOns of his Orthodox friends about the Holy Spmt to be tediOUS and rather absurd." Kydones was exceptional. His enthusiasn: for western cul~ure ~d scholarship made it possible for him to bridge the gap by Ignoring or building above the stumbling-blocks. ~ut more devout and. not always less intelligent Greeks sincerely believed that the stu~blmg blocks could not be ignored or bypassed, and that only a patient and concerted effort by both sides could roll them away from the path to unity in the church. The first and the last real effort of this nature was made at the council of Florence in 1439. Far more breath was expended on the problems of the Holy Spirit at that council, first in Ferrara and then in eight more sessions at Florence, than on any other subject. The question of the primacy of Rome was comparatively simply resolved, almost as an addendum to the main agenda.'· Perhaps it did not matter much to the Greeks. Because by that time the status of the patriarchate of Constantinople in the eyes of the Orthodox had changed. The triumph of Orthodoxy out of the ruins of the union of Lyons had reinvigorated the Byzantine church. In the course of the fourteenth century, as the empire sank deeper into its political, economic and military decline, the church came to be seen as the only permanent institution in a dissolving world. The patriarchs of r:

.. Demetrio. Kydon... Apologie (aella p,opriafeae], I: Ai G,eci o,toekmi; 11: Difesa ae/Ia propria sinctriu; Ill: 11 ttsMmento religioso, ed G. Mercati, Notizie di Pro,oro t Demdrio

CidOM, Manuele Called e Teodoro Meliteniota ed alt,; appunt; per l4 stor;a della ttologia t tlella l.tk,atu,a bizantina tiel secolo XIV (Vatican City 1931) pp 359-403, 403-'5, 4Z5-35. HiJ fourth Apologia, in defence of the authority of the Latin £.thers, is unpublished. Sec R.-J. Loenertz, 'Domotrios Cydones. I. De la naissauce • rannee 1373'. OCP. 36 (197o) P SS and n •.

.. Demetrios Kydones. Apologie. pp 377-9;

" Ibi. p 4>9.

lOO

also pp 430-1.

.. See]. Gill, The Council of Flo,ence (Cambridge 1959) pp 131-'69 and 'The Definition of the Primacy of the Pope in the Council of Florence'. in Personalities of the Council ofFWr
C tantinople commanded an authority which was more universally. if~:metimes grudgingly, respected in the Orthodox world than that of the emperors, not only a.mong the ?reeks but also a~ong the Christians of Serbia, Bulgaria, Roumarua, Cyprus. TreblZond and Georgia. Though often politically at var~ance. :vith the tempor~l I rs of Constantinople they looked on Its spmtual head as theJ.t rUi~ate. Only the Russians, who had not tasted the bitterness of pr .were .mcI·me d to go t helr . own way. ,. Latin or Turkish occupation. Even in the parts of the empire under Turki~h rule t~e voice: ?f the patriarch could still be heard. In 1384 the patriarch Neilos. wrIting to pope Urban VI, corrected the western misapprehensi~n t~t all letters sent to the patriarchate were opened by the Turks. For. he wrote. 'we suffer from the Turks by God's will for our sins, but we have complete freedom to receive and to ans.wer letters, also to appoint, ordain and send bishops wherever we like and to carry on all our ecclesiastical business without hindrance even in the territory of the infidel·. 70 The primacy of the see of Constantinople in the Orthodox world was increasingly asserted by its patriarchs. As early as 1330 we find one of them describing it as 'the mother of all churches, the promulgator of the sacred doctrine of true religion throughout the oikoumene'. ' I The right of Constantinople to hear cases of appeal from other patriarchates was written into Byzantine law in the days of Photios. 72 The fourteenth-<entury lawyer Matthew Blastares et

On relations between the Russian church and Constantinople in the fourteenth century,

see D. Obolensky. ·Byzantium. Kiev and Moscow: A study in ecclesiastical diploma~. DOP. 11 (1957) pp ZI-78; J. Meyendortf, 'Alexiw and Roman: A ~tudy m Byzanline-Russian relations (13520-13S4)'. BS. 28 (1967) pp 278-88; F. Tinnefelcl, 'Byzantinisch-russische Kirchenpolitik im '4. Jahshunderts'. BZ, 67 (1974) 359-84.. Neilos, Letter (pittokion) to pope Urban VI (September 1384). MM. >. pp 86-7. A Vt:rf

different picture of Christian life under the

Tur~ is,

hov:ever. conveyed by Ma~w.

bishop of Ephesos. about 1339. Matthew complams specifically about the mtercepttOD of his letters by the Turks. D. Reinsch. Die Briefe aes Matthaios von Ephesos ilft Co4u Vindobo,",nsis Theol. Gr. '74 (Berlin 1974) no B SS, P 175 lines 9-11: 6)Jyou yap 1Tp6a6£., c:,s !O)(' ,a Ka9' ~.as. 1TPo.; at 00. 016' 6Tr/mpo. tc> 'POY<0>6~ ~ ""crT'l~a1l"l'" 6KPI~O\s ~~,e/1I"la ,ols 1TOM.loIS. See S. Vryoms,

Iy''''.''

n.

Dec_

of Meaieval Hellenism in Asia MinD, and the Process of Islamization f,om the Elwmtlt th,ough the Fifteenth Centu,y (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1971) pp 343-8• 71 Esaias to the Katholikos of Armenia, MM, I, P IS9. "Ep ...goge. edJ. and P. Zepos. Jus grecHomanum• • (Athens 1931) tit 3. P~ 2.P-3: 11op\ ","p'/tp)(OV § 9. See also A. Pavlov. 'Anonimnzja grete.kaja statja 0 Pret?'uItcstvac:h konstantinopohkago patriarlago prestola' ('Anonymous Greek trca~ OD cbe privileges of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople and an old S1aVOlllC tnIIIIadoot of it with two important additions' I, VV. 4 (I897) pp 143-$9.

I6S

•

11

11

The Papal scandal con£rmed that, "while other patriarchs have jurisdiction in their own territories the bishop of Constantinople is empowered ... to supervise and judg~ disputes arising in other patriarchates.' 73 This ruling was cited chapter and verse by the patriarch Neilos to a recalcitrant bishop of Thessalonica in 1382. 7' The traditional concept of a pentarchy, in which the see of Rome held pride of place, was not forgotten. The same Neilos protested to pope Urban VI that the patriarchs of Constantinople were not disputing his primacy, 'for we confess that we hold you to be the first according to the canons of the fathers', provided that the pope was orthodox. 75 But there was a feeling in the fourteenth century that, because the pope was not orthodox, the pentarchy had in any case narrowed down to a tetrarchy. The patriarch Kallistos explained it thus to the clergy of Bulgaria in 13SS: 'The five patriarchates were established from the beginning by the catholic and apostolic church of Christ, and so it was as long as the pope of Rome was with us. But since then and until now we are four, united in unbroken communion and in commemoration of each other.'78 The tide of oecumenical patriarch which in earlier days may have meant no more than bishop of the imperial capital had come in the empire's decline to have a much wider meaning. Patriarchs advise and admonish the secular as well as the spiritual leaders of their Orthodox Slav neighbours with all the assurance of popes. Philotheos, for example, informs the grand duke of Russia in 1370 that he as patriarch is 'set up by God as the common father of all Christians wherever in the world they may be'; and he reminds the bishop of Kiev that the patriarch is 'by God appointed as pastor and teacher of all the universe'.77 The patriarch Antonios IV writing to the bishop of Novgorod in 1393 calls himself 'father and spiritual lord by God appointed over all Christians in the universe', and 'judge general of the oikoumene to whom every Christian may appeal to have his ;: ~ Blastam, IillmrylllX, in RhaIIes and Potles, Synlagnut. 6 (I8S9) p 429. NeiJOI to the metropolitan ofThessalonica(July 138.), MM,., p 40. See also the letter " of Kallistoa to the patriarch of Antioch, MM, I, P 380. MM,., P 87. .. KaIIisto., exhortation to the ~gy ofTmov~ (Decembex I3SS), MM, I, pp 437-8. For " "": later development ~ theme see Jug.., TIt.ologi. dOgnuJli,., 4, pp 461-3. PbiIotheo., letter te Dlmltn, Grand Duke of Rwsia (June 1370), MM, I, P SI6: IO·WIs ~p "'~ .trrO ~ 'I.s "tOlls cmaarraxoO -rIIs ,.;is Npaaxolllvous XpIaTICIl/OUS •••• PhiIotbeo. to the metropolitan of Kiev and All Rwsia (August 1371), .. MM, I, P Ss.: ••• ~ IIftp.6n!s ~","' 1f
"!

nax8T!

166

righted'.78 While in his famous letter to Basil, grand duke of wr M ongsw he claims as patriarch to be 'the catholic teacher of all osco , I fChri' 79 Christians and to hold the pace 0 st . . Earlier Byzantine political theory had postulated that It was the ro r who was the vice-gerent of God on earth. In the last years empe . i· d d ded the f the empire it was the patriarch wh 0 C 3lme an comman o thority of this high calling, however much he might proteSt, as ~ntonios did to the duke of Moscow, that a church without an peror was unthinkable. Christians acclimatised to such a respect the see of Constantinople may h~v~ tho~ght of the 'scandal conrning the pope' as rather anaclrrorustlc or Irrelevant. But they had :. abiding horror of the scandals and novelties counten:mced by the opes in the Latin church, not least of those to do With the Holy ~pirit. This may help to explain why it took months of wrangling at Ferrara and Florence to reach a formula about the Holy Spirit and only a matter of days to work out an agreed statement about the primacy of Rome. Since the fall of Constantinople in 14S3 the Orthodox church has shown a phenomenal talent for survival, firs~ under Turkish r~e and now under communism. It may not be fanCiful to suggest that It learnt some of its earlier lessons in the art of survival through its defiance of the Latins, spiritual and temporal, in the thirteenth century and its defiance also of the Greek emperors who tried to bend its will to their political purposes. In the last centuries of Byzantium, ~e ye~rs of political and military collapse, the Orthodo~ chur~ built up . Its spiritual reserves while its patriarchs acquire~ the mternatlonal prestige and authority which were to carry their church through long centuries of institutional poverty and physical persecution. Modem Orthodox theologians are sometimes doubtful about dwelling on their Byzantine past. The church should look to the future. I am sure they are right. But it is always worth remembering that after ~ Turks broke into Constantinople in 14S3 the hero of the Byzantine people was not an emperor but a monk. The last emperor had been killed fighting at the walls of his city. Suddenly it was a. fact that there was a church without an emperor. The conquenng sultan Melimed IT ordained that the patriarch of Constantinople should in

f:

"Antonio. IV, letter to the bishops, clergy and people of Novgorod (September 1393), MM,., pp 182, 187: ••. 1y yap .I~. 6 aca80A.K6$ ~fk oll
p 11

III future be answerable for the conduct of all Christians under Ottoman rule. He knew what he was doing. He knew that the Orthodox church had shown a greater talent for vigorous survival than the Byzantine empire. What he was not t.o know was that the same church would outlive the Ottoman empire as wdl. University of London King's College

SYMBIOSIS AND INTEGRATION. SOME GRECO-LATIN FAMILIES IN BYZANTIUM IN THE 11TH TO 13TH CENTURIES

In his Rapport to the 15th International Congress of Byzantine studies at Athens in 1976 Professor Thiriet posed the question of the meaning of the word symbiosis in the context of the Latin conquest and colonisation of Romania. 'Symbiose signifie "vivre ensemble", "vivre en communaute, sinon en communion", dans une familiarite simple et fraternelle, exempte de toute arriere pensee .... il implique toujours une certaine compenetration des elements en presence, ethniques ou autres, en vue d'une fusion a terme'.l The circumstances and consequences of the Fourth Crusade were hardly conducive to making such conditions possible. The crusaders and their descendants lived lives segregated from the Greeks, whom they consistently regarded as second-class citizens. As Professor Deno Geanakoplos has recently re-emphasised, no complete symbiosis or cultural fusion of Byzantine and Latin societies ever occurred during the Middle Ages. 2 In the centuries before 1204, however, there were some westerners, mostly Normans from south Italy, who found their way into Byzantine society as individuals, seeking their own fortunes and therefore prepared to try to settle down on equal terms with the Greeks. Some of the westerners achieved a measure of symbiosis. A few, a very few, achieved complete integration and became themselves Byzantines or Romaioi. IF. E. Thiriet, 'La symbiose dims les etats latins formes sur les territoires de la Romania byzantine (1202 a 1261). Phenomimes religieuses', XV Corigres International d'etudes byzantines. Rapports, I: Histoire, 3 (Athens, 1976), p. 1. 2 D.J. Geanakoplos,

Interaction of the "Sibling" Byzantine and Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330-1600) (New Haven-London, 1976),

especially pp. 281-295.

•

III

III 115

114

The list of signatories of the Treaty of Devol (Diabolis) concluded in 1108 between Bohemund of Antioch and Alexios I Komnenos includes eight 'from the Emperor's court' (ano "tij<; l3uOLAEloU uUAij<;) with clearly iqentifiable 'Frankish' or Latin names. They formed the subject of an article by the Marquis de la Force as long ago as 1936. 3 Of those eight, however, or rather of their descendants we know very little. Possibly only two of them married Byzantine wives and produced children who carried the family names through more than one generation. Norman adventurers entered Byzantine service as soldiers in quite large numbers in the 11 th century. The Greek sources refer to them as Phrangopouloi (or better Phrangopoloi).4 The first attested are probably Herve CEQl3tl3w<; 6
h pertatos and protonobellissimos,7 and of Krispinos Phrany oulos, whom it is tempting to identify with Robert Crispin, the

~~~temporary of Herve and Roussel de Bailleul. 8 But there is no reason for supposing that any or all of these were descended from the original Norman immigrants. At first the name ~hrangopoulos evidently signified a 'Frank' or 'son of a Frank', but It soon lost thiS specific meaning and became a fairly well-known Byzantine cognomen in the 13th century and after. To be a Phrangopoulos carried none of the stigma of being a Gasmoulos (vasmoulos) or half-caste. The hellenisation of at least some of the Phrangopouloi must have been complete by the end of the 12th century, for we find a John Phrangopoulos teaching as a grammatikos in the patriarchal school at Constantinople before 1200. 9 The family was widespread by the 13th century. After 1204 there was an Andronikos Phrangopoulos teaching at Nicaea and in correspondence with the Emperor Theodore II Laskaris,lO and another Phrangopoulos was imperial grammatikos at the court of Nicaea.l1 A George Phrangopoulos was Doux of Thessalonica about 1220,12 and there was a Theodore Phrangopoulos in the region of Veil as in Epiros at 7 Laurent, Bul/es metriques, no. 562, pp. 195-196; idem, 'Legendes sigillographiques', Echos d'Orient, XXX (1931), pp. 467, 468; XXXI (1932), pp. 344-347. 8

Marquis de la Force, 'Les conseillers la tins d'Alexis Comnene', Byzantion, XI (1936), pp. 153-165. The text of the Treaty of Devol isin Anna Comnena Alexiad xiii, 12: 11, pp. 209-222 (ed. A. Reifferscheid: Leipzig, 1884); Ill, pp. 125-139 (ed: B. Lelb: Pans, 1945).

Schlumberger, Sigil/ographie, p. 657.

3

'See R. Browning, 'The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century', Byzantion, XXXIII (1963), p. 22. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), p. 474.

• V. Laurent, 'Legendes sigillographiques', Echos d'Orient, XXX (1931), p. 469, showed that the earliest recorded form of the name was Quyy6mIlAo<;.

10

s 10hn Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum, ed. 1. Thurn (Corpus Fontium Historiae

B.y~antinae.= CFHB: Berlin, 1973), pp. 467, 468, 484-486. G. Schlumberger, Slgdlographle de I'empire byzantin (Paris, 1884), pp. 656-664; idem, 'Deux chefs nor~and~ des a~~es byza~t~nes', Revue Historique, XVI (1881), pp. 296ff. K. ReglIng, Byzantlmsche BlelSlegel Ill.', Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXIV (1924) pp. 102-103, no. V. " • V. Laurent, Les bulles metriques dans la sigillographie byzantine (Athens, 1932), no. 405, p. 144 (Leo); no. 561, p. 195 (Theodore). Regling, op. cit., pp. 102-103.

Letters of Theodore 11 Laskaris, ed. N. Festa, Theodori DucaeLascarisEpistolae CCXVII (Florence, 1898), no. 217, p. 271. Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 478.

11 F. Miklosich and J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi, IV, pp. 9, 232-233; Laurent, 'Legendes sigillographiques', Echos d'Orient, XXX (1931), p. 471. Cl. Helene Ahrweiler, 'L'histoire et la geographie de la region de Smyme entres les deux occupations turques (1081-1317), particulierement au XIII" siecle', TT.vaux et Memoires, I (1965), p. 161; M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261) (Oxford, 1975), p. 166.

Demetrios Chomatianos, ed 1. B. Pitra, Ana/ecta Sacra et Classica Spicilegio Soiesmensi Para ta, VI (Rome, 1891), col. 454.

12

•

III

III

116

117

about the same time,u By the beginning of the 14th centur Phrangopoulos was Metropolitan of Nicaea; 14 and in the Palaiolo y a period the name was common enough. IS A family name which ;:n have had similar origins was that of Varangopoulos, son of thst

Varangian. One Alexios VarangopoUlos was governor (kephale) ~ the island of Kos in 1258.16 0 The Phrangopouloi, though evidently completely hellenised never seem to have succeeded in acquiring property and wealth and thus the status to marry into the highest social class in Byzantium. Another.' lesser known, western family of which the same appears to be true IS that of Oumpertopoulos. Anna Comnena and Zonaras have much to tell about the exploits of Constantine Oumpertopoulos towards the end of the 11th century.17 He was indisputably of Lat' " , ell IX T , m orlgm, EK Q yywv ELAKE 'to YEVO~, as Zonaras says, and presumably 13 N. A. Bees,. 'Unedierte Schriftstiicke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Apokaukos des M~t~opohten ~on. Naupaktos (in Aetolien)', ed. Eleni Bees-Seferli, in Byzantlmsch-neugnechlsche Jahrbiicher, XXI (1971-76: Athens 1976) 39 pp. 97-99. ' ,no.,

14 H'

. h IS. epItap w.as written by Manuel Philes, ed. E. Miller, Manuelis Phi/ae Carmma, II (Parts, 1857), pp. 280-281.

15 M~mbers of the Phrangopoulos family are listed by V. Laurent op cit Echos tOrlent, XXX (1931), pp. 471-473; XXXI (1932), pp. 346-347: Se~ al~~ idem p.es .Regestes des Actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I: Les Actes d;' lltrlarc.hes, fasc. IV: Les Regestes de 1208 a 1309, no. 1541, pp. 329-330 There ~~~/:!:;~~o~sbhr:~op(~UI~S in the 13th century, for whose seal see V. Laur~nt, La was the auth'or : ~ ant artIS 1?52 1), no. ~63, p. 233. One George Phrangopoulos

ne ymo oglca work m 1310 see A Tu

Cod'

G

.

'~::::~o~aecu~s ~1II et X~V.!cripti (Vatican 'City, i964):n~. 10~':":0/~:~

r~~' ommem dommllmperatoris' in 1270, see G. L F Tafel and G M d S . . . . omas, vr"unden zur iilteren Hand ~ Venedig, III (Vienna 1857) 176 1 "s - un . taatsgeschichte der Republik P P known from the 14th and 1'5 t h' - :7. Several more members of the family are centurtes. 16 Miklosich and Milller A . Ahrweiler, op. cit., p. 24 n. ~t~:t~~p~:ata fh,ereafter cited as MM], IV, p. 187. Cf. mentioned in a Venetian docu' / f 131' Clt., p.?49. Another Varangopoulos is du senat de Venise concernan~lenR0 .9. F. Thlrtet, Regcstes des deliberations 17 a omame, I (The Hague, 1958), no. 342, p. 91. Anna Comnena, I, pp. 68 138 224' II 14, 152; 11, pp. 83, 141, '146-'147 '19:~' 14, 19: 61 (ed. Reifferscheid); I, pp. HiltorilllVm,ed. L. Dindorf IV (Lei '. 187ed l)' Lelb) .. John Zonaras, Synopsis , pztg, , p. 242 hne 9; Ill, p. 741 (CSHB). Tb

the son of one Humbert (or Hubert), though it is not suggested that his father was the Oumpertos who signed the treaty of Devol in 1108. Constantine Oumpertopoulos entered the service of Alexios I. was punished and exiled for conspiracy, but later was pardoned and reinstated. There is apparently no record of the family thereafter for another 200 years - until about 1285 when one Oumpertopoulos is found as governor of Mesembria with the title of kouropafatis. He successfully defended Thrace against an invasion by the Tartars, for which he was richly rewarded by the Emperor Andronikos 11 and promoted to the rank of megas papias. IN About twenty years later another Oumpertopoulos held the rank of megas tzaousios and fought against the rebellious Catalans in Thrace in 1305. 19 These 13th-century Oumpertopouloi may not have had any connexion at all with the 11 th-century family. They may have sprung from an ancestor called Humbert or Oumpertos who entered Byzantine sevice after the Fourth Crusade. There is ample evidence for Latin mercenaries in the pay of the Emperors in exile at Nicaea before 1'261 and in the service of the Komnendoukai in Epiros and Thessaly. Their names, however, are seldom recorded. One 13th-century family which may well have originated in this manner is that of Kontophre. The name is a clear transliteration into Greek of Godefroy, Godfrey. A Manuel Kontophre was Doux of Thrakesion and commander of the Byzantine fleet about 1240 and held the title of pansebastos sebastos.20 Another Kontophre was protokynegos

18 George Pachymeres, De Andronico Pa/aeologo, 11, pp. 80-81 (CSHB). Cf. R. Guilland, 'Le Curopalate', Byzantina,1I (Thessaloniki 1970), p. 212 (repriotedio Guilland, Titres et Fonctions de l'Empire byzantin. Collected Studies: London. 1976, no. Ill).

19Pachymeres, 11, pp. 543, 629. Cf. R. Guilland, 'Sur quelques grands dignitaires byzantins du XIV" siecle', T61l0~ K. 'AQIlEVOltOUAotJ (Thessaloniki, 1952), p.188; idem, Recherchcs sur les Institutions byzantines, I (Berlin, 1967), p. 599. George Akropolites, Historia, ed. A. Heisenberg (Leipzig. 1903), pp. 59, 66. MM, IV, pp. 152, 249-250; VI, p. 187. Schlumberger, Sigillographie, p. 583, 00. 26; Laurent, Bulles metriqucs, 00.240, p. 85. Cf. Ahrweiler, op. cit., pp. 24 n. 116. 143-144,159; Angold, op. cit., pp. 198-200,233,250-251; Guilland, op. cit.• I. p. 547. 20

. . . . . . . . . . .------------. .$. .--------~III

III 119

118 and archon of Mesothynia for Andronikos III in 1329;21 another was a supporter of John Cantacuzene at Selymbria in 1346 with the title of protosebastos. 22 How did such western, Latin families come to be integrated into Byzantine society? One may suppose that the process began with the voluntary entry into the military service of an Emperor of one eponymous ancestor, who was in due course rewarded for his services by the grant of a pronoia or fief. I use the word 'fief' deliberately, since in the few cases where this process is recorded the Greek sources describe it in western terms. In the Empire of Nicaea between 1230 and 1260 three westerners were thus rewarded with not inconsiderable properties in the region of Smyrna. One of them, Syrgares, is described as the 'imperial liege knight' (6 A(~LO~ Ka~aAAaQLO~) of the Emperor. 23 Syr Nicolas Adam and Syraliatos are likewise designated as kaballarioiof the Emperor and hold their properties on similar terms of feudal tenure. 24 This kind of relationship might be termed as symbiosis. These people were content to live together with the Greeks, but at the same they remained outsiders. It is possible, however, that the 13th-century Byzantine family of Kaballarios originated with some hellenised feudatory of this kind. The Kaballarioi were accepted among the ruling aristocracy at Nicaea. 25 One Alexios Kaballarios was governor

of Thessaly about 1270;26 and Michael Kaballarios was Grand constable of Michael VIII in 1277-8. 27 The complete integration of a Latin family into Byzantine society required more than a temporary feudal relationship between an individual and the Emperor. There were three principal requirements, and it seems that they were only rarely fulfilled. One was the adoption of the Greek language; the second was conversion to the Orthodox faith; the third was intermarriage and the consequent perpetuation of a Byzantine family with a western name. The adoption of the Greek language was no great problem to those westerners who were intent on making their living out of Byzantium. But conversion to Orthodoxy was another matter. It was, to say the least, frowned upon by the papacy. A celebrated case in the 12th-century was that of Margaret or Maria of Hungary who married the Emperor Isaac 1I Angelos and adopted her husband's Orthodox faith. After his death, and after the Fourth Crusade, she married Boniface of Montferrat. Pope Innocent III thereafter took a personal interest in her reconversion to the Roman faith, which eventually occurred. 28 For a number of reasons it was easier and more socially acceptable for a woman to change her faith upon marriage. Eight of the eleven female members of the Greek ruling families in Epiros and Thessaly in the 13th-century, for example,

2~ John Cantacuzene, Historiae, ed. L. Schopen (CSHB), I, p. 341. Guilland, op. Clt., I. p. 602.

sigillion in 1165. See F. DOIger, 'Die Kaiserurkunden des Johannes-TheologosKlosters auf Patmos', Byzantinische Zeitschriit, XXVIII (1928), especially p. 349 n.2.

22

Cantacuzene, 11, pp. 589-590.

23

MM, IV, pp. 7, 36-42, 61, 81-82, 135.

2' M M, IV, pp. 79, 91-92, 94, 103-104. See Ahrweiler, op. cit., pp. 23-24; Angold op. CII:, ,pp. 106,.125 and n. !8, 187~188; J. Ferluga, 'La ligesse dans I'empir~ b~zantID, Zbornik Radova Vlzantoloskog Instituta, VII (1961), pp. 97-123. On Nlcolas A.dam see Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, fasc. 1 ed. E. Trapp (VIenna, 1976), no. 287. '

2~ Pachymeres, I, p. 65

1. 9. Cf. Angold, op. cit., p. 69. Basil Kaballarios married a mece of th.e emperor Michael VIII: Pachymeres, I, pp. 34, 109. For other members of the. famIly see G. I. Theocharides, 0( T~a!AJtM"OlvE;, Makedonika V (1961-63) eie~lallY p. 175 and n. 3. Theoch~rides, followed by P. Lemerle, Actes de Lavra, ( ans'.1977) no. 112, p: 285, claIms a Genoese origin for the Kaballarios family, stemmmg from one GuIlelmo Cavallario or Cavallerio, recipient of an imperial

11

26 MM, IV, p. 389. R.-J. Leonertz, 'Memoire d'Ogier, protonotaire pour Marco et Marchetto nonces de Michel VUI Pal<:ologue aupres du pape Nicolas III 1278 printemps-ete', Orientalia Christiana periodica, XXXI (1965), p. 395 (reprinted i~ Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca [Rome, 1970), p. 558). 27

Pachymeres, I, pp. 411-412. Loenertz, op. cit., p. 403 (pp. 565-566).

"see R. L. Wolff, 'The Organisation of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,

1204:~261. SOCIal and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest', TradItIo, (1948), pp. 37-40 (reprinted in Wolff, Studies in the Latin Empire of Con~tantl~ople. Collected Studies: London, 1976, no. VI); D. M. Nicol, 'Mixed marnages ID Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century', Studies in Church History, I, ed. C. W. Dugmore and C. Duggan (London and Edinburgh, 1964), p. 163 (reprinted In Nlcol, Byzantium: its ecclesiastical history and relations with the western world. COllected Studies: London, 1972, no. IV).

yI

,I

I

•

III

III 121 120

married Latin husbands. But not a single male .member ~arried outside the Orthodox circle. The Greek.s of. Eplros were mdeed deeply shocked by the marriages with L~tm wives contracted by t~; Emperors at Nicaea, Theodore I L.a~kans and John III Vatatzes .. Among imperial and rulIng familIes dispensations or diplomatic excuses could usually be found for such mixed marriages, despite the canonical disapproval officially expressed by the hierarchy of both churches. Demetrios Chomatianos, Archbishop of Ochrida in the early 13th century, was in most respects a fair and open-minded canonist. But he ruled that an Orthodox priest who gave his blessing to the union of a Latin with a Greek should be suspended, and that the Orthodox partner in a mixed marriage celebrated by a Catholic priest should be excommunicated. 3D Restrictions on intermarriage from the Latin side were social as well as religious. As David Jacoby has shown, the western knights in the Morea after the Latin conquest were bound by their sense of exclusiveness to marry only noble ladies from their own countries or their own class, a fact which led to much inbreeding and to marriages which were strictly uncanonical because of the degrees of affinity involved. 31 The Venetians in Crete forbade all matrimonial alliances between property-owning Latins and Greeks on pain of confiscation of the offender's property and exile.32 The Catalans in Greece forbade Greeks to marry Catholic wives. 33 In the Duchy of the Archipelago and in the Greek islands occupied by the Genoese there was perhaps more tolerance and more scope for intermarriage and integration between Greeks and Latins. On Chios, for instance, the family of Mendonis, which was of Genoese origin, was fully Orthodox and hellenised by the 14th century. Eirene Mendonis founded the monastery church of Agrelopousaina

Chios in the early 1300's;34 and one John Mendonis is attested as ~nGreek living on Kos as early as 1 ~ 71 :35. It was by no means unknown for mdlvldual Latin Catholics to convert to Byzantine Orthodoxy. The patriarchal registers of the 14th century record several case~ of s.uch conversions and provide the text of the formula for the abjuratIOn of the Latin heresy which each convert had to pronounce before the patriarch's synod. 36 There seems to be no evidence for suc~ a formal procedure at an earlier period, though so~e suchc~nfesslOn must surely have been required of converts. What IS certam IS that no Frank or Latin could have been accepted as a fully integrated member of Byzantine society without his own conversion to Orthodoxy, or at least the Orthodox baptism of the children who bore his name. Byzantine canon law was somewhat ambivalent on this matter of mixed marriages between Catholics and Orthodox. The 14th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, reinforced by the 72nd canon of the Council in Trullo forbade the marriage of an Orthodox Christian to a 'heretical woman' (EtEQO/)O~ov yuvaixa).37 But there was some difference of opinion even among canon lawyers as to whether the Latins were heretics in the strict sense of the word. Theodore Balsamon clearly thought that they were and ruled that they should not be given communion in an Orthodox church unless they publicly renounced their Latin faith.38 Demetrios Chomatianos, however, once again was more tolerant. It was his view that the Latins, though misguided, had never been officially condemned as heretics and cast forth from "Ch. Bouras, M,ullu~avnvi! lIamAlxi! EV X'q>, Niov 'ADljvalOv, III (1958-60), pp. 129-144, espeCially p. 142 and references.

MM, VI, p. 228. Cf. G. I. Zolotas, 'Im:o(Jia 486-487.

15

2. Nicol, op. cit., pp. 167-168. 30Demetrios Chomatianos, ed. Pitra, VII, col. 713. 31 D. Jacoby, 'Les etals latins en Romanie: phenomenes sociaux et economiques (120.4-1.350 environ)" XY Congres International d'etudes byzantines. Rapports, I: HIstoIre, 3 (Athens 1976), p. 21. 3%

Ibid., p. 30.

II

Ibid., p. 33.

Tii, Xiov I,

2 (Athens 1923) pp. '

"See, e.g., MM, 11, p. 449.

"G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, IvvraY/Ja rtiiv (}etwv xai iE(Jtiiv xavOvwv(Athens ,185~-5?), 11, pp. 251-254; III, pp. 173, 186, 198-199,364. Cf. H. Hunger: Chnsthches und Nichtchristliches im byzantinischen Eherecht' Osterreichisches

:rchiv!ii: Kirchenrecht, XVIII (Vienna, 1967), pp. 318-320 (re~rinted in Hunger, rzanllmsche Grundlagenforschung. Collected Studies: London, 1973, no. XI); NICOI, op. cit., pp. 160ff. JBR

halles and Potles, op. cit., IV, p. 460 .

o III

III 121

120

married Latin husbands. But not a single male member married outside the Orthodox circle. The Greeks of Epiros were indeed deeply shocked by the marriages with Latin wives contracted by the Emperors at Nicaea, Theodore I Laskaris and John III Vatatzes. 29 Among imperial and ruling families dispensations or diplomatic excuses could usually be found for such mixed marriages, despite the canonical disapproval officially expressed by the hierarchy of both churches. Demetrios Chomatianos, Archbishop of Ochrida in the early 13th century, was in most respects a fair and open-minded canonist. But he ruled that an Orthodox priest who gave his blessing to the union of a Latin with a Greek should be suspended, and that the Orthodox partner in a mixed marriage celebrated by a Catholic priest should be excommunicated. 30 Restrictions on intermarriage from the Latin side were social as well as religious. As David Jacoby has shown, the western knights in the Morea after the Latin conquest were bound by their sense of exclusiveness to marry only noble ladies from their own countries or their own class, a fact which led to much inbreeding and to marriages which were strictly uncanonical because of the degrees of affinity involved. 3! The Venetians in Crete forbade all matrimonial alliances between property-owning Latins and Greeks on pain of confiscation of the offender's property and exile.32 The Catalans in Greece forbade Greeks to marry Catholic wives. 33 In the Duchy of the Archipelago and in the Greek islands occupied by the Genoese there was perhaps more tolerance and more scope for intermarriage and integration between Greeks and Latins. On Chios, for instance, the family of Mendonis, which was of Genoese origin, was fully Orthodox and hellenised by the 14th century. Eirene Mendonis founded the monastery church of Agrelopousaina

on Chios in the early 1300'S;34 and one John Mendonis is attested as a Greek living on Kos as early as 1271. 35 It was by no means unknown for individual Latin Catholics to convert to Byzantine Orthodoxy. The patriarchal registers of the 14th century record several cases of such conversions and provide the text of the formula for the abjuration of the Latin heresy which each convert had to pronounce before the patriarch's synod. 36 There seems to be no evidence for such a formal procedure at an earlier period, though some such confession must surely have been required of converts. What is certain is that no Frank or Latin could have been accepted as a fully integrated member of Byzantine society without his own conversion to Orthodoxy, or at least the Orthodox baptism of the children who bore his name. Byzantine canon law was somewhat ambivalent on this matter of mixed marriages between Catholics and Orthodox. The 14th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, reinforced by the 72nd canon of the Council in Trullo forbade the marriage of an Orthodox Christian to a 'heretical woman' (E"tEQ6oo!;ov yuvaLxa).37 But there was some difference of opinion even among canon lawyers as to whether the Latins were heretics in the strict sense of the word. Theodore Balsamon clearly thought that they were and ruled that they should not be given communion in an Orthodox church unless they publicly renounced their Latin faith.38 Demetrios Chomatianos, however, once again was more tolerant. It was his view that the Latins, though misguided, had never been officially condemned as heretics and cast forth from Ch. Bouras, Miu Ilu~u\ln\lij llumALxij t\l XiQl, Ntov 'A"'IvaLO\I, III (1958-60), pp. 129-144, especially p. 142 and references.

3'

"MM, VI, p. 228. Cf. G. I. Zolotas, 'IOTO(!{a"i. Xiov 1,2 (Athens, 1923) 486-487.

2. Nicol, op. cit., pp. 167-168. 3ODemetrios Chomatianos, ed. Pitra, VII, col. 713. 3! D. Jacoby, '~s etats latins en Romanie: phenomenes sociaux et economiques (120;4-1~SO env!ron)', XV Congres International d'etudes byzantines. Rapports, I: HlStolfe, 3 (Athens 1976), p. 21. 31!bid;, p. 30.

pp.

3. See, e.g., MM, n, p. 449. G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles,l.'tlV1"aY/la rOiv (Je{aw xai leqOiv xawSvow(Athens, 1852-59), 11, pp. 251-254; Ill, pp. 173, 186, 198-199, 364. Cf. H. Hunger, 'Christliches und Nichtchristliches im byzantinischen Eherecht', Osteneichisches Archiv fur Kirr:henrecht, XVIII (Vienna, 1967), pp. 318-320 (reprinted in Hunger, Byzantinische Grundlagenforschung. Collected Studies: London, 1973, no. XI); Nicol, op. cit., pp. 160ff.

37

33 Ibid., p. 33. 38

Rhalles and Potles, op. cit., IV, p. 460.

111

III 123

122

the body of the Church. They should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt?9 The Patriarch John Bekkos, before his change of heart, had likewise cautiously declared that the Latins were in the category of being but not being called heretics. 40 But public opinion in Byzantium, certainly by the 13th century if not earlier, held that the Latins were estranged in faith as well as in custom; and so far as the offspring of mixed marriages were concerned the Church clearly laid down that they should be brought up in the Orthodox faith.41 The Latin view of such matters was, of course, better defined and more rigid. Even so understanding an observer of the Byzantine scene as the Dominican Humbertus de Romanis in the 13th century declared that the Greeks were to be regarded not only as schismatics but also as manifest heretics ('non tantum schismatici sunt censendi, sed etiam haeretici manifesti').4 2 Only in very exceptional circumstances therefore, for reasons of state or diplomacy, could intermarriages between Greeks and Latins be allowed. The mixed Greco-Latin families that survived more than one generation in Byzantium must evidently have been Orthodox in religion as well as Greek-speaking. The three families which most successfully achieved this process of total integration without, however, abandoning their Latin names, were the descendants of three Norman adventurers of the 11 th century, Rogerios, Raoul and Petraliphas. The Rogerios family (the name is variously hellenised as Rogerios, Rogeres, R6kerios, R6gerios) were descended from a Norman knight called Roger in the army of Robert Guiscard, who went over to Alexios I in 1081. He was rewarded with the title of sebastos.

When he died early in the 12th century the poet Nicholas Kallikles composed an epitaph for him.43 This poem graphically describes the change of scene and change of heart undergone by such a Norman warrior from Frankish lands (yii QayxLxi]) when he moved from the Latin west to the Greek east. It tells how, after many warlike exploits in Italy and then in Ylyria (with Robert Guiscard), Roger went over to 'the great and pIOUS Emperor Alexios Komnenos'. The Emperor pardoned him for his past hosti.lity (TjVOLSE f.lOL 't
3. De~etrios Cho~atianos, in Rhalles and Poties, op. cit., V, p. 435; ... ou 6'eyvroo1hJoav ,~u,a ~uvollt)twC;' )tal ou6' auml [Aa,(vo'l WC; a[QEOLw,m, (mO~A1]'OL 61]f.loo'Q YEyovaOLV' tlAAtl )tal ouvwl'Houo,v ftf.l'v· )taL OUVEuxov,m.

43 R. Cantarella, Poeti Bizantini, I (Milan, 1948), no. LXXVII, pp. 176-177 (earlier ed. byL. Sternba~h: Nicol~iCalJiclisearmina(Cracow, 1903), no. VI, pp. 321-322). See M. Mathleu, Cmq poesles byzantines des XI' et XII' siec1es', Byzantion, XXIII (1953), pp. 137-140.

40 Pachymeres, I, p. 376 11. 9-10. 41 R

"A nna Comnena, II, p. 221

halles and Potles, op. cit., I, pp. 270-272. Cf. Nicol, op. cit., p. 166 n. 1.

Humbertus. d~ Romanis, Opus Tripartitum, in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciIiorum nova et ~plJsslma Colleetio, XXIV (Venice, 1780), col. 126. Cf. Anna-Dorothee Y. d~n. BrlOcke~, V,ie "Natlones Christianorum OrientaIium" im Verstandnis der latelD/schen HlstoT/ographle von der Mitte des 12. bis in die zweite Halfte des 14 lahrhunderts (Cologne-Vienna, 1973), pp. 15-76. . 42

45

Alb~rt

01

1. 26 (ed. Reifferscheid); III, p. 138 1. 28 (ed. Leib).

Aix, Historia HierosoIimitanae expeditionis ... , in Reeueil des

HlstoT/e~s des Croisades, Historiens Oecidentaux, IV (Paris, 1879), p. 305; Migne, Patrologla Latma, CLXVI, col. 415C.

46

A

Comnena, II, pp. 187 1. 4, 202 11. 5-6, 205 1. 3 (ed. Reiflerscheid)'lII pp 10 1 nna 1 14 117 ' , . 160." 11. 20-21, 120 1. 25 (ed. Leib). Cl. Marquis de la Force, op. cit., p.

p III III 125 124 indeed they are not the same person, must be considered as the eponymous ancestor of the various Rogerioi .who became thoroughly byzantinised in the 12th century. In theIr case, and of course with the help of the Latinophile Emperors John II and Manuel I, the process of integration was complete within one generation. Constantine Rogerios, who died before 1136, was a sebastos and such a zealous convert to Orthodoxy that his name was commemorated three times a year as a benefactor in the monastery church of the Pantokrator in Constantinople. 47 He could well have been a son of the first Roger, the Norman. The most successful and celebrated member of the family, who may have been Constantine's brother, was John Dalassenos Rogerios. Lucien Stiernon convincingly proved that the John Rogerios and the John Dalassenos of the sources are one and the same person. 48 John married Maria Komnene the porphyrogenita, eldest daughter of the Emperor John II and sister of Manuel I. The title of Caesar was conferred upon him at the time of the wedding, and though the date cannot be fixed he is known to have held the title as early as 113617. 49 John rapidly became the most powerful man in court circles in Constantinople; and when John II died in 1143 he organised a conspiracy of some 400 Normans to seize the throne - a coup which was only thwarted by the prompt action of his wife Maria. She died in 1144/5. 50 John's Orthodoxy is attested by his presence at the synod which deposed the Patriarch Kosmas II in 1147. His name heads the list of witnesses

after that of the Emperor Manuel. sl His wealth and influence were solidly based on lande~ prope~ty .. He had bee~ gr~nted a form of ppanage of territory an the dIstrict of Stroumltza an the Strymon a I\ey in Macedonia; and there, as Bolidar Ferjancic has shown, he ~ . g xercised the feudal authOrity of a western landlord. In 1152 the ~mperor sent him to Antioch in the hope that Constance, widow of Raymo nd n, would take him as her second husband. She rather rudely refused him because of his advanced years; and so the Caesar John Dalassenos Rogerios returned to Constantinople to nurse his wounded pride. He became a monk before he died. 53 One can only guess how he acquired the name of Dalassenos. Presumably he was connected with that illustrious family on his mother's side. In other words, a Rogerios must have married a Dalassena. 54 John certainly preferred the surname Dalassenos to the more 'barbarous' patronymic of Roger or Rogerios. His own seals and other personal documents bear only the name John Dalassenos the Caesar. ss It was left for the historian Kinnamos to remind posterity that so great a power in the land was really only a parvenu Norman by the name of John Roger. The name Rogerios was therefore not perpetuated in John's family. They understandably opted for the still more illustrious name of Komnenos, to which they were entitled through their mother, Maria the porphyrogenita. There were two of them: a daughter Anna Komnene,S6 and a son Leo Allatius, De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis perpetua oonsensione (Cologne, 1648), p. 683 .

51

., Sp. Lambros, To :n:QO)'t6w:n:ov 'tOU WltLl!.OU tiis tv KrovO'tavTL VOlJlt6AEL J.Loviis 'tOU nav'tol!.Qa'toQos, Neos Hellenomnenon, V (1908), p. 396 1. 10; P. Gautier. 'L' obituaire du Typikon du Pantokrator·. Revue des etudes byzantines, XXVII (1969), pp. 235-262, especially pp. 240 1. 55 and 255; Laurent, Bulles metriques, ·no. 529, p. 186.

~. Stiernon, 'Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. A propos de troIS membres de la famille Rogerios (XII" siecle)', Revue des etudes byzantines, XXII (1964), pp. 184-198, especially pp. 185-187.

B. Ferjani!ic, 'Apanazni posed Kesara Jovana Rogerija - L'Apanage du CCsar Jean Roger', Zbornik Radova Vizanto/oskog Instituta, XII (1970), pp. 193-201. Stiemon, op. cit., p. 190 n. 38, is at fault in calling John Rogerios 'gouvemeur de la region de Stroumitza·. See Ferjancic, op. cit., p. 196. 52

Kinnamos, pp. 122-123, 178. See S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades,II (Cambridge, 1954), p. 332.

48

53

.. Laurent, Bulles metriques, no. 724; Sp. Lambros, '0 MaQl!.LaVOs l!.OiIiL~ 524. Neos Hellenomnenon, VIII (1911). pp. 21. 28, 29; Stiernon. op. cit .• pp. 185-186.

" Mathieu, 'Cinq poesies byzantines ... ', p. 139, suggested that John was the son of Constantine Rogerios seba.tos, who had married a Dalassena. It seems more probable that they were brothers or at least close relatives of the same generation, as proposed by Gautier, op. cit., p. 255 .

.. Kinnamos: loannis Cinnami Epitome Rerum ab loanne et Alexio Comnenis gestllrum, ed. A. Meineke (CSHB). pp. 36-38. O. J. Chalandon, Les Comnenes, 11: Jean II Comnene et Manuel I Comnene (Paris. 1912), pp. 197ff.

5S

Stiernon, op. cit., pp. 186-187.

56

For the identification of Anna see Stiernon, op. cit., pp. 187-191.

•

p III III 127

126

Andronikos Komnenos, pansebastos sebastos, who married a Doukaina Eirene. 57 (The son of the Caesar John has been proposed as the anonymous and elusive addressee of the didactic poem Spaneas - but that is another matter.)58 There are fleeting references to other Rogerioi in the 12th century who were not so sensitive about the origins of their family name. Alexios Rogerios, sebastos and vestiarites of the Emperor, was present at one of the sessions of the council held in Constantinople in 1166. 59 Leon Rogerios is celebrated in a poem. He married Eirene of the family of lasites and traced his ancestry to a grandfather who was a famous sebastos and a father who was protonobe/issimos. 60 Leon might in fact have been a grandson of the original Norman Roger the sebastos whose Epitaph was written by Kallikles. Finally there was Andronikos Rogerios, whose seal is inscribed with the name oE~ao'tov 'AVOQOVL1WV EX 'PWYEQLWV. Stiernon proved that he is a different person from Andronikos, son of the Caesar John Dalassenos who, as we have seen, adopted the surname Komnenos. 61 Andronikos Rogerios was captain (prokathemenos)of the palatine guard at the Blachernai Palace about 1191. 62 He demonstrated his Orthodox piety by founding the Monastery of the Theotokos Chrysokamariotissa in Constantinople, an event

57

For the identification of Andronikos Komnenos, ibid., pp. 191-198.

5. J. Schmitt, 'Ober den Verfasser des Spaneas', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, I (1892), pp. 316-332. Cf. H.-G. Beck, Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Munich, 1971), pp. 106-108.

immortalised in a poem by Theodore Balsamon. 63 I have yet to find reference to any Rogerioi after the end of the 12ih century. Perhaps later members of the family, like John Dalassenos Rogerios and his son Andronikos Komnenos, preferred to drop their 'barbarous' ancestral name in favour of some more reputable Byzantine cognomen acquired by marriage. This was not the case with the descendants of another Norman renegade, the Raoul family. The Norman Roger who went over to Alexios I in 1081 is said by Anna Comnena to have been the brother of Raoul, who had been sent by Robert Guiscard on a mission to the Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates. 64 This Raoul is last heard of taking refuge from the wrath of Guiscard with his son Bohemund who was then in Illyria. 65 It has been plausibly assumed that Raoul, like Roger, also arrived in Constantinople in due course, and that he is to be identified with that 'Rudolfus Peel de Lan' whom Alexios I sent as an envoy to Godfrey of Bouillon in 1096. His colleague on that embassy was Roger, son of Dagobert. 66 If this identification is correct it seems to follow that Raoul (alias 'Rudolfus') and Roger were brothers, both being sons of Dagobert, and that therefore the later byzantinised families of Rogerios and Raoul were descended from a common, Norman ancestor called Dagobert. If it is accepted then that Raoul-Rodolphe-Rudolfus are variants of the saJ?e name, then Rudolfus Peel de Lan (or Peeldelau, Pel-de-Leu - his name is variously transcribed) is the eponymous ancestor of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine family of Raoul whose descendants, the Rallis or Ralli family, are still with us. The Byzantine members of the family (up to about 1460) were the

S.

M.igne, Patrologia Graeca {MPG}, CXL, cols. 236D - 237A. L. Stiernon, 'Notes ~e t.tulature ~t de prosopographie byzantines. Sebaste et gambros', Revue des etudes byzantlnes, XXIII (1965), p. 234. @L

b'

.

am ros, op: c.t., Neos Hellenomnenon, VIII (1911), p. 129.

V. Laurent, .'Andronic Rogerios, fondateur du couvent de la Theotokos Chryso~amanohs~a et son sceau inMit au type de I 'offrande', Academie de la section historique' XXVII (1946) p 74 . St'lernon. op. Clt., . Roumalne. R d 'Bulletin d , . evue es etu es byzantines, XXII (1964), pp. 191ff. 62 A . Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'Avcl),e"ra 7e(!oao).Vl'trt"iir;Iraxvo).oy{ar; II (St. Petersburg, 1894), p. 367 11. 25-28. ' 6.

63 Laurent, op. cit. (n. 61 above). The poem by Balsamon is printed by Lambros, op. c.t., Neos Hellenomnenon, VIII (1911), pp. 133, 134. For the Chrysokamariotissa m~nastery, see R. Janin, La Geographie eccJesiastique de I'Empire byzantin, I: Le SIege de Constantinople et la patriarcat oecumenique, Ill: . Les eglises et les monasteres (Paris, 1953), p. 251.

64

A _ ?oa C.omn:na, I ,p.52 1. 15(ed.Reifferscheid);I,p.5511.15-16(ed.Leib): ... PaouA mu &OEAcpOU 'POyEQI') ...

toU

os Ibid . 66

Albert of Aix, loco cit. (n. 45 above) .

____........

------------~,~s.--III

III 129

128 67 They are of b · t f a special study by Sterios Fassoulakis. m~c 0 . I . I b . I . terest not only because of theIr ong surVlva, ut a.lso partlcu ar m , . ' .. because (unlike the Rogerioi) they retam~d theIr ongmal name, transformed into a surname, right through mt~ the 15t.h cent~ry. One of the signatories of the Treaty of Devolm 11 08 I~ descn~ed as 'Oumpertos the son of Graoul' by Anna C.omnena. It IS temptmg to emend Graoul to Raoul, and the emendation has been suggested b DuCange and others. We would then have a putative son of the fi~t Raoul-Rudolfus called Humbert. 68 About thirty years later there suddenly appears the name of a scribe of two theological manuscripts in Vienna who signs himsellf as Leon 'of the family of', or 'son of Raou]' in 1139. 69 Since the manuscripts are Greek and Leon appears to have been an Orthodox monk (Ufl a gT
S. Fassoulakis, The Byzantine Family of Raoul-Ral(l)es (Athens, 1973).

Anna Comnena, JI, p. 221 1. 8 (ed. Reifferscheid); Ill, p. 139 I. 1 (ed. Leib). Fassoulakis, op. cit., no. 2, pp. 11-12.

'bly his father had married a lady of the Doukas family who was POSSI . . I dy as so many of the Doukal were, related to the Angelol. R I b ' ' I " f h area , . Choniates describes Constantl~; aou as emg a re atlve 0 t e E peror Alexios III Angelos. ~he evidence is fragmentary. But here within the space of a tury the descendants of a Norman adventurer from south Italy ce; once again seen to have settled in Byzantium as Greek-speaking, ~rthodox citizens with impeccably Byzantine names like Leon and Constantine. This was more than symbiosis. This was integration at its highest level. The Raouls, unlike the Rogerioi, seem to ha~e been proud of their Norman name. They were not ashamed to add It to the string of other surnames which they acquired as the years went on. They flourished in the Empire in exile at Nicaea after 1204. Alexios Raoul, a soldier married a niece of the Emperor John III Vatatzes and was created protovestiarios. Like many others he was deprived of his rank and title by Theodore 11 Laskaris in 1254; and his four sons were put in prison. 73 In later years, however, after the triumph of Michael VIII Palaiologos, they remained loyal to the Laskarid dynasty and the three youngest sons joined the cause of the Arsenites. John Raoul, the eldest son seems to have been won over 10 Ihe Palaiologan cause by being appointed to his father's old rank of protovestiarios on his marriage to Michael VIII's highly cultured niece Theodora. 74 She too was a fervent Arsenite, however, and survived her husband by some twenty-five years, dying as a nun in 1300. She was generally known as Theodora Raoulaina; but in one autograph manuscript she lays full claim to all of her surnames Kantakouzene, Angelina, Doukaina, Palaiologina, the wife of John Raoul Doukas. 75 The unrepentant Arsenite brothers of John Raoul, Manuel and

68

69

Fassoulakis, op. cit., no. 3, pp. 12-13.

7.

Gautier, op. cit., Revue des etudes byzantines, XXXII (1974), p. 123 I. 1568. An unpublished seal is reputed to .tlest the existence of one Raoul, Archbishop of Corfu, in the 12th century. See R. Walther (review of Fassoulakis), in Jahrhuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, XXV (1976), p. 317. TI

Fassoulakis, op. cit., no. 4, pp. 13-14.

Niketas Choniates, Historia, P. 593 (CSHBj; p. 451 (CFHBj. Cf. D. I. Po\emis, The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography(London, \968), p. 173.

12

"Fassoulakis, op. cit., no. 5, pp. 15-16. "Ibid, no. 6, pp. 18-19. "Ibid., no. 11, pp. 25-26. D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100-1460. A Genealogical and ProsopographicaI Study (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XI: Washington, D.e. 1968), no. 14, pp. 16-19.

•

$' m

III 131

130 Isaac are two of the most striking advertisements for the effects on westerners of total integration into Byzantine society. Their devotion to the Orthodox faith at the time of the Union of Lyon in 1274 was such that they were determined to make martyrs of themselves. Both were imprisoned by Michael VIII and in the end blinded for refusing to recant and subscribe to union with what must have been the church of their ancestors. 76 Their scholarly sister-in-law, Theodora Raoulaina, must surely have had them and their martyrdom in mind when she composed a hagiography of the brothers Theodore and Theophanes, the Graptoi, who had been victims of the persecution of another heretical Emperor, the iconoclast Theophilos, in the 9th century.77 With the restoration of Orthodoxy after 1282 (and the end of the Arsenite schism thirty years later) the Raoul family became still more firmly established among the Byzantine ruling aristocracy. We find Raouls reaching the ranks of Grand Domestic,7B megas stratopedarches,19 Grand Logothete,BO sebastokrator and Despot.BI The recipe for their success in overcoming their 'barbarous' ancestry is perhaps summed up in the collection of names sported by one of their 15th-century members: John Doukas Angelos Palaiologos Raoul Laskaris Tornikes Philanthropenos Asan. B2 It is a far cry from Rudolfus Peel de Lan to such an Almanach de Gotha entry. By 1261, if not long before, the Raouls had earned their place in the list of those families of rank and breeding (the eugeneis) who could claim a golden ancestry - i) J.lEyaAoYEvTJt;; aELQCt KaL XQuaij, as it is defined by 76 Fassoulakis, op. cit., nos. 7 and 8, pp. 19-23. For the third unnamed brother ibid., no. 9, p. 23. "

George Pachymeres. B3 Very similar were the fortunes of the Norman family of Petraliphas. Here again the starting p~int of their history is the treaty imposed upon Bohemund by AlexIOs I at Devol in 1108. As a witness to that treaty on the Emperor's side, after the signature of Roger son of Dagobert, comes the name Petros Aliphas. 84 Elsewhere Anna Comnena refers to the same man as Petros tou Alipha. 85 This was Peter of Alifa, who fought with Robert Guiscard during the Norman invasion of Epiros and against Alexios I in 1082. He was a son or brother of Robert, Lord of Caiazzo and Alifa near Caserta.86 After Guiscard's death in 1085 he went over to the Byzantine camp, and in 1097 he was among the detachment of Byzantine troops under the command of Tatikios which accompanied the crusaders across Anatolia. He was appointed imperial governor of Comana near Caesarea. B7 In 1107 he went with Rogeres on the embassy that Alexios I sent to Bohemund. He had by now proved his devotion to the Byzantine cause. Anna Comnena describes him as 'a man renowned in war and of constant and 83Pachymeres, I, pp. 64-65, especially p. 65 11. 11-12. Cf. Angold, op. cit., pp. 68-69. Anna Comnena, Leib).

84

n, p.

221 I. 24 (ed. Reifferscheid); Ill, p. 138 11. 28-29 (ed.

"Anna Co~nena, I, pp. 147 I. 9, 167 11. 27-28, 176 I. 32; n, p. 1191. 22 (ed. Relfferscheld); I,pp. 16111. 25-26; n, pp. 22 I. 12, 32 I. 21;III,p.27 1.21 (ed. Leib).

Ibid., no. 16.

Marquis de la Force, op. cit., pp. 158-160. It was earlier believed that the family was descended from one Petrus de Alpibus or Pierre d' Au(l)ps. See DuCange, Commentary on the Alexiad (CSHB), pp. 507-510; W. Miller, The Latins in the Levant(London, 1908), p. 10. Cf. D. M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros(Oxford, 1957), Appe~dlx I, pp. 215-216. See also E. M [iller), in RecueildesHistoriensdes CrOlsades: HIstoTlens Grecs, n (Paris, 1881), pp. 47-49, where an attempt is made to d.etermme the genealogy of the early Norman and Byzantine members of the famtly (Table on p. 49).

8. Ibid., no. 31.

"G~sta Francorurn; ed. L. Brehier, Histoire Anonyme de la premiere Croisade

:7 T~eodora'~ Life of the Graptoi is published by A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, :AvuAE"W IEpoaoAvtltn"iit; IwxvOAOY(Ut;, IV, pp. 185-223; V, 397-399 (corrections to text).

78 Fassoulakis, op. cit., nos. 13 and 32. 79

81

Ibid., no. 61.

82 Ibid., no. 72.

86

(Par~s, 1924), IV, 11: pp. 60-62; The Ecclesiastical HistoryofOrdericus Vitalis,ed. M~rJon.e Chibn~lI, V (Oxford, 1975), IX, 8: p. 66; Anna Comnena, 11, pp.llO-lll (le. Relfferscheld); Ill, p. 19 (ed. Leib). Cf. S. Runciman, History of the Crusades, ,pp. 191, 239-240 .

•

m III

133 132

unswerving loyalty to the Emperor.'88 He had his re.ward, for after 1108 he and his family were granted an estate ID the area of Didymoteichon in Thrace. It would .be interes~ing to k~own the terms of his tenure and whether he enjoyed quasI-feudal nghts over an appanage like John Rogerios. Forty years later Niketas Choniates records the bravery of four brothers of the Petraliphas family from Didymoteichon during Manuel I's campaign for the recovery of Corfu from the Normans. 89 The family name had by then already become contracted and hellenised into the one word Petraliphas. Two other members of the family, Alexios and Nikephoros Petraliphas, are mentioned in the second half of the 12th century. Nikephoros fought under the command of John Doukas in Manuel I's Hungarian offensive in 1166. 90 Alexios Petraliphas was present at the Council of 1166 in Constantinople, designated as sebastos and vestiarites of the Emperor; and in 1173 he commanded an army in the campaign against Kilidj Arslan in Anatolia. 91 One John Petraliphas was among the conspirators against Isaac n, along with Constantine Raoul, in 1195. 92 At much the same time there was a Nikephoros Komnenos Petraliphas who held the exalted rank of sebastokrator. He issued a sigjJJjon confirming the possession by the Monastery of Xeropotamou of certain properties in the district of Hierissos which he had inherited from his grandmother, Maria Komnene Tzousmene. 93 A later source records that a John Petraliphas was governor of Thessaly and Macedonia at the end of

the 12th century and that he also held the rank of sebastokrator. 94 This is questionable. There are, however, grounds for believing that one branch of the family had by then settled in the district of Servia in northern Thessaly. By the time of the Fourth Crusa.de therefore the Petraliphas family, the descendants of Peter of Ahfa,were thoroughly hellenised and integrated into Byzantine society, landowners in Thrace and Thessaly, and living on equal terms with other ruling families of less 'barbarous' origin. After the Latin conquest their loyalties were divided between Nicaea and Epiros. One Andronikos Komnenos Doukas Petraliphas is mentioned in 1227 as an official in a Serbian document in the Monastery of Chilandari. 95 Another John Petraliphas became Grand Chartoularios at Nicaea, and about 1242 he was made commander of Tzouroulon, a key fortress in Thrace, doubtless because of his family's connexions with that area!6 Other members of the family remained in Greece, in Servia, which was captured by Theodore Komnenos Doukas of Epiros in 1223 or earlier!7 It may have been there that Theodore met his wife, Maria Petraliphina, who was eventually to become his Empress in Thessalonica. Maria in fact preferred to be styled Maria Doukaina or Komnene, which was her right by marriage, though she may also have been entitled to one or both names from her parents. She was a sister of the John Petraliphas in Nicaea!B John had three daughters and several sons, of whom one. Theodore, married the daughter of Demetrios Tornikes. Grand

88 Anna Comnena, 11, p. 187 11. 5-6 (ed. Reifferscheid); Ill, p. 101 I. 15 (ed. Leib). 89Niketas Choniates, Historia, p. 110 (CSHB); p. 83 11. 81-82 (CFHB): n£TQuA'<pa. T.V., aUtabEA<po, tEOOUQE" b TOU t6>v QayyOlv YEVOU, 6QJ.";'~EVot ~ai ~ata to A.buIlOtE.XOV Tf)V O(,,'I0'V EXOVtE<;. 90 Kinnamos, p. 260 11. 22-23.

9' MPG, CXL, col. 236D; Kinnamos, p. 292 I. 15. 9' Nill,etas Choniates, p. 593 (CSHB); p. 451 I. 71 (CFHB).

Actes de Xeropotamou, ed. J. Bompaire (Archives de l'Athos, III [Paris, 1964]), no. 8, pp. 67-71; F. Diilger, Ausden Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges(Munich, 1948), no. 3~, pp .. ?0~?3. See also Actes de Zographou,ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, B. Korablev, VlZantlJsklJ Vremennik, XIII, Supplement (1907) 1I0S VI VII pp l6-18, 19-24. ' . , , . '3

9' The source is the monk Job (Iasites). See below, note 103. Neither Nikephoros nor John Petraliphas is mentioned by B. Ferjancic, 'Sebastokratori u vizantiji - Les sebastokratores 11 Byzance', Zbarnik Radava VizBntalaskag 1nstituta, XI (1968), pp. 141-192. A. Solovjev, 'Un inventaire de documents byzantins de Chilandllr, Annales de l'lnstitut Kondakav (Seminarium Kandakavianum). X (Melanges A. A. V8liiliev: 1938), Supplements, 2, pp. 46-47. Cl. Polemis, The Daukai. no. 161. p. 166.

.1

.6 Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, I, pp. 58-59, 66 1.22. Cf. Angold, op. tit" pp. 183. 190. "For the date of the capture of Servia, see Nicol, Despotste of Bp/rot. p. 59. 98Akropolites, I, p. 39. Cf. Polemi6, op. cit" no. 160, p. 165.

.

$D III

III

135

134 Logothete of Theodore I Laskaris at Nicaea. 99 In the struggle for power between Nicaea and Epiros in the 1250s he seems to have changed sides more than once. He was killed in 1259. lOo Ofhis three sisters, Maria married one Sphrantzes, perhaps Francesco, a son of Maio Orsini, Count of Cephalonia, and became known as Maria Sphrantzaina. 101 Another became the second wife of Alexios Slav the Blllgarian Despot of Melnik.l02 The third sister, and the mos; distinguished member of the whole family, was Theodora Petraliphina, still known and revered as Saint Theodora of Arta. She became the wife of Michael 11 Doukas of Epiros, who first met her at Servia in Thessaly where she was living under the guardianship of her brothers. Her biographer; the monk Job Iasites, gives no hint of his heroine's Latin ancestry. 103 But her memory lives on. The Monastery of Kato Panagia in Arta bears an inscription commemorating the repentance of her husband for his ill-treatment of her; and the chapel of St. Theodora in the city contains her tomb, adorned with a sculptured portrait of herself and her eldest son Nikephoros.l04 Theodora Petraliphina carried integration to the point of canonisation. She lived the last years of her life as an Orthodox nun. .. Akropolites, I, pp. 39, 90. 1°"Nicol, op. cit., pp. 67, 151-152, 165, 176, 215; Angold, op. cit., pp. 25, 286. 101 Akropolites, I, p. 140. Cf. Nicol, op. cit., p. 216 n. 8. For Marias's later career (she wa~ a widow by 125:) see P. J. Alexander, 'A chrysobull of the Emperor Andromcus 11 Palaeologus ID favor ofthe See of Kanina in Albania', Byzantion XV (194011), pp. 198-201. ' 102 Akropolites, I, p. 39 11. 12-13. 103 The~e .are three editions of the Life of St. Theodora of Artabythe monk Job: A. MUStOXldlS, Hellenomnemon (1843), pp. 42-47; MPG, CXXVII, cols, 903-908; J. A. Buchon, Nouvelles Recherc~es sur la Prinicpaute francaise de Moree, 11 (Paris, 1843), pp. 401-.406. ~n the Life and its probable author, the 13th-century monk Job Meles (Meltas) Iasltes, see especially L. Vranousis, X(IOv",a"rii. /lECTaIWVt"ij. "ai rOlJp"O"paTOIJ/lEVfj. 'Hn:e{(I01J (Ioannina, 1962), pp. 47-54. 104 A. K. Orl.an~os, .B~~avTtva MVfj/lEia "rii. "AptJ7., 11 (Athens 1937), pp. 70-87 (Kato Panagla: IDcnptlon on pp. 86-87); pp. 88-104 (church of St. Theodora); pp. 05-115 .(tomb o~ St. Theo~ora) See also_idem, To TEl'ltA.ov rij~ 'Ay(a~ e£obwl1a~ 4~n~2.En:EtJ7Pt. 'Eratpeta. BIJ~avr:tvwv In:olJc5ciiv. XXXIX-XL (1972-73), pp.

!

The only inscription recording her name, on the tomb of her sons in the Blachernai church near Arta, describes her as the basilissa Doukaina Theodora. 105 Her sons seem never to have used the name PetraIiphas, preferring to emphasise their ancestral links with the family of Doukas. Among the fragments of relief sculpture in the Blachernai church is one depicting a young beardless warrior, sword in hand and wearing a coat of mail. Orlandos has suggested that this could well be a portrait of the Petraliphas mentioned in one of the inscriptions in the church; and it may not be fanciful to detect in the portrait a face and hairstyle more characteristic of a Latin than of a Byzantine. 106 The Petraliphas family do not appear to have proliferated after the middle of the 13th century like the Raouls. Nor did they produce any more persons of great distinction and influence. A few are recorded in the sources, mainly women, such as Euphrosyne Petraliphina, a nun in 1329,107 or the Petraliphina who was accused ofadulterywith the Bishop of Philadelphia about 1300.108 It seems likely that the name of Petraliphas was dropped or left out of account by the later descendants of Peter of Alifa who had equipped themselves with such glorious names as Komnenos and Doukas. It did not, however, completely disappear like the name of Rogerios. Two of the heroes of the 15th-century Song of Belisarios were the brothers 'Alexis and Petroliphas'.109 But they were not among the elite of archonteswho stood close to the Emperor - the eugeneis, the families of 'golden ancestry'. The poet's lists of these great families reveals which were the names that counted in the last years of the Empire. They include those of Asan, Kantakouzenos, Doukas, Palaiologos and others. But of all the families that originated from a Greco-Latin symbiosis and integration only that of Raoul or Rallis kept its name and influence to the end. IOS

Orlandos, op. cit., 1I (1937), p. 44 l. 1l.

1116

Ibid., p. 41, and plate 40 (p. 42).

107 MM, I, pp. 150-151, 155-156. 101 MM, I, pp. 168-17l. 10' W. Wagner, Medieval Greek Texts, I (London, 1870), p.125 1l. 326, 337, 356. 11. Ibid.,

pp. 128 l. 446-129 l. 450.

IV

REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION AND LOCAL PATRIOTISM IN EPIROS AND WESTERN MACEDONIA AFTER THE FOURTH CRUSADE

In the second edition of his '/(ITo(!ta TOV Niov 'EAJ.'1VU1!-,ov Professor A.E. Vakalopoulos remarks on the need for further research into the after-

. ,',,-.

•

effects of the Fourth Crusade on the population of Greece. "The Fourth Crusade", he writes, "broke up the authority of the empire just at the time when it needed to be united. We have not yet studied all the longterm and various consequences of this event, in particular the changes, shifts and minglings of peoples which it caused, the disappearance or emergence of communities and the decrease or increase in their populations... " 1 Much has in fact now been done in the case of the Empire of Nicaea. Helene Ahrweiler, Peter Charanis and most recently Michael Aogold have in different ways cast light on the social structure and composition of the population of Nicaea and western Asia Minor in the years between 1204 and 1261 2. It is clear that the capture of Constanti1. A. E. Vakalopoulos, 'IaToeta TO;; Nw., 'EAAWI"/JO;;, I, 2nd. ed., Thessalaniki, 1974, 63. 2. H6ene Ahrweiler, L'histoire et la geographie de la region de Smyme entre lea deux occupations turques (lOBI - 1317), particulierement au XIIIe siec1e, T _ d Mlmili,es, I (1965), 1 - 204. P. Charanis, The Slavic Element in Byzantine Alia Minor in the Thirteenth Century, Byzantion, IB (1946 _ 48), 69 _ B3; On the 1OCia1'!ructure and economic organization of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth teIltury and later, Byzantinoslavica, 12 (1951), 94 - 153; A note on the population sod cities of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century, Joshua SIIJrr MIIIIIIri4J Yobmre, New York, 1953, 135 - 148;On the ethnic composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the thirteenth century, neoutpOed el, XTthrowa n. KvelO"Imp!, Thessalaniki, 1953, 140·147; Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire, ~ oftlw XIII/h International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 5 - 10 ~ 1968, od.

T

IV

REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION AND LOCAL PATRIOTISM IN EPIROS AND WESTERN MACEDONIA AFTER THE FOURTH CRUSADE

In the second edition of his'1']1;oeia 7:0V Ntov 'E).).'f}.L"f'OV Professor A,E. Vakalopoulos remarks on the need for further research into the aftereffects of the Fourth Crusade on the population of Greece. "The Fourth Crusade", he writes, "broke up the authority of the empire just at the time when it needed to be united. We have not yet studied all the longterm and various consequences of this event, in particuiar the changes, shifts and minglings of peoples which it caused, the disappearance or emergence of commu~ities and the decrease or increase in their populations... " 1 Much has in fact now been done in the case of the Empire of Nicaea. Helene Ahrweiler, Peter Charanis and most recently Michael Angold have in different ways cast light on the social structure and composition of the population of Nicaea and western Asia Minor in the years between 1204 and 12612. It is clear that the capture of Constanti-

.''''' ,

.i '

L,

I

..

"/

;\.

i:

1. A. E. Vakalopoulos, 'Itnoela Toii Neov 'EAA'1vtapoii, I, 2nd. ed., Thessaloniki, 1974, 63. 2. H~lene Ahrweiler, L'histoire et la goographie de la region de Smyrne entre I... deux occupation. turques (1081 - 1317), particulierement au XIIIe siec1e, Tr_ ,I M/moires, I (1965), I - 204. P. Charanis, The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century, 'Byzantion, 18 (1946 - 48), 69 - 83; On the social structure and economic organization of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century and latet', Byzantinoslaviea, 12 (1951), 94 - 153; A note on the population and cities of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century, ]oshUIJ StarT Mmwrisl Volume, New York, 1953, 135 - 148;On the ethnic composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the thirteenth century, IIeoacpoed el, ETlAmo.a II. Kve,axlmjv, Thessaloniki, 1953, 140-147; Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire, ~ of tile XIII'" InternatioMl Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 6 - 10 S~ 1966, eel.

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

5

4

nople in 1204 had a long-lasting effect on the structure of ~yzantine . . th e ea st . The initial influx of refugees from the capital, .comSOCIety m . bined with the imperial policy of ~ncouragmg members of ~he ansto~racy to settle in the territory of Nlcaea, wer~ to ha.ve theIr effect m . the perpetuation of pro-Laskand sentiment and of the Iater years m . " Arsenite schism long after 1261. Dr. Angold has pomted out that none of the great aristocratic families had been esta.blished in the district of Nymphaion before 1204" 3. It was during th~ reign ofJohn II~ Batatzes that members of such families as the TarchanelOtes, Branas, Phtles, Doukas and others acquired property in the region of Smyrna. The settlement oflarge numbers of refugees from the Latins by Theodore I Laskaris is attested by Skoutariotes·. Many of them came from the Aegean islands and helped to swell the numbers of casual labourers who had no fixed abode and no visible means of support. They were classed as vagabonds, refugees or foreigners - 'free and unknown to the administration' (lAevOieov, ual Ttji 0'YJf.wo[tp avemyvwoTOv,) ". The effects of the Latin conquest of Constantinople on the population of the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire have received comparatively little attention. I am thinking not of Athens and the Peloponnese, where the Greek inhabitants were the victims of and sometimes the collaborators with the conquerors, but of northern Greece, Epiros, Thessaly and Macedonia - that part of the Byzantine world which it is no longer correct to call the Despotate of Epiros. The population of northern Greece must always have been more heterogeneous than that of the Peloponnese; and in the years before and just after the Fourth Crusade it had suffered numerous invasions and upheavals. The Normans had marched from Dyrrachion to Thessalonica in 1185. Their occupation of the area was brief, if disastrous. But a by-product J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman, Oxford, 1967, 445 - 463. [Most of these papers, tOKether with others, have been reprinted in P. Charanis, Social, Economic and

Political Life in the Byzantine Empire (Variorum: London, 1973), and idem, Studies on tIu Demography of the Byzantm. Empire (Variorum: London, 1972)1. M. Angold, A ByzantW Government in Exile. Government and Society under the £askarids of Nicaea, 1204 - 1261, Oxford, 1975. 3. Angold, op. cit., 126. 4. Theodori Scutariotae Additamenta, in Georgii ACTopolitae Opera, ed. A. Heisenberg, I, Leipzig, 1913, 282 11. 14 - 23. Angold, op. cit., 104. 5. F. Miklosich and J. MiiIler, Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi saCTa et profana, Vienna, 1860 - 90, IV, 222 - 223, 248 - 249; VI, 179 - 180, 200. G. Ostrogorsky, Qpelques probl.....s de I'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine, Brussels, 1956, 34 - 35; Angold, .. .u., 104; 139.

'r invasion which was to prove permanent was the Italian occuof t hel . ation of the islands of Cephalon~a, Ith.a~a and .Zante first by Marga~ ofBrindisi and then by MalO Orsml and hIS descendants". Otherntone ' ' wise the Norman . mv.aslOn pro b a bl y h a d rIttI e I astmg effiect; though it is worth remem~ermg t~~t by 1185 there were alread~ some welltablished Byzantme familIes of Greco-Norman extractIOn, some of :hom were landowners in northern Greece. The families of Rogerios, Rao ul and Petraliphas were all descended from Norman knights who had married Gr~ek ladies and. entered the imperial service in the 11 th and 12th centunes '. In later tImes, after 1261, the Raouls were so byzantinised that they suffered imprisonment and persecution rather than compromise their Orthodox faith by subscribing to the Union of Lyons". One branch of the Petraliphas family was settled in northern Greece in the late 12th century. Maria Petraliphina became the wife and empress of Theodore Kom.nenos I?ou~as; while her :elative The~dora married Michael Il of EplroS and IS stIli revered as a samt and mIracle worker in Arta where she was buried 9. Intermarriage between Greeks and Latins was in fact to continue even after the Fourth Crusade. But all such marriages were between Greek women and Latin men. Not a single male member of the Byzantine Orthodox ruling family married a westerner; and indeed the Greeks of Epiros were highly indignant about the marriages with western princesses contracted by their rivals at Nicaea, Theodore I Laskaris and John Batatzes. The practice of Catholic-Orthodox marriages was condemned as uncanonical by the learned canonist of Ochrida, De6. See C. M. Brand, Byzantium confronts the West, 1180 - 1204, Cambridge, Mass., 1966, 172 and references; J. Hoffmann, Rudimente von Territorialstaaten im byzanliRischen &ich [Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 17], Munich, 1974, 45 - 46, 89. 7. On the Rogerios family: L. Stiernon, Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. A propos de trois membres de la famille Rogerios (XIIe siecle), RI_ des etudes byzantines, 22 (1964), 184 - 198; B. Ferjancic, Apanazni posed KesaraJovana Rogerija, Zbornik Radova VizantoloSkog instituta, 12 (1970), 193 - 201. On the Raoul family: S. Fassoulakis, The Byzantine FamilY of Raoul-Ral(l)es, Athens, 1973. On the Petraliphas family: D. M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, Oxford, 1957,215 - 216; D. I. Polemis, The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography, London, 1968, 165 - 166. 8. D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, 1274, Studies in Church History, VII, ed. G. J. Cuming and D. Baker, Cambridge, 1971, 131- 132 and references (reprinted in Nicol, Byzantium: its Ecclesiastical History and IIIlations with the Western World, Variorum: London, 1972). 9. See, most recently, A. K. Orlandos, To ttl1ltAOV <1\. 'Aria<; 0£oSdlpa, "Apt"" EEBE, 39 - 40 (1972 - 73) [= A ••,..cfw. IIeoo'l'oed N. B. Tw,..adl:i"l1], 476 - 492.

IV

IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

6

metrios Chomatianos. Any Greek priest who consecrated such a union was to be suspended 10. The population of northern Greece was not there. fore much affected by intermarriage between Greeks and Latins; though it clearly was affected by marriages among the Orthodox of different races. There seems to be no parallel on the Greek side to the marriages contracted amid such barbaric ceremonies between some of the knights of the Latin Emperor Baldwin II and the daughters of Cuman chieftains in 1240 11 • But marriages of a more canonical nature occurred in this period between Greeks and Vlachs or Bulgarians, and between Greeks and Albanians. A lady of the Bardas family, for example, became the wife of one George Vlaznos 12. One Constantine Goudeles married into the family of Vourougos (or Bougouros) from Stanos 13. The families of Alyates and of Kabasilas (well known in Dyrrachion) became connected with the Albanian family of Ghin and his son Tanouses 14. John Doukas, the illegitimate son of the Despot Michael 11 of Epiros, married the daughter of a Vlach chieftain by the name of Taronas 16. And one Vratonas, son of Rados, described as being 'of 10. Demetrius Chomatianus, ed. J. B. Pitra, Analeeta Sacr. et Classic. Spicilegio Sole_nsi Parata, VI, Rome, 1891, col. 713 [hereafter cited as Dem. Chom.J. Cf. D. M. Nicol, Mixed Marriages in Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century, Studies in Church History, I, ed. C. W. Dugmore and C. Duggan, London and Edinburgh 1964 167-168 (reprinted 1972: see above note 8). ' , 11. The ceremony of the mingling of French and Cuman blood in 1240 is described by de Joinville (L'Histoi" d, St. Louis, ed. N. de Wailly, Paris, 1867), §§ 495 _ 496. For the mar~iag~ of Narjot de Toucy and Guillaume de Merry with the daughters of Cuman chleftams called Jonas and Saronius, see Aubry de Trois-Fontaines Chronica (Monumenta Germani.. Historica, Scriptores, XXIII), 947, 950. Cf. J. Longnon: L'empire latin tk Constantinopl. et la principauti tk Moree, Paris, 1949, 182 _ 183. 12. Dem. Chom., no. XII, cols. 55 - 58. 13. Dem. Chom., no. LI, cols. 229 - 234. For the name Vourougos, cf. no. CXXXIV, col. 539. 14. Dem. Chom., no. C, cols. 423 - 430. Constantine Kabasilas was Metropolitan of Dyrr~chion fr~m c. 1224 - 1246 (Dem. Chom., no. CLIII, col•. 617 _ 686); and a Demetrlos Kabastia. was there in 1246: A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus A\)ppuYT)VQ B" 14 (1905), 571.

'

~,"',

IS. George Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, I, 83 (CSHB). One Taronas seems to hav~ been taken prisoner by Theodore Doukas of Epiros, perhaps in Thcssaly: S. Petn~es, Jean ~pokaukos, Lettres et autres documents inedits, hvtstija russkago /Jft:hmllogiCeskago Instltuta v. Konsta.tinopole, 14 (1909), 33 1. 17. There was a local archon ~ the name ofTa.r0nas in the district orChoteachovon in the dioce.e ofBouthroton (Butrmto), who rebuilt a church of St. Nicholas as a patriarchal stavropIgion: Dem. Cbom., no. LXXX, col. 350. This church of St. Nichol.. tol) TUPOlVd is also referred to, as a 'patriarchal monastery', by John Apokaukos, cd. A. Papadopoulos-Kcra.

7

Macedonian race', married his ~aughte~ to ~ Greek called Hierakares 11. A marriage of a rather more bizarre ~Illd IS that recorded between a Greek widoW in Kerkyra and an Enghshman, described as 'an ethnic husband' 17. In southern Greece, in the Peloponnese, Athens and The?es, the . ediate consequences of the Fourth Crusade are measurable III terms :r:nquest of territory ~nd the fairly well recorded process of the imp?·tion of a colonial regime 18. In northern Greece, however, the Laun ~onquest was limited to the eastern portion, short·lived and virtually unrecorded by documentation. Thessalonica was of course in Latin hands for some 20 years, from the time of its surrender to Boniface of Montferrat until its conquest by Theodore Doukas of Epiros in 1224111. But of the Latin occupation of Thessaly, which lasted at most for some 7 or 8 years,almost nothingis known. Larissa was briefly held by a Lombard knight called WiIIiam, and it was equally briefly the seat of a Latin archbishop, on whom Pope Innocent III pinned great hopes for the conversion of the Greeks 20. Veiestino, Domokos, Boudonitza, Neopatras and other places in Thessaly are known to have been fielS of the Latin Kingdom of Thessalonica, though not for long. But there seems to be no evidence for any Latin conquest of Trikkala. All in all, there is no warrant for supposing that the north· eastern portion of Greece was much affected by the brief Latin occupation after the Fourth Crusade 21 • Greeks, Italians and Jews continued to conduct their business meus, I;\)voou
Iy and Macedonia, is said to have been totally devastated by the marauding 'natiODl', but this probably refers to the Bulgarians rather than to the Latins. Dem. Chom., no. LXXVIII, col. 335. The 'Provintia Servion' i. listed in the Partition Treaty of

---

IV

IV 8

at the ports of Halmyros, where the rights of Venetian merchants had been confirmed by imperial decree as late as 1199 22 • And the extensive Vlach population of Thessaly had already led to its being called Great Vlachia (M6yaA-1l BA-ax.ia) 28. The real change in the orientation if not in the population of Thessaly came in the years following its annexation by Michael Doukas of Epiros across the Pindos mountains, a process that was well under way as early as 1212 and which was to be completed by Michael's brother and successor Theodore after 1215"'. Further north, in Macedonia, the Latin conquest was preceded and compounded by the incursions of Vlacho-Bulgarians and Cumans led or provoked by Kalojan, the architect of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Symptomatic of the disintegration of Byzantine authority on the eve of the Fourth Crusade were the activities in this area ofindependent Vlach, Bulgarian and Byzantine adventurers/such as Dobromir Chrysos at 1204: Pa,titio T."a,um Imp,rii Romani., ed. A. Carile, Studi Vene~i.ni, VII (1965), 221 1. 109; 282. There is some .light evidence for 'Frankish' place·names in northern Greece; e.g., & .. psv66~ near Servia on the Vistritza (Haliakmon) river is thought to be a hellenization of Benevento. See M. Lascari., Survivance. dan. la toponymie de la Mact!doine des "Franc." d'avant et apre. la IVe Croi.ade, By~antion, 23 (1953) 5 - 10; St. P. Kyriakides, Ma".dDv,,,d, 3 (1953 - 55), 451. See al.o A. E. Vakalo: poulos, Td "daTea .DV llAaTaJJwva "al Tij, 'De.a, TBJJ1'tiw [MQ1cs60vl1ci) BIP",09i)K~ 37], Thessaloniki, 1972. ' 22. G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, U,kunden ~ur alteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichu d" &publik V.nedig, I, Vienna, 1856, 264 - 267. See N. A. Bees, AtOlv-Mavoui)" Ma"p6~-Ka"o",dT~~-Xpu,,0Iltpy~~, EEBE, 2 (1925), 134. 23. Benjamin ~f Tudela, writing about 1170, .eems to have been the first to apply the name Vlach.a to Thessaly. M.N. Adler, ed., The ltine,ary oJ B.njamin oJ Tud.la, London, 1912, 11. The Partitio T."arum Imp,rii Romani (ed. Carlle, 221 1. 107· 281 - 282) lists 'Orium Larisse et Provintia Blachie'. See D. A. Zakythinos, MsA.tTa; ft8pi T1l~ tltapx.lalCfI~ 6101"i),,~ !Cai TiI~ 61011C1lT1!CfI~ 6Ialpt"s~ BV Tq, Bu,aVTlvq, KPO:TSI, EEBE, 21 (1951),191 - 194. It seems probable thanhename Vlachia was first applied to ~e mountainous region of .outhern Thessaly, around Mount Othrys, including Lam.., Domokos and Haimyro.. Niketas Choniates, Histaria, ed. I. A. van Dieten (Corpus Fontium Histori.. By~antin.. [= CFHB], XIII - 2: Berlin & New York, 1975), 638 H. 49 - 51; 841 11. 13 - IS (CSHB), writes of:Td@enaAla'JJ/!"CioJea ... [iJ] 1'.,,0.At! BAa"ta. But by the mid-thirteenth century the word had come to include the whole ofThessaly. See G. C. Soulis, BAa"la, M."dA'I BAaxta, lj iv 'EAAo.d. BAa"la ['Enlat~ JIOVllCQt npaYllaTS!Q1 TfI~ 'ET~IPS!a~ Ma"s60vl1a!lv Inou6c!iv, aSlpo: /pIA.. Kat OSOA..I Athens, 1953, 489 - 497; Idem, The Thessalian Vlachia, ZRVI, 8 (= MIItmgu G. OSlTDgorsky, I: 1963),271 - 273; B. Ferjancic, Tesalija u XIII i XIV ..ku 8 _ 10· R.-J. ~oenertz, Aux origines du Despotat d'Epire et de la prlncipautc! d:Achaie: BJlUll/iDa, 43 (1973), 360 - 394, especially 370 - 376; P. Magdalino The History oJ 77tcmly 1e66 - 1393 (unpublished D. Phi!. Diss. Oxford 1975) , 24. FerjanCiC, Tesalija, 39 If. .,.

REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

9

Strumica and Prosek, Manuel Kamytzes in Macedonia and Thell8llly, who gave his daughter as wife to Chrysos, or the low-born Cypriot John Spyridonakes, who held the theme of Smolena on the Strymon 15. The population in these ill-defined border areas must always have been mixed. In the theme of Moglena (Meglen), for instance, in 1184 Vlachs, Bulgarians and Cumans were disputing their claims to graze their flocks on pasture land belonging to the Great Lavra on Mount Athos M. Alexios Ill's campaigns in 1201 - 1202 went some way to restoring order. Chrysos alone among the adventurers contrived to hold out at Prosek; and even the great Kalojan of Bulgaria agreed to sign a treaty of peace in 1202 2'. But disintegration was endemic and the arrival on the scene of the crusaders merely added one more element to the existing confusion. Niketas Choniates deplores the ravages perpetrated in Thrace and Macedonia by the 'Scythians and Vlachs'. But he is no less vindictive about those committed by his £ellow Byzantines. 'With the west divided into so many tyrannies', he writes, 'there was no end to the evil and no beginning to the good - expropriations, kidnappings, murders, exiles, and infinite horrors besides, of which the greatest number were the work of Greek tyrants .. .' 28 'The Fourth Crusade', as Charles Brand observes, 'delivered the final blow to an empire already breaking up under weak administration and rising localism' 29. But in the part of the empire with which we are concerned, in northern Greece and Macedonia, shifting populations and rapid changes of authority were the rule rather than the exception in the first half of the 13th century. The turning points were: the Latin conquest in 1204; the Vlacho-Bulgarian conquests in Macedonia before and after 1204; the campaigns of Michael and Theodore of Epiros culminating in the recapture of Thessalonica in 1224; the second Bulgarian invasion and occupation after Theodore's defeat by John Asen at Klokotnica in 1230; the annexation of the whole area to the Empire of

25. Brand, By~antium confronts the West, 126 - 135; Hoffmann, Rudi__ _ T..nmalstllllun, 47 - 50,90 - 91, 114 - liS, 122. On Dobromir Chrysos see V. N. Zlatanki," Ism}. na bulgarskata d,!a.a pre~ .,.tiniu wkOVl, Ill, Sofia, 1940, 120 - 132, 136 - 139, 143 -145; Gy. Moravcsik, By~antinoturcica, I1: Sprachmu tkr Tflrk.6lker in ... hYalltioisch", Quell.n", Berlin, 1958, 119. 26. Brand, op. cit., 64 - 65. 27. Brand, op. cit., 134 - 135. 28. Niketas Choniates, Historia, 638 11. 52 - 55 (CFHB); 841 (CSH.B). . . '., 29. Brand, op. cit., 156. " ~

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

11

10

Nicaea by John Batatzes after 1241 ; and finally the resurgence of Epiros under Michael Il before the decisive battle of Pelagonia in 1259. Any attempt to examine the nature or the fortunes of the population affected by these fluctuations has to proceed by piecing together inadequate and incoherent scraps of evidence. Epiros and Thessalonica produced no contemporary historian; and the court historian of Nicaea, George Akropolites, regarded their inhabitants and more especially their rulers as nothing more than rebels against the divinely-ordained emperors in the east. Nor is there any dossier comparable to the cartulary of the monastery of Lembos which provides such a wealth of material for the local history of the district of Smyrna in the 13th centuryao. The nearest parallel in the way of evidence for northern Greece at this period is the collection of documents concerning the Thessalian monastery of Makrinitissa and its dependencies, which were endowed by the family of Maliasenos. These have been well exploited by Bozidar Ferjanl!ic 31. But they are more informative about the local magnates than about the population of the district 32. There is, however, one major source which remains to be more thoroughly exploited, and that is the remarkable collection of case histories brought before the tribunal of Demetrios Chomatianos, Archbishop of Ochrida and All Bulgaria, between 1217 and 1235. A critical edition with commentary of the writings of Deme trios Chomatianos is an urgent desideratum. The text as printed by Cardinal Pitra in 1891 is appallingly full of errors 33. It does no justice to the great scholar, lawyer and churchman whose court at Ochrida was 'an Areopagus or oracle of civil and canon law' for thousands of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians and Albanians in this age of political uncertainty and social upheaval. From Kerkyra in the west to Drama in the east, from Dyrrachion in the north to Ioannina and Arta in the 30. er. Ahrweiler, op. cit., Travaux et Memoim, I, I - 204; Angold, op. cit., passim. 31. Miklosich and MUller, Acta et Diplomata, IV, 330 - 440. See B. FerjanCic, Porodica MaJiasina v Tesaliji, {bomik Filosofskog Fakulteta, 7 (Belgrade, 1963),241 - 249; idem, T..alija, 52 - 53, 73 - 78. F. BariSic, Diplomata tesalijskih manastira Makrinitisa i Nea Petra: Traits specifiques du Diplomatarion de. monasthes de Macrinitissa et de Nc!a Petra, {RVI, 16 (1975), 69 - 92, 93 - 103. 32. A number of these documents do, however, provide evidence offamine, poverty ~ depopulation in the district of Velestino at a later period, in 1271 - 1272. MikloIich and MUlier, op. &it., 369 - 371, 379 - 382, 399 - 402, 402 _ 404, 407 - 409 412 - 414. Cf. P. Charanis, On the Social Structure ... Byzsl., 12 (1951), 113 _ 114: ' FCljantiC, Tesalija, 89 - 91. 33. See above, note la.

h plaintiffs and defendants brought their problems to the humane :':; iearned Archbishop of Ochrida. Their case histories, about 150 . mber reveal that for the most part life went on as usual. People In nu ' . , . ot married and dIvorced, downes were arranged, murders were comnnt;ed and orphans were cared for, property was bought and sold, the land s cultivated and sheep and cattle were fed and watered. But several w: the cases heard testify to the mixed and moving population of the ~arge area concerned; and some provide valuable information of a more specific nature a4. The sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 not unnaturally produced a flood of refugees from the capital. Some went east and some west. Demetrios Chomatianos estimated that at least half of those who fled if not the greater number found their way to Epiros, among them men of senatorial rank 35. The most illustrious refugee was the Emperor Alexios III himself, though his escape took place before the event of 1204. The record of his adventures and fortunes has recently been set straight by Pere Loenertz and Giinter Prinzing, from the conflicting and sometimes fanciful accounts of Niketas Choniates and George Akropolites 36. What is of some interest here is that, after the takeover of Thessalonica by Boniface of Montferrat in August or September 1204, Alexios III and his wife were rounded up in Thessaly, stripped of their insignia and settled with a pension in Halmyros. But then, during Boniface's absence in the Argolid, the people of Thessalonica rebelled and the lower part of the city was briefly held by a Vlach called Cusmen (or Etzuismenos), whom Kalojan had made governor

34. The fullest account of the career and work of Demetrios Chomatianos with the most extensive bibliography is that by L. Stiernon in Diclionnaire d'hisloi.. et ,u gitlJll"llPhN ec,/lsiastiques, XIV (1960), cols. 199 - 205. The bibliography is supplemented by Stiemon in ee~(11<evrt"iJ It).o:n:a,6.la, IV (1964), cols. 1064 - 1066. A further source of evidencerfor the population of northern Greece at this time is the voluminous correspondence of the older contemporary of Chomatianos, John Apokaukos, Metropolitan of Naupaktos: bibliography in Nicol, Despotal. of Epitos, Appendix II, 217 - 219, supplemented by L. Stiernon, Les origines du Despotat d'Epire. Apropos d'un livre recent, REB, 17 (1959), 93 - 95. 35. Dem. Chom., no. CXIV, col. 490. 36. Loenertz, Aux origines du Despotat d'Epire ... , Byzanlion, 43 (1973), 370 - 376; G. Prinzing, Die Bedeutung Bulgariens und Serbiens in den Jahrm 1204 - 1219 im { _ hllllg mit tier Entslehung und Entwicklung tier byzantiniscllln T eilstaatm naeh tier EianMIIr KlIIISlantinopels irifolge ,us 4. Krew:zuges [Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 121 Munich, 1972, 1 - 24.

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

13

12

of Prosek in the Vardar valley 37. Boniface, whose wife had been besieged in the citadel of Thessalonica, returned to find that order had been restored. But he took his revenge not only on the Thessalonians but also on Alexios and Euphrosyne who were almost certainly implicated in the revolt. They were sent as hostages to Genoa, to the care of Guglielmo, the eldest son of Boniface, an event which the Greeks took to be a 'national' disgrace and insult 38. Not until some years later was the emperor ransomed by his cousin Michael Doukas of Epiros and brought to live in Arta for a while, before making his way to the Seljuq Sultan at Adalya, where he was finally captured by Theodore Laskaris 39. Niketas Choniates gives a long and circumstantial account of the escape of his own family from Constantinople, first to Thrace and then to Bithynia 40. But the plight of the Patriarch John Kamateros is of greater interest. He too made his way to Thrace, but not without a motive, 'destitute and vagrant' though he may have appeared 41. For in the circumstances of the time the Patriarch was not alone in feeling that 'the only empire left' in a crumbling world was the Empire of Bulgaria. As Demetrios Chomatianos expressed it in later years, 'the authority of empire in the west was at that moment almost entirely concentrated in Bulgaria. The Emperor of the Romans himself, fleeing from Constantinople, escaped there, and the then Patriarch of Constantinople, the late John Kamateros, went there to have discussions with the Emperor of the Bulgarians as well as the Bulgarian Patriarch. At the time it was quite natural to recognise such leadership ... since people had despaired of the restoration of Byzantine rule' 42. In such conditions 37. Niketas Choniates, Historia, 619 (CFHB); 818 (CSHB). On (':usmen see Prinzing, op.
_4::

44.

was the Greco-Bulgarian anti-Latin sympraxis formed, of which Alexandra Krantonellis has made a special study 43. None the less, in other parts of the provinces, especially in western Macedonia and northern Greece, we hear as much about refugees from the Bulgarians as of refugees from the Latins. The nightmare that people could never forget in that part of the world was the Bulgarian occupation - iI BOuAyaptKT) E~oucria - or the 'revolt of the Bulgarians' ('tfjc; tOW BOuAyapOlv u1tocrmcriac;), when the world was thrown into a fearful confusion 44. Those generic Byzantine terms for social and political 'disturbance - KocrlltKT) 'mpaxi], cruyxucrtC;, KocrlltKT) BUSAAa - refer in this period as often as not to the devastation and disruption caused by the Bulgarians, or by what Chomatianos describes as the 'Drougoubitic tyranny' 45. The occasional or passing reference in the sources to the fate of an individual refugee throws a little light on the movement of people that followed on the sack of Constantinople. One Theodore Makrembolites for example, is found destitute as a paroikos and displaced person (paTe~ pidemos) in faraway Kerkyra after the capture by the Latins of his native city of Constantinople 46. Theodore Demnites from Anatolia 43. Alexandra Krantonellis, 'H "UTa TW. AaTi.w. iAl~.o-povl1'ae.>i Lleovyovpm>
p:

",b IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

15

14

settled in the theme of Acheloos in Epiros 4." A monk, perhaps the. abbot, was hounded out of his monastery of HOSIOS L?~kas by the. LatI~s and befriended by the Bishop of Naupaktos 48 • FamIlies wer~ split up In the confusion. One poor lady in Epiros despaired of ever findI~g her husband. She assumed that he was either dead or had found Ius way to Asia Minor because of 'the scattering of people that had followed the Latin invasion and the escape of many to Anatolia, where Byzantine authority still prevailed' 49. The list of refuge.es ~ig?t be exte?ded if one could safely draw conclusions from the dIstrIbutIOn of famIly names. It may simply be by chance, but one is sur~rised to fin.d a Kantakouze?os !n Ioannina, a Lakapenos or a Gabras III Macedoma, or an AchyraItes In Berroia 50. The case of the city of Berroia provides some indication of the plight of communities caught in the cross currents of the early 13th century. The 'provintia Verie' is listed in the Partitio Romaniae together with Dobrochoubista and Sthlanitsa 51; and it was one of the first places annexed TO Kee"vewv pETa 't~v aAwaw T11t; naTf!irSot; O1hov Tijt; 3t€etruvv,uov o1}J.a(j~

VO""OMW; "al

KWVGTaVn-

I'~Mv T, I'~~al'w;

l;covTo;. This document was published (from Cod. Isaac Mesopotamites, fols. 71 - 72) by Papadopoulos-Kerameus, op. cit., in ShoTnilc

state} ... Lamanskomu, I, no. I, p.29. This version carries the date, 7 June indiction 3 (= 1230), and the signatures of Michael, Bishop of Sthlanitza, and Theodore, Bishop of Grevena. 47. Dem. Chom., no. CXVIII, col. 503. 48. N. A. Bees, 'H Mov~ tO~ 'Oa;o1l Aomen tO~ :EtE'PUDt01l, BN], 11 (1934 - 35), Abt. IV, 188 - 189 (citing an unpublished document of John Apokaukos); Nicol, Despotate of Epiros, 78; E. G. Stikas, To ol"o~ol""OV xeov,,,ov Tt)<; Movt); 'Oulo. AovI
"SS.

B iface of Montferrat after his entry into Thessalonica in 1204. by L ~~n bishop was installed in Berroia 52. But it soon passed into the A da I f Kalo;an and his Vlachs and Bulgarians, as Niketas Choniates han so " . . IS probably to be set at 1206 53 • Some I t T he date of thIS event Ra~ . , . memories of it are preser.ved III DemetrIos ChomatJanos. So~e of t~e I ding citizens of BerroIa were arrested and transported WIth theIr f:~ilies 'to the Danube', that is to Bulgaria proper 54. Others were killed, or taken prisoner, or escape~ as refuge~s; although s?me seem actually have taken refuge in BerrOIa when dnven out of theIr homes elsewhere ~o, the 'cosmic horror' 55. The Latin bishop was among those who fled (~e was later to become Archbishop of Thessalonica). His place was taken by a Bulgarian bishop, and the city was administered by a Bulgarian governor (apJ(.l1y6~) 56. It has been alleged that the conquering Bulgarians made a deliberate attempt in Berroia as elsewhere 'to change the hellenic character of the whole district"'. Just how hellenic that character was about 1204 is debatable. One of the pertinent documents concerning the Bulgarian occupation of Berroia concerns a lady by the name of Voleslava, her brother called Komanos and her sister called Myroslava. Voleslava's husband, Leon, was the son of one Radomir 58. These are scarcely hellenic names. And yet these people, in their different ways, suffered as a result of the Bulgarian occupation. If the city of Berroia reverted to Latin rule after the death of Kalojan in 1207, as some historians assert, there seems to be no trace of the fact 52. Niketas Choniates, Historia, 600 (CFHB); 794 (CSHB). Chionides, op.
.... IV

IV

16

REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

in the documentary sources 59. Chomatianos makes no mention of such a second Latin occupation. But the evidence is clear that, by 1220 ifnot before, Berroia had been 'liberated' by the strong arm ofTheodor~ Komnenos Doukas of Epiros, who had already taken Ochrida and Prilep from the Bulgarians and Neopatras, Lamia, Servia and Platamona from the Latins. The terminus ante quem for its liberation is given in a document cited once again by Chomatianos, from which it is clear that in 1220 the theme of Berroia was governed by a Dux, Constantine Pegonites, appointed by Theodore 60. It remained a part of Theodore's dominions, which were elevated to the status of an empire after his conquest of and coronation in Thessalonica. The names of several of its Greek governors are known in this period 61. After Theodore's defeat in 1230 the whole area was overrun by the armies of John Asen 11. In his celebrated triumphal inscription in the church of the Forty ~9. Chionides, ?p. c~t., 28 - 31. T?e evidence seems to depend on the supposed exIstence of a Latm BIshop of BerrOla after 1207. It is true that Pope Innocent III ~e~ned the prov~nce of the Latin Primate of Thessalonica in the year 1212 as including Citrensem, Beflensem, .Campo~e~ensem e.tc: (Acta [n?ocentiiPP. [//(1198-1216), ed. P. Th. Halu!tynskYJ [Pont.fic.a Comm.ss.o ad red.gendum Coclicum Iuris Cnonici Orientalis, Fontes ser. Ill, vol. Ill, Vatican, 1944, no. 185, pp. 414 _ 417 an~ commen~ 417-419 [=Migne, PL, CCXVI, col. 555]). Butin 1213 the Bishop BerrOla ,:"as Greek, as were the Bishops of Kitros, Kassandreia and other places .n the provmce, though they seem to have resided in Thessalonica and to have cooperated ~th the Latin. administration of the Dux George Phrangopoulos, who had been appOInted by Mafia (Margaret of Hungary), the widow of Boniface of Montferrat. De~. Chom., ?o. CVI, col. 454. See also the commentary on this document by ~. Dnnov, 0 nJekotorych trudach Dimitrija Chomatiana kak istoriteskom matefla~e, VV, 2 (1895), 15 - 23, especially 18 - 19. Guarino (the 'Carinos' of Chomallanos), who became Latin Archbishop of Thessalonica in November 1208 had f~erly been Bishop of Verissa, i.e. of Brysis, not of Berroia. See R. Janin, L'.!glise latine a Thessalo~que ~e 1204 a la conqu!te turque, REB, 16 (1958), 206 _ 216; G. Fedalto, La ch.esa lallna nel regno di Tessalonica 1204 _ 1224 1423 _ 1430 EEBX 41 (1974:), 88 - 102. ' "

'!

60. Dem. Chom., ~o. _LXXXIX, col. 395: ... i"paenJe,a &lo teeqxJ."~B1I lrYe a".., "."ovOTa pw "aTa ri~pa rp4!oVTa Tij, ""I!01l<11/, l.li"'T. 7J' [= 12201 TO Iv "aed TOU "."aMlJoE~TdT~. liov..o, B'eeola, "ve06 Kow<1Tanlvov T06 lI7Jyo.lTov, IldT£eO. lii naed Meow Tql "A7j8., pi. "oAMi., Aoydliow lit TOU "daTeov B£eeola, ..• Cf. Dem. ~., no.. CXXVII, col. 525 (for Constantine Pegonites as Dux of Berroia); Chionides, op. CJ~., 85. For Theodore's conquests from the Latins and Bulgarians before 1224, see N.col, D.spotate of Epiros, 57 - 60; Prinzing, .p. cil., 114 _ 115

=

..!l. ~tantine 91)'

~

Pegonit,:,; John Plytos, who was at various times Du~ of Ochrida as) well.as. Berro.a, and muQZon of the Emperor Theodore (see below, note (. Basderos) Tzamas, described as a gamb,os of the Emperor Theodore' Hstarc/uJ. See Chionides, op. cit., 85 - 87 and references. '

17

s at Trnovo, Asen was proud to record his conquest of 'all the Greek, Serbian and Albanian alike' 82. Thessalan. however and with it probably Berroia, remained under Greek loDlca, ' ' . the Empire of Thessalomca d .nI'stration ' Asen allowed a shadow of anll , . . · ger on under the rule to IIn . of. Theodore s brother, Manuel, . hiS son-mI . and the ghost empire mcIuded Thessaly and Eplros. In other aW ~cts Asen went out of his way to be tolerant to his Greek subjects resp to win their co-operatIOn. . Akro~o j'Ites wn.tes . h'~m a gI ' . and owmg testimonial on this count and contr.asts hiS ~umamty with the savagery of I · predecessors, which 'made him the fnend not only of the Bulgarians m 'A but also of the Greeks and other races . But Asen died in 1241; and the subsequent weakening of Bulgarian authority gave the emperor in Nicaea, John Batatzes, the chance to extend his empire into Europe. Berroia with Thessalonica passed into the possession of the Empire of Nicaea by 1246. Such were the changing fortunes of one Greek city in this period. In Epiros itself, in Akarnania and Aitolia, there were by comparison conditions of stability; and refugees arriving there must have found it to be, as one of its bishops described it, 'a paradise and a garden of roses, offering easy access to those of good intent' M. There was indeed a considerable traffic in refugees or emigrants from the Peloponnese to Epiros after the Latin conquest. It was a one-way traffic, since the Latins did not take kindly to visitors coming to the Morea from the north. One case in particular demonstrates the difficulties of communication between the two parts of Greece. It is that of the Despot John Chamaretos who put up a stubborn resistance to the Latin invaders of the Peloponnese in 1204 and for a time managed to retain a Greek enclave 8&. He was doubtless a relative, perhaps a son, of the better known Leo Chamaretos whose family owned estates in Lakonia; but there is apparently no evidence for his existence apart from that of Demetrios Chomatianos, for all that he held the rank of Despot and was held in high esteem for his patriotic devotion to Romania (:7t!1o. T~" ·POJ/oIcwlo.1/

Ma~ti:om Odrin to Dra~,

62. Zlatarski, [slorija, Ill, 339£., and Appendix V, 587 - 596. 63. George Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 43; Nicol, Despolate of Epiros, 111. 64. R.-J. Loenertz, Lettre de Georges Bardan~, Mt!tropolite de Corcyre, au Patriarche oecumffiique Germain II 1226 - 1227 c. (1228 c.), EEBX, 33 (1964), 116 11. 434 - 437 (reprinted in Loenertz, Byz:anlina ., F,_o-Oraeca, ed. P. Schreiner, Rome, 1970, 499): "'''aelnllW,.t."de "ai e6lJOI. 'l'VTaAul HOTd"ol'D' "oe' >!pdW ...... " ....... ~ povAo,.wql ed<1TTj1I b{J,li06aa njv slaoliov. 65. Dem. Chom., no. XXII, cols. 87 - 98.

IV

IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

18 _1._ _t._)". Chamaretos was duped GVr,mptJuu"" . into G marrying D . the. daughter

. fluential neighbour in Lakoma, eorge almonOloannes, a . 67Id of h·Ism h' meless collaborator with the Latm enemy . n ue course, when it s a lear that his life was in danger from the treachery of his wife and :as with Doukas . Theodore . lathe:-in-Iaw, Chamaretos fled to take refuge D . E iros. Theodore wrote a personal letter to almonOloannes on behis honoured guest. It spoke of plans for of the Pe. loponnese and it rebuked Daimonoio.a~nes for keepmg hIs ~aughter there instead of allowing her to come and Jom her husband. EPlroS, Theodore wrote was full of countless refugees from the Peloponnese, many of them 'persons of rank and wealth, and the lady would certainly find herself among friends and compatriots 66. The letter had to be entrusted to a special messenger. He went by sea to Lakonia and there contacted a Greek agent who had permission from the Latins to receive communications from Epiros. It being thought too dangerous for Theodore's man to deliver his message to Daimonoio_ annes in person, it was given to a priest who, in the secrecy of the local church and witnessed by the Greek bishop of Maina, undertook to convey it and report back. The rest of the story need not concern us. It is enough tosay that Daimonoioannes was very rude to the bearer of Theodore's letter and that John Chamaretos was eventually granted a divorce and set free to marry a less treacherous wife. But this document reveals

~:If ~f

th~ libe~ation

66. Dem. Chom., col. 92: ... n}o lavTrW "eO, n}o •Pwpa.{av ellyvwpo",.,.". •••. John Chamaretos appears not to be mentioned in B. Ferjanci~, Despoti u Vizantiji i ]lihwsIOTJltlSkim zlmijama [Vizantolciki Inst., 8], Belgrade, 1960. But cf. V. Laurent, Us hulks mllriquu dons la sigillographi. hyzanliM, Athens, 1932, 22 - 23 (='Ell'1"",d, 4 (1931), 210 - 211); R. Guilland, Etudes sur I'histoire administrative de I'empire byzantin: le despote, &0lt6.1'\~, REB, 17 (1959), 76 (= Guilland, Red..,ches sur les In.ti",/imu hyzantines, 11, Berlin, 1967,14). N. A. Bees, Zur Sigillographie der byzantinischen Themen Peloponnes und Hellas, W, 21 (1914), part iii, 197, suggested that John was a lOll of Leo Chamaretos. On the Chamaretos family, see N. A. Bees, Oi XapdgEro•. •IarOf/....w ....1 " ...aAoy.,.o,. '"1pelwpa, Athens, 1903; and on Leo Chamaretos, see D. A. Zakythinos, Le Despolal gTIG de Mo,h, I, revised ed., Variorum: London, 1975, 126, 342; A. Bon, Le PIlopo,.,,;.. hyzantinjusqu'.n /201, Paris, 1951, 123 _ 124, 172 _ 173, 204 (no. 67); D. Jacoby, op. &il., Travaw:./ Mimoius, 11 (1967),466 _ 467; idem,op. cit., Americmt Hutorical Reoillw, 78 (1973), 883. 67. On later members of the (Eu)Daimonoioannes family, all connected with Monemvasia or the Morea, see Zakythinos, Le Despola/ gTIG, I and 11, London, 1975, iadez I.V.; Bon, "". cif., 124. 68. Dem. Chom., cola. 93 - 94: Aadv"de ov.. ~pop oi 'roo II~ -rfi ~f.l8Tle'l .wA6 ~o, ....1 mM" slal "Of!' ~fJIIW 01 nHOiiro. HQI """OfIqrJa&aapWo' ....1 Irnpm •..

19

the total lack of co?tact bethwe~nflthe tW f 0 fiParts o~ GreEec~ in the 13th century, and it testIfies to t e m kux 0 Ire ugees . mto plros from the PeIoponnese , which must have ta en p ace m the first years of the century. The Gulf of Corinth was the dividing line; and here the coast-line of Aitolia was particularly vulnerable to attac~. Many of the Greek inhab. ts of the northern shore of the Gulf WIthdrew to the safety of the Itan N k r d' . hills. The citizens of aupa tos Ive m constant expectation of attack_ The Bishop of Naupaktos, John Apokaukos, writing about 1218, delores the city's lack of defences and walls. He describes how its citip ns made their way to the mountains every night with all their beze d d . I' longings, and by day move own agam Ike a column of ants. Even the walled towns in the neighbourhood were empty of men to defend them. They had run away for fear of being captured 69. By 1228 the metropolis of Naupaktos, which had once been well endowed with quantities of paroikoi inscribed on its books, had been sadly reduced in numbers. Depopulation had led to a disastrous fall in its revenues. Its clergy, once numbering lOO, then numbered less than ten 70. These laments of Apokaukos are reminiscent of the more celebrated Hypomnestikon or complaint of Michael Choniates about the depopulated and impoverished state of Athens in 1198 71 . As in Athens, so in Naupaktos 20 or 30 years later, much of the local misery was self-induced and could not be blamed on foreigners. Naupaktos had been impoverished by ruthless taxation and oppressed by its governor, Constantine Doukas, the brother of Theodore. But the fear of invasion from across the water was a new factor and a new cause of depopulation. The statistics gathered by Hc!lene Antoniadis-Bibicou in her remarkable study of deserted villages in Greece do not in fact point to the early 13th century as a particularly troubled period in this respect. It was the second part of the century that witnessed large-scale abandonment of settlements notably in the 69. John Apokaukos, ed. V. G. Vasilievsky, Epirotica saeculi XIII, VV, 3 (1896), no. 1, p. 242 11. 13 - 24. For the difficulties created by 'Latin piracy', see ibid., 266 11. 26 - 30. 70. Apokaukos, ed. Vasilievsky, no. 29, pp. 296 _ 299. 71. Michael Choniates, ·Y"Op"'1a-r."d. el, TO" {JaaoUa "VI! 'A 1'.w Kop"""w, cd. G. Stadtmtiller, Michael Choniates, M.tropolit von Athen (ca. 1138 _ ca. 1222), Rome, 1934 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 33. 2], 282 - 305. Cf. Brand, op. &i/., 149 _ 152; K. M. Setton, Athens in the Later Twelfth Century, Speculum, 19 (1944), 179 _ 207, especially 193 - 195 (reprinted in K. M. Setton, Athens in the Middl, Agts, Variorum: London, 1975).

All,,,,"

IV

IV 20

Aegean and Ionian islands 19. But the evidence of Apokaukos is enough to show that in his time the population of the coastal area of Aitolia at least was much diminished. The Chronicle of Galaxidi, for what it is worth, gives a vivid picture of Frankish fleets raiding the coastal cities of Patras, Naupaktos (Epachto), Vitrinitza and Vostitza, and of the capture of Galaxidi, whose inhabitants were put to the sword. The whole district was deserted and the refugees took to the hills and built houses on the summits 13. The refugees naturally tended to make for the fortified cities in the interior of the country. One such city may indeed owe its origin, or at least its expansion, to this fact. The most substantial and revealing document on refugee settlment in northern Greece after the Latin conquest concerns the city of Ioannina. It is contained among the voluminous papers of the same John Apokaukos, under whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction the bishopric of Ioannina came. It was published by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in 1891 and dated to March 1217, though Lucien Stiernon has justifiably argued for amending the year to 1227 14• In essence it is a confirmation by the Metropolitan of Naupaktos of the arrangements made for the settlement of refugees in loannina by Michae1 Doukas (presumably just after 1204), which were later legalised by korismos of Michael's brother Theodore, the emperor in Thessalonica. We are told that Ioannina was little but a 'small town' (IlOAiolOV) before 1204. When the 'cataclysm' of the Fourth Crusade burst upon Constantinople many of its citizens were murdered, but others were deprived of all their belongings and driven (like Adam) destitute into exile. The disaster was general. It affected not only Constantinople but 72. HeJOue Antoniadis-Bibicou, Villages d6sertes en Grece. Un bilan provisoire, in Villagts disertls et hislai,. economiqu. Xle - XVIIle siecle, Paris, 1965 [Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes - VIe section. Centre de recherches historiques. Les Hommes et la ~erre, .XI], 343 - 417, especially 364. In the first half of the thirteenth century only nme VIllages appear to have been deserted, as against 57 in the second half of the century. 73. Xeov,,w,. d.b,doTOP raA~..diov, ed. K. N. Sathas, Athens, 1914, 204 - 205; Xeo,,,,o TOjj raAa,.cdlov, ed. G. Valetas, Athens, 1944, 109. On the uses of the Chronicle of Galaxidi as a historical source, see P. Tivcev, Nouvelles donnees sur les guerres des Bulgares contre Byzanee au temps de Tsar Samuel Byzantinobulgariea III (1969), 37 - 48. " 74. Text in A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, nspi cruvollClalloO T6'>V 'Irouvv(vOlv "STU ~v . 41pa'Y~llCljv lCaTalCTl)alv Tf!~ KroVatUVTIVOult6ASro~, tUEE, 3 (1891), 451 - 455; ~ted m A. Vakalopoulos, II1IYB~ Tij. 'IaToela~ TOV Niov 'EAA1J1',a!-'ov, I, Thes.alo· niki, 1965, 47 - 49. For the date of the document, see L. Stiernon, op. cit., REB, 17

REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

21

also all the towns and cities of Asia a~d the west as well as those in the north and south. All these refugees, like swarms of bees turned out of their hives, attempted to set up new colonies. The second Noah who saved some of them from the flood was Michael (Doukas). It was he who transformed the small town of Ioannina into a fortress (kastron) to be the ark of salvation in which they could securely settle, each with his allotted property according to his social status. Had it not been for Michael's heroic efforts not only would this random collection of strangers who gathered here have been destroyed by the attack of the foreigners, but in addition the native inhabitants too would have been driven from their homes, if they had contrived to escape the murderous hands of the 'gentiles'. Wherefore the people who found safety here acclaim the late (Michael) as their protector and saviour. Some of the natives, however, ~re wickedly ungrateful, selfishly and jealously wanting to expel the refugees and reclaim what they consider to be their land within the fortress. Worse still some of them threaten to dig up and disinter the mortal remains of the forefathers and children of the refugees who have died and been buried there. These threats, says the good bishop, must cease. The refugees were settled there under guarantee of their saviour (Michael), and their rights have been confirmed by decree of the Emperor Theodore Doukas, which decree must be obeyed whether or not the objectors like it. No one has any proprietary claims by heredity to the fortress of loannina except its founder (Michael) who gave his life for it. It is a fair inference from this document that the subsequent growth and prosperity of the city and fortress ofIoannina began with its foundation as a refugee settlement soon after 1204. The name of its 'founder' soon became linked with its patron saint, the Archangel Michael. By 1285, the year in which Naupaktos was taken by the Italians, loannina was important enough to be made a metropolis in its own right; and in 1319 and 1321 it was granted extensive previleges of independence by chrysobull of the Emperor Andronikos II 15. (1959), 108 n. 29. Cf. M. Dendias, 4IEVtI;EI~ IlEtal;u autox96vrov lCOi ltpoa.puyrov tv 'HnElp", IlEta to 1204 lCai 1'1 QICoAou91)9Eiaa tltO\lClatllC1j ltOAItIIC1'1, Alii d.1 VIII Coops.. In/lrnaz,onal. di Studi Bizantini 19tH, 11 (1953), 302 - 306; Nieol, D.spoItJI. of Epiros, 42, 45 - 46; L. Vranousis, 'IaToe",a "al Tonoyeall',,,d TO;; Meaa,,,,,,,xov KdaTOOV TOW '[w"""t".w, Ioannina, 1968, 12 - 13. 75. V. Laurent, Les regest.s des actes d.. patriarcat d. Conslantinopl., I: Les aellS tits patriarch.., fase. IV: Les rlgestes d. 1208 0 1309, Paris, 1971, no. 1482. Miklosich and Milller, Acta.t Diplomata, I, 469 - 470; V, 77 - 84. Cf. F. Dolger, RlglSI.1I dtr KGUmwk."d.n des ostramisch.n Rliches, IV, nos. 2109, 2361, 2412, 2454, 2460. K. D. Mertzica,

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

23

22

Ioannina seems to have escaped the attentions of Latins and Bulgarians alike. But to the north and east of it the Bulgarian occupation left its mark and the conquests there of Theodore of Epiros after 1215 raised man; problems of administration and communication among a population that had seen many changes. One of the first problems that faced Demetrios Chomatianos after his appointment to the see of Ochrida in 1217 was that of the clergy in his large diocese· who had been ordained orinstaHed by Bulgarian bishops. For at the time of the Bulgarian invasion of western Macedonia the Greek bishops had either fled or had been deposed and replaced by Bulgarian-speakers, or 'Bulgaroepiscopi from Zagora'. The matter was ultimately resolved by a reasonable compromise at a synod convened in 1219, at which Theodore was represented by the Bishop of Ioannina 76. The ecclesiastical and political aspects of this affair and jts resolution have most recently been carefully analysed by Prinzing 77. He also touches on the question oflanguage, which is perhaps the most interesting part of the problem so far as concerns the composition of the local population. Cuius regio eius religio. It was taken for granted in the 13th century that the language of the church, or at least of its hierarchy was the language of the political authority. The Bulgaroepiscopi had presumahly ministered to their flocks in Slavonic. The Greek bishops, returning triumphant on the wave of their ruler's victories, ministered in Greek. But in truth a knowledge of both, if not of several, languages would probably have been a desirable asset. Petitioners or clients came from far and wide to the court of Demetrios Chomatianos. A large number of them have patently Slav names. Yet there is no sure evidence that either he or his colleagues knew any language but Greek. As hothouse flowers of Byzantine higher education they had been brought up to regard Bulgarian as a synonym for barbarian. George Bardanes (later Bishop of Kerkyra), the cultured pupil of Michael Choniates, and himself a refugee from the Latins, was serving as a deacon in the diocese of Grevena about 1218. He found the district

be fruitful and weH cultivated. Grevena had a large and thriving t:pulation; and its cathedral was rich, beautiful and staffed by eduPated cultured priests. His only vexation was the lack of what he calls ~heHe~ic company and finesse' 78. Elsewhere he speaks of his thirst for the magic words of his patron John Apokaukos, beset as he is by 'the burning boil of barbarism', where he is forced to train wild olives into cultivated trees and to make barbarophones partake of fine heHenic speech 79. Apokaukos had hoped to secure the election of Bardanes to the bishopric of Vonitza in Akarnania. This would be the means of bringing him back to civilisation and 'dragging him out of the depths of the Bulgarian region' 80. Both learned gentlemen prided themselves on being clever enough to know that the name Vonditza (or Vonitza) meant a fishhook (li'YICIO"tPOV) in the Bulgarian language 81 • But such academic etymologising was merely a part of the game of Byzantine epistolography and cannot be taken to indicate any working knowledge of the language spoken by the Bulgarian inhabitants of northern Greece. Chomatianos may have had some scholarly acquaintance with it, for he complains at length about its inadequacy for the expression of theological terms 82. And his views about the deficiencies of Bulgarian law are expressed more than once. Concerning a document drawn up by the Bulgarian head of the church in Berroia during the period of the 'Drougobitic tyranny', Chomatianos asks: 'How could anyone take this to be a legal document? The Bulgarians are barbarians... to whom the law is what they want it to be. No deed drawn up by a barbarian can have the force of law' 83. Such sentiments were of course fully shared 78. Letter of Bardanes to Apokauk"", ed. Vasilievsky, VV, 3 (1896), 248 - 250; 249 11. 32 - 33: ... OV~..O~ TOO. OiAEa. 'l'VX~p dpOeclmov ~.oo."pe.w., dveu pO.", Tij!; lAA".",i'j, .vol',Ata~ xul ""e'TTonlTo~ ... Cf. Prinzing,op. cit., 145; and for the circumstances, seeJ. Hoeck and R.-J. Loenertz, Nikoalos-N.ktarios VOR OtraRIo, Abl VOR Casot.. B..triig. der ost-westlichen B.ziehungen unter Innoz.nz: 1/1. und Friedrieh 1/., Ettal, 1965 [=Studia Patristica et Byzantina, 11], 119 - 120. VakalopoulOll, 'Iatoeta TO'; Niau 'EAA~p,ul'o,;', 69.

To a.Ut.pov x.pua61l0uAAov toO 'Avapovilcou toO B' toO nuMlIo1..6you alii: tllV tICIC~naiuv

'H"'''ewn,.q <Eatla,

1,2 (1952), 115 - 118. 76. Dem. Chom., nOlI. VIII, CXLVI, cols. 39 - 48, 563 - 570; re-edited with Bulgarian transJation by P. Nicov, PrinOll kum istoriceskoto izvoroznanie na Bulgaria i kum istorijata na bulgarskata curkva (Deux sources de I'histoire de I'c!glise bulgare), SJlisIl1li6 "" B,dgarskoto Akademij. "" Naukile, XX (1921), 42 - 59. Cf. L. Thalloczy, C. Jir«ek, M. Sulflay, A&ta et Diplomat. JUs Albani.. Medi.. Astalis illwtrantia, I, Vienna, 1913, no. 151, p. 47. 77. Prinzing, op. &it., 139 - 154, where the older literature i. cited. tdiv ')OlIIwlVOlv,

79. Bardanes, ed. Vasilievsky (see note 78), 257 11. 2 - 3; dy.o6i~ ~ mau80i pe ""I'weOouuav T;j~ PaePaeOT'ITO~ q>A'YI'0pl\•. Ibid., 257 11. 11 - 14. 80. Ibid., p. 25011. 35 - 36: ... "al a~Td~ o~x laxov PdB_ ToV.8ou).~ 7eAtJMlro~ dveA,wuat as ,-rgd; Ep.E. . . 81. Ibid., 249 11. 3 - 4, 250 11. 33 - 34. Cf. H. Grc!goire, Deux TWO IEoualOCovtwp, xai •Pwpalow .o~ dYVOOMOW ......niml
ro.'x

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

25

24

by the rival empire in Nicaea, whose spokesman Ge~rge Akropolites delighted in ridiculing the 'Bulgarian or rather barb an an foundations' on which Theodore Doukas had built his so-called empire in Thessalonica 84. The Patriarch at Nicaea likewise denounces Chomatianos as 'a Bulgarian bishop, a foreigner and untutored in the discipline of the church', and rates the Orthodox inhabitants ofOchrida as 'barbarian' and hyperborean Christians 85. Chomatianos, who was a greater scholar and a more tolerant man than the Patriarch Manuel I, could afford to ignore such insults. But when reading the works of Chomatianos one is often put in mind of his distinguished predecessor, Theophylaktos of Ochrida. Both prelates felt sufficiently at home to write lives of St. Clement. But neither would have relished being called 'a Bulgarian bishop'. The extension of Greek rule into this area was somewhat ephemeral. But it brought the Greeks into direct contact not only with Bulgarians but also with the Albanians, or the inhabitants of Arbanon (or Albanon). The problem of Albanian immigration into Greece had not become serious in the 13th century. But there were evidently some of their number already living in Epiros. The geographical location of the mysterious 'Arbanon' has at last no doubt been settled by the researches of Alain Ducellier. In the II th century at least it was the name given to the mountainous area to the west of Lake Ochrida and the upper valley of the river Shkumbi 86. By the early 13th century its centre and main fortress seems to have been Kroia (Kruje). The 'archon' of Kroia and Arbanon about 1204 was Ghin (or Gines), son ofProgon (Progonos). His daughter married the sebastos Gregory Kamonas. His brother and successor as 'archon' in 1207 was Demetrios, who styled himself panhypersebastos and was thought grand enough to marry a daughter of Step hen Nemanja II of Serbia and to be in correspondence with Pope Innocent Ill, who addressed him as 'nobili viro Demetrio Arbanensi principi' and 'princeps Albanorum' 8'. When he died in 1215 he left his princi84. George Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 34 11. 8 - 12. Cf. Nicol, Despotate of Epiros, 69. 85. Letter of Patriarch Manuel to Apokaukos,.ed. Vasilievsky, VV, 3, no. 16, p.269 11. 9 - 22. Cf. Nicol, op. cit., 86. 86. A. Ducellier, L'Arbanon et les Albanais au XI- siecle, Travaux et Memoires, III (1968), 353 •.36~} A. Carile, Partitio Terrarum... , Studi Veneziani, VII (1965), 264; Era V~anoussls, KOf't<1~6eT~'" l~ 'AePdvwv», <1xo'ta el, XWU{ov Tij, • Avv~, KOf'v~vij, Ioannma, 1962 [on whIch see now Ducellier, op. cit., 36Iff.). 87. Dem. Ch?m., no ..1, cols. 21 - 22. Cf. Nicol, Despotate of Epiros, 17, 26 and references; M. Drmov, 0 nJekotorych trudach D. Chomatiana, VV, I (1894), 319 _ 340;

ality to his Serbian wi?ow, who. soon. after married.Gregory Kamo~as,

Pho had claimed KrOla as an mhentance from hIS former Albaman :ife. Kroia must by then have been incorporated in the dominions of Theodore of Epiros. Its bishop protested against the second marriage of Kamonas. But he was overruled by Demetrios Chomatianos 88 • In due course the daughter of Kamonas married a local magnate called Golem (or Goulamos), and Kroia and Arbanon reverted to native rule. Golem was connected not only with the Serbian royal family but also by marriage with John Batatzes of Nicaea; and it was through this latter connexion that he was tempted into joining the winning side in Macedonia in 1252, when the armies of Nicaea were victoriously advancing. His reward was an imperial charter granting independence to the people of Kroia 89. M. Drinov long ago suggested that the detachment of Arbanon from Byzantine rule about 1200 may well have followed the pattern set by the similar fortress principalities of Prosek, or indeed of Corinth and Argos where Leo Sgouros seized power 90. At Kroia the part of Sgouros or of Dobromir Chrysos was played by an Albanian archon of the family of Ghin. It passed first to his brother and then to his son-in-law, Gregory Kamonas, who acquired it with the support of Theodore of Epiros and also of his influential friend John Plytos, who was later appointed Dux of Kroia. Both Kamonas and Plytos held the title of sebastos 91 • It is Thalloczy, Jirecek, Sufflay, Acta Albaniae, I, nos. 147, 148, p. 46; Zakythinos, op. cit., EEBE, 21 (1951), 199 - 200. On the title of archon in this period, see Zakythinos, ,p. cit., 203 - 205; Bon, op. cit., 99, 100; Jacoby, op. cit., Travaux et Memoires, II (1967), 465 - 466; Angold, op. cit., 71. An Albanian by the name of Progon Sgouros (np6yovo~ fOO I:y06pou) and with the title of mega, hetaireiarches restored the church of St. Clement at Ochrida about 1295. C. Jirecek, Geschichte der Serben, I, Gotha, 1911, 338; Thalloczy, Jirecek, Suffiay, Acta Albaniae, I, no. 527, p. 156. 88. Dem. Chom., no. Ill, cols. 21 - 28. See Drinov, op. cit., 32Iff.; P. Petrov, 0 titulach "Sevast" i "Protosevast" . . . , VV, 16 (1959), 56. 89. George Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 91 11. 11 - 17. Drinov, op. cit., 339340; Thalloczy, Jirecek, Suffiay, Acta Albaniae, I, no. ISO, p. 47, no. 234, pp. 6869; Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, Ill, no. 1810; Nicol, Despotat., 152 - 153, 153 n. 13; Angold, op. cit., 25, 287. 90. Drinov, op. cit., 388ff. 91. For John Plytos as pansebastos sebastos: Dem. Chom., nos. 11, Ill, cols. II - 12, 21 - 28; as epitropos in Berroia: ibid., no. XXIX, cols. 125 - 132; as mesazon of (Theodore) Komnenos: idid., no. XLV, col. 199; as panhypers.bastos in Berroia and oikBios: ibid., no. CV, col. 446. The archon in Berroia called John Plytos (Dem. Chom., no. XXV, cols. 105 - 106) mayor may not be the same person. Cf. Thalloczy, Jireeek, Suffiay, Acta Albaniae, I, nos. 149, ISO, pp. 46 - 47.

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

27

26

tempting to place them in that category of Byzantine provincial sebastoi designated by Helene Ahrweiler as 'leaders of ethnic groups' '2. The title of sebastos or pansebastos sebastos certainly seems often to have gone with the exercise oflocal authority, whether over Greeks, Albanians or Bulgarians". In the bewildering circumstances of the early 13th century local populations instinctively clung to the security of their nearest walled city or fortress. Kroia was one such centre. Others were Prosek in the Vardar valley, Skoplje, and Melnik, further east in the Rhodope area. A good deal is known about the various rulers of Prosek (or Prousakon), but almost nothing about its inhabitants. The Vlach Cusmen who controlled it for Kalojan seems to have had some Greek support, as witnessed by his siege of Thessalonica in 1205. He too enjoyed the title of sebastos". Kalojan's nephew Strez (or Streazos) held it with the support of Serbia from 1207 - 1212. The Latin Emperor Henry rated Strez high on his list of enemies as 'a great devastator of Greece' •• ; and he seems to have dominated the lives of the Greek magnates in the district, as we know from the case of Leo Moschopoulos and Stephen Gabras'6• Serbian legend had it that the death of Strez in 1212 was miraculously accomplished by St. Symeon, the father of the first-crowned Nemanja, as that of Kalojan had been effected by St. Demetrios .7. In 1219 his fortress of Prosek was wrested from the Bulgarians by Theodore of Epiros. The event was hailed as a triumph by John Apokaukos and as a step on Theodore's road to the inevitable conquest of Thessalonica 98. A Greek bishop was soon appointed to the see of Strumica. But there are no facts or figures about the ethnic composition of his diocese, which remained a part of

92. H. Ahrweiler, Le sebaste, chef de groupes ethniques, Polvchronion. Festschrift Fronz Dolger zum 75. Geburtstog, ed. P. Wirth, Heidelberg, 1966, '34 - 38. 93. ~etrov, op. cit., 52 - 64. L. Stiernon, Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Sebaste et gambros, REB, 23 (1965), 222 - 243. 94. Petrov, op. cit., 56 - 57. 95. Prinzing, op. cit., 125 and references. 96. Dem. C~om., no. CX~XIV, cols. 537 - 540. Leo Moschopoulos wished to break the marnage contract wh.ch he had made with the daughter of the late Stephen Gabras, OT' TB 'Hal 'Ha'e"'ii Twl 6vu'HoAlq. 'Hal Pig. TOV TJ7l1,,,oilra XeaTovvTo, nov tvraii8a z~tiw To6 dno'x.0piv""..XTe,dCov "a8v".i~ar; TOVTO "."oi'l'" (col. 539). Cf. Petrov, op. Clt., 59; Zlatarsk., Istorl)o, Ill, 289. 97. Prinzing, op. cit., 106 and references. 98. Apokaukos, ed. Vasilievsky, VV, 3, 244 - 246; Nicol, Despotat., 58.

he western Greek Empire until Prosek and the neighbouring towns were !onquered by the armies of Nicaea in 1246 99. With regard to Skoplje we are not much better informed. Mter its conquest by Theodore of Epiros, Skoplje was constituted as a theme with a Greek bishop 100. But in 1230 it passed into the Bulgarian Empire of John Asen 11 and his son Kaliman, and its appointed governor was the pa1lScbastos sebastos Pribo (or Primpos) 101. In 1246 it was briefly incorporated in the Empire of Nicaea, before being taken over by Constantin Tich of Bulgaria 102. By the end of the century it had become a Serbian city 10'. But for all these vicissitudes some Greek families retained their influence and prosperity in the area. This is clear from the text of the chrysobull granted by Stephen Milutin to the Monastery of St. George Gorgos near Skoplje in 1299 - 1300, where mention is made of Greek as well as Bulgarian pronoiars 104. The case of the fortress of Melnik (Melenikon) is especially interesting because it lay at the meeting-point of Greek, Latin and Bulgarian territorial aspirations, and its ruler Alexios Slav maintained his position

99. Dem. Chom., no. XIV, col. 63; no. CXXXI, col. 536. Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 78. Zlatarski, Ill, 435. 100. Dem. Chom., nos. XXIV, col. 101; XXXV, col. 149; LIX, col. 261; LXIII, col. 279; LXXVI, col. 325. 101. Petrov, op. cit., 57· 58. The sebastos (later protosebastos) Pribo (Primpos) i. mentioned in Dem. Chom., no. LXXVI, cols. 325 - 326. 102. Angold, op.
IV

IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

28

and his independence by small-scale international diplomacy 101. A Bulgarian himself, a cousin of BorH, Slav became a vassal of the Latin Emperor Henry after the battle of Philippopolis in 1205 and took possession of Melnik. In 1208 he married a daughter of Henry, who gave him the title of Despot and authority over 'Great Vlachia', or Bulgaria. He has been identified with the mysterious sebastos of the Franks (a£Pa(J'l"6~ tibv cllpcino>v), brother of the sebastos Vladimir, in the founders' inscription in the church of St. Nicholas at Melnik 106. When his French wife died he married a Petraliphina, a niece of the wife of Theodore of Epiros. He was still in Melnik in 1225 but disappeared to Bulgaria after 1230 107• In his time the inhabitants of Melnik may well have been predominantly Greek. It is known that large numbers of Greeks were forcibly moved there from Philippopolis by Kalojan in 1205 108• When in 1220 Alexios Slav endowed the Monastery of Spelaiotissa he had his sigillion written in Greek, just as the Serbian rulers of northern Greece were to do over a hundred years later lOO. In 1246 following the surrender of Serres, the fortress of Melnik also capitulated to John III Batatzes of Nicaea. Its Bulgarian governor, Nicholas Litovoj, was at the time indisposed; but one of the leading Greek citizens Nicholas Manglabites, recommended the surrender on the grounds tha; the in?~bitants of Meln~~ were .?~ pure Greek (Romaic) blood, having a.1l orIg1Oated from Phlhppopohs. Their land therefore belonged by rIght to the Roman Empire. And even if they were not Greeks but Bulgarians, the Byzantine Emperor would still be their lawful ruler 'because ?is so~ Theodore (II Laskaris) had married the daughter of the BulgarIan K10g Asen and she was therefore rightly designated as Empress of the Romans' 110. The people of Melnik had their reward, in the .105. On A1exi,,:, Slav and Melnik, see Th. N. Vlachos, Du G..,hiehtl d8T by~anti. nischm Stadt Melmikon, Thess~oniki, 1969; I. Dujcev, Melnik au moyen 1ge, By~antUm, 38 (1968),28-41; Zlatarslu, [storijo, Ill, 272; Prinzing, op. ,it., 101- 102; Nicol, Despotate, 33, 59, 104, 113, 216; Ferjancic, D.spoti, 34, 141 _ 142. lOO. Petrov, op. tit., 58; Vlachos, op. ,it., 60. 107. Prinzing, op. ,it., 104, 113. lOO. Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 76. Dujc.v, op. ,it., 31. 109. Text?f s~gillion reprinted in Vlachos, op. &it., 69 _ 72. Cf. Dujcev, op. ,it., 33 n. 1,37, and Prmzmg, op. ,it., 121 - 122 nn. 12 and 13 for references to the sources II? Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 76 - 77. Cf. V1achos, op. ,it., 40 _ 41; ~jcev, op. ca., 38 - 39; A. E. Vakalopouios, History qf Macedonio 1364 -1833 Thessaloniki !973,. 18 -. 19:, Obolensky: Byzantine Commonweolth, 218 _ 219; M. Ang~ld, Byzantin; Nationa\wn. and the N,caean Empire, By~antine and Modern Greek Studus, I (1975), 49 - 70, espeCIally 63 - 64.

< of an imperial charter confirming their rights and guaranteeing ,orm .·1 III their immunities and pnvI eges . Such was the price that the Emperor in Nicaea had to pay for the llegiance to him of the cities of Macedonia. Local autonomy had bea me the means of survival during the long years of 'cosmic confusion' ~o that part of the world, and each walled city or fortress had to be :~eated as a separate unit and rewarded accordingly in the process of trying to reco?stitute a Byzantine Empire in Europe. T?e. surren~er of Thcssalonica m the same year 1242 was bought at'a slmtiar pnce by John Batatzes, with a charter in the form of a chrysobull guaranteeing its freedom and providing suitable rewards to those of its citizens who had engineered its capitulation 112. The same pattern was followed in the other cities in the European provinces that surrendered to Nicaea, as far afield as Kroia in Albania, whose native ruler Golem, as we have seen, secured his city's charter of freedom from John Batatzes in 1252 11S• This was conquest by concession; and it did not make for the unity or solidarity of the European portion of the restored Byzantine Empire after 1261. As Dr. Angold observes: 'One of the causes of the weakness of the Empire of the Palaiologoi was that a sound provincial administration was never established in Thrace and Macedonia' 11'.

Still less was it ever established in Epiros and Thessaly. The independence of northern Greece was like that of the Macedonian fortresses on a larger scale. Epiros had served its purpose as a place of refuge from Latins and Bulgarians in the early years of the 13th century. By 1261 the descendants of those refugees, as well as the native inhabitants, had come to regard themselves as a separate community. For over fifty years they had been insulated from the rest of the Byzantine world, having no physical contact with their fellow Romaioi except on the battlefield. The citizens of such places as Arta and Ioannina, who owed their survival and their prosperity to their local rulers, were not impressed by the claim that· the reconquest of Constantinople from the Latins was the logical climax of the providential development of the Empire at Nicaea. The surrounding sea and mountains, the presence of the Franks in the Peloponnese and of the Bulgarians in Macedonia Ill. 112. ""ment 113. 114.

Akropolites, 77. DlIlger, Reg.stln d" Kais"urkunden, Ill, no. 1789. Akropolites, 80. DlIlger, R'f(est.n, Ill, no. 1790. Cf. Angold, Byztmline Gouin Exil., 175 - 176, 241, 287. Dolger, R'gesten, Ill, no. 1810. Angold, op. ,it., 295.

IV IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

SI

30

had all contributed to a sense of insulation and isolation among the western Greeks. The rivalry between Epiros and Nicaea that was fought out on the field of Pelagonia in 1259 had deep and long roots. The provincial governors sent from Nicaea to take command of the Macedonian cities before and after that battle were of a different breed from the generation that had grown up in northern Greece since 1204. To the Greeks as to the Bulgarians it was like being colonised by foreigners, or by orientals. In contrast to the eastern, Anatolian Empire of Nicaea, the principalities of northern Greece were defined as 'the West'. The use of the Greek word AtiOl~ to mean Epiros and Thessaly becomes common in this period 116. The hierarchy of the Empire of Thessalonica in their verbal conflict with the Patriarchs at Nicaea clearly distinguish their own 'western' church and society from that of the East 116. The usage was perpetuated by the Byzantine historians after 1261. Pachymeres refers t? Michael 11 of Epiros as 'the western Despot' or 'the Despot in the West'm. The after-taste of Empire in the mouths of the successors of the Emperor Theodore Komnenos Doukas lingered on for many years. It is witnessed by their coining of the strange word SUOI101cpatOJp found inscribed on the tomb of the Despot Michael 11 in the church of the Blachernai near Arta 118. It is seen again in the title claimed by his 115. Michael Choniates of Athens regularly addressed the Emperor at Nicaea as 'Emperor of the East' in the years immediately after 1204. MlxaTjA 'A"0I'WaTov TOV XowufTOV Ta L'wCol' ..a, ed. Sp. P. Lambros, Athens, 1879 - 80, H, nos. 94, 136, 179, pp. 149f., 276f., 353f.: letters addressed T.p {laalA.r Tij, 'A.aToAij, r.p Ada"ae". 116. E. g., Dem. Chom., no. CXII, col. 483: ... yAIxol'elJa "a! T~O ".pao I'0ipa. TuVTTI (JV1'{lijoa, rfi dval"l Ta. lIrp.., .,.. c'Jxea Yii' dAM Toi, Mtol, ae".ta8w, TOO eeO. tpa{lOVI'''o, TO. Qpl'061OV {laatAea TlI'WO, TTjo d6eAtpOr'1Ta dyanwo. . . ' 17. George Pachymeres, D. Miehoel. Palaealogo, 36, 81:
!

d heir Nikephoros and his wife Anna of 11""11£1:qo,,(!4TWne, To" son an . . .m t h e c hurch 0 f t h e P aai. tp(!ov(!iw. in the foun d ers , . 1Oscnptlon tWT'"ia Bellas at VouI gareI'I 119. na~hen in 1263 the triumphant Mic?ael VIII ~emanded the surren~er b the Despot Michael 11 of the prov1Oces of Eplros and Thessaly which h~d formerly belonged to the Empire he was told that he had no warrant for making such a de~and: How could the Des?ot be ex~ected to reII quish territories which hiS ancestors had acquired by tOll, sweat and b~odshed and bequeathed to him and his heirs ~ a patrimony? These territories had in any case been won from Itahans not from Greeks, nd ifthey were to be returned to anyone it should be to those Italians llO• ;trictly speaking this statement was true only of the province ofThessaly, since Epiros had never been subjected to occupation by the Latins. But to induce either province to submit to direct rule from Constantinople after 1261 would require some massive concession or series of concessions to local pride and patriotism. Michael VIII believed that he could force his will upon the people of northern Greece and bring them back to the fold of Byzantium by treaties of alliance and intermarriages between the ruling families. He was proved wrong; and it was not by accident that Epiros and Thessaly once again became places of asylum and refuge during his reign, this time from the victims of the Emperor's persecution of his ecclesiastical and political opponents. The 'westerners' were shown to be more Byzantine than the Byzantines themselves 121. In the end, in the 14th century, Epiros and Thessaly were to be tenously reunited with Constantinople, not so much by force as by the granting of charters to separate cities, such as those of Andronikos 11 for Ioannina, or of lavish donations and pensions to local archons and dynasts. The credit for the 'reconquest' of northern Greece must go to Andronikos III and more especially to John Cantacuzene 121. Canta119. A. K. Orlandos, Mvnl'sta toO dSCTIIOto.tOU tl\~ 'Hnsipou. 'H KOKK\Vn AKd.1\"la (navayla Bs~M~), 'H""pwn"a XeOVI"a, 2 (1927), 166. 120. Pachymeres, D. Michoel. Pal.eologo, 206 - 207. 121. For the refugees to Thessaly at the time of the Union of Lyons in 1274, see R.•J. Laenertz, Memoire d'Ogier, protonotaire, pour Marcho et Marchetto nonces de Micbel VIII Paleologue aupres du pape Nicolas Ill, 1278 printemps.ete, OCP, !l (1965), 374-408, especially 385-387, 392 - 393 (reprinted in Loenertz, BJI~/IIIIi"'" " Franco-Groeca, 537 • 572); D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons (cited above, note 8), 130. 122. Cf. Ursula V. Bosch, Androniko$ 111. Palaiologas. VIr.I"m Ii"" DtJr.u/l"", . , 6)1-

IV

IV REFUGEES, MIXED POPULATION

32

cuzene employed methods which might be described as psychological warfare in Epiros and Thessaly. He realised that there was an inbred difference to be resolved between the two Greek sections of the Roman Empire, a psychological barrier that had been set up and maintained for more than a century. His own description of the way in which this difference had been engendered and perpetuated is worth quoting: 'The Angeloi did not acquire rule over Akarnania by liberating it from barbarians. But being the subjects of Emperors of the Romans who had entrusted them with an annual command of the country, they appropriated it to themselves as a consequence of the war then waged by the Latins against the Greeks, when the Latins occupied the whole of Thrace and much of Macedonia and the Roman Empire moved to the East. The Angeloi appropriated Akarnania and others other of the western provinces, of which they set themselves up as governors, since the Emperors were unable to pass through Latin-occupied Thrace and Macedonia. Then, years later, the Latins were driven out by the Palaiologoi with the help of God, and their Empire in Asia and in Europe was joined together again. But still the Angeloi refused to restore Akarnania and violently resisted the armies so frequently sent against them, even inciting their barbarian neighbours to fight on their behalf' 123.

33

. orporated into the Empire of the East, and still more after been lnc ery of Constantinople in 1261, they retreated into themselves I~e recoVpetitors who had been cheated of their prize. But they remained bke com . Byzantmes, . ' . I t h as been argued . lly and recognisably or R omalOl. essenua . ., 0 f t h e mod ern G reek natlon . h roots of Hellenism and t h e ongms Ihat l e . E " m eXI'1 e at N'lcaea 125. 0 ne ffilg . ht be found in the SOlI 0 f t h empire are tothOUght to find them rather in the soil of Greece itself. But there ?ave vidence that the Epirotes and Thessalians ever considered theml~no eto be Hellenes. Their cultured hierarchy in the early days, like ~e:triOs Chomatia~o~ an? G~orge Bardanes, mourned the prevailing 1 k of hellenic SOphIStlCatlOn m speech and manners. No doubt after ahc' r time things grew worse as contact with the sources of such culture I el . b ecame stl'11 more ffilxe . d WIt . h Slav, as broken and as the populatlOn ~lbanian and Vlach elements. But the identity of that population remained Romaic and not Hellenic; and their patriotism, however localised and provincial, was, like that of the refugee Despot John ChamaretOS, directed towards Romania - neo, T~V • PWf.lavtall w')I!IWf.l0avII1jII.

Cantacuzene here implies that it was the Latin occupation of Thrace and Macedonia after 1204 that created the estrangement between the Greeks of Europe and the Greeks of Asia. He makes no mention of the period of Bulgarian occupation, which left such bitter memories in Macedonia. But his observation is none the less true. It had been made long before by John Apokaukos, who writes of 'the ditch dug b~tween (eastern and western Greeks) by the Italian tyranny"24. Geographical factors had much to do with the rivalry between Epiros and Nicaea and with the perpetuation of separatism. Nicaea after all was almost within sight of the Queen of Cities. Arta and Ioannina were divided from it by a wall of mountains and a hostile sea. Only during the few years when Thessalonica was in their hands did the western Greeks have a political centre round which to build their imperial aspirations within striking distance of the New Jerusalem. After Thessalonica had ~tinischen Gesckickt. in den Jak"n 1321 -1341, Amsterdam, 1965, 133 _ 138; D. M.

N.col, The Last CmtUTi.. of Byzantium, 1261 -1463, London, 1972, 182 _ 187. 123. John Cantacuzenus, HistorilU, ed. L. Schopen (CSHB), I, 520 - 521. 124. Apokaukos, ed. Vasilievsky, no. 15, p. 265 11. 17 - 18: u())/Aan,,(br; "de I'll ,..naCV zdupa /hue ITaA,x.l weavvlr; "/Ai. i:J..Pd8eavuev.

ere"..

125. The theory has been most exhaustively and eloquently expressed by A. E. Vakalopoulos, '[aTOeta TOO Niov 'EUf/""I/AOV, I, 2nd. ed., Thessaloniki, 1974; idem, Origins of the Gr..k Nation: the Byzantine Period (1204 -1461), New Brunswiek, N.J., 1970. Cf. J. Irmscher, Nikiia al. "Zentrum des griechischen Patriotismus". RESEE, 8 (1970), 33 _ 47; idem, Nikiia als "Mittelpunkt des griechischen Patriotismua", B;zantinische Forschungen, 4 (1972), 114 - 137. See most recently M. Angold, op. nl., Byzantine and Modern Greek Sludies, I (1975), especially, 64 - 66.

•

v

v THE RELATIONS OF CHARLES OF ANJOU WITH NIKEPHOROS OF EPIROS

Among the many problems that remain to be more thoroughly investigated in the history of the late Byzantine period is that of the survival of the separatist states of'Epiros and Thessaly. The only substantial monograph on the Despotate of Epiros after 1261 is still that of Ioannes Romanos published in Corfu in 1895.' Romanos was heavily indebted to Karl Hopf's Geschichte Griechenlands, a work noted for its enterprise but not always for its reliability.s Even the title of the study of Romanos is now disputed, since B. Ferjancic has shown that the word 'Despotate,' though used as a colloquial convenience, had no territorial or constitutional significance in Byzantine terminology.3 It is evident that the separatist rulers of Epiros, at least, managed to preserve their independence in the latter part of the 13th century partly by the fact of their geographical distance from Constantinople, and partly by the fact of their geographical proximity to Italy. The purpose of this paper is to examine one small chapter of the relationship between Epiros and Italy in the years between 1261 and 1282. The subject has been explored before, most recently by D. J. Geanakoplos.4 But a number of other pieces I. A. Romanos. n.p! ~OU A.,,1tOT
• ~. ~opf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Bcginn des lVIittelalters bis auf unsere Z.d, In J. S. Ersch and J. G. Gruber. AlIgemeine Encyklopiidie der Wisscnsehaflen und Kilnste. LXXXV. LXXXVI (Leipzig, 1867. 1868). Cited hereafter as Hopf, Geschiehte Griechenlands, I, 11. I

B. Ferjancic. Despot; u Vizantiji i jUZnoslovenskim zemljama (Belgrade, 1960).

• D. J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Miehael Palaeologus and the West, IZ58-IZ82. A study in Byzantine-Latin relations (Cambridge, Mass., 1959). Cf. E. Dad., VlI1'suche zur Wi.dererriehtung der lateinisehen HB.,sehaf/ in Kons/antinopel (Jena, (938).

171

of evidence can be adduced to add a few precisions to the chronology and to the facts of the case. Particularly important in this respect is, of course, the continuing reconstruction of the Angevin archives of Naples; but mention must also be made of the contribution of Fr. R. J. Loenertz. 5 When Michael 11 Komnenos Angelos Doukas, Despot in Epiros, died about 1268 his domffiions in northern Greece were divided between his eldest son Nikephoros and his illegitimate son John, generally called John Doukas. Of his two younger sons, Demetrios or Michael called Koutroulis and John, the former was entrusted to the guardianship of Nikephoros; John had been sent to Constantinople as a hostage while still a child. 6 N ikephoros Gregoras, who gives a full account of these affairs, takes pains to define the extent of territory that fell to each of the heirs of Michael 11. His description is phrased in pedantically archaic Greek terms, but it presents an intelligible picture. John Doukas received that portion of northern Greece which comprised the country of the Pelasgians and Phthiotians, the Thessalians and the Ozolian Lokrians - a district bounded on the north by Mount Olympos and on the south by Mount Parnassos. Nikephoros inherited that portion of north-western Greece known as Old Epiros, as distinct from New Epiros and Albania. The geographical limits of Old Epiros are defined by Gregoras thus: it included the lands of the Thesprotians, Akarnanians and Dolopes, as well as the islands of Kerkyra (or Corfu), Kephallenia and Ithaka. It was bounded on the west by the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, on the north by the mountains known as Pydnos • I Registri della Cancelleria Angioina, ricostruiti da Riccardo Filangieri (Testi e Documenti di Storia Napoletana pubblicati dall' Accademia Pontaniana) (Naples, 1950 if., in progress). Cited hereafter as Filangieri, Regis/ri. Particularly valuable for the present study is R. J. Loenertz. "Memoire d'Ogicr, protonotaire, pour Marco et Marchetto nonces de Michael VIII Paleologue aupres du Pape Nicholas Ill. 1278 printemps-ete," Ori.ntalia Chri.stia..a Periodica, XXXI (1965). pp. 375-408 (cited hereafter as Loenertz. Mtlmoire). • George Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, Ill, 27: I, p. 243; IV, 26: I, pp' 307-308 (Bonn. 1835); Nikephoros Gregoras. Byzantina His/oria, IV, 9: I, pp. 10j1-IIO (Bonn, 1829). For the date of the death of Michael 11 of Epiros see now B. FerjanciC. 'Kada je umro Despot Michailo 11 Angeo?: Zbornik Radova Vi.antolo§kog Instituta, IX (1966), pp. 29-32. The fact that it occurred at least three years before 1271 necessitates a reconsideration of much of the chronology of this period proposed by Hopf, GeschiehlB Grieehmlands, I, pp. 297-300.

I i

v

v 173 and the Akrokeraunians, on the east by the river Acheloos, and on the south by Corfu and Kephallenia.' The distinction between Old and New Epiros is carefully recorded; and the dividing line seems to have been in the region of the Akrokeraunian promontory and the bay of Avlona or Valona. The Emperor Michael VIII in his so-caUed Autobiography claimed that after the battle of Pelagonia in I259 his troops had occupied Epiros, 'both the one and the other,' as welI as part of IIIyria, and had advanced as far as Dyrrachium or Durazzo 8 They were soon driven out, however, at least from most of Old Epiro~' and the territory which Nikephoros inherited in I268 extended fron: Ioannina in the north to Naupaktos on the Gulf of Corinth. His capital was at Arta on the Ambraclan Gulf. Beyond Ioannina it is hard to say how far north his word was law; but certainly the port and city of Durazzo and the inland fortress of Berat or BeUagrada remained for the time being in imperial control. Nikephoros was very well connected. One of his sisters had married William of ViIIehardouin, Prince of Achaia; another, Helena, had become the wife and was by I268 the widow of King Manfred of Sicily; ~nd the dowry that she had brought to her late husband in I259 had mcluded several places on the coast of Epiros. Nikephoros had been granted the rank and title of Despot by the Emperor John III Vatatzes of Nicaea in I253, and three years later he had married the same Emperor's grand-daughter. He had been actively involved in the battle of Pelagonia in I259, and afterwards escaped with his fathe to KephaIIeni~, .whence he was sent to Manfred's court in Italy to be; for further military help. He returned with a company of Italian troops to Arta early in I260; and with them he defeated the imperial army commanded by John Palaiologos at Trikorpho near Naupaktos ~d captured ~lexios Strategopoulos. 9 For some three years after 126; hl~ father ~ontmued to make war on the Byzantine government, now reinstated m. ~onstantinople. He was encouraged and supported by Manfred of Sicily, who had hopes of retrieving the coastal territories 7

Gregoras, iv, 9: I, p. 1I0 lines 7-20.

• 'Imperatoris Michaelis PaIaeologi De Vim Sua' ed. H. Gregoire, Byzantion, XXIX-XXX (1959-60), p. 455, § VII. '

• et.

D. M. Nicol, The D.spota18 of Epiros (Oxford, 1957), pp. 149-50, 154, 159-60, 173, 181, 186-189; Geanakoplos, Emperor Mi,"ael, pp. 47-74.

. Epiros which he considered to be his. The part played by Nike-

l~oros in these campaigns is not told. But in 1264, after his father's ~efeat by the Emperor Michael VIII, he became once again the agent

of an alliance between Epiros and Byzantium. Michael VIII arranged that his own niece Anna should become the second wife of Nikephoros. His first wife had died some years before, either from natural causes or as the result of her husband's ill treatment. Anna was the third daughter of Michael VIII's favourite sister Eirene, who had by 1261 become a nun with the name of Eulogia. The marriage was arranged while the Emperor was in Thessalonica; and when he got back to Constantinople early in 1265 he despatched his niece with an escort to the West, where her marriage to Nikephoros duly took place in the same year. Nikephoros then accepted an invitation to Constantinople, and the Emperor there confirmed him in his rank of Despot and sent him back to Epiros laden with gifts. lo For some years thereafter there was peace between Epiros and the Byzantine government. Doubtless under the influence of Anna it became a comparatively quiet outpost of the revived Empire. For, as George Pachymeres says, Nikephoros, after the death of his father, remained peaceful and content with the territory which he had inherited. His widowed mother, the saintly Theodora, retired into the convent which she had founded at Arta and detached herself completely from the things of this world. l l And it seems that Anna Kantakouzene Palaiologina, the new basilissa of Epiros, became the dominating influence in affairs. So she remained for the next forty years or so. But the state of contentment was short lived. Anna had to reconcile Pachymeres, De Mi,ha.Z. Palaeologo, Ill, 26: I. pp. 242-243; Gregoras, Iv. 3: I, p. 92; v, 3: I, p. 130. Cf. F. Dolger, R.ges/en der Ka;s'l'Urkunden des Oslrlimiseh.n Rei,h.s, III (Munich-Berlin, 1932), no. 1931. On the career of Anna, the third daughter of Eirene-Eulogia Palaiologina and John Kantakouzenos. see D. M. Nicol, The Byzantin. Family of Kan'akom.nos (Can/~enus). ca. IIOO-I460. A Gen.alogi,aZ and Prosopograpkieal Study (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XI, Washington. D. C., 1968), no. 16. pp. 20-24. Hopf. Grieehenlands, I, p. 297, says that the Emperor demanded the surrender of Ioannina as part of the deal; but the Byzantine sources at least do not Seem to indicate this. 10

Gese"i"',.

11

Pachymeres. D. Mi,ha,/. Pa/aea/ogo, Iv. 26: I, pp. 307-308. Nicol,~,

pp. 201-203.

v

v 175

174 her devotion to the family and the interests of the house of Palaiologos with the tradition of independent sovereignty in Epiros itself, of which her husband was the symbol and the heir. The inhabitants of Epiros, long accustomed to managing their own affairs, were not disposed to accept Michael VIII Palaiologos as their Emperor. But both he and they were aware of the fact that their territory was the most vulnerable to the attacks and schemes of the most dangerous western enemy of the restored Byzantine Empire, Charles of Anjou. Charles, who emerged victorious over Manfred of Sicily and his heirs at the battles of Benevento and Tagliacozzo in 1266 and 1268, openly advertised his intention of using the coast-line of Albania and Epiros as his beach-head for the conquest of Constantinople. At the same time the Emperor Michael VIII's desperate negotiations with the Papac; to forestall this eventuality played into the hands of all his political enemies and all who were for whatever reasons opposed to his rule. This was particularly true in Epiros and Thessaly. It was bad enough that the Emperor was a usurper, and that he had been excommunicated by his Patriarch. But when he began to bully the Orthodox Church into submission to the Papacy then the rulers of Epiros and Thessaly ~elt that they had a moral right to assert or re-assert tht'ir complete mdependence from the central government in Constantinople. For had not they and their ancestors, when face to face with the heretical Latins in Greece, struggled to uphold and defend the purity of that Orthodox faith which the Emperor Michael was now perverting? Even. the Emperor's niece Anna was shocked and turned against him, eSpecIally when she learnt that her own mother Eulogia had been persecuted and imprisoned in Constantinople for refusing to compromise her Orthodoxy.12 .But for Michael VIII's determination to pursue his policy of Union with the Roman Church it is possible that the state of Epiros might have set.tled down to becoming a western dependency of Byzantium under Nlkephoros and Anna. It was that policy, however, which fanned ~e flames of anti-~yzantine feeling in Epiros and drove Nikephoros mto the arms of Mlchael VIII's arch-enemy Charles of Anjou. 11 For the ~tion of Eirene-Eulogia and her daughters to the eccleciastical policy. of Michael VIII and th~ consequent persecution and imprisonment of Eu1ogia., se~ Pachymeres, D, Msc","l, P"'fUoIO{fo, vi, I: I, p. 42 7; D, AUOfIico PlIIfUoIogo, I, 2: II, pp. 14-15.

After his victory over Manfred .in ~266, Charles quickly laid cl:um th Greek and Albanian tern tones that Manfred had acqull'ed to HI' f N'k seveneyears before through h"IS m I •eh arfnage to e ena, Sl~ter: h s At Viterbo in May 1267 t e amous treaty or senes 0 treaties p or~r~wn up between Charles of Anjou, the Latin Emperor of Conwas tinople Baldwin 11, and Prince William of Villehardouin. On 5t~ay Baldwin made over to Charles 'all the territory which Michaeli2? the Despot had granted ... either as dowry or by any other title temshis daughter Helena, widow of the late Manfred P' nnce 0 fT aranto, od which the same Manfred and the late Philip Chinardo, his admiral ~: the said kingdom, had held as long as they lived.'" In other words, the dowry of Helena was, by the Treaty of Viterbo, acknowledged to belong to Charles by right. It is hard to determine the actual extent of territory involved in 1267. It is not much easier to discover the original extent of Helena's dowry in 1259. Sanudo has it that Manfred originally acquired through his marriage to Helena the harbours of Durazzo and Valona or Avlona, and the island of Corfu, which last he presented to his admiral Philip Chinardo or Echinard, a native of Cyprus. But there is independent documentary evidence that Manfred was already in possession of all the coast of New Epiros, from Durazzo down to Avlona, by February 1258, over a year before his marriage to Helena. I6 Domenico Forges-Davanzati, who wrote a dissertation on the subject in 1791, maintained that Helena's dowry consisted of the stretch of coast-line to the south of Avlona and opposite Corfu, down as far as Butrinto. 16 Several later scholars have

I'

11 Act"., Diplom"'a R.s Alb"ni", M.di". Ad"'is ill"s""nli", edd. L. de Thal16czy, C. Jirecek, E. de Sufflay, I (Vienna, 1913), no. 253, p. 73 (cited hereafter as Acla Albania., I). Cf. Dade, V....s.,ck., pp. 27-30; J. Longnon, L'.mpir, 100i" d. Constantinopl••t I" Principa.,U d. Mor'e (Paris, 1949), pp. 236-237; E. G. Uonard, L.s Ang.vins de Napl.s (Paris, 1954), p. 104; S. Borsari, 'La politica bizantina di Carlo I d'Angib dal 1266 al 1271: Arckivio slorico p.r I. province napolet"ne, N. S., XXXV (1956), pp. 328-330; Geanakoplos, Emp ....or Mich".I, pp. 197-200.

.. Marino Sanudo Torsello, Islori" del Regno di Romania, ed. C. Hopf, CIwo· "iqtus grlco-romanes inldiles 0., p • ., conn.,es (Berlin, 1873), p. 107. I' F. Miklosich and J. Miiller, Ac/a et Diplomala Gralea medii fUvi saera ., pro/lA"", III (Vienna, 1865), p. 239 f.; Acta AlbanifU, I, no. 246, p. 71.

"Domenico Forges-Davanzati, Disserlazione stIlIa second. mO{flie . , RI M"'''fr,di ,su' loro figli.,olo (Naples, 1791), pp. 38-41.

v

v given the matter further attention; but it seems impossible now to discover exactly how much territory was appropriated either by Manfred himself or in his name by his formidable admiral Philip Chinardo, and how much of it all later passed into the possession of the Angevins under the general title of Helena's dowry. Furthermore some of the northern parts of the territory that Manfred had conquered or acquired, notably the city of Durazzo, were recovered by the imperial armies of Nicaea after the battle of Pelagonia in 1259. A Greek bishop, Niketas from Thessalonica, was appointed to the See of Durazzo by the Patriarch before the end of 1260; and the city was, as we shall see, in Byzantine hands until 1271.17 However, one thing is clear. Charles of Anjou had to do some hard bargaining with Philip Chinardo and his heirs and Supporters before he could lay his hands on any of the Epirote territories assigned to him by the Treaty of Viterbo. George Pachymeres tells the following tale. Chinardo remained as regent of Manfred's lands in Epiros after 1266, with his headquarters at Kanina near Avlona. Michael 11 of Epiros, apprehensive of Chinardo's ambitions, arranged for him to marry the sister of his own wife Theodora, and granted him possession of Kanina as well as the island of Corfu as her dowry. Shortly after the wedding Michael had Chinardo assassinated, evidently in the hope of recovering Kanina for himself. But the 'Italians' then living there, namely the supporters of the late Chinardo, refused to surrender to Michael and opened negotiations with Charles of Anjou. Charles sent troops over from Italy to garrison the fortress, and Kanina became the base for his projected campaign against the Byzantine Empire. 18

Th d te of these events must be 1266, or at least before the death M~h:el II and the succession of Nikephoros as Despot in Epiros. of. was one of the most important fortresses near the coast of KaDlna . New Epi·ros, about an hour's Journey to the south-east of the .harbour . a It commanded the southerly access to the ancient Via I of Avan. . . b · whl·ch ran across the mountams to Thessalomca y way Egnat la, of Ochrida and Vodena. '9 The north~rly access was through I?~razzo · h I·n 1266 was still in Byzantme control. Almost eqUidistant Whle " . Durazz o and Avlona, but well mland from the coast, lay the from d h· h i · ed Bellagra strongly fortified city of Berat or. .a, w IC a so remain . Byzantine hands. lo The occupation of Kamna by 1266 may well, as In ·h . Pachymeres suggests, have represente.dhf· t e Irst stage !n t e ~am~aI~ of Charles of Anjou to ga~n possession of . Man~red s te'?tones In the Balkan peninsula. But In other places hiS claim was disputed by those already in control. The fortress and harbour of Avlona ne:,t door to Kanina held out against Charles for several years under Its castellan Jacopo de Balsignano, who had been a loyal servant of the late Philip Chinardo. Not until 1273 was he persuaded to surrender; and in 1274 Avlona with Kanina were entrusted to the command of a French governor, Henri de Courcelles. Similarly, in Corfu, although an Angevin captain-general was appointed as early as 1267, it was not until 1272 that the whole island was under the control of Charles. By then he was well on the way to substantiating his claim to the whole of Manfred's inheritance in New Epiros. BI On the topography of this part of Epiros and Alban~, ~ee espec~y P. J. Alexander, op. cit., pp. 189 f., where the older literature IS CIted. Cf. Nlcol, ~s potate, pp. 222-223; N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus. The geography, the anti,"" """,ins, the history and the topography of Epirus and adjacent areas (Oxford. 1967), especially pp. 130-131. 11

" G. del Giudice, 'La Famiglia di Re Manfredi,' A rckivio storico per le province na~oletane, III (1~78), p. 19; IV (1879), pp. 92-93; A. Meliarakes, 'IaToplex TaU ~exa'Aclou T7J~ N",.exlex~, xexl TaU a.a"oT,hou T;j~ 'H"rtpou (Athens, 1898), p. 5 1 9; M. Dendlas, EA~V7J' AYYrAlvex b.06xex,vex (3exaIA,aaex E',,"AIou; ><exl N.ex~6M"~', 'H." .. p.. :,,," Xpov,xci, I (1926), pp. 219-224; D. J. Geanakoplos, Greco-Latm relations on the eve of the Byzantine restoration. The Battle of Pelagonia - 1259,' Dumbarton Oaks Pap.,.s, VII (1953), pp. 103-105; Dade, V.,.suc"., pp. 29-30; Nicol, Despotate, p. 183 n. 5. Niketas was appointed to the See of Durazzo by the Patriarch Nikephoros, who died at the end of 1260. Pachymeres, D. Mic"aele Palae%go, I1, 22: I, p. 126. ..

~ymeres, D. Michael8Palaeologo, vI, 32: I, pp. 50B-509. Cf. P. J. AlexanA ~bull ~ the Emperor Andronicus II in favor of the See of Kanina

?er,

ID AlbanIa, Byzantion, XV (1940-41), p. 194.

.. Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, vI, 32: I, pp. 509-510, describes the impregnable position and strategic importance of Berat or Bellagrada. Cf. K. Jirecek, 'Valona im Mittelalter,' in Illyrisch-Albanische Forschuttgtm. ed. L. von Tha1l6czy, I (Munich-Leipzig, 1916), especially pp. 1 77-17B; W. Miller, 'Valona,' Journal of Hellenic Studi,s, XXXVII (1917), pp. IB6-IB7; BolSari, op. tit., pp. 320-32B; Acta Albaniae, I, no. 267 and pp. 76-77. For ~• list of feudal territories and properties that went with the castles of Kanina and Avlona in 1274, see Acta Albaniae, I, no. 319, pp. 93-94:. :m:t Avlcm& was still accessible to the Byzantines in the summer of 127018 mdlcated by. 11

• v

v 179 The greatest encouragement was gi~en to his ambitions by the of Durazzo, abandoned by Its Byzantine garrison. This unl.lkely event came about as the ~esult of a devastating earthquake which completely destroyed the City, except for its acropolis. Th su:vivors, among them the Greek bishop Niketas, fled, leaving th: ruinS to be plundered and eventually re-occupied by the neighbo . . " . .. unng Albamans. Pachymeres gives a VIvid descnpbon of this disaster t .a Durazzo. He dates it, with . . . pedantry ' to 'the be"; o-nnmg . , his customary of t he month of Kromos, which m his pseudo-Atticizing lang . 'f' uage slgm les t he mont h 0f March. The year was surely I27I, and not, as has g~nerally be~n proposed, I273. For, as Pachymeres says, it was the rebelliou.s Albamans squatting in the ruins of Durazzo who got in touch With the agents of Char!es of Anjou at nearby Kanina; and it w~.the a.bandonm~nt of the Clty by the Byzantine garrison and admmlstration followmg the earthquake that made it possible fo Ch 1 · . f ' r ar es t o shIp m antry across to It from Brindisi.22 Certainly by February sur~nder

the passage t~rough it of the Emperor Michael VIII's emissaries to Louis IX of France. B~IDg ~nable to cross Over to Brindisi for feat of Louis' brother ~Ies, th~ .'mpenal envoys went by horse as far as Avlona, whence th sailed to SICily. Pachyrneres, D. Michaele Pala.ologo . I ey George Metochites, Michael VIII's ambassador to Po~ev'G~~gd;Px ~=I;;62. seems to have thought that Avlona was still in Byzantine control at that ti 75, or he reported that the Pope was prepared to travel down to Brindisi while ~he~ th~::r went as far a~ Avlona: and that a meeting between the two could . arranged on whIchever sld~ of the Adriatic seemed to offer the reater s~unty. See the report of Metochltes in C. Giannelli 'Le recit d'un g. . dIplomatique d G I M' ' emISSIon , Tesli 12 V et' eorg~s e etochlte (1275-1276) et le Vat. gr. 1716' Studi Gia.... [~(Satudlc.anB.Clty,. 1.947), p. 439 (reprinted in Scripta Mi..ora;U Ciro • .zalll.... , N.oell",ici X R ..1hO~ 8~ ... ~~£Ae.:.v n.uCJ£T"''''' " : ome, I9 b3J, p. 108 lines 4-7): lvfl.. ""pel'b~ 6 ~OT£V ~ ! p:~ Bp~Tlja,ov, 0 :.£ (3"a'Mu~ ci o~ ""T pOlV 7j""c!pOlV, Tlj~ Tt ~l'CTip,,~ Tij~ l".lvOlU ....

i

:Ui

",xl

Pachymeres, D. Michal/' Pa/ae%go v 7' I Hopf, Geschichle Gri"h",lanth I , . . , ~p. 355-358; VI, 32: I, p. 508 . Durazzo b Charles .." p. 2?9 A, wntes of an abortive attack on is dated ~ 12 73 by :fgAnpJOupID ~270 ..lhe earthquake that destroyed the city . ' ", . osSlnus, ID Pachyrneres (ed Ba ) op. m., p. 300 A; K. Jire~ek, 'Die Lage und V '. nn, p. 759; Hopf, in Albania: in Illyrisch-Alba..ische Fors ergangenhelt der Stadt Durazzo 161; Acta Albaniae, I 88. chung,.., ed. L. von ThaII6czy, I, p. By_tines I Pari 'P'8) n. 5, V. GrumeJ, La Chronologie (Traitc! d'Etudes Em. IU C" s, 1.95 ,p. 4.81. It is dated to March 1269 by E. de Muralt Monograph" Byzantine, 1057-1453 (Paris, 1871), p. 420 • But th~ 11

72 Charles was in control of Durazzo and had won the support of

::e Albanian population. For in that month he made a fonnal treaty

with them and was elected King of Albania by common consent of their 'bishops, counts, barons, soldiers and citizens,' having guaranteed to protect them from their enemies and to honour all the pledges and privileges accorded to them by fonner Emperors in Romania." As vicar-general of his new Kingdom of Albania Charles appointed Gazo Chinardo, son of the late Philip Chinardo; but he was replaced by a French governor, Anselm de Chaus, in I273·" context in which Pachymeres describes it seems to be that of the year 1270-1271. The events preceding his description are: (I) the marriage of Maria Palaiologina to Constantine Tich of Bulgaria about 1270 (Pachymeres, I, p. 342 f.; cf. Dolger, Regesten, Ill, nos. 1969. 1970); (ll) Michael VIII's treaty with Nogaj about 1271 (Pachymeres, I. p. 344; cf. Dalger, Regesle.. , Ill, no. 1977); (Ill) the proposed marriage of Anna Palaiologina to Stephen Milutin of Serbia about 1268 and after (Pachymeres, I, p. 350 f.; cl. Dolger, R.gesle... Ill, nos. 1953, 1954)' There follows his account of the earthquake. He then gives a recapitulation of the career of Charles of Anjou and of Michael VIII's negotiations with the Papacy (Pachymeres, I, pp. 358-367); an account of the Byzantine embassy to Louis IX about June 1270 and of the death of Louis at Tunis in August 1270; of the election of Pope Gregory X in September 1271; of the embassy of John Parastron to Constantinople at the end of 1272 or beginning of 1273; and of the events leading up to the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 (Pachymeres. I, pp. 361 -399). Furthermore, Pachymeres connects the destruction of Durazzo with its occupation by Charles of Anjou; and since Charles is known to have been in possession of the city at latest by February 1272, the earthquake should perhaps be antedated to March 1271. Cl. Pachymeres, De Michaek Palae%go, v, 8: I, p. 358 lines 17-20: '" ""MlaT"'~ ~ T"i~ vlXUalv 1~7jpT6tTo (6 KcipouAo~), .,..oAAij> 8~ "exl Tij> ""Ta. yljv .,...~,,,ij> 8Ld. (3pcvTljalou ""'P"'Ol67ja6~ 01; ~b ..w lI.uPP"Xlou ~.,..(v..ov, ~P~I'OU 6VTO~ f) "exll'''A)'ov """P' l"elvou XIX"tCJ(O,""",U .... There seems to have been more than one earthquake in the area about this time. Cf. Acta Alba..iae, I, no. 305, p. 88 (of 18 December 1273) concerning the return home of some citizens of Durazzo who had fled 'timore tenemotus, quo civitas ipsa frequenter hactenus quassabatur.' Cf. Acla Alba..ias, I, no. 492, pp. 147-148 (of 14 October 1284). .. Acla Alba..ia., I, nos. 268, 269, p. 77 (of 20 and 21 February 1272) (= FiIangieri, Regislri, VIII, pp. 173-174, nos. 435, 436). A Latin Archbishop of Durazzo had been appointed by I September 1272; Acta Alba..ias, I, no. 283, p.8I. U Acta Alba..iae, I, no. 270, p. 77; no. 299, p. 86. For Gazo Chinardo (or Ec:biDard) and Anselm de Chaus (not 'de Cayeux'), see P. Durrieu. LIS

.04..-_

v

v 180

The loss of Durazzo was a matter of the greatest concern to the Emperor Michael VIII. and he made strenuous efforts to drive the Angevin troops out of the district and to prevent them advancing furtherinland. The fortress of Berat was the key point in this operation' and it was from here that Michael VIII's armies attacked in 12 74: driving Charles's men back to the coast. There seems to have been almost continuous warfare in the hinterland of Durazzo and Avlona between 1274 and 1276. Byzantine soldiers also appear to have penetrated south into Old Epiros and to have occupied the harbour of Butrinto or Bouthroton on the mainland opposite Corfu. Presumably the intention was to launch an invasion of Corfu itself. But it was at this stage that Nikephoros of Epiros became directly involved in the defence of his rights against the Byzantines. For Butrinto lay well within the limits of his territory.26 So far as Charles of Anjou was concerned an alliance with Nikephoros would be helpful. just as an alliance with his more militant brother John Doukas in Thessaly might have its uses. But so long as he had access to the Balkans by way of Durazzo and Avlona neither alliance was vital to his purposes. The time-honoured route for would-be Italian conquerors of Byzantium lay along the Via Egnatia through New Epiros or Albania. This was the way the Normans had .Ang~i~s d~ Naplos. Etud.s sur I.s r.gistr.s du roi Char/.s ler (ra6 s-ra8S). Il (Blbbotheque des Ecoles fran~aises d' Athenes et de Rome. fasc. SI. Paris. 1887). pp. 304. 3 15. Cf. Geanakoplos. Emp.ror Mich ...l. pp. 233--235.

I. Fo~ the Byzantine campaigns in Albania and Epiros in 12 74-12 76 see

~sp~y Geanakoplos. Emperor Michael. pp. 279-280. In January 12 77 the Imperlal commander of Berat and the coastal distzict of Spinariza (or Sfirnasa) to ~e north of Avlona was one Stanos with the title of s.bastos. Butrinto was gamsoned by Byzantine tzoops under the command of one Lithorites in May 1277. See ~. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas. Urkunden sur dlter.n Handels- und St~atsgesChs~hteder R.publik V....dig. III (1857) (= Fontes Rerum Austriacarum DtPlomata,.~ ~t Ac~. XIV). 'Judicum Venetorum in causis piraticis contra Graecos ~ecISlones. p. 182: 'Stano Savasto. capitaneo Beigradi et Spinarize JIl"? dommo I~peratore ... ;' p. 243: ·Butzinto. castrum domini Imperatoris. CUIUS erat capltaneus quidam vocatus Lithoriti .. :. Cf. Acta Albani.... I. nos. 3~. 4?1. pp. 109. 147; Hopf. Geschicht. Gri.chenlands. I. p. 300 B (who gives Lithontes the name Theodoros). See also I. A. Romanos 'IIspl BouOp......oii. 4c>. I -'1 -. • • T ov ..... '1t; ....... ~p'."'1.t; "cd EOVOAOY'''ijt; ·E .... ,"'pc!cxt; .... ijt; 'En,Uot;. III (1891 ). repnnted m I. P .. "cxvoii I"TOp,d Ipycx. ed. K. Daphnes(Kerkyra. 1959). p. 112.

181

lone in the 12th century; the way that the Latin Emperor Peter

~f Courtenay had attempted to go in 1217; the way that Manfred had

hoped to go. John of Thessaly. who had successfully fought off a Byzantine attempt to bring him to heel in 1271. was in active contact with Charles of Anjou from at least as early as 1273. Charles liked to call him his 'carissimus amicus.' But the record of their dealings between 1273 and 1278 is sparse and tells only of commercial transactions. the purchase of horses and the sale of silk. IS John Doukas may have been the friend of Charles and in some sense his ally. The Byzantine ambassadors to Po~e Inn~~ent V represented him as being in league with Charles and WIth PhIhp of Courtenay. and urged the pope to excommunicate him. But there is no evidence that he ever entered into a formal alliance with Charles or became his vassal.1? John's brother Nikephoros of Epiros was nearer the scene of action; and it was precisely in the year 1276. when Byzantine imperial troops were pressing hard both in Albania and in Epiros. that he seems first to have entered into relations with Charles of Anjou. On 12 June I 2 76 Charles gave orders to his vassal WilIiam of VilIehardouin. Prince of Achaia. to receive on his behalf an oath of homage from his relative Nikephoros Komnenos Doukas. It appears that Charles made over some landed property in Achaia to Nikephoros in return for his allegiance. 28 Nikephoros was. of course. the brother-in-law of Ville.. Eight documents relating to dealings between John Doukas and Charles of Anjou. the first dated 4 April 1273. the last dated 31 March 1278. are to be found in the following publications: C. Minieri-Riccio. '11 regno di Carlo It d'Angib .. .'. A,chivio Sto,ico [taZiano. ser. 3. XXII (1875). pp. 16-17. 19. 237-238; ser. 4. I (1878). p. 9; Filangieri. Rsgistri. IX. p. 207 no. 45. pp. 209-210 no. 62; XI. p. 129 no. 186. pp. 150-151 no. 302; XVIII. p. 382 no. 791. p. 413 no. 852. Cf. Loenertz. Memoirs. p. 398 nos. 18 and 19. p. 204 no. 45. p. 405 nos. 49. 50. Other now lost Angevin documents which referred to John Doukas were dated 1275 and 1276; cf. Filangieri. Rsgistri. XII. p. 187 no. 6 ('Mentio egregii viri Ducis Neopatrie. carissimi amici sui'); XIII. p. I8a no. 21 (,Mentio Caioiohannis. Ducis Patere·). " See Geanakopios. Empero, Mich ...l. p. 290 and n. 58. Cf. M. H. Laurent. 'Georges le Metocbite. ambassadeur de Micbel VIII Pai60logue aupriJs du B. Innocent V: Stud. s Testi. 123 (Misul/a""a Giouatlni Mlr""'. Ill. Vaticall City. 1947). p. 8. " Minieri-Riccio. op. eit .• Al'eh. Slor. Ita/ .• ser. 3. XXV (1877). p. 181 (= Pilangieri. R'gistri. XIII. p. 173 no. 500). Cf. C. de LeIlis. R.,allJ C.........

v

V I82

h~rdouin and on friendly terms wit? him. It is hard to say whether this arrangem~nt amounted .to a direct feudal relationship between Charles and Nlkephoros at this stage; though Karl Hopf in hl's m t . . %~ nous way makes out that Nlkephoros swore to become the 1 . J '9' vassa ofCh ar1es In uly I276. But In the following year we hear of t wo separate embassies from Epiros to Italy. The first was led by an 'S' L ' . envoy ca11ed otlnOS auros and returned to Grecce In April I277.30 The second was composed of two envoys, described as 'the ambassad · 'f' N' ors of h,IS magm Icence ~kep~oros the Despot,' with the curious names of Stornatos and Foclnos. They went home by way of Brindisi in October I277.31 No details are known of the negotiations conducted by these ambassadors. But th.e purpose .of their missions can be surmised. The were concerned With something more significant than a mere busines~ deal, such as John Doukas of Thessaly was in the habit of transact" with . Ing . Ita1y. Th'IS su dden eVIdence of a common interest between ~Ikeph~ros and Charles in I276 and I277 is surely to be explained In. the lIght of co~temporary events. In the first place the Angevin KIn~dom of Albama was being subjected to repeated attacks from the armies of the Emperor Michael VIII based on Berat. In the second place the E~peror ~ichael had embittered many of his subjects and m~st of hiS potential allies among the Greeks by pushing through the Umo~ of the Gr~ek and Roman Churches at the Second Council o~ Lyon In I274· Nlkephoros of Epiros, like John of Thessaly was vlOlen.tl! opp~sed to this policy; and he was fully supported i~ his opposItIon to It by his wife Anna, devoted though she was in other respects to the cause of the house of Palaiologos. Italiae. Gli Atli perdut; della Cancelleria Angioina ed R FI " P I Vol. II, ed. B. Mazzoleni (Rome I ' . . I anglen, art , G ak I . ' 943), p. 12 3 no. 929· Dade, Versuche P.54· ean op os, Emperor Mtckael, p. 328. ' , .. Hopf, Gcschicktc Griechenlands, I p. 30r A-' der D t N'k h . 'd . ' . ... espo I ep oras elne Zwel eubge Stellung einnahm und erst im ]uli 1276 dem Kiinige huldi te.' Cf. Geanakoplos, Emperor Mtckael, p. 328 n. 90 . g

I. ~inieri-Riccio, op. cit., Arch. Stor. Ital., ser. 3, XXVI (1877), p. I ; Filan ieri JUgum, XV, p. 42 no. 171 (of 14 April 12 77). 4 g, ., Minieri-Riccio, op. cit., Arch. Stor. Ita!. Ser 3 XXVI (1877) F'I gieri R . t . XIX ' " , p. 421; I an, eg•• N, , p, 30 no. lIO (of 4 October 1277) Cf Geanak I E MldtatJl, p. 328 n. 89. " op os, • mperor

The Emperor's impatience with his opponents aggravated the ·tuation. In the winter of I276-I277 the Patriarch John Bekkos :onvened a council to ratify the Union of the Churches proclaimed at Lyon and excommunicate all who refused to accept it. Almost at the same time John Doukas of Thessaly held an anti-Unionist council of bishops and abbots at Neopatras, at which the Patriarch, the Emperor and the Pope were all anathematized as heretics. Whether or not his brother Nikephoros was party to this council he was no doubt in sympathy with its conclusions. For early in I277 Michael VIII sent special envoys to him and to John Doukas to try to persuade them both to put a stop to their anti-Unionist activities. Shortly afterwards he sent on to them the sentence of excommunication laid upon all enemies of the Union of Lyon. And on 16 July 1277, three months after Michael VIII and his son Andronikos had solcmnly confirmed in writing the profession of faith that had been declared in their names at Lyon, the Patriarch reaffirmed the excommunication of all who refused to accept it, among them being the Despot Nikephoros and his brother John. 3. Michael VIII's protonotary Ogerius composed a celebrated memoir for Pope Nicholas III in 1278, which provides an insight into the strength and influence of the anti-Unionist party beyond as well as within the city of Constantinople. He remarks on the manner in which Nikephoros, and also his brother John, the 'vassals and subjects' of the Emperor, both openly rebelled after hearing of the Emperor's pledge of loyalty to the Pope. The Emperor sent an army to force them into submission, but some of its commanders, even though related to the imperial family, went over to the side of the rebels. Ogerius also laments the fact that the Latin rulers of Thebes, Athens, Negroponte and Achaia were constantly giving aid and comfort to Nikephoros and John Doukas. The Byzantine feeling against Michael VIII's ecclesiastical policy was so strong that he was hard put to it to find officers whom he could trust. And Nikephoros of Epiros retaliated partly by confirming his alliance with Charles of Anjou, 32 The chronology of these events is that proposed by Loenertz, M'moire, pp. 379-380, 400-403. Cf. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp. 306-309. Tbe anti-Unionist council in Thessaly has previously been dated to December 1277 by V. Grumel, 'En Orient apres le lIe Concile de Lyon,' Echos d'Ori.ttl, XXIV (1925), pp. 322-323. But see now Loonertz, Mlmoi", pp. 385-386.

v

v 185 and partly by direct military action against the Byzantine armies on his northern frontier. The harbour of Butrinto, which the Emperor's soldiers had occupied and which was still in their hands in June 1277 was recovered by Nikephoros in 1278 or 1279.33 ' There was, however, at least one important defector in the opposite direction. The younger brother of Nikephoros, Demetrios or Michael Koutroulis, left his native land and went over to the Emperor in Constantinople. He was perhaps motivated more by family reasons than by any other consideration, feeling that he had been given a raw deal in the sharing out of his father's inheritance, as Gregoras implies. But he may have been seduced as well, since Pachymeres suggests that he had received letters from the Emperor promising him the rank of Despot and the hand of a princess in marriage if he would come over. The fact of his defection may have been provoked by his brother's negotiations with Charles of Anjou, or by the anti-Unionist policy of both of his brothers. For his flight to Constantinople must be dated to the year 1277 or 1278.3C In November 1278 the Patriarch Bekkos granted a special dispensation for the marriage of Demetrios~. Ogerius: ed .. Loenertz, Memo;,e, p. 390 § 5, p. 393 § 18. That Butrinto was still m By~antme Imperial control in May and June 1277 seems to be indicated by Venetian documents referring to those dates among the 'J udicum Venetorum decisiones piraticae: in Tafel and Thomas, U.kunden ... d.. Republik Venedig Ill, pp. 226, 243, 272-273. But it was evidently in the hands of Nikephoros at least by March 1279. See below.

a. On D.em~trios-Michael (Koutroulis) see now D. 1. Polemis, The Doukai. A C~nt...but,on 10 Byzantine P.osopography (University of London Historical Stu~les, XXII, London, 1968), no. 51, p. 96. For the meaning of the name or. nIckname ~f ~outroulis ('beardless' or 'bald') see H. Moritz, Die Zunamen ~ den byzanlin~schen. Historikern und Chronislen (Programm des k. humanis::ch~n GymnasIUms m Landshut, II [1897/98)), p. 49. Gregoras, vI, 9: I, p. 4 line 5, alone among the Byzantine historians refers to Demetrios-Michael as 6 KOUTPOOA'Ij~. The Ch.onicl. of the Mo,ea (ed P P Kalonaros Ath ) p 150 lin ttr'b h . . . ,ens, 1940 , '. e 3470, a ,utes t e name Koutroulis to Nikephoros of Epiros Th ~'b'O de los Fechos et Conquislas del Principado de la Mo,ea (ed. A. Morel_Fatioe

Mier::.a , 18~5), p'. 14 § 53, describes the father of Nikephoros and Demetrios~

Blaq ~;W ... dlspot de la Arta, Quir Miqali, dicho Crutuli & senyor de la The ~~ Perha~ the name was acquired because baldness ran in the family. trioe-MiC::~f Mlchael I of Epiros, the grandfather of Nikephoros and DemePol . Mo ,.was more than once derided for his bald pate. See references in enus, or' m., no. 40, p. 87.

Michael to Anna, the daughter of Michael VIII. The text of this document exists, unnecessary though it appears to have been; since, as the Patriarch points out, a sixth degree of affinity had not constituted an impediment to marriage, at least for persons of imperial rank, since the Sixth Oecumenical Council. Demetrios-Michael thus became, as it were, Despot of Epiros in exile, legitimately married to the Emperor's daughter and the sworn 'vassal' of the Emperor." The episode is an interesting example of the matrimonial diplomacy of Michael VIII, whom nature as well as marriage supplied with a useful crop of nubile daughters. But to return to Nikephoros. His own limited success against the Byzantine imperial army, which resulted in his recovery of Butrinto, brought him into a closer association with Charles of Anjou. He could not make Charles his son-in-law, as his father had done with Manfred. M But he could employ somewhat similar tactics in order to promote the common interest which he now held with Charles, to embarrass and perhaps to unseat the Emperor in Constantinople. Nikephoros seems therefore to have decided to make over to Charles the few strategic assets that he had to offer. On 14 March 1279 he declared himself to be the vassal of Charles, and handed over to him not only the port of Butrinto which he had recently recaptured, but also the places known as Sybota and Panormus. As a guarantee of his good intentions he delivered up his son Michael to the castellan of Avlona, to be transported to Clarentza in the Morea, there to be held as a hostage. M .. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'hpoaoAUf1.''l'Lxij B'~A,08~x'lj, IV (St. Petersburg, 1898). p. 382, no. 59; text in M. Gedeon, Nt", B'~A,08~x'lj Cxx),'/)" ",,,,anx;;;v aUYYP"''!'t(dV, I (1903), cols. 106-108, and' ApXoLOV iXXA'lja.",aT.,,~~ !aTop!",~, I (1911), pp. 48-50. Loenertz, Memoire, pp. 406-407, no. 56. Cf. Pachymcres, De Michaele Palaeologo, vI, 6: I, pp. 439-441. After his marriage Demetrios-Michael was bound to the Emperors by something like a feudal relationship; Pachymeres, I, p. 441 line 4: ... "",I ~v ivnii8.... 6 f1.iv M.xori), ~",a'Miia, 30iiAO~ ~v 6pxo,~.

.. Thamar, the second daughter of Nikephoros and Anna, did eventually marry Philip, grandson of Charles I of Anjou, in 1294. Their eldest daughter, Maria, married John I Orsini, Count of Cephalonia, about 1293. See Nicol, The By,..,,line Family of Kanlakouz.nos, p. 24. " G. del Giudice, 'La famiglia di re Manfredi: A fc/,ivio stonco pw I, Jwovi"eN napoletane, IV (1879), p. 361 n. 2; cf. Act.. Alb.."iae. I, no. 390, p. I14 n.

• v

v 186 The details of the transaction were worked out in a series of diplomatic exchanges a few weeks later. The three envoys whom Nikephoros had sent over to Italy in March to negotiate the surrender of Butrinto passed through Apulia on their way home on 8 April 1279. The local harbour-masters were ordered to grant them and their horses free exit from the country as the respected ambassadors of the Despot Nikephoros Komnenos Doukas who were going home with their mission accomplished. Among them was a Franciscan friar Giacomo, whom one is not surprised to find acting as an intermediar; between South Italy and Greece. The other envoys are named as 'Kirio Magulco' and Niccolo Andricopolo, or Andritsopoulos, an Epirote family known from other sources. 38 But while these three were in Italy, Charles had sent two ambassadors of his own to Nikephoros to draft the text of a formal treaty. On 10 April he ratified its terms and nominated the same two ambassa~ors as ~is agents to receive in his name the Despot's signature of It and hIS oath of homage as the vassal of Charles. Their names were Roger, Archbishop of Santa Severina, and the knight Ludovico de Roheriis or Royer. The treaty was most probably signed and the oath of homage sworn at Clarentza in Achaia rather than at Arta. It was at Clarentza that the son of Nikephoros was detained as a hostage. sa But Charles see~s not to have wasted time in waiting for the treat~ to be f~rmalised. O? the same day, 10 April, he empowered his captam and VIcar-general m Corfu, Giordano di San Felice, to receive aB ~inie~-Riccio, .op. dt .• Arch. Stor. Ilal., ser. 4, II (1878), p. 198; G. GoluboVlch, In BessanOft., XI (1906), p. 50. Sp. Lampros, ,uAvvrJ. -I) K"'v"'rJ.xoU~1Jv~. ~u~cx~~cxx~ i."':p~'P~ i~ Ah"A£CX~,' Nio~ 'EH1Jvof'v~f'''v, I (1904), pp. 4 1-4 2 , Identifle~ thIS Nlch~laum Andracopolum' with a son or brother of Kosmas of ~e ~amlly of Andntsopoulos mentioned in an inSCription from Mokista in Altolia of the end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th century.

.1 Minie~:Riccio, op. cil., A,ch. 510'. Ilal., ser. 4, 11 (1878), p. 199. For Ludovico de Rohems or Loys de Roye:, See Dum.u, op. cil., 11, p. 375; Filangieri, Regisl,i, X~, p. 222. no. 580, and Index s.v. Geanakoplos. Emperor Michael p 328 wntes that ~udovico 'received the homage of Nikephoros for his s:,ve~eign: CJarentza In 1278; Hopf, GBsch;chl. Griechenlands, I, p. 323. has it that the Cl Longnambassad~rs w~t to. Epiros to receive the Despot's oath of homage. • OD, L Empwe lalin, p. 259.

:.a

. his name from the Despot Nikephoros not only the castle of Bu~nto but also all the other castles, villages and lands which Manfred and Chinardo had once possessed, before they passed into the hands of Nikephoros. 4o It thus appears that Nikephoros had been persuaded to make over to Charles all the outstanding portion of the territOIy that he claimed by terms of the Treaty of Viterbo. As a result Charles's Albanian kingdom was enlarged by the addition of a very substantial part of the coast-line of Old Epiros, from the bay of Avlona and the Akrokeraunian promontory down as far as Butrinto and Sybota. Sybota, variously transcribed in the Italian sources as Subotum or Siponto, was the name given to the small islands off the southern tip of Corfu, and also to a harbour on the mainland of Epiros opposite, well to the south of Butrinto. Panormus, which also changed hands, was a port on the stretch of coast between Butrinto and the Akrokeraunian promontory,,1 Here also lay the town of Chimarra, which was included in the deal. A castellan was appointed for the three castles of Butrinto, Sybota and Chimarra. 42 The Despot Nikephoros continued .. Minieri-Riccio, op. cil .• Arch. St~,. Ital .• ser. 4, 11 (1878), p. 199 (giving the date as 10 April). Del Giudice. op. cit., Arch. stor. per I. prov. napol .• IV (1879). p. 361 no. 6; Acta Albania., I. no. 390. pp. II3-II4 (both giving the date as 12 April). A. Mustoxidi. Delle Cose Co,dres; (Corfu. 1848). p. 443. describes this document and dates it to 1278. For Giordano di San Felice (Iordanus de Sancto Felice) see Durrieu, op. cit., 11, p. 385. n For the islands and the port of Sybota sce Hammond, EPirus, pp. 674~S. Map 16. Panormus is to be identified with the port in the bay of Panermon or Palermo. a few miles to the south of Chimarra (Himare). Hammond, ibid., pp. 124, 700, Map. 18. One of Chinardo's men had begun to build a castle there, according to Hopf. Geschichte Griechenlands. I, p. 323 B. Cf. A. Delatte, Les p.,/Ulans Grecs (Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universitt! de Liege. fasc. CVII, Paris, 1947), p. 204 line 12 f. (....x l:u~o~cx); p. 27 lines 3-4 (...0 IMvepf'ov); p. 31 lines 5-6 (-I) X1Jf'lipcx . ...0 nllVipf'o, ....0 1:..""T6v); p. 203 lines 27-28 (<1,,0 ...0 ncxv6pf'0 o:~ ...b 1:0"0...6. '''p6xo Ao~liv...'II. IIIcx, f'£ll.,,~' ... ) . .. Del Giudice. op. cit., Arch. stor. p.r I. p,ov. napol .• V (1880). p. 317; Acla Albaniae. I. no. 432, p. 130. The evidence for the inclusion of Vonitza in the transaction, as indicated by Hopf. Geschichl. Griechenlands. I. p. 323 B, and by Geanakoplos. Empero, Michael, p. 328, is hard to find. Leonard. Les Angevitl& do Naples, p. 134 (citing L. Halphen, L'Essor de l'Eu,ope Xle-XIII' silcles [Paris. 1932). p. 492). writes that Charles, having persuaded Nikephoros to give him Butrinto. 'puis iJ s'assure deux autres bases de d6barquement sur la c6te d'Epire, a Mourtoi (sic), en face de l'extremite m6ridionale de l'tle de Cor-

-

v

v 189

188

to rule over the southern part of Old Epiros. from Sybota to the Gulf of Corinth. But he did so now not simply as the ally of Charles of Anjou but as Charles's vassal and subject. Such. as Charles wrote in his rescript to his captain on Corfu. were the terms agreed upon between himself and Nikephoros. The final details were arranged by further envoys from Nikephoros. for whose return home by way of Barletta and Brindisi letters of safe conduct were issued on 12 April 1279. 48 The Angevin bridgehead on the Balkan mainland was in this way firmly established from Durazzo down to Butrinto and the mainland opposite Corfu by 1279; and effectively. since Nikephoros was now the sworn vassal of Charles. it extended as far south as Naupaktos and the Gulf of Corinth. And it was from this bridgehead. as Pachymeres. Gregoras and Sanudo all agree. that Charles proposed to mount his offensive overland first against Thessalonica and then against Constantinople itself." Pachymeres goes on to relate that Charles's hopes of victory were so high that his officers even began to divide the towns and provinces of the Empire among themselves. as the knights of the Fourth Crusade had done in 1204.'6 On 13 August 1279 Charles appointed as commander-in-chief of all his Albanian and Epirote territories the Burgundian knight Hugues le Rousseau de Sully. Sully was given the title of captain and vicar-general of Albania. Durazzo. Avlona. Butrinto. Sybota and Corfu. Throughout 1279 and 1280 arms and supplies were shipped across to him from Italy in great quantities. in preparation for the offensive. This was to begin with the capture of the fortress of Berat. which was still strongly held fou. et a Venitza (sic). sur le golfe d·Arta.' The source of this information is not ~uot.ed. Hopf. loc. tit .• writes of Angevin garrisons in Butrinto. Sybota and Vomtza m 1280. under the command of one Peter de Gloriano.

.a Minieri-Riccio. op. cit.• Arch. St~,. I/al .• ser. 4. 11 (1878). p. 199. •• Pachymeres. De Michaele Palaeologo. vi. 32: I. p. 509; Gregoras. v. 6: I. p. 146; Sanudo•. ed. Hopf. pp. 129. 131. Cf. Geanakoplos. Emperor Michael. p. 330 (tho~gh It s~ould be not~ that Sully did not have to seize Kanina as a prelude to his operations. for Kanma had been Angevin since about 1266). Pachymeres. De Michaele Paiaeologo. vi. 32: I. p. 509 lines II-14: i ...l ..oaoii..o. a'le«ppOll'l or'ij " .......6-roO~ au.iJU' c...... ,...1 ,...... l>....,,,l'ov ..ov "pel....'" lh"l'cp!t... xacl Xol>p~ ,...\ rc6>.c~ i ..u..iji TliIv "'pouX6vT"'v.

Cl

',.....-.0.

by Byzantine troops. &8 The part played in these preparations by Nikephoros is not told. nor is there evidence that he supplied soldiers for the campaign. as the vassal of Charles. But no doubt his advice on local conditions was valuable; and there is record of his messengers passing back and forth to Italy in August 1279 and again in March 1280.47

The Emperor Michael VIII was fully aware that. if the line was broken in Albania and Epiros. the flood gates would be open. Since it was now clear that Charles of Anjou's long premeditated invasion was to be made by land and not by sea. every effort must be made to hold the western approaches along the Via Egnatia. The Emperor therefore rushed reinforcements to Berat. under the command of the Grand Domestic Michael Tarchaneiotes and the megas stratopedarclJes John Synadenos. With them went the renegade brother of Nikephoros. Demetrios-Michael Koutroulis. 48 His experience as a soldier was limited. especially by comparison with such men as Tarchaneiotes and Synadenos; but he knew the country to which he was being sent, and there may have been a hope that his presence would dissuade his brother from joining in on the enemy side. As it was the coalition of the successor of Manfred with the rulers of Epiros. Thessaly and the Morea. quite apart from those of Serbia and Bulgaria. must have reminded Michael VIII of the preparations for the battle of Pelagonia in 1258-1259. In the event the final Angevin attack on Berat in the spring of .. Minieri-Riccio. op. cit., Arch. Stor. Ital., ser. 4. 11 (1878), p. 355. For Sully and his preparations for the campaign in Albania and Epiros in 1279 and 1280. see especially Geanakoplos. Emperor Michael, p. 329 f. and references. " On 15 August 1279 Charles ordered the 'portolano' of Brindisi to issue an exit permit to Theodore, ambassador of the Despot Nikephoros Komnenos Doukas. returning home with his mission accomplished; and on 14 March 1280 Simone di Belvedere. vice-admiral of the coast from Tronto to Cotrone. was ordered to hold One ship ready in the harbour at Brindisi to transport 'to the Morea' the returning envoys of the Despot Nikephoros. Minieri-Riccio. op. cit., Arch. Stor. Ital., ser. 4, 11 (1878), p. 356; III (1879). p. 8. Reinforcements were sent to the castles of Butrinto and Sybota (Butrontoi and Subotoi) at the end of March 1280 (ibid .• p. 9). .. Pachymeres, DB MichaelB PalaBologo. VI. 32: I. p. 512 (thefourthcommander was Andronikos Eonopolites). Cf. Gregoras, v. 6: I, pp. 146-148; Sanudo, ed. Hopf, p. 129.

v v

191

190

was beaten off by the Byzantine armies. Sully was captured and his troops were driven back to the coast on all sides. The significance as well as the facts of this Byzantine victory have been admirably demonstrated by D. J. Geanakoplos. In his view it was 'probably the most important military encounter of Palaeologus with the Latins during his entire reign.'49 Michael VIII commemorated it in writing in his own autobiography and in art with a fresco painting on the wall of the Blachernai Palace. Fifteen years later Maximos Planoudes still recalled the memorable sight of the imperial triumph that was celebrated in Constantinople in 1281.&0 Following up their victory at Berat the Byzantine armies advanced on the Angevin bases at Kanina and Avlona to the south and on Durazzo to the north. The Albanian fortress of Kroia in the mountains behind Durazzo was in imperial control soon after July 128I. 51 Avlona was being besieged at about the same time, though its Angevin castellan was still in command of the citadel in September 1284.liz The governor of Durazzo, Giovanni Scotto, was sending urgent requests to Italy for reinforcements to hold off the Byzantine troops in December I281; but here too the Angevin garrison was still resisting as late as 1284.63 In the end, however, as SanudQ says, Kanina, u81

•• Geanakoplos, Emperor Michtl8l, pp. 332-334; Leonard, L.s Angevins do Naphs, p. 134; S. Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 195196. •• 'Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi De Vita Sua: ed. Gregoire, loc. cit., pp. 459-461, § IX. Pachymeres, De Michtl8h Palaeologo, vi, 33: I, p. 517. Mlnimi mo""chi Planudis epistulae, cd. M. Treu (Breslau, 1890), no. CXII, p. 151 (cf. p. 26of). .. Michael VIII issued a charter of privileges for the city and bishopric of Kroia (Kroai) shortly after July 1281. Acta AlbtJnitl8, I, no. 456, p. 135. See DlIlger, R'glSten, Ill, no. 2058.

.1 Documents concerning the resistance of Avlona under its castellan Johannes de Taxi, in Minieri-Riccio, op. tit., Arch. Stor. ltal., ser. 4, IV (1879), p. 14 (July 1281); pp. 174, 176 (April and May 1282); p. 350 (September 1282); Acla AlbtJ..itl8, I, no. 488, p. 146 (letter of Charles to J ohannes de Taxi congratulating him on his stand at Avlona, dated 7 September 1284). .. Minieri-Riccio, op. tit., Arch. Star. ltal., ser. 4, IV (1879), p. 18 (reply of Charles to Giovanni Scotto of Durazzo, dated 25 December u81 [= Acta Albattitl8, I, no. 460. pp. 137-138]). Cf. Acta AlbtJ..itl8, I, nos. 457, 461, 462,

Avlona and Durazzo were all restored to the Byzantine Emperor." The disaster at Berat and its consequences persuaded Charles of Anjou to abandon the idea of sending his army overland to Constantinople, and to mount his invasion by sea. On 3 July I281 at Orvieto a new treaty was concluded between Charles, the Latin Emperor Philip of Courtenay, and Venice for the preparation of a new campaign against the Byzantine Empire. Venice was to supply the warships to patrol the sea and the troop-carriers for the transport of an army to Constantinople by April 1283.55 There is no mention of the participation of Nikephoros of Epiros in the Treaty of Orvieto, although as the vassal of Charles he was no doubt subject to its terms. But not long afterwards another treaty was drawn up between Charles, the Latin Emperor and the Doge of Venice, with Nikephoros as an equal partner. Exactly what role he was to play in this new grand alliance against the Emperor Michael VIII is not stated. But on 25 September 1281 we find Charles of Anjou writing to the Marshal of the Regno and Baillie of Achaia informing him that such a treaty had been signed. At the same time Charles commanded that the son of Nikephoros, Michael, who had been held as a hostage at Clarentza since April 1279, was now to be handed back to his father or to his father's representative by I November 1281. In other words, Nikepho-

pp. 135, 138; 'Gcanakoplos, Emperor Mic/lael, p. 334 n. 120. For Giovanni Scotto, or Jehan Lescot, see Durrieu, op. cit., 11, p. 338. The latest 13th-century document referring to an Angevin castellan (Michael Sardus) and captain (Guillelmus II Bernardi) of Durazzo is dated 20 October 1284. AcItJ AlbtJnitl8, I, no. 494, p. 148. A Byzantine bishop (Niketas /) was re-elected to the See of Durazzo by 1289. K. Rhalles and M. Potles, :Euvnyl''" T6iV Oc!61V xcd l.p6iv ","VQV6)V (Athens, 1852-59), V, p. 122.

e

.. Sanudo, ed. Hopf, p. 129: 'alia fine il detto Castello della Gianina che in la Vallona, e Duraccio fll restituito all'Imperador de Greci predetto: 'Gianina' here means Kanina, which was certainly in Byzantine imperial control by 1307 and probably before 1294. It was recovered by the Byzantine general Michae\ Doukas Glabas Tarchaneiotes, whose exploits in Epiros and elsewhere were celebrated in a poem by Manuel Philcs, ed. E. Miller, Ma_lis Philtl8 Ca.....;.... II (Paris, 1857), no. CCXXXVII, pp. 240-255. on which see especially P. J: Alexander, op. cit., Byzantion. XV (1940-41), pp. 195-196, 204-207.

I. Geanakoplos. Empercw Micha8I, pp. 335-338 and references.

v

v 192

ros had by now faithfully fulfilled his obligations to King Charles as an obedient and trusted 'friend and ally.'·6 Six months later the Sicilian Vespers put paid to Charles's eastern ambitions, and nine months after that, in December 1282, the Emperor Michael VIII died. After the death of the heretical Emperor, the separatist rulers of northern Greece could no longer justify their actions on religious grounds, or pose as the pious defenders of true Byzantine Orthodoxy. For the first thing that the new Emperor Andronikos II did on his accession was to renounce the Union of Lyon and proclaim the restoration of the Orthodox faith throughout his Empire. His aunt Eulogia was, we are told, the prime mover in influencing him to this decision. And her daughter Anna, the basilissa of Epiros, set out for Constantinople as soon as she heard of her mother's release from the detention in which she had been held. Nikephoros sent his own personal ambassador to the new Emperor. He was the Bishop of Kozyle near Arta in Epiros; and because of his impeccable orthodoxy, untainted by contamination with the Unionist clergy, the good Bishop of Kozyle found himself quite unexpectedly involved in consecrating the new Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory of Cyprus, on 28 March 1283.57 It is possible that Anna of Epiros was present at the synod held in the Blachernai Palace in May 1283, at which the Union of the Churches was formally repudiated. It is certain that she attended the synod held at Atramyttion in the winter of 1283-1284, in company with her mother and one of her sisters.58 It looked as though the death of Michael VIII and the defeat of Charles of Anjou would make it possible for Epiros and Byzantium to revert to a state of peaceful co-existence, or even of active co-operation. The basilissa Anna indeed made a secret pact with the Emperor Andronikos II while she was in Constantinople in 1284 to kidnap the heir-apparent to the troublesome principality of Thessaly. But the •• Minieri-Riccio, op. cit., Arch. Stor. Ital., Ser. 4, IV (1879), p. 17. Cf. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p. 339. Charles describes Nikephoros as 'dilectum amicum, fidelem nostrum.' ., Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo, I, 14, 18: goras, vI, I: I, pp. 164-165. .•• Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo, I, 21:

n,

n,

pp. 42-45, 52-56. Gre-.

pp. 58-59.

Byzantine troops still operating in the area of Epiros and Albania . 1283 were clearly not yet informed of any change of policy. The

::st record that we have of any dea~ngs between Nikephoros and Charles of Anjou comes from a letter wntten by Charles on 5 December 1283. Nikephoros had evidently written to Charles's son asking for reinforcements to be sent to help in the defence of Epiros against the imperial army of Andronikos n. Charles replied that he had given instructions to the Duke of Athens and to the Vicar-general of Achaia to go the Despot's help with what forces they could spare. 51 Perhaps they did their work more thoroughly than Nikephoros had intended; for there is independent evidence that the city of Naupaktos, which had always belonged to the rulers of Epiros, passed into Italian control in 1284 or 1285.60 But not many months later Charles of Anjou was dead. His son and heir Charles n was a prisoner of the Aragonese until 1289. His son-in-law, Philip of Courtenay, the titular Latin Emperor of Constantinople, had died in 1283, leaving his title to his infant daughter Catherine. Pope Martin IV also died in 1285. All of the most interested parties to the Treaty of Orvieto were now gone. The Doge of Venice shed a tear and changed his tactics. In 1285 he made an agreement of his own with the new Byzantine Emperor. The pretensions of the house of Anjou to the conquest of the Byzantine Empire had perforce to be dropped. But they were not forgotten; and Charles n, as well as his son Philip, still claimed possession of Albania and New Epiros, and still regarded Nikephoros and his heirs in Old Epiros as potential friends, allies or subjects. In 1294 Philip of Anjou married Thamar, daughter of Nikephoros .t Minieri-Riccio, op. cit., Arch. Stor. Ital., ser. 4, V (1880), p. 361. C. de Lellis, Regesta Chartarum Italiae. Gli Atti perduti della Cancelle,ia Angioina, ed. R. Filangieri, Part I. Vol. I, ed. B. Mazzoleni (Rome, 1939), p. 573 no. 58. Cf. Romanos, rr.pl TOU 6..""OTCtTOU T;j~ 'H "etpou, pp. 44-45; Geanakoplos. Emperor Michael, p. 369, n. 6; D. A. Zakythenos, Le Despolal G,ec de Mori" I (Paris. 1932), pp. 59-60. " Miklosich and Miiller, A cia et Diplomala "U'08'K~ ~"l T<ji 'r",,,wlv,,,v, N.D. [/ 1365]), p. Nexu"ciKTou iLETClt~O).~, ot" 3~ Ta civ6p':>7t"Clt, "CltTa l
G,aB,a, I, no. ccxn (rrpii~,~ 469: ... ~<jI"TO XCltI TCltU'"l~ &I) rlj~ ycip "ou TO i~CltX'OJ('A'OGTOV i,...... "u~ clno rlj~ 'P"iL"lX'l~ i~..ualat;

un-o TWV d.A(X~6v6)v Ka:t &ye:p~X(,lV 't'oo't'(a)" xell nAe:OVExT&l" 'ITlI'h(;)v.

v

VI 194

and Anna of Epiros. The arrangements made for Philip's inheritance and for Thamar's dowry have a familiar ring. Charles II granted to Philip, among other things, the island of Corfu, the harbour of Avlona and the Kingdom of Albania. And Thamar's dowry consisted of four of the most important towns in her father's dominions - Vonitza Angeiokastron, Vrachori (or Agrinion), and Naupaktos. 61 It was b; treaty and by marriage contract, not by conquest, that the Angevin foothold in Epiros was maintained after the death of Charles 1. For latterly, as John Cantacuzene observed to the Epirotes in 1340, the Italians were never able to conquer a single town on the Greek mainland, either by assault or by siege. Their only acquisitions were those places, such as Vonitza, Naupaktos and Butrinto, which the rulers of Epiros had voluntarily made over to them in order to have their support against the Byzantine Emperor.11

.. Pachymeres. De A ..drOft'co Paltuologo, Ill, 4: 11. pp. 200-202. Cf. Longnon. L'E",pire latin, pp. 268-269. 272-273.

.. John Cantacuzenus, Hidoriae, n,

37: I (ed. Bonn, 1828), p. 529 lines 8-14:

THE ABDICATION OF JOHN VI CANTACUZENE

Few events in the reign of John VI Cantacuzene ate as well documented as that of his abdication. Over a dozen chroniclers and historians, Greek or Italian, between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries record the fac:t and some give more or less detailed accounts of what took place. Unfortunately their accounts are by no means consistent. The purpose of this paper, now offered in homage to one who some thirty years ago pointed the way to a new assessment of a much maligned Emperor, is to try to distinguish fac:t from fiction, truth from prejudice in this unhappy affairl. Prejudice abounds. John Cantacuzene was not popular as an Emperor; and as the historian of his own career he has been suspected and accused of all manner of chicanery. Indeed it has been commonly assumed, at least since the time of DuCange and Gibbon, that the last person to be trusted in any account of his own affairs is John Cantacuzene himself. "He asserts in his history", writes Gibbon, "(does he hope for belief?) ... that, in free obedience to the voice of religion and philosophy, he descended from the throne and embraced with pleasure the monastic habit. So soon as he ceased to be a prince, his successor was not unwilling that he should be a saint"2. George Finlay is still more sceptical. "It is impossible", he writes, "to read the partial account which Cantacuzenos has left us of these events without a feeling of contempt for the Emperor, and a conviction of the falsity of his narratioo"3. Cantacuzene's own assertions that his abdication was a voluntary act have perhaps been too readily dismissed as mere hypocrisy. A man more resolute might have resigned without allowing himself to become the victim of circumstances. But must one therefore discredit the fact that he made a belated 1 F. Doiger, "Johannes VI. Kantakuzenos als dynastischer Legitimist", Seminarium KoruIo.· kovianwn, X (1938) (= Festschri/t A. A. Vasiliev), pp. 19-30; reprinted in llAPAEIlOPA (EttaI, 1961), pp. 194·207. The substance of this paper was read .. a communication at !he Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies at Orlord in September 11166.

~ lU oMel'.~ -I)3uvij61j"",v xup.o. yaviaO",., oG-r. t7v lx6vn~ ot •A""pvGtvla,

• E. Gibbon, Th. History 0/ the DeclW and Fall of the Roman Empire. eeL VI (London, 1898), p. 505.

I,xovur; 7<"'POX':'P'l"Gtv. Bov-rl-r('l~ "". NGtu7
a G. Finlay, A History of Gr-. from u. conq_ by the Rmnana CO the od. H. F. Tozer. 1Il (Oxford, 1877), p. 460.

",.no"

GU!'l"'xGU( 7<~ -rOv 7v 7<6MI'0v.

J.

B. Bury,

pr.- .....

VI

VI 271

270 decision - that, in his own words, "he chose the first real opportunity to abdicate, as one who despaired of the Romans ever being able to think or to act intelligently and in their own best interest"4? His decision to abdicate was clearly very closely connected with his desire to become a monk, a desire that he had long cherished, as the Patriarch Philotheos pointed out to Nikephoros Gregoras 5 • If any account of Cantacuzene's abdication should be considered suspect on the ground of prejudice it ought surely to be that of Gregoras, whose judgement was twisted and confused by his religious bigotry. How can one believe that Gregoras preserves strict objectivity on the subject of a former friend who had in his view become "the bane of the Church and the fervent champion of all wickedness"6? However, this paper is concerned with the facts of the case rather than with the motives that prompted John Cantacuzene to abdicate, or with the political context in which the event occurred. His motives were critically analysed by V. Parisot in what, though written in 1845, remains the only substantial monograph on the Emperor's life 7 . The social and political circumstances contributing to his downfall have more recently been the subject of a special study by E. Frances, who sees in the uprising of the Byzantines in favour of John V Palaiologos in 1354, a movement honestly recorded by Cantacuzene himself, "the last triumph of the masses of Constantinople" against the feudal aristocracy supported by the Turks B• The facts of the case are these: John V Palaiologos sailed across from Tenedos to Constantinople one night towards the end of 1354 and effected a surprise entry into the city. There was some fighting in the streets but the • John Cantacuzene, HistoTiae, ed. L. Schopen (Bonn, 1828-1832), iv, 42: JII, p. 308, 17-19.

people rose in his support. After three days Cantacuzene, besieged in the fortress of Blachernai, surrendered and came to terms. It was agreed that the twO Emperors should rule as colleagues. But some days later Cantacuzene invited John V to take up residence in the palace and then abdicated and entered a monastery with the religious name of joasaph. This outline of events is agreed upon by the two authorities who were present in the city at the time - Gregoras, writing before 1360, and Cantacuzene himself, writing before 1370 9 • Cantacuzene gives an almost day-by-day account of what transpired between the entry of John V into the city and the moment of his own abdication. Gregoras, though less circumstantial and less precise in his chronology, presents a similar diary of events stretching over a period of nearly three weeks. The exact dates for the beginning and the end of the drama are provided only by a marginal note in a manuscript of Plato in the Medicean Library in Florence: "On Saturday 22 November in the eighth indiction the Emperor John Palaiologos entered Constantinople and dethroned his father-in-law the Emperor John Cantacuzene who, since his own entry into the capital. had reigned for seven years nine months and twenty-two days. He became a monk on 10 December"lo. • Greg. xxix, 27-30: Ill, pp. 241-244. Greg. xxix, 35: Ill, p. 247, 1-10, gives a slightly different version of the entry of John V. Cantac. iv, 39-42: Ill, pp. 284-310. Gregoras died in 1359·1360. Cantacuzene wrote hi. memoirs whHe PhHotheos was still in the second term of his Patriarchate, i.e. between 1364 and 1376. Cf. Cantac. iv, 50: Ill, p. 363, 19f. The earliest manuscript of the text (Florence, Cod. Laurent. Plul. IX, 9) bears the date December 1369. Codex Laurentianus Plutensis LXXXV, VI, fol. 2r: printed with Latin translation by A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum manuscTiptoTum Bibliothecae Medice... LaurentiGna., II (Ill) (reprinted Leipzig, 1961), col. 251: "In summo margine secundae paginae minutis ac difficillimis characteribus haec notata sunt: Tjj xr toG Noel'~p!ou 1'1Ivb, '11, 11' Iva,xt<6Ivo, fjl'tp~ l)IXPP"''P elo>'l)(01l b IXuOl"1I' fjl'6Iv b ~",o,).eu, b II.Y'o, b xGp '1"'''''11' b rr"A",oA6yo, el, t~V K.,vot""tVO"lto).tV, xIXl "ltex"0>'l)...,oe tb. ltevOepbv IX",06 tbv K""IXXOU~1Ivbv, ~",o,).euoIX"" 1''''' ,b eloe),O.iv el, tT!V K.,v.,,,vttVOUltOAtV lt1J ~' I'll"'" 8' iJl'~P'" x~'. 'Ertve" ~. I'ov,,)(b, 'll " ,06 <1.X0I"p(ou 1'1Iv6,. 'E1t"'p'''p)(eu.e b KQxxtVo, Xp6vov ",' iJl'tp", e'." Republished by Sp. Lambros, "IIO~vv1l' E' rr,,).IXwl.6yo, x",1 b rr.. tp'''PX1I, K6xxtVo,', N to, 'E ). ).11 v 0 I' y >'III 10 v, XIV (1920), pp. 403-404. The Patriarch Phi/otheos Kokkinos appeara to have resigned bis office on 23 November 1354. He at first hid himself for some days in a secret recess in SI. Sophia called the holy furnace (II.r'OY '!l06pvov), where the cbriam for baptisms was prepared. Cf. Greg. xxix, 35·36: Ill, p. 247, 10-248. 6. G. M_i.

10

• Phi/otheos (Kokkinos), AntiTThetici contTa GTegoTam, xii: in Migne, PatTologia GTaeca, CLl, col. 1128C.D. Cf. J. MeyendorH, "Projets de concHe oecumenique en 1367: Un dialogue inedit entre Jean Cantacuzene et le legat Paul", DumbaTton Oaks PapeTs, XIV (1960), p. 150. • Nikephoros Gregoras, HistoTiae Byzantinae libTi postTemi, ed. L Bekker (Bonn, 1855), xxix, 42: JII, p. 252, 4·6: K"'vt"'xou~1Ivbv tbv tll' toG Oeoil lxx).1Io("" ~).eOpov x",1 p.p"".,tT!V tll' 8).11' x"'x("" ~'''ltUpov. 00.

• Va!. Parisot, Cantacuzene Homme d'Etat et HistoTien ou e:tamen cTitique des MemoiTes de l'EmpereuT Jean Cantacuzene et de. SOUTces contempoTaines &c. (Paris, 1845). • E. Frances, "Narodoie dvizenija osenju 1354 g. v Konstantinopole i otreeenie Joanna Kantakuzina", Vizantij,kij Vremennik, XXV (1964), pp 142-147.

,,,.,).t..

6.

VI

VI

273

272 This allows for the passage of eighteen days between the arrival of John V and the abdication of John VI. Twelve of these days are accounted for in the detailed narrative of Cantacuzene. Some of the Short Chronicles provide conflicting dates for the entry of John V into Constantinople. Chronicle no. 50 in the collection of Lambros and Amantos, not the most reliable, puts it in the year 1350 11 . Chronicle no. 47, however, gives the date as 21 January in the annus mundi 6863, which is A.D. 1355. If the word NO€I'-~p£!jl could be substituted for the word 'IQwouocp£!jl in the text of this chronicle the date would read as 21 November 1354, which accords with the information in the Florentine manuscript 12 . The Short Chronicle in Codex Vaticanus graecus 162, as edited by R. J. Loenertz, has evidently supplied the date not of John V's entry into the city in 1354, but of his first and unsuccessful attempt to force his way in from Tenedos in the previous year, on Palm Sunday or 17 March 1353. But a neglected Short Chronicle in Codex Vaticanus graecus 778 agrees with the Florentine manuscript in recording the date of John's arrival as Saturday 22 November 1354 13 . The accuracy of this information can be controlled by Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleea e TeodoTO Meliteniota, ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (Studi e Testi, 56, Vatican, 1931), pp. 295·296. When found he was put on trial, condemned for treason and relegated to a monastery. Demetrios Kydones has preserved a fragment of the Tomos of his condemnation. Mercati, op. cit. pp. 251 and 333 lines 78·87; R.- J. Loenertz, 'Chronologie de Nicola, Cabasilas 1345-1354', Orientalia Christi4na Periodica, XXI (1955), p. 213.

Sp. Lambro" B p ~ X • ~ X P 0 v I" et, ed. K. l. Amanto" M v 71 '-'" ,~ 'E A A 71 v I " 'I) ~ I (Athens, 1932-1933), no. 50, pp. 86-87, lines 13-15: ,~tv' 'I",etvvTj~, ulb~ 'Avapov("ou IT~A~wMyou W, o~,o~ a"TlYo 'o'1/v cjjp~n!ow ,,~l Eq>OpO q>ouoill,,,, ,,"', E"l'IpO '1/v ITol" Il..o ,«~ XO'P"" '00 eo!ou ,ou ,"il K"'vt"'xou~'lvoij x",l ,bv eo,ov '"u ,bv "ov"'Xbv 'I",eto"q>. 11

'I",op!~~,

Ix"".

10 ibid. no. 47, p. 80, line, 20-21: "E"I ,~",~y' 'I~vouapICJl [leg. Noe,,~p!q>?1 "'". .Ioille. ~~olleb~ 'I",c1vvTj~ IT"'l~IoAoyo~ EX 'oil Kovtoox",).!ou el~ '1/v M"OA(
Chronieon breue de Groecorum imperatoribua, ab anno 1341 ad annum 1453 e cadic. 'E"e'Tjp,~ 'E''''IpE!~~ Bu~~v"vGlv l1"ouaGlv, XXVIII (1958), § 9, p. 207 lines 29-32: EI,~ lc1ep~ eloubv '1/v ITollv fl".t. ,... "I'11ipou, t1I fj"OpCf ,Glv ~~t",v, "etl" l~,,~etVEI '1/v ~~ol).el~v. ,bv at K"'vt"'xou~'lvbv X"""~I~IetO"', ,00,ov 'I",eto~q> I'OV"Xov. Cod. Vat. 778, fol. 1': x"".t. tb ,~",ey' ho, elo1)xeTj b ~",ollei>~ 'I",etwTj, b UWloMyo, iv Kwv",,,,vmou,,oA« Iv&. 71' "Tjvl voe~plq> ij".PCf o~~~et'q>' i~0I0IA'u oa"'CI') "'"' .... Text printed in Mercati, op. cit. p. 131 n. 3. 13

Vaticano graeco 162, ed. R.-J. Loenertz,

a,

reference to the known date of John VI's entry into Constantinople as Emeror in 1347. This is provided by Gregoras and also by two of the Short ~hroniclcs as the night of 2-3 February 1347; and it is confirmed by the Short Chronicle in Cod. Vat. gr. 778 14 . Adding seven years nine months and twenty-two days to 2 February 1347 we arrive at 24 November 1354. The Florentine manuscript therefore provides the date on which Cantacuzene ceased to be sole Emperor, since it was on 24 November 1354, "on the third day" after John V's arrival, that Cantacuzene surrendered and agreed to reign as co-Emperor with his son-in-Iaw15 . This, however, was not the date of his formal abdication; for, on his own testimony, he did not announce his intention to abdicate until the day before his retirement into a monastery, on

14 Greg. xv, 8: n, p. 775, 1. Cl. Cantac. iv, 2: Ill, p. 13, 8 f. P. Schreiner, "La chronique breve de 1352. Texte, traduction et commentaire. IIlme partie: de 1342 • 1348", Orientali4 Christian. Periodic., XXXI (1965), no. 46, pp. 338, 336-7. Cl. V. Laurent, "Notea de chronographie .t d'histoire byzantine: 4. La date de rentree de J..n VI Cantacuzime et la deposition du patriarche lean CalCcas", Echos d'Orient, XXXVI (1937), pp. 169-170 (from Cod. Atheniensis 1429). Cod. Vat. gr. 778, foL 1': EtoU~ ,~",ve' e~pou",p(q> ~. ij~!p", o"'~~lh'" e!o1JxeTj b ~",olAei>, xOp 'I",(c1wTj') b I{"'v'~xou~Tjvb; h Kwvo'tet;\lt~'Jo{}1t6Ae~ ... Text printed in R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, III (Vatican. 1950), no. 778, p. 296. It should be observed, however, that 2 February 1347 was a Fridey and not a Saturday.

" Lj. Maksimovic, "Politicka uloga Jovana Kantakuzina posle abdikacija (1354-1883)", Zbornik R.dova Viz.ntoloskog lnotituta, IX (1966), pp. 131-132. having calculated the .pan of Cantacuzene's reign from 3 February 1347, argue. that the date of hi. formal abdication was 25 November 1354. But the evidence of Cantacuzene and Gregoras d_ not support this view. The sequence of events may be reconstructed as follow.: (i) on the night of Friday 21 November 1354 John V entered the harbour of the HeptaskaIon and stayed there until day came (Cantac. Ill, p. 290, 6. !XP" imyovTj''''' ij"!p,,,). Oi) on Saturday 22 November (Greg. Ill, p. 242, 18: "il yap fiouP~!Cf ... ) he entered the city. advanced towards Blachernai and encamped at the Palace of Porphyrogennetos (Cantac. III. p. 290, 13·16). (iii) on Sunday 23 November (Cantac. II1, p. 290, 17: El, ,~v 60up~I"'v ... ; Grog. 1lI, p. 242. 19-20: x",l "plv 8A"'~ Mo ""'peASelv fi,,'p"', ... ) John V captured the Kastellion or citadel of Blachernai and his supporters fired at the Palace all day (Cnntac. Ill, pp. 290, 23-291, 1: i}"po~oAI~ono ... al" "etOTj, ''I), ij"!p,,,.). (iv) on Monday 24 November (Cantac. Ill, p. 291, 10: 'pl'n at ij"!p,, ... ; Grog. III, p. 243, 9: ~P"'xttl)V eGo. lvtb. fj"epGlv ... ) agreement wa. r.ached between the two Emperors that they should rule .. colleague., Cantac. Ill. p. 291, 15: 100u Il"q>odpou, "evolv e"l lipx'l), ... (cf. Cantac. Ill, p. 291, 20 f.); Grog. Ill, p. 243, 10: ... ,liIv ~ev&Glv '41 plloIAa611v

''I, .,,1

!I"!'''' YEyov1jlltvwv ... ).

........ VI

VI 274 10 December 1354 16 . Seven years nine months and twenty· two days was thus the span of Cantacuzene's reign as sole Emperor. He continued to reign as co-Emperor, however, for a further sixteen days. The Short Chronicles in Cod. Vat. gr. 162 and Cod. Vat. gr. 778 give the length of his reign in round figures as eight years. Pseudo-Sphrantzes, whose version of the event is in other respects fanciful, allows him a reign of six years and seven months ' which cannot be accepted as true on any method of reckoning l7 . The date of John V's arrival in Constantinople is thus reasonably established as the night of 21-22 November 1354, since both contemporary authorities agree that the event occurred during the night and that the young Emperor's presence in the city was discovered at dawn. Closer examination of the circumstances of this event, however, reveals some bewildering discrepancies in the sources. For this purpose the primary authorities may be grouped as follows: Cantacuzene and Gregoras on the one hand; the Italian chroniclers Matteo Villani and Giorgio Stella with the Greek historian Doukas on the other. Sphrantzes and also Chalkokondyles may be ignored in this connexion. Cantacuzene himself states that John V entered the city by way of the Neorion of the Heptaskalon, sailing in with one armed trireme and a few monereis l8 • Gregoras makes him come in by way of the Neorion to the East, which was another name for the harbour of Heptaskalon; he gives the number of his ships in one place as two large triremes and sixteen monereis, in another as one trireme and an unspecified number of smaller vessels; and finally he seems to make a point of remarking that John arrived unsupported by the help of any foreign allyl9. John V moved into the Palace at his father-in·law'. invitation. evidently on 8 December. A day later (Cantac. Ill. p. 306. 13) Cantacuzene announced hill intention to abdicate; and on the following day, i.e. on Wednesday 10 December 1354 (Cantac. Ill, p. 307. 5: e!, 'ilv 60upGtCGtv ... ; Greg. 1II. p. 243. 18: I'd all ItOn .. , '''' ~l'epGt, ... ), he exchanged the robes of an Emperor for the habit of a monk. 18

Chronicon breve &c. ed. Loenertz. § 8. p. 207 lines 25·26. Cod. Vat. gr. 778. fol. 1': ... ipGtoCAeuoe. at h"l "I'. (S)Phrantzes, Chronicon (maius). ed. I. Bekker (Bonn. 1838). I, 11: p. 46.4; ed. J. B. Papadopoulos (Leipzig. 1935). I. p. 51,4; ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest. 1966) p. 188,13. 17

18 Cantac. iv, 39: Ill. p. 284, 18·22: IV "utq> at rrGtAGtLol-Oyo, b ~GtoLAeb, 'PL'ljp"l I'C"v, ijvltEP ErXEV, i'!'oltHo:lL, ",,[ 1'0v>jPeL, tLv,", OUl'lt0pLolil'eVO, ix TEveaou aOp60v, l'''Iaevb, daMo, llteltAEUOE Bu~"v,Cq> xGt[ iyev",o vux,b, ~vaov '06 IV 'EIt"',"Xjoou, l'''Iaevb, ,,10901'0.ou 'bY

275

If we noW take a leap into the fifteenth century and examine the text of the only other Greek historian who gives a detailed account of this event, namely Doukas, we find a version which is in many respects radically different20 • Doukas introduces a third party into the story in the form of a Genoese buccaneer called Francesco Gattilusio. The tale of how Gattilusio, sailing from Genoa with two merchant ships, fell in with John V at Tened08 and offered his service~ to help the exiled Emperor regain his throne, is well known. With the Emperor aboard one of his ships Gattilusio is said to have fooled the guards at Constantinople by hurling empty oil jars against the seawalls to attract their attention and then to have forced his way in under pretext of being the master of an innocent cargo vessel in danger of shipwreck. Once inside the gates Gattilusio is supposed to have been the hero of the hour, racing along the battlements shouting "Long live the Emperor John Palaiologos", presumably in Italian, until at dawn all the people assembled in the Hippodrome to acclaim John V as their sovereign and John Cantacuzene was obliged to hurry into a monastery. It is easy to gness the source of this story. Doukas was writing this part of his history jnst before the Turkish conquest of Lesbos in 1462. The descendants of Francesco Gattilusio were then, as he says, still lords of the island. For John V rewarded Francesco for his services by giving him the hand of his sister Maria in marriage with the island of Lesbos as her dowry. d07tAO!)'i, IlErlo'tOCll(; 1-1€v 'tpdlpeol auotv, I-I.Ov~pEal 8' b,:xIXl8ex«. 8t& 't06 7tpO, loo AtP.tvo, x~l ""'pCou e!oeAlio"vt" ... Short Chronicle no. 47, ed. Lambros·Amantos, p. 80 line 21, wrongly gives the place of John V's arrival as the harbour of Kontoskalion. That the Heptaskalon). Cf. A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople (London, 1899). pp. 293himself. Cf. Cantac, iv, 11: Ill, pp. 72, 12; 74, 7 (Kontoskalion), and iv, 22: Ill, p. 165, 2; iv, 28: Ill, p. 212, 18; iv, 30: Ill, p. 220. 11; iv, 39: Ill, p. 284, 21 (Neorion at the Heptaskalon). Cf. A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople (London, 1899), pp. 293296, 309·310; R. Janin. Constantinople byzantine (Paris, 1950), pp. 221-222. The Heptaska10n does not seem to be mentioned in the sources before the fourteenth century. It was known also as the "Neorion of the Byzantines" (Cantac. iv, 30: Ill, p. 220, 11: tb OV 'Eltt"OXci.Aq> VE"PLOV ... ,Iii" Bu~"'vtCoov). Gregoras describes it as "the harbour of the Byzantines facing east" and as "the harbour of the Neorion to the east" (Greg. xxvi, 20: IlI, p. 86, 15: ,by ,Iii. Bu~"'vtCOOV ALl'''"''; xxvi, 24: Ill, p. 90, 18·20: ,oD ,Iii. BU~Gtvt("'v ALI'OVO, ... t06 Itpb, goo ~AtltOV'O'; xxix, 27: Ill, p. 241, 22-33: eL," '00 Itpb, !", A'~OVO' x,,! "e.. pCou eloeAlia",.',,; xxix, 35: lII, p. 247, 4-5: e, .. ,Iii. e"l...,,!..v ,oil ve .. pCou ltUAIii. tliiv Itpb, loo. >0 Doukas. I.lorio Turco.Bizantino (1341-1462), 00. V. Green (Bucharest, 1958), xi, 1-5, pp. 67-71; ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1834), pp. 40·43.

VI

VI

277 276

The Gattilusi whom Doukas served as secretary must have ha~ many a tale to tell about how their ancestors acquired and held on to the 1~land of Lesb08l1• But the story of Francesco' s assistance. to ~ohn V. ~r I~S substance. ID 1363. rewas current long before the 1460's. Matteo Vdlam. who . died . cords how in January 1355 (an excusable error) Caloglanm Paleologo made friends with a gentleman from Genoa. and with his help ousted the Mega Domestico who had usurped the throne of Constantinople. The usurper became a hermit. though later he reverted to the secular state of a bandit with a guerilla army making war on the Emperor. (This part of Villani's narrative is manifestly confused). But the Genoese gentleman. whose name proved illegible to the copyist of Villani's manuscript. was rewarded with the hand of the Emperor's sister and the island of Lesbos22 . Gattilusio's enterprise soon came to be celebrated by patriotic Genoese historians. Giorgio Stella records how in 1355 Francesco Gattilusio. the master of one galley from Genoa. assisted Kalojan the Emperor of the Greeks to drive out a usurper called Catacoxino and was duly rewarded 23 • In the fifteenth century the bare bones of the story are presented by Aeneas Sylvius2 4 ; and in the sixteenth century the tale was taken up and elaborated

'I Doukas. xii. 5: p. 73. 29·33 (ed. Grecu); p. 46. 18·23 (Bonn). On the sources used by

Doukas see W. Miller. "Tbe hi.torisns Doukas snd Phrantze.... Journal of HeUenic Slruiia. XLVI (1926). pp. 63·65; V. Greeu. "Pour une meilleure connaissance de l'historien Douk..... Memorial Louis Petit (= Archillel d. l'Orient chretien. I. Bucharest. 19(8). pp. 128.141. Greeu (pp. 134·137) discus... the sources of Doukas and remarks on the anomaly of his account of John V's visit to Italy snd Germsny before 1354; but he does not men· tion the possibility of Douka. having had acce.. to Genoese material. H MaIleD ViUani. CroniI:he. eel. L. A. Muratori. R.rum 1",lictJrum Scriptores. XIV (1729). ...... 268-269; eel. A. Racheli. C.onit:he di GiolJlJ1llli. Maueo • Filippo ViUani ••condo '" migliori sto.mpe • corredate di'note filologiehe • s"'rieh•• 11 (Trieste, 1858). lib. IV. cap. xM. p. 141.

,. GioIgio SteIIa, AlIIIIJles G..._es ab GIIIIO MCCXCV111. usque od finem IlIIIIi MCCCCIX. dedueli &c.. eel. L A. Muratori. Rerum ItldictJrum Scriptore.. XVII (1730). col. 1094: "Et eo Anno (MCCCLV) Kaloj8De Imperator Graccorom auxiJio Nobilis Viri PnnciKi Gataluxi civis Januae. Praeceptoris et Patroni galeae unius quemdam nominatum Catacoaino, qui oib.i Imperium occupabat. expuIit. in consuetum dominium rediens. Ipse _ Imperator retribuens ea causa. ipsi Franciaco in uxorem dedit .ororem suam. & Inou1am. quae Lesboa sau Metelinum vocatur'·.. Ameu Sylvius PiccoIomini. The Co_ies of Plus 11. Boob X·XIlI. tranaIated ., F. A. Gnu (Smith College Stud1IIa in History. XLUI, Northampton. M..... 1957). po 837: "FlDaJly whea KaIoioaDnea. Emperor of Constantinople. who had been defeated

H

by the Dominican historian of Genoa. Agostino Giustiniani in 1537. by Pietro Bizzari in 1579 and by Uberto Foglietta in 1585. By this time Gattiluaio has been elevated to the rank of a famous commander of the Genoese fIeet acting on the orders of the Senate; and we are told that as a reward for hi. services to the Emperor he was created Lord High Admiral of the whole Byzantine navy25. Finally. there is the account of Theodore Spandounes or Spandugoino. who himself claimed descent from the illustrious family of Cantacuzene. written in 1538 26 . Spandounes magnifies the six-year civil in battle by Cantacuzene. regained his throne with the aid of the Genoeae Fran...... Gattilu.io. he gave hi. ally the island (01 Le.bo.) a. a mark 01 gratitude and it has remained in the hands of his descendant. to this day".

•• Agostino Giustiniani. O.P.• Annoli deUa Repubblica di Genava, (Genoa, 1537; n.... edition Genoa. 1854). 11. p. 95: "L'imperatore di Cpoli nominato Calo-Iohanni COD aggiuto di Francesco Gattilu.io Genoe.e .caccio uno nominato Catacozino. che gli occupava parte doII'imperio; e per gratitudine diede l'isola di Metellino". Petrol Bizarus (pietro Bizzari Smstus populique Genuensis rerum dami forisque g.sto.rum historiae atque """""'" (Ant· we!]>. 1579). lib. VI. p. 134: ..... Frar.ciaci Cataluaij praeclara virtua atque animi fortitudo lupra modum enituit, adeo ut apud Caesarem, propter ipsius egregia medta, maximum allCtoritatis &' potentiae locum obtinuerit, maritimis rebus cum summo imperio praefectul. eiosque ... Cantacuseni conatus ingentibus ac periculosis initiis res novantis, sunt compressi. Quod egregium promeritum ampliasimo praemio remunerana Caesar. Franciaci memoriam. "' gentis Cataluaiae nomen opulenlae celebrisque nominis insulae Leshi. urbisque Mitylmea ditione nobilitavit. BC sororem iIIi in matrimonium dedit". id. De Bello Venolo. ibid. lib. 11. pp. 753·754: "Senatu. enim Genuen.i. Franci.cum Cataluaium. virum maritimarum rennn scientia celeberrimum. clas.i.que Ligusticae tunc temporis praefectum, Andronid (BC. filii) subsidio miserat ... et propter eximiam .uam fortitudinem ... summa rei naY8iis praelectura &' titulo donatus ...... Ubertua Folieta (Uberto Foglietta). Hiatoriae G......... Rum Libri XII (Genoa. 1585). pp. 141.142; reprinted in J. G. Graevius. Thesirums Anti· quitatum et Historiarum Itldiae. mari Ligustieo et Alpibus Vicinae &c. (Lugduni Batavorum, 1704). I. col. 453A: "... Franciacus Catalusius ... clasaium Graecarum praefeeIus ...... id. Clarorum Ligurum EIogilJ. ibid. 1I. col. 800B: ..... (Cataluaius) quippe qui propter eximiam virtutem & fortitudinem maximum auctoritatis & potentiae locum apud Graecarom Caesarem obtinuerit. maritimis rebua cum summo imperio praefectua".

sa Tbeodore Spandounes (Spandugnino). D. la Origlne deli ImpertII4ri Oltomani, anIboi deIa eorle. for'ma tkl guerr.giar. 10.0. religione. rito. et costumi tkla 1IIIIione. eel. C. N. Sathao. Monumenlo Historiae H.Uenit:ae. IX (paris. 1890). pp. 144. 10-145. 6. F _ Gattilusio's hegemony in Lesb08 seams to have beguq officially on 17 July 1355. He died OD 6 Augu.t 1384. G. T. Dennis. "Tbe Short Ommicle of Lesboa". Asopll&X4. V (Myti\ene. 1965). pp. 5. 8-14; Sp. Lamhros. "Zu"poUI el, .ijv lotopll&v Ui)v Iv Mo,", ~1U6v...v rl&.d.01lt..v". Nto, ·ElA"..,"".."....v. VI (1909). pp. 39-48. Cf. W. MilIIIr. "Tbe Gattnuaij of Lesboa (1355·1462)". in E..,. 0/1 tM Latin OriArnt (Camhrldp, 1121). p.315.

VI

VI

279

278 war between John Cantacuzene and John Palaiologos into an epic conflict of twenty years fought between armies of heroic proportions on either side. Gattilusio receives passing mention as an ally of John V; but we are asked to believe that the overthrow of Cantacuzene was ultimately achieved in 1383 by the Sultan Orchan with an army of 60,000 Turks brought over to Constantinople on Genoese ships. The story is evidently an Italian one and doubtless of Genoese origin. Cantacuzene makes no mention of Francesco Gattilusio in his history; Gregoras only refers to him later on his narrative as the brother-in-law of John V and ruler of Lesbos27 . Gregoras indeed appears to go out of his way to emphasise the point that John V entered the city without the help of any foreign ally (auv-v-otx1ot. lta.a1j' ciUOCPUAOU Xropl.). It is hard to know what to make of this statement. The Latin translation of the phrase in Migne's Patrology means exactly the opposite of the Greek, while that in the Bonn Corpus edition means nothing at all in any language 28 • Gregoras elsewhere hints darkly at the offers of help made to John V by the Genoese of Galata and at the reward exacted for his services from the Emperor by a Latin pirate of the same race who owned one trireme. But we are not given to suppose that Gattilusio or indeed any foreigner was actually present with John V when he stole in from Tenedos on a dark and stormy night in November 1354; and Cantacuzene recalls how at the time he dissuaded his troops from fighting by assuring them that the invaders were men of their own race and that there were no foreigners involved29 • Given the reliability of Gregoras and Cantacuzene as against Doukas one would be temped to feel that Doukas or his Genoese sources had invented the tale of Gattilusio's exploit, were it not for the almost contemporary and independent evidence of Matteo Villani. One must therefore conclude that there is some basis of truth in the story as presented by Doukas, though it may be supposed that Gattilusio's part in the affair had been made to seem more significant and heroic than it was in the annals of his descendants to which Doukas had access. lIT Grog. xxxvi,S: Ill, p. 503, 25-504, 1; xxxvii, 46: Ill, p. 554, 9-19; xxxvii, 65: Ill, p. 565, 3-4. Laonikos 'Cholkokondyles, D. rebus Turcicis, ed. 1. Bekker (Bonn, 1843), x: p. 520, 13-18; p. 521, 9-11. Cf. V. Parisot, "Notice sur le Iivre XXXVII de Nidphore Grigoras, avec uno traduction fran~aise et d.. not.... , Notic.. et Extraits d.. manusc,its tU la Bibliotheq... NatioMl., XVII (1851), pp. 115-120.

as GMg. Dix, 27: .d. Migne, Patrolsgia Graeca, CXLIX, col. 21OC: " ... qui cum auxilio populi ezwmj ... "; Ill, p. 241, 20 (Bonn): " ... qui omnino auxilio populi externi ...... It

Onc. xxxvii, 46: Ill, p. 554, 1-19. Canloc. iv, 39: Ill, p. 287, 3f.

This conclusion is not made any easier when one examinee the other ints at which the account of Doukas differs from those of Cantacuzene :d Gregoras. Doukas prefaces his story with a wholly fictitious account of how John V spent two years in Italy and Germany collecting funds for his cause before returning to Tenedos 3o • He speaks of a force of 2000 men involved in the adventure of getting John V into Constantinople, all it seems emerging from the holds of two ships. He makes Gattilusio enter the city not through the harbour of the Heptaskalon but through the small gate called the Hodegetria. This gate in the walls of Constantinople is, as Van MilIingen observed, known only to Doukas. One would expect it to be located near the Hodegetria monastery, on the eastern shore of the city, a bad spot to land some 2000 men on a stormy night 31 • Lastly there is the statement of Doukas that John Cantacuzene abdicated at once and entered the monastery of Peribleptos before leaving Constantinople for Mount Athos. From the narratives of Cantacuzene and Gregoras, supplemented by the chronology provided by the Short Chronicles it is clear that Cantacuzene did not abdicate at once. For over two weeks after their agreement on 24 November John V and John VI ruled as co-Emperors (auv-~otatAEuOV~E'); and it was not until 10 December that Cantacuzene, having announced his intention on the previous day, put off his regalia and assumed the habit of a monk. Again, his alleged withdrawal to the monastery of Peribleptos and thence to Athos derives only from Doukas. All authorities agree that he became a monk. But he himself as well as Gregoras and the author of the Vatican Short Chronicle record that the place of his retirement was the monastery of St. George of the Mangana in Constantinople and that he took the monastic name of Joasaph_ (The only contribution of Chalkokondyles to the whole matter is the wild

30 Douk.s, xi, 1-2: p. 67 (ed. Grecu); p. 40 (Bonn). Cf. Short Chronil:/e no. SO, od. Lambros-Amanto8, pp. 86, 13-87, 14.

:\1 Douka. xi, 4: p. 67, 27-28 (ed. Greeu); p. 40 (Bonn): Icpo...lI-' iv ''/I Iltxpf milt! 'l'/I Douk •• refers again to this gate in his ac:count of th. sioge of Constantinople in 1453. Doukas, xxxix: p. 283, 1-2 (Bono): 't'IJv mlp...v 't'IJv ~'xp&v t1jv iv tTi ~ovi1 t~, O~'l'Y'ltp!"" ... Van Milling.n, By.....tin. COII8tantinopl.. pp. 258, 259-260, situates this gate in the city wall "to the south of lndjili Kiosk ... 145 pa.from which" are two .mall marble fram.. of gateways, one being that of the Hodegetria. the other that of St. Lazaros. Janin, Constantinopl. by_in<, p. 278, places it in the south wall of the city between the districts of Boukoleon and Topoi_ Cf. Dquku (.... Green), p. 67 n. 4. i~OVOltot\;O~tVTl ,~, ·O~'l'Y'ltp!",<;.

.

VI VI

281

280

statement that the Emperor became a monk with the name of Matthew)32. Cantacuzene himself talks of his wish to leave the capital for the monastery of Batopedi on Mount Athos during the winter of 1354-1355, and of how he was dissuaded from so doing by John V33. There seems to be no certain evidence to support the statement that Cantacuzene did in fact later retire to Batopedi, although the statement, originating with Doukas and enshrined in DuCange, is still made. It is a myth that has probably been fostered by the monks of Batopedi and, in more learned circles, by a confusion of names and personalities. The Emperor-monk John-Joasaph Cantacuzene has been confused with the Serbian Emperor-monk John-Joasaph Vros, who is known to have lived for some years at Batopedi; in addition a number of manuscripts in the library of Batopedi that bear the name Joasaph have been assigned to the hand or to the library of John Cantacuzene. It has now been shown that these are the work of the scribe Joasaph of the monastery "tWY 'OO"l)YWY in Constantinople 34 . The place of the Emperor's retirement in 1354 was without doubt the monastery of the Mangana. He was still there in 1357; but at some stage thereafter, as is now known from the Testament of the Patriarch Matthew I he took up residence in the smaller monastery of Charsianeites 35 . Joh~ Charsianeites, or the monk Job, the founder of this monastery, was evidently a noted supporter of Cantacuzene. The Patriarch Matthew could remember how Charsianeites had been hounded by the city mob on the day that John V entered Constantinople - a graphic illustration of the unpopuas C1iaikokondyles, i: p. 37, 19-21 (Bonn): ... Ill, M ., t~v ~"a
larity of what was currently known as "Kantakouzenismos"36. Matthew, who was himself abbot of the monastery of Charsianeites in the 1390's, also recalls how its fortunes revived, not least as a result of Cantacuzene's decision to join the community and his henefactions to it. The historian Doukas may for once be the only purveyor of the truth in this instance, or at least of a half truth, in making the Emperor retire to the monastery of Peribleptos. For the correct name of the Charsianeites monastery seems to have been the Nea Peribleptos 37 • It is becoming increasingly clear that John Cantacuzene's abdication in favour of the monastic life by no means marked the end of his career as an elder statesman in the affairs of Church and State 38 . The title of Basileus was still applied to him as a mark of deference long after 1354, and still used even by himself to overawe a bishop or an ambassador or impress a papal legate 39 . It is no longer possible to believe, as Driiseke believed in 1900, that the former Emperor sought the peace and quiet of a monastery on Mount Athos to devote himself to the composition of his historical and theological works 4o . He is known to have been in the Peloponnese for more than a year between 1361 and 1363 and may well have made subse·

" Testament of Matthew, p. 298, 33-42. The monastery was endowed by chrysobull of Cantacuzene when he was Emperor, but deprived of the endowment by John V after 1354. ibid. p. 298, 1-4; pp. 298, 42-299, 2. " ibid. p. 299, 4-12. For the later sources concerning the monastery of Charsianeites or Nea Peribleptos see R. J.nin, La geographie ecclesiastique de l'empire byzantin, I: Le siige de Constantinople et le Patriarcat oecumenique. Ill: Le. "glises et le. mo.....1ha (Paris, 1953). pp. 516-517.

ss Cantac. iv, 42: Ill, p. 308, 19f. Cf. N. A. Bees, "Ge.chichtliche Forschungsresultate und MOnchs- mod Volks.agen fiber die Grfinder der MeteorenklOster", Byzantinisch·neugriechische JahrbUcher, III (1922), pp. 382-385, 387-388; D. M. NiClOl, Meteora. The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly (London, 1963), pp. 101-102, 111. L. Politi., "Jean-Joasaph Cantacuzene fut-iI copi.te?", Revue des Etudes byzontine., XIV (1956),pp. 195-199; id. "Eine Schreiberschule im KJoeter tlllv 'Oe"l)yGlv", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, LI (l958), pp. 17-36, 261-287 (especially pp. 24 and n. 19, 26, 29). •0

u TIIItunent 01 Matthew, ed. H. Hunger, "Dos Testament des Patriarchen Matthal08 I. (1397-1410)", Byzantinilche Zeitschrilt, LI (1958), pp. 288-309.

See J. Meyendorll, op. dt. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIV (1960), pp. 149-152; Lj• Maksimovic, op. cit. Zbornik Radova Vizontoloskog lnstituta, IX (1966), pp. 119-193.

88

•• John V refers to his father-in-law as ""'t~p til. ~",o
J. Driseke, "Zu Johanne. Kantakuzenos", Byzanlinillch, Zeitschrifl, IX (1900), p. 82.

----....-.......VI VI 283

282 quent visits to his sons Matthew and Manuel at Mistra 41 • But his presence in Constantinople in a more or less official capacity is attested by documentary evidence for at least ten of the remaining twenty years of his long life after 136342 • It was not until he was in his eighty-seventh year that he finally left the city of Constantinople where he had reigned as Emperor for a mere seven years nine months and twenty-two days but as a monk or a grey

for twenty-seven years. In 1381 he went to end his days in the eJDinence L: sole surviving son Matthew; and there he died OD Peloponnese with ..is 43 15 June 1383 •

4. The number of msnuscripts of Csntacuzene's works copied by the scribe Manuel Tzyksndyles at Mistra in the 1370's is indicative of the ex-Emperor's presence there. I am indebted to M. E. Voordeckers for this suggestion . .. The following .ourees provide testimony for John Cantacuzene·. presence in Constantinople. with or without the title 01 Basileus. between the years 1354 and 1381: - (I) between 1355 snd 1360: Letters of Manuel Rooul. ed. R. J. Loenera. "Emmanuelis Raul EpiJtulae XII". 'E"o<1/pl, 'E<"'pe(", Bu~".m0. E1tou~0•• XXVI (1956). nos. 1 and 2. pp. 130·139. 140·142. (ii) in 1356-1357: Cantac. iv. 45: Ill. p. 335. 10-11; iv. 47: Ill. p. 345. 13; iv. 49: Ill. p. 356. 17. (iii) in 1363: Michael Panaretos. Chronicle of Trebi· zond. ed. Sp. Lambro•• in Nio, ·E).l.1/'o",~""", IV (1907). 32·33: p. 284; ed. O. Lampsides. "M'x"-IIl. <00 n"'''Pipov. ed. Sp. Lambros. n"l.",o1.6y.", x,,1 n.l.Oltovv1/o,,,xIi, III (Athens, 1926), p. 34 (= Migne, Patr%gia Graeca, CLVI. col. 2(50); Chronican &'c. ed. Loenertz, I 14, p. 2011 lines 57-00.

48Short Chronicle no. 52, ed. Lambros-Amantos. p. 89. 50-51: ·E. ho, .~..t«. 1"111. " ~1JVl 'Iou'llep ,e' axo,,,»81/ b ~"o'l..b, xiJp '1"'<1vv1/' 6 K"..""out~, 6 1'1.0'1......1' '1mb", !'OV"Xb, El, tb. Mopt". XlXI h
xm

10 Impero et lam monaco nel Peloponn.,oo, et chiamossi loal.ph".

I

---VII

A PARAPHRASE OF THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS ATTRIBUTED TO THE EMPEROR JOHN VI CANTACUZENE

In the middle of the sixteenth century Arnoldo Arlenio of Flanders, a scholar and editor of manuscripts who lived in Piedmont and died at Turin in 1574, compiled an inventory of the Greek manuscripts in his collection. The list names thirty-five works. Among them is one entitled: "Paraphrasis in Ethlca Joan. Cantacuzeni".1 In 1545 Conrad Gesner, in his printed Catalogue of Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, concluded his list of the writings of the Emperor John Cantacuzene with the following entry: "Paraphrasis in quinque libros Ethicorum AristoteUs, servatur Graece Venetiis in biblioteca SS. loannis et Pauli"_2 Arlenlo and Gesner were probably not the first to believe that the Byzantine Emperor John VI Cantacuzene, who abdicated his throne in December 1354 and became a monk in Constantinople with the name of Joasaph, composed a Paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics of ArIstotle. The belief seems to have been widely held in the sixteenth century to judge from the number of manuscripts attributed to the Emperor either in his monastic or in his imperial state. Nor were they by any means the last to believe it. 3 • The attribution was given the seal of authority by Karl Krumbacher in his Geschichte der Byzantinfschen LItteratur: "AuBer dem Geschichtswerk verfaBte der Kaiser (Johannes Kan-

::;"', ~

.. f'

I G. Mercall, Un Indlce dl codlcl grecl possedJltl da Arnoldo .vlenlo, Stud! BIZllDIIDI 11 [1927) 111-120; reprinted In G. Mercatl, Opere Mlnorl, IV. Vatican, 1937, pp. 35&371 [especially p. 366). I am Indebted to my colleque Dr. A. H. COllOn rnr ....dID& !be manuscript or Ihls article and offering several valuable suggestions. • Blbllotheca Unluersall., slue Catmogus omnium scrIptorum locuplet18,'mus, In frillal IInguls, Laflna, Graeca /; Hebralca & c. •.. authore Conrado Gesnaro TtgurIna doctore medica. Tlgurl apud Chrlstopborum, Frosoooverum, 1545, p. 397. J cr. P. Labbeus (LabbeI, Nouae BlbllolheCae MtllWscrlptorum IlbrOrum tomus pr/nUISParts, 1657, p. 114. B. de Montlaucon, Blbllotheca Blbllothecarum M/llIUSCI'lptorum NOfHl,I. Paris, 1739, p. 500c: [Blbl. Ambros. Milan) "/osephl Monachl parapbrasla ID IIbros EthI·corum Arlstotella ad Nlcomachum ...n; p. 62Oc: [Blbl. Scorlalensls) "/oannls CantaCUZlllll Apologlae et alia opera. EJusdem Paraphrasls", /. A. Fabrlclus, BlbllotheCa G _ .... Nottt/a St:rlptorum Velerum Graecorum, ad. G. C. Harles, Ill. Hambnrg, 1783, p. _ : "Idem Labbeus p.114 memorat [et esse ID cod. Scorlal. paullo ante notaVlmus,)lolL cmlacuzenl paraphrasln UbrOrum ad Nlcomachum, sCrlptam sub nomine 10S8IIId. msapbl monachl. Eiusdem Cantacuzenl ID lIbrOs qulnque, et allam Georgtt ~ quae IuIt In bib!. HUrladl Mendozae, illudllt eIIam Gemerus"; cf. 1blIL, VII (1801) 78L

----

VII

VII A paraphr..e of the Nlcomachean Ethic. Attributed to the Emperor John VI

11

takuzenos) elne Paraphrase der ersten fllnf Bllcher der Nikomachlschen Ethik (z. B. Im Cod. British Mus., Addit. MS. 19060)."4 The eminent Byzantlnist Rodolphe Gu1lland, In his edition of the correspondence of Nlkephoros Gregoras, notes that the Emperor john Cantacuzene composed a Paraphrase of the first five books of the Nicomachean Ethics and even extols its merits as a work written with the precision and lucidity which characterise the same Emperor's historical composition. S One would have thought that the ghost had been laid by the pertinent remarks of the most recent editors of the Nicomachean Ethics R A Gauthler and j. Y. jollf, In 1958: "L'attribution a l'empereur jean Can: tacuzi!ne, qu'on s'litonne de rencontrer encore de nos jours, n'a d'autre fondement que la note du ms. Florence Laur. 80, 3 qui dit seulement que cet e~pereu~, de~enu ,~e molne jo~saph, fit faire en 1366 une cople des SIX premIers bvres. 6 But Andre Wartelle, in his recently published Inventory of the Greek manuscripts of Aristotle and his commentators can st1ll attribute no less than four manuscripts of this Paraphrase t~ the Emperor, two with some hesitancy, but two with apparent certainty.7 The same Paraphrase, partial or complete, and in one form or another has also been attributed to Andronicus of Rhodes, to an otherwise un~ known Aristotelian commentator called Heliodorus of Prusa, and to Olymplodorus of Alexandria. Wartelle contrives, with more or less confidence, to identify It In seven manuscripts as the work of Andronlcus of Rhodes, in four as that of Heliodorus of Prusa, and in seven as that of Olymplodorus. 8

VI

• K. Krumbacher, Gesehlehle der Byzantlnlsehen LIIIeralur 2nd ed Munl h 1697

p.300.

I"

C,

,

5 R. Gullland, Gorrespondanee de Nie~phore Gr~goras. PariS, 1927, pp. 309-310: c Sa Paraphrase des ctnq premiers livres de I'Bthtque d Nlcomaque contenue dan le cod. Monac. gr. 77 et le cod. British Museum Addlt. Ms. 19660 (I) 'merlteralt d'et': publlee. On y retrouve la prAclslon et la clarte qui dlstlnguent son HI;Iolre.» The Parapilrase Is Similarly ascribed to John Cantacuzene by the follOwing authorities: L. Loevenbruc~, Cantaeuz~ne lean VI, In Dlctionnaire de Theologle Cathollque, 11 (1905), col. 1875, Fr. Ueberwegs, Grundrlj! der Gesehiehte der Phl/asaphle Tell 11' Die Palrlsllsehe Ilnd Sehalasllsehe Philosophie, ed. B. Geyer. Basel 1951 p' 267' H' G B k KI h und theologtsche Ltteratul' tm Byzanttntschen Retch. Mun'iCh: 1959, p~ 732~~: Dlj~c : ge , lohannes VI, In Lexlkon fUr Theologie und Klrche V (1960) 1046 t "I L~Bthlqlle d Nlcomaque. Introductlan, traductio~ et commentai~e par R A Gauthler e . . lour (Arlstote, Traductlons et Studes) I. Louvaln 1956 p 70. .. Ail wa~~el Inllentaire des Manuscrtts G~ecs d' Artst~te e; d~ se; commentateurs, u ec on d tude, anciennes, Bud!. Paris, 1963, Index Commentartorum p 191' Joaknnes Cantacu.anos, Imperator. In E N paraphr..I.: 443, 451 651 1107'" (Thl~ wo: Is hereafter Cited as Wartelle, Inventatre}. ' , . telle, Inventalre, Index Commenlarlorum, p. 164: "Andronlcus Rhodlus' In E N .:"'":p 8Sls: 622, 991, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1621, 1830; p. 190: Hellodorus Prus~eus' In aopb:t.:'~a::S~.!:p5~a:.B'321235172' 25176; p. 195: Olymplodorus, Alexandrlnus phllo.. , 8, 1719, 1720, 1623, 1697, 1921."

eoJz

v:r

•

The work has also been published several times under several guises_ The editlo princeps was that of Daniel Helnse In 1607. It was based on the manuscript In Leyden (Cod. Bib!. Pub. gr. 18; see below, no. 16) and ascribed simply: lncerto auctore antiquo et exlmlo pe1'ipatetlco.S Ten years later, In 1617, Helnse re-edited the same manuscript, ascribing It to the authorship of Andronlcus of Rhodes. 1D As such It was printed In Cambridge In 1679 and In Oxford In 1716 and again in 1809.11 A translatiOn of the complete work into English was made by William Brldgman and published In London In 1807.12 In 1831 the Greek text of the Paraphrase appeared in Mullach's F1'agmenta Philosophorum Graecorum under the title: Andronicl Rhodll Ethicorum Paraphrasis sandwiched between the fragments of Eudemus of Rhodes and the IIEQL :n:ullciiv of Andronicus of Rhodes. 13 Finally, In 1881 Gustave Heylbut published It under the name of: Heliodori in Ethica Nicomachea Paraphrasis, thus associating It definitively with the mysterious commentator Heliodorus of Prusa. 14 The great merit of Heylbut's edition lies In its Preface In which he lists, albeit somewhat cursorily, all the manuscripts of this paraphrase known to him under whatever name. He also takes Mullach to task for having based his edition solely upon that of Helnse and for having attributed the work to Andronicus of Rhodes. The Paraphrase has yet to be edited under the name of Olympiodorus, 8 Arlstotells BIhlcorum Nlcomachlorum parapllrasls, Incel'lO AuClore antiquo et exlmlo perlpatetleo; ex Blbllotheca Lugdunobata.a nunc prlmum graece edlla, emendllta & latlne reddlta a Dantele Helnslo. Ex officina lohannls Patlj Academlae TypograpilL

Lugd. Batav. 1807. to AN6.PONIKOY PO~IOY 1tEQI.1tO:tl1t'lXOU I:plloo6rpo\1 .n:o.Q6.lJIQnO'~ ,.0;" 11thxo;\' '·LxoJlnxe • iolV. Andronlel Rhod" BIlllcorum Nlcamacheorum paraphra.ls. Cum InterpretaUone DanleU. Helnsll, hac edltlone plurlmls tum descrlptls tum operarum mendis ab auctore vlndlcata. Excudlt Ioannes Patius ... Lugdunl Batavorum, Anno 1617. 11 las abovel ... cum Interpretatlone Danlells Heinsll ... Excud. lohann.. Hayes, Impensls lohannls Creed: Cantabrlgl.. 1679. [the same 1 ... gr. lat., noUs Illustravtt Wllkinson, Oxonll 1716 (this edition does not appear In the British Museum Catalope 01 Printed Books). [the same 1 ... cum Interpretations Danlells Helnsll. Subjungttur Andronlcl libellus nog, :t,d}.,\" slve De animl affectionlbus. E Typographeo Clarend.... nlano, Oxonll 1609. 12 l'he Paraphrase Of an anonymous Greek writer ,h""el'lo published under the name·

Of

Andronlcus Rhodlus) on the Nlcomachean Bthlcs of Arlslot/e. Translated fIom the Greek, by WllIiam Brldgman, F. L. S. London, 1607, pp. xviii & 478. " Fr. Gull. Aug. Mullachlus, Fragmenta PhllosopllDrum Graecorum, Ill. Paris, 1631, pp. 303-569. .. Ilellodorl in Bthlca Nicomachea Paraphrasls, ed. G. Heylbut (Commentarla In Artstotelem Graeca, edlta consilio et auctorltate Academlae Lltterarum Reglae Boru&SiC", XIX, Ii, Berlin, 16691, pp. VIII & 248 (cited herealter as Heylbut). Heylbut elsO provides (Praefatlo, p. VII) a list of the printed editions of the Paraphrase, which may be supplemented by that of S. F. W. Hoffmann, Blbllograplllsches Lexicon der gesammten LIIe,alur der Grlechen, I. Leipzig, 1836; reprinted Amsterdam, 1981, pp. 15B-15a (s.•. Andronlcus Rhodlus).

------.--VII

VII

,

A Paraphrase of the Nlcomachaan Ethics Attributed to !ha Emperor Jobn VI

to whom It Is attributed In at least four manuscripts (nos. 17-20 below). But to forestall any publication of it under the name of the Byzantine Emperor John or Joasaph Cantacuzene It might be as well to put on record the manner in which it came to be assigned to him or associated with his name In ten of the existing manuscripts. The following Is a list, as exhaustive as the present writer can make It, of the manuscripts of the Paraphrase in question, grouped according to their associations with the name of John-Joasaph Cantacuzene (nos. 1-10), Hellodorus of Prusa or Andronicus of Rhodes (nos. 11-16), Olymplodorus (nos. 17-20), and Anonymus (nos. 21-23): 1. FLORENCE Cod. Laurent. Plut. LXXX, 3. xlv-xv s. 180 fol. A. M. Bandini, Catalogus Codlcum Manuscrlptorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae, Ill. Florence, 1763; reprinted Leipzig, 1961, cols. 173-174: 'Avoovlll'ov IIaQacpQacJLC; ~Oiv 'AQun:o~s~ouc; 'H-lhxOiv NLXOl'al(EIOOY (Paraphrasls 8thicorum Aristotelis ad Nicomachum Incerti Auctor/s). The following subscription is to be read at fol. 97: to ~L~AIOY yiyovE ~L' E;6~ou ~ou EuaE~E' cn-aTov xat cptAol(Qlatou ~aaLMooc; ftl'Oiy 'Iooaaacp I'ovaxou tOU KaYtaxou~"'IvOU 6Y EtU QOOOE'. I'"'IVOC; NOEI'~Qlou x3'. lv~. E'. [24 November 1366]. Cl. Heylbut, pp. v-VI. _. = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 536: "Cod. Laurent. LXXX, 3. xv s. (I). 180 fol. Chart. In-fol. Anonymi in E N libros decem paraphrasls."

2. VIENNA COd. Vindob. philosophlcus gr. 9. xvi s. 192 fol. H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschr/ften der Osterretchischen Natlonalb/bltothek, I (Vienna, 1961), p. 142: "(HELIODORUS von PRUSA) (?) (lr-188r ) Paraphrase zu ARISTOTELES, Ethlca ad Nicomachum [IIaQacpQacJLC; trov 'AQ,crtOtEAOVC; i'rlhxOiv N.xOl'al(EIooy Cod.) (ed. G. Heylbut, 111= Commentaria XIX/2, 1889) '" F. 106" die kopierte subscrlptio: To a,aAIOV rEron 3,' 6~630v tOU EuaB~EcrtatOV xat CP,AOl(Qlcn-OU ~acJ'A8OOC; ftl'Oiv 'Iooaaacp I'o"axoi) tOU KavtaxolI~"'IvOU 6" EtE. Qoooe I'"'IVOC; NOEI'aQ(OV x3'. lv8. s' (= 24.11.1366)." Cf. Heylbut, p. v. = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 2176: "Anonyml (vel Heliodorl Prusael?) In E N paraphrasls." 3. VENICE Cod. Marc1an. App. gr. IV, 21 and 22. xlv s. 193 fol., 182 fol. D. M. Berardel11, Codicum Omnium Graecorum, Arabicorum, aliarumque Unguarum. Orlentaltum, qut manuscriptl In Blbltotheca SS. Toannls, et P~t Venetlarum Ordinis Praedicatorum asservantur, Catalogus, In

CA. Ca-

logleril), Nuova Raccolta d'Opuscoll scientlfict e fllologlcl, XX. Venice, 1770, p. 190: "Cod. XXIlIl. Cantacuzeni !Io:) sub nomine Josephl, slve Joasaphi Monachi Paraphrasis in V. priores IIbros Aristotells Ethlcorum ad Nicomachum. Vide seq. Codicem. Codex chartaceus in fol., follorum 193. Secull XliII. Cod. XXV. Cantacuzeni (Jo:) sub nomine Josephl, slve !oasaphi Monachi Paraphrasls in V. posteriores Libros Arlstotells Ethlcorum ad Nicomachum. Auctor indicatur per Notam fol. 32 verso to ~.BALOV Y£YOVE a,' 6;6aou tOV EuaE~Ecrt I'ovaxov tOV xavtaxovt,vou. 6v 6t6' QOO08' (= 1367) I'"'Iv·· V081'<~Q(ov> xa. lvII, 8': - [quae verba transcripta fuerunt ex allo cod.]" Heylbut, p. vi: "Ambrosianl A 195 inl. (= no. 5 below) et J 95 sup. eandem Inscrlptionem anonymam, eandem subscrlptionem, hi vero In fine IIbrl praebent." Not Usted In Wartelle, Inventall'e. But cf. D. Harlf1nger and J. Wlesner. Die grlechischen Handschl'iften des Artstoteles und se~ner Kommentatoren. Ergi1nzungen und Bel'tchtlgungen zum Inventa1re von A. Wartelle.

ex allo cod.]." Scriptorlum, XVIII (1964) 246. 5. MILAN COd. Ambros. gr. 818 (A 195 int. ollm N 269). Anno 1606. 11 + 154 foL Martini and Bassi, Catalogus ••. Blbl. Ambl'oslanae, 11 (Milan, 1906), no. 818, p. 913: "(Andronlci Rhodii) Paraphrasls Ethlcorum Arlstotells ad Nlcomachum Ubrl I-X (Mullach, Fragmm•. phllos. gr. Ill, pp. 303569) cum diagrammatls, quam Inscriptio m. Georgil Longl In f. 11' antar. Ioasapho monacho perperam trlbuunt. Accedunt In marg. passim, sa4 raro, lemmata et emendatlones."

--VII

VII 8

Cf. Heylbut, p. VI. = Wertelle, Inventalre, no. 991: "Andronlcl Rhodll In E N llbros I-IX ( I) paraphrasls." 6. MUNICH Cad. Monacensls gr. LXXVII. xvi s. 310 fol. I. Hardt, Catalogus Cod/cum Manuscr/ptorurn Graecorum Bibllothecae Reglae Bavarlcae, I. Munich, 1806 (= J. c. L. de Aretin, Catalogus Codlcum Manuscriptorum Bibllothecae Regiae, I), p. 456: "Codex LXXVII. Chartaceus, charta sollda et laevl, tltulis, initialibus et numerls rubricatis, charactere minuto et lisiblli, manu dlversa, In follo, foUorum 310, Saec. xvi. mut1lus, bene conservatus et inscriptus. I1aQaqJQaln, TooV &Q'''TOTE~OIl ~,'}'x,7>v v,xo/laxetmv. Paraphrasis Arlstotelis ethicorum ad Nicomachum. A. ev "u"n TEXVU xaL /ls,'}6~ljl. T. AEyo/lev o~v &Q~U/lsvo,. +. Labbeus blbl. novo Msc. p. 114 memorat loannis Cantacuzeni paraphrasim librorum ad Nicomachum scriptam sub nomine losephl sive Ioasaphl monachl. Et re vera I Nam finito hoc llbro haec adduntur: TO ~ l~UOV YEyove 8l' E~650u TOU su". t!saTuTou xaL qJ,~oXQlaTolI ~aal~Em, 1)/looV 'ImaaaqJ /lova)(oii TOV "IlTa"olltLVOii[IJ 'sv ETeL -i)coos /l1)V. VOIIS/l~. K[ No E. llber hic composltus est sumptibus augustissiml et Chrlsti amantis Imperatorls nostri loasaphl monachi Cantacuzenl A. 6875 (aera graeca) latina autem 1367. mensis Novemb. 24 Indict. V. In veterl catalogo auctorls Incerti esse dicitur." Cf. Heylbut, p. vi, who observes that this manuscript contains the same subscription as no. 1 above. = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 1107: "Joannls Cantacuzeni (?) In E N paraphrasls (1-165) " 7. NJAPLES Cod. Neapolltanus gr. 335 (Borbonlcus Ill. E. 13). xvi S. 196 fol. S. Cyrillus (Salvadore Clr1ll0 I. Codices Graeci Manuscripti Reg/ae Btbllothecae Borbonlcae descripti, atque il/ustrati, II. Naples, 1832, no. 335, pp. 443-444: "Codex Trecentesimus Trlceslmus Quintus. Ill. E. 13. Incerti Paraphrasls Ethlcorum Arlstotells. Codex ms. chart. in fol. descrlptus sec. XV exeunte, vel potius XVI. constat foliis 196. Inest In eo naOclqJQaal, TooV 'AQ'aTouAolI, 'H,'},xoov N,xo/laxs£mv. Paraphrasls moral/urn Artstotel/s ad Nicomachum, eadem quae sine ullo auctore nomine descrlbltur a Lambeclo In codlce LXV. phllosophico Blbl. Vlndob. tom. VII. pag. 229. Andronico trlbult hanc paraphraslm Reneslus, et eius quldem nomen IDscrlptum (Ilcet recentiorl, et minus perlta manu) In codlce Heimlano occurrit; at In nostro apparet nomen quod nemlnl usque adhuc In mentem venit; sic enlm conclpitur nota In calce codlcls, quae Monacho culdam loasapho paraphraslm trlbult. Tov 'IoaaaqJ Movaxoii "aoaqJouasm, at, Ta~,xa TOU dQlaTodAOII, tJ,'}'xcl v,xo/laxda u~o" loasaphl Monachl Paraphrasts

A Paraphrase 01 the Nlcomachean ElhI.. Attributed to the Emperor JoIm VI

7

um Aristotelis ad Nlcomachum finis. QUid de Ipso statuendum stt, t" d 'nt docti· mlhl enlm in praesens non vaca . vi Heylbut: p. VI: " ... il}scrlpt!On~~ ha~et ~t llle anony~am,. In floe: TOV \oal1(lqJ /lovaxou "aQaqJQaasro, eL, Ta 1),'},xa TOU &O'aTodAolI, 1)itLxu VLXOIUlxsta TEAo, (slcl)." " = Wartelle, Inventalre, no. 1201: Anonyml (aut Josephl monachi?) In E N paraphrasls." ethIcor

;t

8. ESCURIAL Cod. Escorlalensls T.-II.-18 (gr. 157). xvI S. 166 fol. .. P A Revilla Catdlogo de los Codices Griegos de la BzbllOtheca de el Esc~ri~1 I (M~drld, 1936), no. 157 (T.-II.-181. p. !:a1: "(Fol. 1r -17'): I1 na'mna'al- TooV &nl"TOTE~OIl_ tJ,'}",oov v'>
co VII

VII A Paraphra•• 01 the Nlcomacbean Etblcs Attributed to the Emperor JObD VI

8

macheam Aristotelis ... " This MS. belonged to the library of Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza and was ascribed to John Cantacuzene by NIcholas de la Torre. It bears (fol. 135) the same subscription and date as nos. 1-4 above: TO p.plLov 7eyove ... etc. Cf. Heylbut, p. vii. Wartelle, lnventaire, no. 451: "Joannis Cantacuzeni Imperatoris in Arlst. Ethlcis paraphrasis."

=

10. LONDON British Museum. Additional MS. 19060. xvi s. Catalogue of Additions to the manuscripts in the British Museum in the years MDCCCXLVlll-MDCCCL111 (London, 1868), p. 193; M. Richard, lnventaire des Manuscrits grecs du British Museum, I (Paris, 1952), no. 19060, p. 32: "IOSAPH (scll. IOHANNIS) CANTACUZENI Paraphrasis in Aristotelis Ethicorum Nlcomacheorum Iibros." = Wartelle, lnventaire, no. 851:' "Joannis Cantacuzeni In Ubros E N paraphrasis."

11. PARIS Bibl. Nat. Cod. Par. gr. 1870. xvi s. 102 fol. H. Omont, lnventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothi!que Nationale, 11 (PariS, 1888), p. 156: "Heliodorl Prusael, [vel Andronicl Rhodilj paraphrasis in Aristotelis ethlca ad Nicomachum (I-VII, 4). XVI s. (CopU! par Constantin Palaeocappa.) Pap. 102 fol. (Colbert. 570.) G. tt Heylbut, p. v.: ,,'HAI030IQOU IIQoulJueOl<; ltUQclIJ'QaIJ'<; 'tciw 'AQ'IJTOTEAOU; ijihxciw v.x0l'UXeLOIV; ad finem vero perductus non est, cum extrema verba slnt I1brl VI cap. 4 (I) •.. " = Wartelle, lnventaire, no. 1355: "Heliodor! Prusael (vel Andronicl Rhodil) in E N libros I-VII, 4 paraphrasls."

12. PARIS Cod. Par. gr. 1871. xvi s. 165 fol. Omant, lnventaire sommaire •.. de la Bibl. Nat., 11 (1888), p. 156: "Anonyml [Hellodorl Prusaei, vel Andronlci Rhodlij paraphrasis in Arlstotelis ethlca ad Nicomachum. XVI s. (CopUi par Jean de Salnte Maure.) Pap. 165 fol. (Tetter. Rem.-Reg. 2123,2.) M." Cf. Heylbut, p. v.: "ltUQclIJ'QUIJ'<; 'tliiv ija.xliiv v.X0l'UXelOlV." Vogel and Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber, p. 196 (s. 11. 'IOIclv. "1111'> l:aVXTa/&IJvQa<;): "Paraphrase zur Ethik des Aristoteles." = Wartelle, Inl1entatre, no. 1356: "Anonymi (Hellodori, vel Andronicl. 1UwdIi) In E N paraphrasls."

9

13. PARIS Cod. Par. gr. 1872. xvi s. 156 fol. Omont, Inventaire sommaire ... de la Bibl. Nat., II (1888), p. 158: "Anonymi [Heliodori Prusael, vel Andronlcl Rhodlij paraphrasls In Artstotelis ethlca ad Nlcomachum. XVI s. (Copl!! par Ars~ne de Monemvasle.) Pap. 156 fol. (Faure.-Reg. 2123,3.) M." Heylbut, p v.: "rrClQclq>(lCllJl; Tliiv 'AQ,IJTo'tEAou. ijalxliiv V.XO!"'XElOIV TO rI." Vogel and Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schrelber, p. 43 (s. 11. 'AQ.erTO~OUAO<; 'ArroIJToALIll]<;): "Paraphrase der ija,xu N,xoJA.ciXE,a." = Wartelle, Inventalre, no. 1357: "Anonymi (HeUodod, vel Andronicl Rhodli) in E N paraphrasis." 14. PARIS Cod. Par. Latinus 6251. xvi. s. 235 fol. Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae, IV (Paris. 1744), p. 220, no. VIM CCLI, 10°: "Andronicl Rhodii paraphrasis In librum V. Ethlcorum Aristotelis: Graec~." Heylbut, p. vii: "Andronici denique Rhodli nomine Inscripta paraphrasls nostra non legitur nisi in PARISINO lat. 6251 (ollm Colbert. 5087) saee. XVI, ubi est 'Avll(loVL"ou'PoMoult"Q,ltClTl]TLXOU q>,'.OlJoq>ou 1) ltaQcllJ'QCllJ1<; 'tou E A'Q'IJTOTe,.ou<; ij,~'xliiv "'''Ol'CI)(£I01V h ~ '~ALOU EV cl> ltClQclIJ'QClIJ" Tliiv i),chx
=

Catalogus librorum tam impressorum quam manuscrtptorum Blbltothecae Publicae Universitatis Lugduno-Batavae. Lugdunl apud Batavos 1716 p. 334: "AndrOnicl Rhodli paraphrasls In Arlstotells Ethlcam, quod volu: men Daniel Heinsius jussu Curatorum cum Aristotele contullt, emendavit d1stlnxit, & Graece edldit cum Latlna verslone. 1607." • Heylbut, p. v.: "DANIEL HEINSIUS post primam edltlonem quam curev1t anonymam et slbl persuaslt et liS qui eum secutl sunt fidem esse

=0

VII

VII A Paraphrase 01 the NlcomacheaD Etblcs Attributed to the Emperor John VI

8

macheam Arlstotells ... " This MS. belonged to the library of Don: Diego H t do de Mendoza and was ascribed to John Cantacuzene by NlCholas d:rl: Torre. It bears [fol. 135) the same subscription and date as nos. 1-4 above: to ~,~l.'ov YEyove . • . etc. Ct. Heylbut, p. viI. = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 451: "Joannis Cantacuzeni imperatorls In Arlst. Ethlcls paraphrasis." 10. LONDON British Museum. Additional MS. 19060. xvi s. Catalogue of Additions to the manuscripts in the British Museum in the years MDCCCXLVIII-MDCCCLIlI [London, 1868), p. 193.; M. Richard, Inventaire des Manuscrits grecs du British Museum, I [ParIS, 1952), no. 19060, p. 32: "IOSAPH [scll. IOHANNIS) CANTACUZENI Paraphrasls in

Aristotells Ethlcorum Nicomacheorum lIbros." = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 851:' "Joannis Cantacuzenl In lIbros E N paraphrasls." 11. PARIS Bibl. Nat. Cod. Par. gr. 1870. xvi s. 102 fol. H. Omont Inventaire sommatre des manuscrits grecs de la BibliotMque Nat/onale, il [Paris, 1888), p. 156: "Hellodori Prusael, [vel Andronicl Rhodll) paraphrasls In Arlstotells ethlca ad Nlcomachum (I-VII, 4). XVI s. (Copl6 par Constantln Palaeocappa.) Pap. 102 fol. (Colbert. 570.) G.1t HeyIbut, p. v.: ,,'Hl.,03oiQou I1Q01JaaEco<; "aQa'l'Qa(lL<; tWV 'AQ,(JtotEl.01!<; lj{hXWY y,xol'axeicoY; ad flnem vero perductus non est, cum extrema verba slnt I1brl VI cap. 4 (I) ..." = Wartelle, lnventatl'e, no. 1355: "HeUodOrl Prusael (vel Andronicl Rhodll) In E N libros I-VII, 4 paraphrasls." 12. PARIS

Cod. Par. gr. 1871. xvi s. 165 fol. Omant, Inventail'e sommatl'e ..• de la Bibl. Nat., 11 (1888), p. 156: "Anonyml [Hellodori Prusaei, vel Andronicl Rhodil] paraphrasls In ArIstotelis ethlca ad Nlcomachum. XVI s. (Copi6 par Jean de Salnte Maure.) Pap. 165 fol [Tetter. Rem.-Reg. 2123,2.) M." Cf. Heylbut, p. v.: ""aQa'l'Qaa" tWY i),'hxwv Y'XOl'ax£Lcov." Vogel and Gardthausen, Die gl'iechischen Schreibel', p. 196 (s. v. 'lcoOv'"5 :IIIYXT'II'4VQa<;): "Paraphrase zur Ethik des Aristoteles." ~ Wartelle, lnventatl'e, no. 1356: "Anonym! (Hellodorl, vel Andronlcl JlboIHl) In EN paraphrasis."

9

13. PARIS

Cod. Par. gr. 1872. xvi s. 156 fol. Omont, Inventaire sommail'e ... de la Bibl. Nat., 11 (1888), p. 156: "Anonymi [Heliodori Prusaei, vel Andronici Rhodill paraphrasls In Arlstotelis ethlca ad Nlcomachum. XVI s. (Copi6 par Ars~ne de Monemvasie.) Pap. 156 foi. [Faure.·Reg. 2123,3.) M." Heylbut, p v.: ""aQa'l'Qa(Jl, tOIV 'AQ,atotil.o1J<; i){hxUiv Y'XOl'''X£LCOV to a'." Vogel and Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schre/ber, p. 43 (s. v. 'AQ,at6~01Jl.oc; 'A"o(Jtol.'~'lC;): "Paraphrase der i)1'hxu N,xol'cixe,a." = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 1357: "Anonymi [HeUodorl, vel Andronlcl Rhodli) in E N paraphrasls." 14. PARIS Cod. Par. Latlnus 6251. xvi. s. 235 fol. Catalogus Cod/cum Manuscriptol'um Bibliothecae Regiae, IV (Paris, 1744), p. 220, no. VIM CCLI, 10·: "Andronici Rhodii paraphrasls in librum V. Ethicorum Arlstotelis: Graec~." Heylbut, p. vii: "Andronici denique Rhodli nomine inscrlpta paraphrasis nostra non legitur nisi in PARISINO lat. 6251 (oUm Colbert. 5087) saec. XVI, ubi est 'Av8Qov,xo1J'PoMo1J""Q,,,at'ltLxoii 'I',1.0(l0'l'01J ft "aQci'l'QacJ'<; ~oii £ '\'Q'(ltod).o\)<; i){)L~WV "LXOl'axe,cov ~x ~,~l.'01J Ev ID "aQa'l'Qa",~ tWY i),'hXliiv V'XOJ!. &"civtcov. Supra vero scriptum est a manu paullo recentlore: In aUlis IIbrls librls est' Hl.,08oiQo1J I1Q01J"aEco<; "aQa'l'QacJ'~ ~WV 'AQtaTOto.01J~ ii.fJLXWV 'VLXOJ,LOXELOOV."

= Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 1630: "Graece: Andronlci Rhodil (HeUodOrl Prusael) in E N librum quintum paraphrasls (198-224)." 15. PARIS Cod. Par. Suppl. gr. 768. xv s. 26 fol. Omont, Inventaire sommaire •. de la Blbl. Nat., III [1888), p. 309: "[Andronlci Rhodiil paraphrasls ethlcorum Nlcomacheorum ArIstotel1s lib. I et 11." Cf. Hey lbut, p. vii. Vogel and Gardthausen, DIe grlechlschen Schrelber, p. 43 (s. v. 'AQIat6~01J1.0~ 'A,,0(Jt01.(8'l~): "Paraphrase zu Arlstotells i)-Ihxa N,xol'cixelU." = Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 1621: "Andronlci Rhodil In E N IIbros prlmum et secundum paraphrasls." 16. LEYDEN COd. BlbUothecae Publicae Graecae 18. Catalogus librol'um tam impressorum quam manuscl'/ptol'um Bibllothecae Publicae Univel'sitatls Lugduno-Batavae. Lugdunl apud Batavos. 1716, p. 334: "Andronici Rhodil paraphrasls in ArlstoteUs Ethlcam, quod volu-

men Daniel Helnslus jussu Curatorum cum Arlstotele contuUt, emerulavlt. dlstlnxlt. & Graece edldit cum Latlna verslone. 1607." Heylbut. p. v.: "DANIEL HEINSlUS post primam edltlonem quam curavlt anonymam et Sib! persuaslt et lis qui eum secutl sunt fidem esse

i:

; I

VII

VII A Paraphr..... 01 the Nlcomachean Ethics Attributed to the Emperor John VI

10 habendam notitlae indoctissiml hominls, q~i barba,ra m,~nu cOdiC~ Leidensl adscrlpsit 'Avagov,"OU 'PoMou 3t8gt3fafTl"Xov qnAoaoq>ou. Cf. p. VII. = Wartelle, lnventalre, no. 822: "Andronlci Rhodli In Arlstt. Ethlcam paraphrasls." 17. VATICAN Cod. Vat. gr. 272. xvi s. 221 fol. 1. Mercati and P. F. de'Cavallerl, Codices Vatlcanl Graeci, 1. Rome, 1923, no. 272, p. 359: "Paraphrasls in Arlstotelis ethlca Nlcomachea, volgatll sub nomine tum Andronlci Rhodll, tum Heliodori (comm. In Arlst. gr. XIX 2 pp. 1-223), in cod. (f. 6) 'mul-'3tlo5wQou qllAoaoqJov, 3tag(tqJQaal, El, Ta TOU 'AQlOT. f)il"u. BlBAia a""a ... " H. Brandis, Die Aristotelischen Handschriften der Vatikanischen Bibliothek. Historisch-philologische Abhandlungen der koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus dem Jahre 1831. Berlin, 1832, p. 76, no. 178: 'OAvl-'3tL05wgov 3tageXcpQ(l(Jl; de; fa f)il,xa !\Tl>'OI-'. Die von Dan. Heinsius unter Andronicus Namen herausgegebene Paraphrase." Cf. Hey lbut, p. vi. = Wartelle, lnventaire, no. 1719: "Olymplodori philosophl in E N para. phrasis." 18. VATICAN Cod. Vat. gr. 273. xvi s. 185 fol. Mercati and Cavalierl, Codices Vaticani Graeci, I, no. 273, pp. 359-360: "Paraphrasis in Aristotelis ethica Nicomachea, Olympiodoro philosopho, omnino ut in cod. 272, adscrlpta[eJ." Brandis, op. cit., p. 76, no. 179. Cf. Heylbut, p. vi. = Wartelie, lnventaire, no. 1720: "Olympiodori philosophi in E N paraphrasls." 19. VATICAN COd. Vat. gr. 1902. xvii s. 437 fol. Brandis, op. clt., p. 76, no. 183: "F. 9-19 "QWTOV 'AQlafOTEAov, f){hxwv Nl"0l-'. Der letzte Theil des ersten Buches, mit dem Anfang des zweiten. f. 27 b-35 'QAvl-'3tLol\wQov cplAoaoqJov 3t(lQeXqJQ"""' el, Ta TOU 'AQl"f. f)ill. !Ca Nlxol-'., nur ein Fragment. Gielchfalls die sogenannte Paraphrasis des Andronlcus Rhodlus." Cf. Heylbut, p. vi. = Wartelie, lnventaire, no. 1823: "E N, cum Olympiodori comment." 20. OXFORD COd. Bodl. Canonicianus gr. 120. xvi s. 136 fol. H. O. Coxe, Catalogi Codlcum Manuscr/ptorum Blbliothecae Bodlelanae, Ill: Codices Graecos et Lat/nos Canoniclanos complectens. Oxford, 1854, col. 104, no. 120: "Chartaceus, In folio, ff. 136, sec. xvi. OLYMPIODORI phllosophl paraphrasis in Aristotel1s ethlcorum ad Nlcomachum libros

11

d

m titulo unlculque capltl praemlsso instructa. Tit. 'OAVI'3tLOllWIIOU e,ce ':"ov 3taQeXqJQ"""' El, Ta fOV 'AQl"fofEAovc; 1j{h"a' BLBA,a IIExa. Incip. 1l"fL <1'''0''0", , " _" ' , , '~)' lI'~ , r "QeX!;"o, xaL Xlvl]a800, mu T8AOC;' X8qJ",,(llOV 8V 3taan T8xVn ,«1L 11£ ' - ,,If' A'AAov... «railov Tl ~TlTOVI-'8V. In fine, T8'A OC; 'W"TlC; fTlC; Cf. Heylbut, p. vi. F. Madan, A Summary Catalogue of the Western Manuscrlpts"ln the Bodleian Library at Oxford, IV. Oxford, 1897, p. 317, no. 18573: Qu. Catal. iii (Canonici), Greek, no. 120 (Olympiodorus)." = Wartelie, Inventaire, no. 1265: "Olympiodori philosophi In E N libros X paraphrasls." 21. PARIS " Cod. Par. Suppl. gr. 181. xvi s. 182 fol. Omont Inventaire sommaire .. , de la Bib/. Not., Ill, p. 228: Anonyml commentarius in Aristotelis ethica ad Nlcomachum: 'Ev 3teX"n TExvn xal f.l 8{)6aq>. .. (1); - Bessarionis cardinalis eplstola ad Michaelem· Aposto· Hum (185)." Cf. Heylbut, p. vii. = Wartelie, Inventaire, no. 1577: "Anonymi in E N comment." 22. VATICAN Cod. Vat. Barberinianus gr. 218 (Il 39). 68 fol. S. de Ricci Liste sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bib/iotheca Barberina. R~vue des BibliotMques XVII [1907 J. p. 97: "218 Il, 39. Paraphrasis in Aristotelis Ethicorum Nicomachaeorum llbros (fine mutil.), 68 ff." Cf.Heylbut, p. vi. = Wartelie, Inventaire, no. 1876: "Anonymi in E N paraphrasis (multa desunt in fine)." 23. VATICAN Cod. Vat. Ottobonianus gr. 42. xvii s. 190 fol. E. Feron and F. Battaglinl, Codices Manuscripti Graeci Ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae. Rome, 1893, no. 42, p. 31: "IIaQeXqJQa"L~ Twv'AQ\O"toTEAouc; 1jillXWV ..... Cr. Brandls, op. cit., p. 76, no. 180. = Wartelie, Inventaire, no. 1892: "Anonyml in Aristt. Ethlca para· phrasls." [24. MADRID Cod. Matrltensis gr. 4715 [0 37J. an. 1552. 479 fol. Heylbut, p. vii, cites this as one of the manuscripts containing the ano· nymous Paraphrase on the Nicomachean Ethics, but probably wrongly. E. Miller, BibliotMque Royale de Madrid. Catalogue des manuscrlts grecs. Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibl10tMque Natlonale et d'autres Blbl10tMques XXXI, 2 (1886) pp. 79-81, describes it as containing various scholia, on the Anthology, on Aeschylus, on the Hal1eutlka

° ...

''''''TI,

=

=

-

, I VII

VII 12

of Oppian, on John Tzetzes, as well as two anonymous epigrams and k and (p. 81): "Morale addressee a Nlcomaque, en dlx hvres, other wor s, . t ·tt· . f . par Aristote." A note at the end of the manus~flp , Wfl ,en In an In e~lOr hand and dated 1552, refers to the scribe KUflLv'O, rtaVEW, (ZanettJ? I. who, however, appears not to have copied thIs work, The ~anuscflpt seems therefore to contain the text, of the Nlcomachean EthIcs rather than a paraphrase, On KciJ.llAAO, rlUVE!O" apparently accepted as the copyist of this manuscript, see Vogel and Gardthausen,. Die grzechzschen Schreiber, pp, 227-228: "1552 in ,Rom, fOr den ~~rdlnal von Burgos: Matrit. 0 37 (SchOlien zur Anthologle - Aischylos). Not listed in Wartelle, lnventaire, But cf. Harlfinger and Wiesner, op, cit., Scriptorium, XVIII (1964) 246,] The oldest manuscript is that in Florence (no, 1). in which the Paraphrase is attributed to an anonymous author, The subscription at fol. 97 comes at the end of Book VI. The first six books of the work were thus copied for and at the expense of the monk Joasaph Cantacuzene, formerly the Emperor John VI (1347-13541. in the year l366, The rest of this manuscript (Books VII-X) is by a fifteenth-century hand, Exactly the same subscription appears at the same pOint in the text of the Vienna manuscript and of the Venice manuscript (nos, 2 and 3), In the two manuscripts in Milan, however, (nos, 4 and 5) and also in that in Munich (no. 6) the subscription, though the same in content, has been trans-· ferred to the end of the Paraphrase, In the Naples manuscript (no. 7) the subscription has become an attribution and the authorship of the Paraphrase is there ascribed to "the monk Joasaph", 1. e, the Emperor John Cantacuzene himself, When Nicholas Tourrianos came to compile the Greek section of the catalogue of the manuscripts in the Escurial LIbrary in 1577 he listed both of the manuscripts of this Paraphrase under the name of John Cantacuzene (nos, 8 and 9].15 Finally, the London manuscript (no. 10), cited by Krumbacher and others, is attributed to the pen of the Emperor-monk himself without further ado. That John Cantacuzene should have paid a copyist to transcribe a paraphrase of Aristotle is not surprising. In the long years between his 15 It should be noted that Demetrlos Zenos of Zakynthos, the scrIbe of Cod. Escorial ... T. 11.-18 (no. 8), did not venture to name an author of tbe Paraphrase. Tbe attribution to John Cantacuzene was proposed by Nlcbolas Tourrlanos (or de la Torre) of Crete, on wbose career see p, A, Revllla, CaMlogo de los clldlces Grlegos de la Blblloteca de el Bscorlal, I. Madrid, 1938, p, CIX f.; Vogel and Gardthausen, Die grlechlschen Schre:ber, pp, 358-359; D, j. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars In Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1982, p. 255; K, A, de Meyler, Scribes grecs de la Renaissance, Scrlptorlum, XVIII (l964) 263, On Demetrlos Zenos see E. Legrand, Blbllographle Hel/~nlque ou descrIption ralsonnlle des ouorage. publMes en grec par le. grecs au XV- et XVIallele., 1. Paris, 1885, p. 180; Vogel and Gardthausen, DIe grlechlschen Schrelber, p. 101; P. Canart, ScrIbes grec. de la RenaIssance, SCrlptorlum, XVII (1963) 62.

A Paraphrase of the Nicomachean EthIcs Attrlbuted to the Emperor John VI

13

abdication in 1354 and his death in 1383 the former Emperor, though by no means as detached from political affairs as his monastic vocation might imply, employed much of his time in scholarship and literary pursuits, Many manuscripts are known to have been copied for him, notably in the 1360's and 1370's.16 Nor is it strange to find him still credited with the title of basileus long after the date of his abdication,17 It would be rather more surprising, however, if he had himself composed such a Paraphrase, since all his known writings, apart from the four books of his memoirs, are of a theological nature,la But it is clear enough that the attribution to him of the work under discussion was not made before the sixteenth century, and that it came about through a miSinterpretation, deliberate or innocent, of the note on the original manuscript referring to the fact that the transcription of the first six books of the Paraphrase was commissioned by John-Joasaph Cantacuzene in 1366. The Emperor John VI, who has been accused of many greater crimes both by historians and by theologians, may therefore finally be absolved of the charge of having presumed to compose a Paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics, The identification of the real author of the Paraphrase is another matter. A hundred years ago V. Rose suggested that the name of Hellodorus of Prusa had become associated with the work because it was Heliodorus who had been commissioned and paid by the ex-Emperor John Cantacuzene to compose a Paraphrase of the ten books of the Nico18 The most famous of the scribes that John Cantacuzene employed was Manuel Tzyknndyles, who worked ma1nly at Mlstra tn the Peloponnese. See Vogal and Gardt~ hausen, DIe grlechischen Schrelber, pp, 281-282; A. Turyn, Codices Graecl Vatteanl saeculis xm et XIV script I annorumque notls InstructI, Vatican, 1964, pp, 150-153, 162-163, 165-166. It has long been belleved tbat john Cantacuzene, as the monk joasaph, copied manuscripts with his own hand, But see: L. Polltis, Tean-Toasaph Cantacuzbne tut-Il coptste?, Revue des Iltudes Byzantlnes, XIV (1956), pp. 195-199; Idem Blne Schrelberschule Im Kloster rwv 'Ob'lYw\', Byz, Zeltschr" LI (l958), pp. 24, 26. 17 A special study ot tbe actlvlUes ot Cantacuzene after bls abdication has recently been made by Lj. Maksimovle, Polttltka uloga To"ana Kantakuzlna posle abdlkacl/e 11354-1383), Zbornlk Radova Vlzantolo§kog Instltuta, IX (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 119-193. See also my Own fortbcomlng monograph The Byzanttne FamIly Of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), c. 1100-1460 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, Wasblngton, D, C,). 18 The edition of the memoIrs or Htstortes of John Cantacllzene remains that of t, Schopen, loannts Cantacuzent exlmperatorts Hlstorlarum Llbrl IV, 3 vols. (Corpus SCriptorum Hlstorlae Byzantlnae, Bonn, 1628, 1831, 1832), Tbe earUest manuscript of tbe text (Florence, Cod, Laurent. Plut. IX, 9) bears the date December 1369, For b1s other surviving works see, e. g., Krumbacher, op, elt., pp. 105 r., 297 f.; J. Meyendorff, IntrodUction d l'Etude de Gr~golre Palama. (Patrlstlca Sorbonensla, 3). PariS, 1959. pp. 403, 412; Idem, Pro/ets de Conelle ",cum~nlque en 1367: Un dIalogue Inlldlt entre ,ean Cantacuzbne et le Mgat Paul. Dumbarton Oaks Papers XIV (1960) 149-177. Had there been any certainty about t1he ex-Emperor's autborsblp of the Parapbrase, Arssnlos of Monemvasla, who copied Cod, Par, gr. 1872 [no. 13}, would surely have made tbe .most of It.

i

'il I I ilit!

III

1

1I

22Q';JlZ

VJI

VII

14

A Paraphrase 01 the Nlcomachean Etbles Attributed to the Emperor John VI

machean Ethics in 1367 (I). This was not a mere copy but an original composition, as shown by the subscription referring to the Emperor and by the attribution of the work to Hellodorus of Prusa.19 Heylbut accepted this suggestion and correspondingly adopted Heliodorus as the author of the Paraphrase. The only clear attribution of the work to Hellodorus, however, seems to occur in Cod. Par. gr. 1870 (no. 11), in which no mention is made of any participation in the project of the Emperor John Cantacuzene; and It was quickly pOinted out by L. Cohn, almost before Heylbut's edition had left the press, that Cod. Par. gr. 1870 was by the hand of Constantine Palaiokappas, whose forgeries and literary Inventions are notorious. Heliodorus of Prusa, otherwise unknown, is almost certainly a product of Palaiokappas's fertile Imagination. Nor is there any evidence for supposing that the Paraphrase is an original composition of the fourteenth century; It Is much more likely to be simply a copy of a work already In existence before 1366. 20 The strongest of the other contenders for the authorship has been Andronicus of Rhodes. The only manuscript In which the work Is definitely attributed to Andronicus is, as Heylbut remarked, Cod. Par. Latinus 6251 (no. 14). Neither John of Santa Mavra, the copyist of Cod. Par. gr. 1871 (no. 12), nor Arsenlos of Monemvasia, the copyist of Cod. Par. gr. 1872 (no. 13) and of Cod. Par. Suppl. gr. 768 [no. 15), presumed to give a name to the author of the work; and the Leyden manuscript (no. 16). which Heinse edited In 1607 and 1617, bears the name of Andronicus of Rhodes only in a later hand. 2! Thomas Reinesius accepted Andronicus 18 V. Rose, Uber elne angebl/ehe Paraphrase des ThemlsUus. Hermes 11 (1867J. p. 212 n. 1: .,'Aut Kosten' Wld Verlangen das '" Kaiser Joannes Cantacuzenus ... verCa1!te Hellodorus von Prusa Im /. !367 eine Paraphrase der 10 BUcher der nlkom. Ethlk: -HAtol)(;JQou

nOOUO'fJ.E(Ot; itCLQu'PQaO"tC;

toJV aQlO'COtEi.o1JC;

il'fhKOOV

"lKOI.UJXE(roV

(cod.

Par. 1870J, mit folgender Unterschrlft (In cod. Par. supp!. gr. 181, dleselbe hinter Buch 6 In Marc. app. Gr. IV, 22, und nach Bandlnl auch In Laur. 80, 3: die blo.se Her. staUung alner Abscbrlft 1st offenbar nlcht gemelntJ: Tb ~,~,£ov yiyo". . .. & c." Rose, like Martini and Bassi, Hardt and others, misinterpreted the combination of the Indlclion and annus mundl In the subscrlptlon: 24 November A. M. 6875 IndicliGn 5 = 1368 not 1387. JO L. Cohn, Hel/odorus von Prusa, elne Erflndung Palllokappas. Berliner Phllologlsche Wochenschrlft, IX, 45 (NGvember, 1889J, cols. 1419-1420. cr. Krumbacher, op. elt., p. 431. The first mGdern authority tG accept the attribution to Heliodorus oC Prusa .eems to have been the Baron de Salnte·Crol. (Gullilem de Clermont·Ucdeve J, Examen '''/t/que des anciens hlstorlens d'Alexandre le Grand, 2nd ed. Paris, 1804, p. 524. On Constantlne Palafokappas see also G. Patrlnelis, "'EAAl't"EC; xmlhxoYQcicpol. l'OOV XQo"(I)V tile; ci...yevvi)n.",~, 'E"."IQ~ \OV M•."".,...ov 'AOX<£Oll, VIII-IX (1958-1959J (1961J 101-102, P. Canart, op. elt., Scrlptorlum, XVII (1963 J 66, 79; K. A. de Meyler, op. elt., Scrlptorlum, XVIII (1964J 262, 265-266. a On John oC Santa Mavra (I",ci",'~~ l:uVK
16

as Its author in 1660.22 Wllliam Brldgman, the English translator of the Paraphrase, remarked that its ascription to Andronicus of Rhodes was a conjecture that required confirmation; and having provided his readers with his own paraphrase of what Fabrlcius had to say on the subject, he concluded in favour of the authorship of Andronlcus In these words: "there is some probability that notwithstanding the previous objections. this work also is an offspring of his genius."23 Mullach published the entire work under the name of Andronlcus of Rhodes In 1881. But as Heylbut fiercely pointed out a few years later there Is in fact no warrant for believing that Andronicus had any connexion with the Paraphrase. The dispelling of the myth was continued by L. Cohn and completed by Gauthier and Jolif. The phantom of Heliodorus of Prusa, conjured up by Constantine Palaiokappas, may be laid to rest. Andronlcus of Rhodes must be allowed to retire from the list of claimants to the authorship of this Paraphrase. 24 The last pretender to the authorship is Olympiodorus. Heylbut names four manuscripts in which the work is attributed to him: Cod. Vat. gr. 272 and 273 (nos. 17 and 18), COd. Bodl. Canon. 120 (no. 20 J and COd. Vat. gr. 1902 (no. 19).25 Other manuscripts containing a Paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics attributed to OIympiodorus are listed by Wartelle as follows: 1. BERLIN Staatsbibliothek. Cod. 298 [fol. 63). xvi s. 169 fol. Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 322: "Olympiodori phllosophl in E N paraphrasis (1); E N liber secundus (17)." 2. VATICAN COd. Vat. Ottobonianus gr. 105. xvi s. 165 fol. WarteIJe, Inventaire, no. 1897: "E.N, cum Olympiodori psraphrasl." For Arsenios of Monemvasia, otherwise known as Aristoboulos Apostol1des. the SOD of Mlchael Apostolios, see Legrand, Blbl/ographle Hel/~nlque, I, pp. CLXV-CLXXIV; Vogel and Gardthausen. Die grleehlsehen Sehreiber, pp. 42-44; and especially G8IIJl8. koplos, Greek Scholars In Venice, pp. 187-200. He died in Venice In 1535. .. T. Relneslt ad C. Hoffmannum, C. A. Rupertum & e. Eplsto/ae (Leipzig, 1880J, p.312.. Brldgman, The Paraphrase & c., pp. viii-xii. Cf. Fabrlclus, Blbl/otheea Graeea '" c~ ad. Harles, Ill, pp. 263-264. 24 The suggestion that the true author was Andronlcus Kelllstos rather than Andronlcus of Rhodes hardly bears Investigation. Kalllstos lived In the fifteenth century and the earUest manuscript of the Paraphrase carries the date 1368. cr. Legrand. Blbllographle He/l~nlque, I, p. LVII n. 2; Gauthler and JoUI, L'Sthlque d NleomaQue, p. 71' n. 208. 25 Brandls, op. elt., p. 76, no. 182, cites also Cod. Vat. Urbln. 42. But this appears to contain not a paraphrase but the text 01 the first sewn books oC tba E1tlIcs. Cf. C. Soma/olo, CodIces Urblnates Graeel Blbllotheeae Vafleanae (_e, 1895J. _ 43, p. 48: "Fo!. 1 APIETOTEAOYl: ~l}."ciiv ''''''!'''X'''''' (SiC) '" "Q ...."". EIUSd81D reUquI usque ad VII tantum ..... Wartelle, Inventalre, DO. 1992.

"

,, ,

VII

VIII

16

Cr. E. Feron and F. Battaglini, Codices Manuscr!pti. Graec.1 Ott~boniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae. Rome, 1893, no. 105, p. 62: ArlstoteiIs Ethlca cum Paraphrasl OIymplodori -

graece."

3. VATICAN

Cod. Vat. Dttobonianus gr. 374. xvi s. 224 fol. Wartelle, Inventaire, no. 1921: "OIympiodori in E N paraphrasis." Cf. Feron and Battaglini, Codices, no. 374, p. 191: "Olympiodori Philosophi paraphrasis in Ethicam Aristotelis." . The first to accept Olympiodorus as the author of this Paraphrase seems to have been Gabriel Naude in 1633.26 One may suppose that he derived the idea from the attribution given on the manuscripts listed above none of which is earlier than the sixteenth century. But the suggestio'n has not met with much support, and the modern editors of the Nicomachean Ethics do not even deign to mention the attribution of the work to Olympiodorus. Indeed the claim made for him appears to be no better established than that made for any of the other supposed authors of the Paraphrase, and may perhaps be dismissed as a piece of Wishful thinking on the part of some sixteenth-century scribe. The conclusion must be that the author of this Paraphrase remains unknown, as he was evidently unknown to the ex-Emperor John Cantacuzene who, In 1366, paid a scribe to copy the work under the modest title of: ' AVOlVU~01J 1t
THE DOCTOR-PHILOSOPHER JOHN COMNEN OF BUCHAREST AND HIS BIOGRAPHY OF THE EMPEROR JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS

The doctor-philosopher John Comnen, or Komnenos, belonged to the circle of Greek men of letters that gathered at the court of Constantine Brlncoveanu between the years 1688 and 1714.' He was born in 1657. HiB family came from Herakleia on the Sea of Marmara but he was 1 The following authorities provide more or less brief biographical notes about John (omnen: Alexander HelJadios, Status praesens ecciesiae graecae ("1 Altdorf, 1714), Chapter 11: (Dc Typographia in WaJachin et de libris ibi impressis), pp. 10-21, especially p. 17; Demetrios Prokopiou (MoschopoJites), 'E'Tt't"t'E:1'(.L'rjlJ~v'rj t1t«p£6I-lTjat~ "t'i:lv XfU"cX "t'bv n«p&>..06v"t'cx «lc;,ycr.

AOrlflN rPAlKflN, .~I 're.( "''''' b

28 Gabrlells Naudael ParI•. Blbliographla Polltlea (Venice, 1633), pp. 16-19: "Verum nu praeclpue considerandl venlunt, qui decem llbros Ethlcorum Artstotelis suls lucubratlonlbus Ulustrandos suscepere, quos inter prlmus occurrit Eustrathlus ... cui se DanieHs Helnsil summ! proculdubl0 vir1 diligentta, soclum non ita prldem adiunxit Andronicus Rhodtus, aut patius OIymplodorus, tala enlm appel. lat10nl in poster1orl editions consulto sortitus est, cum in priori ab eodem Helnsl0 facta Lugdun1 Batavorum, sub anonym1 nomine latens, nulla pastorta fistula Dullaque adversa acclamatloDa exceptus fulsset, Imo vera aVlde a. cuncUs receptus, & probatus." 'lI ct. the conclusions ot Cohn, op. elt., col. 420, to the effect that the aullhor of this Paraphrase remains unknown and was no more called Hellodorus than be was called Andronlcus; and of Gauthler and /0111, L'Sthique d Nleomaque, p. n·: "... tout ce que noUB POUVOD8 dire est que la paraphrase est ant6rleure a la date de cette cople, cIooc antarleure a 1366. Inconnu, le paraphraste n'en merite pas mains de retanlr l'attentlon; 11 est brat et clair et son e"eg~.e est .Ouvant Int6ressant." In eluscemodi homlnum censu

'<7> 'uv ~tw" «veou"",v ... (Bucharest,

1720).

in J. A. Fatricius, Bibliotheca Grotca. ed. G. C. furies, Xl (Hamburg. 1808). p. 534, no. XL,\·I (reproduced as: Dept Aoy£wv r~(x()(WvJ in K. Sathas, MsO'«t6)v~x7} B~~).toO';')(l). III (Venice, 1872). p. 490); J. De-Kigallag, rXE:8£«OI-Hl xQ:'t61t1"pc.u 'l.;;c;. "&o&l).T,vb.;;~ lP~AoloyUl~ (HermoupOJis, 1846), p. 49. no. 278 j A. Papadopoulos Vretos (BFE't6t;). NSO&>").TjVLX1, IJ)tAo>"oylcl" I (Athens, 1854), p. 209; K. Soth.s, Neo£AAT,,,.Tj 4>'AOAOY(~ (Athens, 1868), pp. 397-399: Knisarios Daponte, 'Ia1"cpl)~OC; xcx'rCl>"oyoc; Mv8F">"~vCt)v "t'Clv ypcx.,&'Y't'6lY xtJ"t'm. A«"t'{v6lv x«t Tt'Epl -rCilv aUYYP«!.l!lciTWV tXlhClv (Leipzig. 1872), pp. 169 -170; G. t. Znviras

(Z~~(p«~), N~~ 'EAM~, ~ 'EAA1)""/" EI~~,pov, ed. by G. P. Kremos (Athens, 18i3), pp. 345- 346; A. Papadopoulos-Kerarneus, ·0 't'E;Aeu'totio~ KO~"Tjv6~. xa.l l"typot'PO" lnLOl)l1oy 'COl} M'rj'q;oTro>"("t'ou 'Hpocx).el«c; Neocplr't'ou (1695)' ,A&>""t'(ov 'IO''t'OPLltl;C; Xot"t', 'EOYOAOYLXijc; IEftl_ p.(.~, 11 (1885-1889), pp. 667-679; C. Erbiceanu, Bibliografia greaed .aa edr/ile greeqlr imprimate In principattle romdne In epoca (anariotd (Bucharest, 1903), pp. 39-41; A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Te:xte grece,ti. in E. de Hurmuzaki. Documente privitoare la i.laria romdnilor. XIII (Bucharest, 1909), p. )'S'; N. Iorga, 'Manuscripte din bibllotecl strline relative la istoria romAnilor', .Analele Acadfmiei R(rr.dne, Serin 11, Memoriile sectiunii istorice, XX (18971898), pp. 197-253; N. Iorga, Byrane. orris Byrone. (Bucharest, 1935), pp. 206-20'7; N. ViUmo.nu, De la tncfputurile medicinei romdne,U (Bucharest, 1966), pp. 178-184.. M)r thanks are due to Mr. E. D. Tappe of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies'" tbe Unlvelllty ot London for bis advice and belp In tbe preparation ot this article.

l'

!

VIII

VIII JOHN COMNEN AND IUS BIOGRAPHY 01' J'OHN KAlfTAKOUZEN'08

512

brought up in Constantinople and educated at the Greek school at the Phanar, where he was among the distinguished pupils of Alexandel' Mavrocordato, then dragoman to the Sultan.' About 1680 he went to Jassy to become tutor to the sons of the then voivode of Moldavia, George Duca j and there he seems first to have acquired his proficiency in collating and proof-reading Greek manuscripts for the printing press. In 1683 he prepared the text of the theological works of Symeon of Thessalonica and dedicated it, with a Greek epigram in four elegiac couplets, to John Duca. He was then twenty-five years of age and held the title of a notary of the Great Church. 8 Shortly afterwards he left for Italy to continue his education at Padua and Venice. There he studied medicine and philosophy. In October 1686 he was invited to Bucharest to complete his medical studies and to serve as a physician at court. The invitation came from the Metropolitan Germa·nos of Nyssa, but John preferred to remain in Italy.' About 1690, however, he moved to Russia where he stayed for some years. In 1693 he was in Moscow, working on a tr,,!-mlation from Latin into Greek of a spiritual work of which several copies were made in manuscript. 5 Not until September 1694 is he known to have been in Bucharest. It was evidently his intention to return to Jassy at the invitation of his former pupil Consta·ntine Duca. But his services as a doctor and as a scholar were so much in demand in Bucharest that he stayed there. He was appointed • The date of his birth derives from the document published by Papadopoulos-Kernmeus, 4£A't'. Ila,:,. xcd 'EOv. IE-r. 11 (1885-89), pp. 670, 674. He was baptized at Heraklein 26 January 1658. I find no evidence that he came from Lesbos, as stated by lorgo, BI/zance apru Byzance, p. 206, and by ViilAmanu, op. cit., p. 178. For his connexions with the Mavrocordato fnmily, see A. A. C. Slourdza, L' Europe orienlale et le r6le hlstoriqut des Maurocordalo. 1660-1B80 (Paris, 1913), pp. 35-36. :I The epigram is printed in E. Legrand, BiblioJraphie HelMniqut DU description raisonnee des DUUrages publUes par des Grecs au XVIIe si~cle, 11 (Paris, 1894), no. 578, pp. 414-415. Cf. Sathas, NIOE)J"lJVU(;i) C»'AOAOY(ct, p. 412; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, op. cit., pp. 678-679; D. RUSSD, Studii ,i crilice (Buchrtrest, 1910), p. 107. The text of the Dialogus contra haereses etc. of Symeon of Thessatonica prepared by John Comnen is that reproduced in Migne, :,~';g:::a.Graeca, eLY, cols. 25-978, with a Pinaz or Index composed by John, ibid., cols. OD

a VAtAmanu, op. cif., p. 179. 6 The work is entitled: Me"C'«1J.6p:pCt),.,~ 'tou n<XA',lw)U Iiv9pC:n~ou xrd 'tou viou yh sa,c; tYroL filP).o~ x<X't'Otvux't,xij ncpl -rii>v 'tBaaci?(I)~ 'toD d.V8p611~OU lax.ci"C'c.)V, ILB't'CC:ppcta8eiact Ix -rij~ Aft&vI3<><; oI~ ~~v xo,v~v ~Oiv ·E"~vop"I''''I ..v 8'
""'P"

Cnmteartr ,1,...1. p. XXVI.

513

Professor of physics and mathematics at the Academy of St. Sava aDd became court physician to Oonstantine Brincoveanu, who had succeeded his uncle !;lerban Cantacuzino as prince of \Yallachia in 1688.' John participated with energy and enthusiasm in the 8cholarly and literary movement initiated by !;lerban's brother, the learned Stolnic Constantine Cantacuzino. He was particularly active in the promotion of Greek or rather Byzantine learning and was pleased to remind the rulers of Wallachia of their alleged Byzantine ancestry, fostering the conceit that their imperial heritage lay not in Bucharest but in the capital city of Constantinople! In 1694 John made up a compilation of Apop1&tAegmB of the emperors, generals, philosophers and orators of the past, translated into contemporary Greek and dedicated to OOIll!tantine Brlncoveanu." Another work of the same nature was his Selections (Eklogai) from Byza.ntine authors, such as Michael Glykas and Joscph Bryennios.' In 1699 he Jlublished his Biography of the Byzantine Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, dedicating it to 'that Emperor's descendant', the Stolnic Constantine Cantacuzino, uncle of the voivode Brincoveanu.10 At about the same time he was engaged in helping the Stolnic to prepare his celebrated Map of Wallachia, which was printed at Padua in 1700. This too was dedicated to Oonstantine Brincoveanu." Among John's friends and correspondents of this period were Sebastos Kyminites (Kymenitul) of Trebizond, who became Director of the Academy at Bucharest, and whose Epitaph John was to compose in 1702 j Manuel Karyophyllis, on whose death he wrote an Epitaph in 1694, and his son and grandson, John a.nd B.OOllis Karyophyllis; and Ohrysa·nthos Notaras, later Patriarch of Jeru• See Vitlm.nu, op. cil., pp. 180-181. 7 See V. CAndeo., 'Le Stolnic Constnntin Cantncuzene: J"homme politique - I-humanist.', Revue Roumaine d'Hlsloire, V, 4 (1966), pp. 587-629 (especially pp. 622-625). • 'A"oopalYIL"'~'" ~",a,M.. v, a~p"'T'lJYOiv, ",hu (!'':'op.'~ ••• au>.Aq"'v"'" ....... ·I...tvVOU KOILV'I}Voij ~oij tc<~poij. 'Ev .oyl"" p. 398. • Litzica, Calalogul, no. 663 (74), 16, 33, pp. 390-391. Cf. Papadopoulos-K....me.... in Hurmuzaki, Documente, XUI, no. 6. 10 For the title of the Biography, see below note 32. In Februo.ry of the snme year 1699 he composed an epigram in fifteen e1egio.c couplets to Constantine Brlncoveanu for the preface to the Ela<XYCt)YLxij "E)(.8eaL~ concerning the three virtues of faith, hope and charity, published by Bessarlon Makrl of Ioannina. Text In Legrnnd, Blbliographie He/lmique au XVII Ill, no. 684, pp. 64-65; I. Bianu and N; Hodo" Blbiiografla ronulneasca Hehe 16.,-181•• I {160B-1716) (Bucharest, 1903), pp. 380-381 (no. 117). Comnen here describes his patron as: K..va~"'v~ivov... Bp"'yxo~
.Iie,..

I.

VIII

VlII

514

salem (1707-1731), who, while still an archimandritc, was also involved in the production of the Stolnic's M'lP of Wallachia.'· Concerned though he was with the furtherance of culture and scholarship at the court in Bucharest, the doctor-philospher felt st.rongly called to the spiritual life. In 1700 he wwt in a pilgrimage to Jerusalem Mount Sinai and Mount Athos. The fruit of his travels was his mos~ famous work, the Proskynetarion of Mount Athos, a description of thc Holy Mountain and its monOlsteries, relics and treasures, with special reference to the many benefactiuns made to those monasteries by the rulers of the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. This was first printed at Snllgov in 1701 at the press of Anthimos of Iberia (Antim IVireanul). It was dedicated to Theodosios, the Metropolitan of Wallachia whose see devolved on Anthimos himself in 1709, and to Constantin; Brincoveanu. The Proskynetarlon reached a wider aud~ence than John's more scholarly works. A second edition, with a Latin translation, appeared in Paris in 1708; a third, revised and amended version was printed in Venice in 1745; and it was translated into Russian as early as 1702.'" After his pilgrimage John seems to have abandoned the practice of medicine. In the first years of the eighteenth century he assisted Anthimos of Iberia in the printing of a numbar of works, all liturgical in nature; and in each one he inserted an epigram in elegiacs to Constantine It Le.tteTS to ~bastos Kyminitcs: c Papadopoulos-Keramells, in Hurmuzaki, Docllmenie. XIII, p. N;, ..no. 7, S ...P. Lambros, NLXO).ciou KPL"r£OU "t'Ou ~EY«A9u i:JQC.)."IJO't«pxou O'u).-

Aoy~ altoyP"'P"" rn,a,o~"" ,oil 8.,,~,.ou .~861-'0u ",xl 8."eX,ou 6y860u ",l6i,oe;, NOoe; 'E"~'o liV~fIoCt,)V. IV (1907), p. 216. no. 165. Epitaph o~ Sebastos Kyminites : text in A. Triantnphyllidc8. oV<""~ (Athens, 1866), p. 189; Konslantios, 'rlt61-"~I-'''' It.p! '~e; It''''P''''PXLX~ axo~~'

~nstantinopl~, 1866) (in Snthas, NeocAA. 4>LAOAoy(IX. p. 377); Pnpndopoulos-Keramcus: ID Hurmuzakl, Docu~nte, XIII, p. 409, no. 1; cf. Sathas, op. ef!., p. 397, no. 4. Letters to Manuel Karyophylhs: Lambros, op. cit., p. 212 (dated April 1687 and November 1688)' to John KQ~OPhYllis: .Lambros, op ..cif., p. 213, nos. 104, 105 (dated September nnd De: cemher 1694), to Rhalbs Karyophylbs: three lellers (undated), in C. Astruc and M.-L. Conc:J.sty, Calalogue des 1!IanU&Cl'ils grees (Bibliothlque Nationale). rIle partie: Le SuppUment gree, III (:paris, 1960), .no. 1044, fols. 75, 76, 77. For Chrysanthos Notaras and his participation in the Map of Wo.llachla, see the tex~ of the dedication in Dima-DrAgan, Biblioleea, no. 10.

p. 113; and for Comnen's letters to hIm, see below note 22. 11 IIpo(J:KUV'rl1'cipto~ TOil ciy£ou 6pou<; 1'oil "A66lvoe;;, by John Comnenus mediCUR: firat printe~ nt Snagoy In May, 1701; second edition by B. de Montfaucon. Palaeographia Gl'tJb:a (~ar1S, 1~08), lib. VII, pp. 433-499 (text: pp. 441-499), with a Latin translation (Ductlpllo Monll. Alho) (cf. ~egrand, Bibliographie Helliniqu• . :. au XVllle si~I., 1 (Paris, 1918), ~o..8, pp. 12-13); third, amended edition by the hlerodiokon Ignatios Kemizis printed at VeDlce ID 1745 (cf. Legrand, op. cll., ~o. 334, pp. 338-339); fourth ediUon, with 0 preface by 10Dnnes Veloudis, printed at Venice 10 1857. The Russian translation, made in 1702 was. printed at S!. Pe~urg in 1883. A R~moDian version w.s published at Buchorest in i856_ See Loparev s edition of ~he VUa loanm, C~t~cu%eni, p. 2. Cf. Erhiceanu, Bibliogra(ia Greacd, DO. XiX, pp. 38-50; .B.onu and Hodo" Blbllografla romdn.a.ed, I, pp. 422-423 (no. 129); ~pa1"!",uIos Vretos, N ...... ~'MAoyl~, I, nos. 133, 193, pp. 48, 70-71' Idem K"'T"MYO~ -rij, ",",,,..,, -rij~ K"'''''',"''''VOun6A''''e; l-'C7.p! To;; 1811 ,U1tOlOiV,,,,,, ~'~I'" 1tOLp' S!..~~ (Athens, 1845), p. 11, no. 92; ZovirOI, Nu 'EAAIle;, p. 345; Sothns, N..,o>.)... ~-T-' p- 397.

:-v ......

JOHN COMNEN AND HIS BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN KANTAKQtJZEN08

515

Brlncoveanu." His interests tended more and more to theology. In February 1702 he completed a translation into modem Greek of the Herrneneia or Commentary on the four Gospels by Theophylact of Bulgaria, again with a dedication to Brincoveanu." It wa~ at about this time that he took monastic vows, changing his name to Hierotheos; and by 170;; he had been granted the titular bishopric of Side. By 1711 he had been appointed Metropolitan of Drystra, though it appears that he continued to spend most of his time in Bucharest." During t.he last years of his life he applied himself almost exclusively to theological works. Among them are an Index (Pinax) or Concordance of all the writings of St. John Chrysostom, for which he used the eight-volume Greek edition printed at Eton in 1612.17 He also translated from Latin into Greek a tract on the theology of the Sacraments, and composed a treatise on the Eucharist.'· A few other works have been 11 Epigram in elcgiacs to Constantinc Brlncoveanu in preface to Three Lilurgi~1 in Greek and Arabic, printed by Anthimos of Iheria at Snagov in 1701 : text in Legrand, Biblio-graphie IlelMnique au XVI11 e silcle, I, no. 1, pp. 2-3; Bianu and Hodo., Bibliografia. I. p. 424 (no. 130). The whole or part of the same epigram was reproduced at the end of the Horologion or Canonical Prayers with Offices for all the year, printed in Greek and Ambic by Anthimos of Iberia at Bucharest in 1702, nnd in the Hermeneia and Akalouthia for the consecration of a church, printed by Anthimos in December 1703: Legrand, op. cil., I. nos. 17, 20, pp. 20, 26; Bianu and Hodo!;" lJibliogra(io, 1. p. 442 (no. 137) j Popndopoulos YretOl, KCL'''~OYO~, p. 11, no. 95. 11 Theophylaktos of Ochrid, 'EpiJ.'rI'Ve:(ct, de;; 1'« dOO'atpat £Uar.yy~lt« (Enarratio in Boan. gelia), translated into modern Greek by the Doctor John Komnenos on the order of John Constantine Bassnrah in February 1702. This is apparently not edited or printed. See H .. Hunger. Katalog der griechischtn Handschriflen der osterreichischen Nationatbibliothek (Supple. "!en~um graecum) (Vienna, 1957). no. 2 (fols. lr-625 V ), p. 11. The text of Comnen's long dedica. lion of the work to Brtncoveanu is pI'iDted with n. Romanian translation by N. lorga. '!tL'tnu. scriptc din biblioteci strfline', Analele Acad. Rom., Mem. Sect. ist., Ser. 11. xx (1897-1&18). pp. 205-207. Cf. W. Weinbcrger, 'Die griecitischen Hondschriften des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen', in Wiener Eronos. Zur 'fUnftigsten l'ersammlullg deu'schen Philologen uad Schul. manner in Graz 1909 (Vienna, 1909), p. 141, no. I; A. DelDetrnkopoulos DpoaOiptatt xatl A,opO"a'AO~OY("" K. I:~e", (LeipZig, 18il), p.' 62; Popodopoulos.-Kerameus, in Hurmuzaki. Documente, XIII. p. AS', no. 2. 11 An Epigram on a well constructed as the expense of Constnntine Brtncoveanu. dated 28 July 1705, is signed by 'Hierotheos of Side'. His signature as such appears OD D document concerning an election to the sec of Trebizond by Gabriel 11, Patriarch of Constan... tinople, dated ::\[arch 1706. Papadopol1los-({erameus. in Hurmuzaki, Docurmnte, XIII. p. ).s'. no. 4; idem, 'hi'0ao~utL"'''~ B,~~,oe~~~. I, p. 435; 11, p. 214 n. 1. Nicholas Movrocordoto nddJ:esses him as 'Hiel'otheos of Drystra' in letters doted 27 October 1711 and 15 December 1712: lorga, Documente grece~ti, in Hurmuza.ki, Documentt, XlVII, nos. CCCCLXXl.. CCCCXCIX, pp. 448-449, 477-478; E. Legrnnd, Epistolaire Grec (Paris, 1888), no. 40, p.55; DO. 57, p. 75. cr. V_tAm.nu, op. cit., pp. 182-183. " IH'",~ cllv 1\«TLV01'p6,,,,, ch~ ~; A~,LV'''~; cl~ ~" 'E...x3", """'iJ"Sotho., op.cll." p. 397, no. 9. (Treatis. on th. Eucharisl): n.pl 'fOil a,e!; Tlv .." ~"ch.,,, i) .0;; I-'u,~~plou ~~ E6~CLp,aTI"e; I'n~A'iJ. Sotho., op. elt., p_ 397, no. 10; emetrakopoulos, 0p868o~o~ EU,"" p. 170; Zavir.., op. cil., p. 346.

"on"cx8i"""

"/i".....,

I

VIII

VIII JOHN COMNEN AND HIS BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS

516 wrongly attributed to him.'· A geographical treatise, including an account of the ancient geographers, and a lexicon of ancient and modern t.opography, bears the name of Hierotheos of Drystra; but it is Possible that this merely belonged to his library and was not his own composition.'· His signature as Hierotheos of Drystra appears on documents of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Cosmas III in 1714 and 1715, and Jeremias III in 1717 and 171S. 21 He corresponded with a large circle of friends in his latter years, notably with Chrysanthos N otaras between 1712 and 1715." One of his letters to N otaras commends the virtues of ~tefan Cantacuzino, son of the Stolnic Constantine, who had then recently succeeded Brlncoveanu as voivode 23 After the Stolnic's death in 1716, Hierotheos was favoured with the patronage of Nicholas Mavrocordato, with whom he exchanged correspondence, and for whose publications he composed flattering epigrams. 24 The last of these consists of an address 19 SntQ3S, op. cit., p. 397, foUowed by Loparev, op. cit .• p. 2, attributed to him 0. Treatise on Sin (IIE:pt &lJ.otPT~f.l.IXTO~) in anacreontic verse. This information derives from Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, cd. Harles, XI, p. 644 (']oQllnes Comnenus ... IlIills'versus anacreontici. quibus peccata defJet, Paris, in bibl. cod. MMMXXV, nr. 4 ... '). But the mu nuscript cited appears to date from the sixteenth century and therefore cannot be the work of John Comnen. See H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrils grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationaie, Ill8 partie: Anciens Fonds Grecs, Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1888), no. 3025, p. 94. Dcmetrakopoulos, npoa6~x(Xt, p. 63, attributes to him an Akolouthia of the Patriarch of Constantinople Niphon, citing a work of Eugenios Boulgaris: 'E1t'La't"oA~ EUYEV(OU 'TOU ~OUAY&:PEWC; TtpOC; TIe't"pov 1'0" KAClLptxo~. ITept 'T6)V Il-E1'OC 't"o 0XLall-et. etc. (Athens, 1844), p. 26. But Boulgaris implies no such composition. He merely states that the feast of the Patriarch Niphon was celebrated on 11 August, as is recorded in the Proskynelarion of Athos by the Doctor John Kornnenos. Cf. the edition of the Pro.'~kynetarion by Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca, p .. 478. 20 Litzica, Catalogul, no. 21 (632),1,2,3, p. 14 (described as being 'Ex 1'W" 't"OU 6.pUO''t'PIXC; ~IEp06eou). For other books that evidently belonged to Comnen's library, see PapadopoulosKerameus, 'IEp0O'o).,. Bt~).,., IV, p. 104 (no. 111 : an undated Latin work); p. 106 (no. 117: an _anonymous theological work of 1635). It A.Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'A1tcxp£6!-Ll)(nc; Ttpo't"01'U1tW" 1't'lCIlV iyypa,
e"

167, 178.

21 Thirteen letters from Hierotheos of Drystrn to Chrysanthos Notaras, two being undated, the rest written between September 1712 and May 1717, are listed by K. Sathas, 'KO:'t'a:AOYOC; e1t~'TOA(;)" tlvex86't"6)"', in MeO'tXt(.rlV'X~ Btf'AL061jxl), Ill, p. 524; cf. Papadopou}os-Kerameus, in Hurmuzaki, Documente, XIII, p. AS', no. 7. The texts of seven of these letters are printed by N. lorga, Documente grece~ti, in Hurmuzaki, Documente, XIV /1, nos. CCCC~CIII (pp. 470-

471),

DIII (pp. 488-489), DIV (pp. 489-490), DXXJII (pp. 523-524), DLII (pp. 552-554), DCXXXVII, (pp. 663-664), DCLVm (pp. 690-691). ss Text in Iorga, Documente grece*ti, in Hurmuzaki, Documente, XIV /1, no. DCLXIV, .(pp. 698-699), dated December 1715. H Letter to Nicholas Mavrocordato : text in Daponte, 'Ii71'op~xoC; KO:'t'«).,oyoe;, in Sathns .Mea. Bl.fjA,. Ill, pp. 100-103; and (with Romanian translation) in Erbiceanu, Cronieari~ greci, pp. 111-112 (undated). Epigram in thirty elegiacs to Alexander Mavrocordato and his sons, especially Nicholas, in the preface to the 'IO''"t'op(<x tep&:, -¥j't'o~ 'tcX 'lou8«tl<.oc of Alexander Mavrocordato, printed by Anthimos of Iberia at Bucharest, August 1716; text in Legrand, Blbl/ographie He/tinique au XVIII' s;ee/e, I, no. 145, pp. 134-136; ct. 8atha., N.o.~~. ~,~o :Myl«, p. 397, no. 3.

S17

nd some lines of heroic verse dated Augu8t 1719, in the treatise of

~icholas Mavrocordato on the duties of a prince, printed at Bucharest

in December of that year." It is doubtful if HierotheoR saw the publication for the date of his death at Bucharest is given as 1719. His will and t.est~ment survive in manuscript in the monastery of Iviron on Mount Athos·· His contemporary Demetrios Prokopiou (Moschopolites) describes John Comnen as a pious and virtuous man as well as a polymath skilled in all branches of knowledge and fluent in the Greek, Latin, Italian, Hebrew a.nd Arabic languages."' His command of languages is evident from his translations and from his co-operation with Anthimos of Iberia in the printing of Greek and Arabic works." But he liked to think of himself as a Greek in the Byzantine tradition, and he was proud to bear 25 Text in Legrand, op. eit., I, no. 126, pp. 155-157; cf. Sathas, op. eil., p. 397, nos .5 6' Bianu and Hodo~, Bibliografia, II (1716-1808) (Bucharest, 1910). p. 2 (no. 178); '1:. Gritsopoulos, K<X't"a:).,oyoC; 't6)V XE~POYp&r Mavrocordato (undated), cf. S. P. Lambros, l{O:'tti).oyoC; 1'CW xoo8tx6)v 'twv l:" 'A6l)vextC; ~L~).,to61jx(,)" n/dj"

A.

,~, 'E6v'x~,. A<: Koo3,xe, ,~, ~,~).,o6~y.~, ,~, ~ou).~, (Cod. 65, no. p~,', 101. 125'), Nto, fE)'f..l}VOIJ.,,-f}Il-W\l, III (1906), p. 457; to Cyril of Kyzikos, Patrlarch of Constantinople (dated 28 August 1712), in Lamb,os, N. Kp,,(ou ... (J\l)."oy~, N "EAAl}Vtxiil tAO).,OytX<jJ l:uA)..6yIP XE~POYp&:
ev

t

•

VIII

VIII JOHN COMNEN AND HIS BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS

hl8

the distinguished imperial name of Komnenos. There is, however, a shadow of doubt as to whether he was really entitled to that name. His earliest known works, the text of Symeon of Thessalonica printed in 1683 with its dedicatory verses to John Duca of Moldavia, are signed by him as John Molyvdos of Herakleia, or Perinthos.29 His father Alexios, who was ordained as a priest by the Bishop of Herakleia in 1656, had, however, borne the n~me of Komnenos as well as that of Molyvdos ; and to testify that his son did the same there is a seal preserved with the leg~nd ' John Komnenos Molyvdos'.'o John himself was so anxious to establish the truth of his Komnenian ancestry that he asked the Bishop of Herakleia, Neophytos, to search the archives of his metropolis for proof. Ha.ppiJy enough, Neophytos and his researches were able to trace the line of John's family back through his father Alexios Komnenos, his grandfather Theodore Komnenos who died in 1637, his great-grandfather Isaac Komnenos, and four previous generations to one Theodore Komnenos who had moved from Constantinople to Herakleia in December 1480. A document of that date was unearthed in the archives. It contained a note by the then Bishop of Herakleia, Meletios, to the effect that Theodore Komnenos with his wife Maria and his son Isaac had been granted asylum and a residence in his diocese, and that Theodore was a great-grandson of Basil I Konmenos, Emperor of Trebizond (1332-1340), a grandson of Isaac Komnenos, and a son of George the protobestiarios of Trebizond. To attest the authenticity of this document and of the supporting chain of evidence, the Bishop of Herakleia assembled a number of his priests and elders who, in September 1695, solemnly affirmed in writting that 'the noble archon and doctOl' John was a true son of Alexios Komnenos the priest, the son of Theodore Komnenos, and himself a Komnenos, in unbroken line of descent from the Komnenos family of old'."1 The evidence is certainly impressivo. But some of the links in its chain are fragile. The Emperor Basil I Komnenos is not otherwise known to have had a son called Isaac. The only attested protobe8tiario8 of Tre11 See above, note 3. There is also nn Encomium of John Duea signed by John 1dolyvdos of Hernklein which, though undated, must belong to the same period. It is entitled: 'EYXWI'LOV

fCpb, Tbv ulov 6.0UXC1 'fOU CLu6iv't'ou 1fotYj6h 7t«pci 'JCt)«vvou "t'ou

AOYU:J)"['cXTOU Mo)..u(i30u ftU,7dxA1jV. 't'Qu I~ ·Hpotx4t«:.. Spyridon nnd Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscript In the Library o( the Laura on Mount Athos, no. 1183.17; cr. Pnpndopoulos-Kernmeus, inB

Hurmuzakt, Docwnlntl. 10 Seal of John Komnenos Molyvdos, nnd seals of Hierotheos of Drystra, in Lambros, 'N. Kp.~lou ... cru)J.oyil', Nt.; 'EAAYjVOI'-V~I'-"V' IV (1907), p. 213, nos. 92, 104, 105. 11 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, .. '0 TC).sUTlXlOl; KO'"'''l'I"b~. XIXT' EyyplXipoV intO'l'Il'ov ~a M~~_AI""v 'HP«XAEIo<; N.0'Pu-rou (1695)' ~.A
'~1I(1885-1889),

pp. 667-679.

bizond with the name George is the notorious George Amiroutzes, who is not otherwise known to have been related to the imperial family. There are other objections. None the les~, the editor of this curious document was inclined to accept its findings; and since, without further evidence, they can neither be proved nor disproved, it is perhaps permissible to give the learned doctor, philosopher and bishop the benefit of the doubt and allow him entitlement to the imperial name of Komnenos. It might have been rather more difficult to find documentary proof Qf the lineal descent of the Cantacuzino family from the Byzantine imperial honse of that n'1me, though one suspects that the proof in this case waR taken to be self-evident. But it was the same desire to link the present with the Byzantine past that prompted John Comnen to undertake his B-iography of the Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos. Two manuscripts of this work now exist, one in Leningrad and the other in Vienna. It was completed in April 1699 but it seems that it was never printed at the time. The Russian manuscript, from which the last folio is missing, was published with a short biographical preface about its author by Chr. Loparev in 1888.32 He appears to have been umware of the existence of the other and more complete manuscript in Vienna, from which the missipg sentences ttt the end of the work can be supplied. 33 The Biography is no mere product of romantic fiction. It is clear that John Comnen took pains to read the sources for the life of the Emperor John VI that were available to him, principally the Hi8tories written by the Emperor himself after his retirement in 1354 and by his contemporary Nikephoros Gregorits. Of the former there was a printed Greek text with Latin translation to hand in the three volumes of the so-called ~aris Corpus of Byzantine historians published in 1645, of which there IS known to have been a copy in the library of the Stolnic Constatine Cantacuzino; and it is to this text that Comnen refers his readers by Book and Chapter on numerous occ~sions, though his references are some;;2 Ioannis Comneni medici Vita .Ioannis Caniacuzeni Romaeorum Imperatoris, edidit !r~ec~ Chrysa~thus Loparev S~mnrovensls (Petropoli, !888). The manuscript is entitled: Blo<; .ou £I.!'e~e.,'t'oc't'ou xocl «eL!J.Vl]CJ't'ou ()ocCJLMw~ )tocl cxU't'OXP<XTOpOo; 'PWlLtdwV 'Iw&.v.vou TOil 1{a.\I't'IX;(l)U~7JVou. wO; tv O'Uv.6~eL. npoO'e:vex8do; 'f 't'ou tX).CXfL1tpo't'(i't'ou Kotl U~'l).o't'(hou lXu9~,,'rOu )(<<1 ~YE!l6V...oo; 1tocO'l]o; Ouyypo~).,tXXl.cxo; xuptou KUptOU 'Iwcivvou KW-"'7'['(lv't'tvou BIXO'a(Xp~ Bo&~68tX 't'ou BpIXYKO~<XVOU 0d~, 't'if) TttXveuyeVe:<1't'oc't'Cfl, tv8o~o't'&:'t'Cf) )tlXl aocpwTlh~ &pX.O"'fL O''t'o).v~x.~ xuptCf) xuptCf) K~va't'lXv't'lvCfl 't'if) KtXv't'ocxou~l]v. 1tlXpa 'Iw<xvvou Ko,",,,'l"oU TOil lrtTpou a:V BoUXOupe:3't'(Cfl en!. hou; tX, X ll.8 -ou XIX't'Q; lLi'jv~ &'npt).).LoV. . H. Hunger, Katalog der grlechlschen Handschrlften der llsllrreichischen Nalional~ blblwlhek (Supplementum gra,cum) (Vienna, 1957), no. 79/1 (Iols. l'-16 V ), p. 55. This manuscript was not known to ",Sathns i but see Dnponte, op. cit., in SathB.$, Mt3. B'())'., Ill, p. 100;; Demetr~oPO~los, .npo0'8llX~t. •. p ..62, .no. 2; Iorga 'Manuscripte din biblioteci strAine ••• '. pp. 220 221, 'Vemberger, Die gnechlschen Handschriften des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen' pp. 140-141 (no. VII[); '[orga, Byzance apr~s Byzance. pp. 206-207. I am indebted r. Er~ch Trapp for kindly procuring photographs of the manusoript for me from the 00sterrelchlsche Nationalbibliothek.

:.C'r:il.,

I!

VIII

VIII 520

times faulty.34 But the corresponding Paris edition of Gregoras did not appear until 1702 ; and Comnen probably had to make do with the partial Greek edition of the text (Books I-Xr only) made by H. Wolfius at Basel in 1562." His references to the text of Gregoras do not go beyond Book Ill. In any event, he could have had no access to the last fourteen books of the History of Gregoras, since they lay in manuscript in Paris until their publication in 1855 in the Bonn Corpus of Byzantine historians .•< The Biography opens with a brief survey of some of the Emperor's ancestors in the Kantakouzenos family. The author's statements indicate that he had consulted the monumental Familiae Augustae Byzantinae of Du Cange, first printed in Paris in 1680, and perhaps also the History of Niketas Choniates, printed in Paris in 1647. The Emperor himself has almost nothing to relate about his own ancestry. Of his father he records little, except that he died at the age of twenty-nine after eight consecutive years of service as governor of the Peloponnese. He is much more informative about his mother Theodora, who was a woman of exceptional courage and intelligence. These· facts are carefully and accurately recorded by John Comnen, though he follows Du Cange into the error of supposing that the Emperor had a sister. He was in fact an only child.37 The work proceeds with an account of what little is known about the uncles, cousins and nephews of the Emperor, about his wife Eirene Asenina, and their three sons and three daughters, and about their grandchildren. 38 On occasions, the author shows a deeper understanding of events than some of the latterday historians of this period. The marriage between the Emperor's daughter Theodora and Orchan the Osmanli, emir· of Bithynia, for example, he rightly sees as a union which 'brought many benefits to the Greeks and notably fostered the friendship and co-operation between their Emperor and the ruler of the Turks', rather than as a. scandalous miscegenation. Having dealt with the Emperor's genealogy and family, Comnen embarks on an account of his career and how he rose at For the Stolnic's copy of the, Histories.of Kantnkouzenos, see Dima-Dragan. Biblioteca no. 20, p. 117. 15 There were Latin translations of the Byzantina Hisloria of Nikephoros Gregoras published in Paris in 1567 and in Frankfurt-a m-Main in 1578. See K. Krumbacher. Geschichle der byzaniinischen Litleratur, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1897), p. 296. I1 Extracts from them wefe, however, printed ten years earlier byV. Parisot, Cantacuz~ne homme d'/tat et hislorien. etc. (Paris, 1845), especially pp. 313-328. 17 See D. M. NicoI, The Byzantine Family of Kanlakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 11001460. A genealogical and prosopographical study (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XI, Washington, D.e., 1968), nos. 20, 21, pp. 27-.33. I1 The author is mistaken, however, in naming the two younger sons of Helenn Kantnkouzene and John V Palniologos as •John and Demetrios'. Their names were in fact Tl\eodore and Mlchoel. See Nlool, op. cit., no. 30, p. 138.

JOHN COMNEN AND HIS BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS

~21

h the ranks of the nobility to become Grand Domestic and generathroug . H'" t' lissimo of the Emperor Andronikos III.~alal?logos. IS llnagma lon see~8 here to have supplied some of the deflclenCIes of the sources, for the~e lS evidence that John Kantakouzenos ever held the rank of parakm1nO:no8 or that of megas koubikoulario8, which indeed appears not to have existed in the fourteenth century.'· But Comnen does not exagg.erate when he says that, once Kantakouzenos became Grand ~om~tlc .of Andronikos Ill, he was to all intents and purpose vested Wlt~ unperml authority 'and was obeyed by aU to whom he gave orders just as tf he were an Emperor'. . To show off his classical erudition Comnen compares his hero to the models of excellent statesmen, generals and orators defined by Cicero d by Onasandros, as well as by Leo Ill; and he affirms, quite correctly, an . and ' P ' that among his talents was a knowledge of Latm ersmn and Turkish' (which in this context mean the same thing) quite unusua~ among his contemporaries.«o The literary quality of the Emperor's Htstory IS justly praised, though it is gilding the lily to assert. t~at it~ author garnished it with. apt quotations from Homer and EUl'lpldes, smce no such quotations appear in it. COJ;nnen was aware that the Emperor wro~e oth~r and especially theological works beside his History, and he m~ntlOns ~lS treatises against Mahomet and against the Jews, as well as hiS polenucs against Barlaam and Akindynos, the opponents of t~e theolo.gy of Gregory Palamas.41 A manuscript copy of the famous treatises agamst Mahomet was made for the Stolnic's library in Bucharest, though apparently not until 1700 . but they had been printed at Basel as early as 1543." Comnen falls prey ~o his own bigotries, however,when he assures his reader th~t the Emperor composed tracts against 'the schismatic papists'; for while it is true that Kantakouzenos was 'a champion of the Orthodox dogmas of the Eastern Church', he is not known to have indulged in anti-Catholic polemics, and indeed conducted a remarkably rational corresp.ond~ce with the Popes at Avignon and an uncommonly sensible discusslon Wlth a papal legate in Constantinople.«.· As to the Emperor's wealth in gold and silver, landed property and livestock, Comnen quotes the astonishing at The title of megas koubikoularios does not figure in the fourteenth-century list tf offices, ed. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos, TraiM des Offices (Paris, 1966). The office of pGI'Okoimomenos 't'oij XOt't'(;WOt; came 19th in rank, but there is no evidence that Kontnkouzenos ever held it. He is known only to have been megas papias (2Srd in rank) before being created Grand Domestic (megas domestikos). See Nicol, op. elt .• no. 22, p. 36. 10 For the Emperor's knowledge of Latin, see John Knnto.kouzenos (Cantu.cuaeDUI). His/oriae, ed. L. Schopen (Bonn, 1828-1832), Ill, p. 303, ond of Turkish (or PenIon), 't'd. Ill, p. 66. .. Nlcol, op. ci/., pp. 98-100. tt Dimn-DrAgan, Biblioteca, no. 213, p .. 200. 11 Nlcol, op. cit., pp. 66-67,.89 and references.

VIII

VlJl

522

figures unblushing~y ~iven by Kantak?uzenos himself - and quotes them correctly, whICh IS more than President Cousin managed to d . 0 In his French version of the History 44 He then goes on to record, with commendable accuracy the st b y wh'ICh J ohn Kantakouze~os rose to the imperial throne, 'first as ages the trusted colleague ?f Andro~lkos III modestly declining repeated offers ·of an equal share III authority, and then, after the death of Andron'k as the unselfish guardian and regent for his infant son John V Palal'ol l os, . ogos. But he Ignores the events of the long and disastrous civil war that th ensued between th~ years 1341 and 1347, although they fill all one hundr:~ chapters of the third book of the History . We are informed simply that ~antakouzen~s .wa~ invited and eventually persuaded to accept the title and the Insignia of Emperor by the nobility, and that he was th crowned three times, 'first by unanimous consent of the nobles in Dide~ llloteicho.1l, second in Adrianople (with the prayers and blessing of Lazar:a the Patriarch of Jerusalem), and third in Byzi1ntion, where the ceremon ' was performed by the Patriarch Isidore'. He then reigned jointly witr John. V for ~ number of years and gave him his daughter Helena in marriage. This part of the Biography is an abbreviation if not a distortion of the facts. There were indeed three occasions on which Kanta.kouzenos was designated as Emperor. He was proclaimed as such by his followers at Didymoteichon on 26 October 1341. He was crowned as such at Adrianople by the Patriarch of Jerusalem on 21 May 1346' and he was crowned again ~y the Patriarch Isidore in Constantinople e~actly a year later." But to Impl.y that these three events followed each other in quick succession, and to. omit any account of the intrigue and bloodshed that separated them, IS to beg the question of the motives and ambitions of the hero of the tale. John VI Kantakouzenos was Emperor in Constantinople from February 1347 to ~ecember 1354. He laboured hard in those nearly eight years to rescue hiS Empire from dissolution. But Comnen's account of his reign .is confined to a eulogy of the Emperor's concern for promoting scholarshlp~ charitable institutions, and the Orthodox faith. He giv.Js only two Instances of the administrative reforms of John VI, both .11, Kantnkouzenos, Hist., 11, p. 185 (Bonn). As Edward Gibbon observed 'the French translation of ~he President Cousin is blotted with three palpable and essential ~rrors ... Put not ~our trust ID translations I' E. Gibbon. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman EmpIre. ed. J. B. Bury, VI (London, 1898), p. 496 note 24. 1;'he question of the landed prope~y of KnBtakouzenos has been recently discussed by G. Weiss. Johannes Kanlakuzenos _

Arlstokrat, Sl.aa~smann, Kaiser und Monch - in der Gesellschafl.sentwicklung von Byzanz im 14. Jahrhund.,/ (Wlesbaden. 1969). pp. 21-22. ~ Kantakouzenos, Hisl., Il, pp. 87-105, 564-568; Ill, pp. 29-30 (Bonn). Gregoras, .BII'· Hut .• 11. pp. 605-612.762.787_791 (Bonn). Nico!. "p. cit.• pp. 47-48. 61. 65.

JOHN COMNEN AND HIS BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS

onnected with the organisation of the Church. The Emperor is said to conferred upon the Metropolitan of Thessalonica the right to call himself panagiotato8 and to sign his bulls with the indiction like th.e l'atriarch of Constantinople. He also confirmed and extended the pnvileges accorded to the Metropolitan of Monemvasia by the Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos, granting to him also the title of panagiotatos s well as that of Exarch of all the Peloponnese and locum tenens of ~·erusalem. Neither of these statements derives from the Histories of Ka,ntakouzenos or Gregoras, and it is hard to know the source of Comnen's information. It is true that the Bishop of Thessalonica was honoured by Andronikos II, but there seems to be no other evidence that his privileges were ratified by John VI.4. The rights of the Bishop of Monemvasia were confirmed by a synod in July 1570, on the basis of the charters said to have been granted in the past by the Emperors Andronikos Palaiologos, John Kantakouzenos, Manuel and John Palaiologos. It is conceivable that the report of this synod, in which the Bishop of Monemvasia is styled Exarch of all the Peloponnese and titular Bishop of Side (not Jerusalem), was available to John Comnen. 47 These were by no means the only achievements of John VI as Emperor. But they were the ones that appealed to his biographer. For Comnen's picture of the Emperor is not that of an ambitious and talented, though devious and controversial, statesman and soldier, but that of a cultured scholar with strong religious leanings. The last part of the Biography contains an ingenuous account of the Emperor's abdication and retreat into the monastic state which again, within its limitations, is true, though it leaves many questions unposed. His religious name of Joasaph and the place of his retirement, the monastery of the Mangana in Constantinople, are correctly recorded (the author does not hold the mistaken opinion of some later scholars that the Emperor retired to Mount Athos). It is assumed that the Emperor-monk passed allhisdecliniug years in holy detachment from the things of this world, pursuing his theological and philosophical studies; though the evidence has since accumulated to show that he remained a power behind the scenes for many years after 1354.4 • Some of his leisure hours are said to have been

~ave

fo6 See O. Tafrali, Thessalonique au quatorzieme sfecle (Paris, 1913), p. 87, and note"; F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostr(jmischen Reiches, IV (Munich, 1960), DO. 2211,

~.

.

.

•., F. Miklosich nnd J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomale Graeca medii aevi sacra et prorana, V (Vienna. 1887). pp. 175-178. Cl. F. Dalger. 'Ein Uterarlscher und dlp!omatlscher Flilscher des 16. Jahrhunderts: Metropolit Makarios von Monembnsin·, in ByzanUnische Diplomalit (Etta!. 1956). pp. 371 11.; idem. Regesten. IV. nos. 2232- 2237; V. no. 3029. .. See especiaUy LI. Maksimovit. 'PoUtlfka uloga JOVllna Kantakuzlna posle ahcllkncije (1354-1383)'. Zbornik RadoDa Vi,antofolkog l",,/iluta. IX (Belgrade. 1966). pp.U9-lell; Nicol, op. cit., pp. 87 ft.

VIII

VIII 524

spent in writting a paraphrase of the first five books of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. This misapprehension was already current in the. sixteenth century, and Comnen may be forgiven for repeating what earlier and greater scholars' had asserted. But there is no truth in it.'. The Biography continues with an encomium of the Emperor's character, of his bravery in war, of his equanimity in success and failure, of his tolerance and clemency toward his former enemies, of his piety, and of his loyalty to his friends. These qualities are illustrated by instances judiciously selected. The case of the notoriously fickle and unscrupulous Alexios Apokaukos is welI chosen to demonstrate the Emperor's magnanimity and forgiving nature. His constancy and faithfulness are shown by reference to his deep personal friendShips with three people: with 'Amourios, the Persian Satrap of Ionia', with 'Liberos of the TribalIians, the richest archon of the Bulgars', and with Andronikos Ill. Amourios is Umur of Aydin, the emir of Smyrna, whose friendship with John Kantakuzenos was proverbial in his own day. Liberos, or John Oliver, was the Emperor's friend and admirer in his earlier days, though perhaps to a lesser degree than Umur; and Comnen errs in saying that he gave his daughter in marriage to the Emperor's son Manuel Kantakouzenos. He was furthermore, being a Triballian, not a Bulgar but a Serb. 5• The text of the Russian manuscript of the Biography, as printed by Loparev, breaks off at the point where Comnen is commending the Emperor's devotion to the monastic life after his voluntary reSignation from the throne. The unpublished Vienna manuscript prolongs the tale for another page and a half (fols. 13v~14v). In these concluding sentences. the author describes how the Emperor's wife Eirene, being of like mind with her husband, also entered the monastic state and became a nun in the oonvent that had been built by Martha, sister of Michael, the first Emperor of the house of Palaiologos.51 He goes on to recount some of the praises that were heaped upon John Kantakouzenos by his own contemporaries. Two instances are singled out which show once again that Comnen had read his text. of the Hi8tory of Kantakouzenos with some attention. The first concerns an obscure Triballian or Serbian nobleman called Kovatzes at the court of Stephen Du~an, who so admired Kantakouzenol> 41 D. M. Nicol, lA Paraphrase of the Nicomaehean E~hics attributed to the EmperorJohn Cantacuzene', Byzantinoslavica, XXIX (1968), pp. 1-16. 60 Manuel Kantakouzenos was for a time betrothed to Oliv.er's daughter. but in the end he monied IsabeUe of Lusignan. See Nicol, Byulntine Familu of Kantakouzenos, no. 25,. pp. 122-124. 51 Eirene adopted the religious name of Eugcnin. The convent of Kyro. Mnrthn in Con.tllntlnople was founded by IIlnri.-Martha, the sister of Mlchael VIII. See Nlcol, op. cll .• DO. 23, pp. 104-107.

JOHN COMNEN AND

fns BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS

S2S

t he described him as 'the eye of the Greeks'.62 The second refera to ::: eulogies of the Emperor contained in 'the letters ~f the prieRt.Bartholomaios of Rome to the Roman Pope and to Delphlnos, the BIshop of Vienna'." The citation is both correct and apt, even though Comnen was clearly confused about the persons concerned. For the letters referre~ t were those sent by the priest Bartholomaios of Rome from Constant!o le to Pope Clement VI and to Humbert, Dauphin of Viennois (not nop . , 'Bishop of Vienna' !) in February 1347, announcmg the fact of John VI g entry into the capita!." The final paragraph of the Vienna n~anuseript indicates that it was Comnen's intention to do fuller justice to his subject in a longer and more detailed study when he had the opportunity. There is no record that he ever fulfilled this intention. 55 A central theme of the whole Biography is the loyalty of the Grand Domestic and Emperor John Kantakouzenos to his friend and colleague Andronikos Ill. In the relationship between these two men, John Comnen saw a parallel in his own day. On the very first page of themanuseript there is inscribed a formal dedication of the work to Constantine Cantacuzino, Stolnic and uncle of Constantine Bassarab Brincoveanu, by John Komnenos the Doctor, in Bucharest, April 1699. There follow three heroic couplets addressed to the Stolnic by his most devoted servant Dr. John Komnenos. These verses hail Constantine Cantacuzino as the descendant of the imperial family of old, and as the equal in all ways of his illustrious forefather John VI; and as John Kantakouzenos was to Andronikos

.. fol. 13': K«~"'~'I), 8~ /, Tp'~«'AQ, «v~p l",'I'P"'" .. 6'1'0«,,,,ov «;'TOV , ..v 'P",,,,,,I.>v &v6(,LClCJs. CoroneD cites lib. Hi, cap. 52 of Knntnkouzenos. Hist. (= 11, PP: 306-30i (Bonn». The incident occurred in 1342 when Knntakouzenos was n refugee in Serbm nnd the regency in Constantinople were trying to persuade Stephen Du~an to hand him over. The .Serbin.,,:'So name is given ns KO~&:'t'~T,C; in ~he Greek text and as Cahatzes in the accompanymg LatiD translation in the Bonn edition. Comnen has it in the latter form; but the former (= Kovt"'!?) 15 probably the more correct . .. 101. 13': B«p60,0",«10, /, Ttr'a~u, h ,«I, "po, 'p"'","vo. -oplvoY 't'oV BteVVllC: ~lttO'XOTt'OV ~Tt'tO''t'o}..cx.tt; (X.u't'ou 61 Kantnkouzenos, Hist., Ill, pp. 12-20 (Bonn). See J. Gay, Lt Papt eMment VI et Its affaires d'Orient (Paris, 1904), pp. 94-98; Dnd on Bartholomnios of Rome. see R.-J. Loenertz, •Ambnssadeurs grees al1pr~s du Pope Clement VI (1348)', Orientalia Chri&Uana Perioliiea, XXX (1953), pp. 178-196. ComneD refers nlso, in less speclfic tenns, to the enco~Q. of K.ntakouzenos to be found In Kantak., Hist., lib. I, c.p. 38 (= I, pp. 182-186 (Bonn», ond in Gregorns, Byz. Hist., lib. ix and x. " fols. 13'-14": K«l !'~v x« Xclp'" T"V ,,1'l'''''T''''

'''"'IX

"opl '0" ~tou x<xl tij, «plo"<'/), Tto,,,oI«, ·-rou «0,81!'ou (l<Xo,)j..~ '1""",,,1..,, 'I..cl""ou ....;;. K«v<<<xoU~'I)vO" tI".tv Ix<xvli e.oil 8~ 8,86v
Ii

I

VIII 516

Palaiologos, so will Oonstantine Oantacuzino be to Oonstantine Brincoveanu." The message is clear. The precedent for the Stolnic's role as righthand man of the reigning prince, modestly declining to wear the crown for which his birth and talents have so eminently fitted him, is to be seen in the person of his own ancestor John, the Grand Domcstic of the Emperor Andronikos Ill. All the sterling Ohristian qualities of his celebrated forebear, as well as the ability to wield the power without seeking the limelight, have passed now, in 1699, to Oonstantine Oantacuzino. It is perhaps for this reason that Oomnen passes so lightly over the actual reign of John VI as Emperor between the years 1347 and 1354. For the fact of his abdication, of his retirement into the religious life 'when he might still have been Emperor', is deliberately emphasised; and the idea that he wa.s forced to abdicate by his ungratefuison-in-Iaw John Vis dismissed as a wicked perversion of the truth, inacceptable to anyone who has properly read the Emperor's 'most true and unhypocritical history'. The Emperor and monk, we are to believe, ended his days in purely voluntary retirement from a throne th:l.t could still have been his, leaving it in the undisputed posseSSion of his youthful relative John Palaiologos."' So too would the magnwimous Stolnic loyally serve the cause of his nephew Oonstantine Brincoveanu.

..;'"

IX

IX

HILARION OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY Much attention has lately been paid to the place and function of the holy man in late Roman and early Byzantine society.1 In the later and darker days of the empire, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the holy man continued to command respect and this not merely because the state of the world seemed so uncertain and the future so bleak. Byzantine hagiographical literature of this age abounds in tales of spiritual athletes and especially of wandering solitaries, whose lives often seem to point the way to the starets of later Russian society.2 Gregory of Sinai (1255.1346) set the pace with his travels around the desert places of Cyprus, Sinai, Crete. Mount Athos and elsewhere before he settled in the remote mountains of southeastern Bulgaria at Paroria in 1325. 3 Among the most spectacular of his contem. poraries was Sabas of Vatoped{ (died 1349) who spent twenty years wan.

~. s~~ P. R. L. Brown, uThe Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Roman SoClety, /ourlll1l of Ro,!,an Studies, 71 (1971),80-101; idem, "A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspect. of the Icono~!astic Controversy," English Historical ReView, 346 (1973), 1-34, esp. pp. l~ ~.; Idem, Eastern and Western Christendom in Late Antiquity; A Parting of the Ways. m. The Orthod~x Churches and the West: Papers Read at the Fourteenth Summer Meetmg and the Fifteenth Winter Meeting of the Eccleswstical History SOciety, ed. D. Baker, StudIes m Church History, 13 (Oxford: B. Blackwell 1976) pp 1-'4 esp. pp. 12 f. ' , . -, 2. Cf.. S. Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patrwrchate of Comtantmople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 156-57; and D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. EQstern Europe 500·1453 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolso 1971) pp. 30Hl5. n, ,

a1o;'k~ife Of Gregory of Silll1i by Kallistos I, Patriarch of Constantinople, ed. I. Pomiu, )f(uTUe UJlte eo C6.RTbIXb OTI4Q HDUlezO rpuzopuJI CUHOUTQ (SI. Petcrsburg: H. AKa". HQYKb, 1894), pp. 146. Cf. J. Bois, "Gregoire le Sinaite et I'hesychasme a.I'At!'o,s. au XIVe si•.c1e:" Echosd'Orient, 5 (1901-02),65-73; J. Meyendorff,lntroduc. tlon Q I etude de Grego,,~ Pa/amas, Patristica Sorbonensia, 3 (Paris: Editions du Scull, 195?), pp. 52 f. and PQsSlm: Obolensky, pp. 301-05. Such wanderings were not always self-m.fllcted, however. Th~ biographer of St. Romylos (Romil of Vidin) Idied 13751, a p~~il of Gregory at Parofla~ tells how the saint was moved from place to place by the political, up~eava1s O,r the tmle as well as by his desire to escape from his admirers. F. Halkl~~ Un e~mlte des Balkans all X IY c siecle. La Vie grccquc ineditc de Saint ~OmYlos: Byzantron~ 31 (1961) 1= Hommage G. Ostrogorsk), I, 11147, esp. 131-32: • • • J,lETf(Jawf OVIlEXWCi h. TChrov el~ TChrov, Tt", OU-YXUOUJ EKKA'PWII K.a,· T';'V av,)pw1I'unw ctnoa.wjt€vo<. Cf. I. Duj~ev, "Un fragment grec de la vie de St. Romile," Byzalltino. lea, 7 (1937-38), 124-27; idem, Medioevo bizantlno-,Iavo, Saggi di Slorw letterariiz Stom elelteSltura, Raccolta di studi e testi, nr. 113 (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e lettera: tu,., 1965-), 11, 227-28.

run.

a

::!'"

HILARION OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

187

dering in the deserts, hills, and caves of Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, Crete, and the Peloponnese before coming to rest as a simple monk on Athos4 For long periods Sabas pretended to de dumb and conscientiously played the part of the "fool for Christ's sake," like Andreas Salos before him 5 His recorded miracles were few; his theology was not above suspicion; but his sanctity was undeniable. 6 And at the close of his vagabond career he became the spiritual father of the future Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (who wrote his life);7 he was consulted by a delegation from Thessalonica about the desperate social and political problems of their city;8 and he only narrowly escaped being ordained and consecrated as Patriarch of Constantinople at the wish of an emperor, John VI Cantacuzene, who set great store by holinessY Another was Maximos Kavsokalyvites (c. 1270-c. 1365), so-called from his propel16ity to burn down his KaXv~wv or hut and move on. IO His wanderings were confined to the Holy Mountain of Athos, but his fondness for the wilder parts of the mountain and his ascetical prowess earned him the reputation of a second Onouphrios or Peter the Athonite. 11 In his younger days Maximos had tramped the streets of Constantinople barefoot, bareheaded and in rags, acting the fool for Christ's sake, until the word of his "divine madness" reached the ears of the Emperor Andronikos n. He was invited to the palace where he amazed his audience by his ability to recite the Scriptures from memory. The Grand Logothete Theodore Metochites, who disapproved of monastic eccentricity, rudely described Maximos as an illiterate peasant. I 2 But he was a frequent guest of the great Patriarch Athanasios I, who shared his passion for asceticism, and had himself in his earlier years led an even

4. Life of Sabas the Younger, by Philotheos (Kokkinos), Patriarch of Constantinople, in 'AvciXeKTa 'lepoooXI)IJLnKii~ I;TQ.XI)OM"Yla~, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg: /;K TOV Tu"o'YpOJl>fiou K<pa~d.oul', 1891-98; rpt., Bruxelles: Culture 8< Civilization, 1963), V, no. XI, 190-359, and 426-29. Cf. Bibliotheea hagiographicQ graeca Ihereafter BHGI, ed. F. Halkin, 2 vols. in I, 3rd ed., Subsidia hagiographica, no. 8a (Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1957), no. 1606, p. 227. 5. LIfe of Sabas, pp. 218-21, 227, 230-36, and 292. 6. Ibid., pp. 293-97: Philotheos here describes an official investigation of Saba.'. theological opinions which ended with the saint writing out a perfectly Orthodox profession of faitl,. That Sabas was something of a "reluctant Palamite" h.. been observed by Meyendorff, pp. 106-07. 7. Life of Sabas, pp. 301-02. 8. Ibid., pp. 326-31. 9. Ibid., p. 34046. 10. F. Halkin, "Deux Vies de S. Maxime le Kausokalybe ermite au Mont Atho. (XIVe s.)," Analecta Bollandwlll1, 54 (1936), 38-112; BHG, 11, nos. 1236z-1237f, p. 107. 11. Halkin, "Deux Vies," p. 44 . 12. Ibid., pp. 70-71. The unnamed Grand Logothete "of the KavIKh.",u" i. presumably Theodore Metochites. His views on eremitic monasticisrn are expounded in, e.g.,

geolhJpol) TOU METOXtTOI) 'T1rolJl)'rUJana,."o' Kat' al1IJEu..JaE'~ 'Y1IWI".Kai,

Miscellaned

philosophica et historica, ed. C. G. MUlier and T. Kiessling (Leipzig: .umptibu. F. C. G. Vogelii, 1821; rpt., Amsterdanl, 1966), pp. 484-91.

•

IX

IX HILARION OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

188 more wandering life;13 and if his biographers are to be believed Maximos, when back in his rootless hut on Mount Athos, was later honored by personal visit from the two Emperors John Cantacuzene and John V Palaiologos, and also from the Patriarch Kallistos, whose death he predicted. 14 . The pious and learned John, Metropolitan of Herakleia Pontica (c. 12491328), uncle and mentor of the polymath Nikephoros Gregoras, was set on the path to sanctity by a chance encounter with "a sort of holy cynic, a Diogenes, feigning madness," who had made his way into the palace without ceremony and naked to the waist to see the Empress Theodora. 15 The ruling class as well as the common people cherished the presence of such holy men, seeking their advice as oracles, but perhaps still more seeking their company as living icons or channels of divine grace. Gregory of Sinai, from his retreat at Paroria, is said to have been consulted and to have given "miraculous instruction" by co~respondence to all the reigning emperors of the Byzantine Commonwealth-Andronikos II Palaiologos of Constantinople, Stephen Dulan of Serbia, John Alexander of Bulgaria, and Alexander ofWallachia.16 Mount Athos was the natural breeding-ground of saints in the later Byzantine Empire. The Lives of Niphon of Athos (131 5-1411) and more especially of Germanos the Hagiorite (c. 1252-1336) give a vivid picture of the flourishing hermit life on the mountain in the fourteenth century and of the charismatic quality of some of the individual hesychasts who deliberately lived their solitary lives remote from the bustle and distraction of the great coenobitic monasteries. 17 The blessed Dionysios of Athos, who was later to

a

13. Halkin, "Deux Vies," p. 72. See the Li.es of AthanasiD< by Theoktistos the Studite, )/(UTUJI 08YXb eceJleHCKUXb narpuapX08'b XIV e., CBB. A{JaHQCUJI u Hcuoopa I., ed. A. Papadopoulos~Kerarneus, 3anucKu HcropuKoifjwzo/JoZU'leCKDZO rjioKYIITerQ IfMneparopclCQlo c.-nerepoypeICQlo YHusepeUTeTa, LXXVI (St. Petersburg: B. KuplU6GYM~, 1905), pp. I-SI; and by Joseph Kalothetos, ed. Athanasios Pantokratorinos in @pdK .. a, 13 (1940), 56-107. Cf. Alice-Mary M. Talbot, "The Patriarch Athanasio; (1289-1293; 1303-1309) and the Church" Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973) 11-28 esp. 16-17. ' " , 14. ~,,!kin, "Deux Vies," pp_ 48 and 94. There is no independent evidence for this alleged VISIt of the two emperors to Athos, but if true, it must have occurred in the years bet~een 1347 and 1.352_ The biographers of Maximos here report that the Patriarch Kallist?s dIed by pOIson, a tale which i. reported and confuted by John Cantacuzene, Histo.1'Ule, ed. ~. Schopen, 3 vols., Corpus sCriptorum historiae byzantinae (Bonn: impenSls E. Weben, 1828-32), Ill, 361. ~ IS. John ~f.Heraldeia Pontica, in V. Laurent, uLa Vie de Jean, Mthropollte d'Heraclee du Pont, APXEWV ndvTov,. 6 (1934), 1-67, esp. p. 38, 11. 5-10. Cf. V. Laurent, "La personnalite de Jean d'Herac1ee, oncle et precepteur de Nicephore Gregoras" 'EA/uj ... d,3 (1930), 297-315; and BHG, Ill, no. 2188, p. 34. ' 16. So it is reported in the Lif. of Maximos Kavsokalyvites by Theophanes: see Halkin, "Deux Vies," p. 90. 17. Niphon: F: Halkin, "La Vie de saint Niphon ermite au Mont Alhos (XlVe siccle)," AIIIlI,eta Bolltzndlllllll, 58 (1940), 5-27. Germanos: P. Joannou "Vie de S. Germain I'Ha&io~te par son conternporain le patriarche Philothee de Con;tantinople," AlUlleeta IIoIIttndlllllll, 70 (1952), 35-115; cf_ V. Laurent, "La Vie de saint Germain I'Hagiorit•. Quelques obselVations," ReWJe des etudes byzantine., 10 (1952), 113-23_

189

found his own monastery there, early discovered that the the pursuit of the l"~ of perfection was impossible in a crowded monastery full of monks ~a~assed by the cares. and anxieties of ordinary men l8 John of Herakleia Pontica, although first made a bishop at the age of thirty-four, shut himself up for twelve years in ascetic tranquillity high on a mou~tain in Bithynia so that he could enjoy the untroubled hfe of converse WIth God.1 9 Not all of such men were acknowledged hesychasts in the technical sense of that tenn as it came to be defined in the course of the fourteenth century. They had their visions 0 f the "uncreated light" without troubling to explain them in theological terms. But so far as Byzantine society was concerned they constituted an essential stratosphere of the higher estate of monasticism. 'They were, as P. Joannou has described them, "en quelque sort des prophetes, des etres replis de I'esprit de Dieu, des directeurs spirituels, aupres de qui I'on venait puiser le souffle divin, avec qui I'on venait deviser saintement."20 They had above all the gift of merging things spiritual with things temporal and of communicating across the barrier between. the material and the supernatural-"cet art si grec de la causerie surnaturelle.',21 The ability to predict the future, the gift of prophecy, was only one of the divine talents granted to such holy men. The hagiographers are surprisingly modest about attributing it to their heroes. Among the certainly attested prophets of the fourteenth century the following stand out: the Patriarch Athanasios 1;22 Athanasios of the Meteoron in Thessaly, whose

I 18. Dionysios: B. Laourdas, uMf]'TPocPdvo... (, Bw( 'TOU 'oolou bowvuoiou TOO •A{Jw.. 'Apxewv ndvrov, 21 (1956),43-79 and 51,11. 239-44: 6. oihw T<~EIw<

ViTOV,"

wc;

To

(Jwvv Kat bl/J'r/Awr; p.E"'Ta~v 1I'oi\i\wv al)Ei\tPwv'tPPovrwUJ d ... -apW1rWV Ei.KOc: 'Tapa:r" TOIlEVWV Kat IJE"P/J,lvat.( €ndva,),KE"r;, l)UOAll'ITTOV 1rdlll) Kat f(KwTa pq.l)wv. Kat oUTor;. /.I~ l)v ...d/JE"to'O( Ka\}' c)v fttmIJE"V 'TponOV "EOtPti\ij 1roi\tTeUEo"a, Ev nj 1rOA.uav-aPW1rOrdrv TaVT1J p.oV1j, t,'OXaAE"V, tl)UOcpOPEI., t,vui'TO otPol)pwc;.

bow

19. John of Herakleia Pontic., cd. Laurent, pp. 5(}-52, esp, p, 52, 11. 3-5: abnl<; 6e "optitlwv E-KTO( blJtAWV l)tEIJEIJE"VriKEt 9E"
paatAEvoUatJ ~'II't6YiIJWII,

20. Joannou, "Vie de S. Germain," p. 45. 21. Ibid. 22. The most spectacular of Athanasios's prophecies foretold an earthquake in Constantinople in January, 1303, which heralded his own reinst~tement on the patriarchal throne. George Pachymeres, De Michaele et Andronico Paltzeoiogi" libri XlO, ed. I. Bekker, 2 vols., COrPus scriptorum historiae byzantinae (Bonn: impensis E. Woborl, 1835), 11, 359-62; Nikephoros Gregoras, ByzantilUl Hi3toriiJ, ed, L. Schopen, 3 vols.. Corpus scriptorum hi,toria. byzantinae (Bonn: impensis E, Weberi, 1829), I, :US: ~~6' 'YOp liv ~~o"e", Tci 1I""poo{Jev IivEV ilEwTopa< ~~MlI'l/IEW<.

I i

I

11

T

IX 190

HILARION OF DlDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

predictions included the devastation of Th~ssalonica by the Turks in 1387. 2 3 Dionysios of Athos and more especially his friend Dometios, who is described as being OtopaTlKwraTo~;24 Germanos the Hagiorite;25 Kyprianos of Laissa;26 Maximos Kavsokalyvites;27 Niphon of Athos;28 and Sabas of Vato. pedi. 29 To those in high places, concerned with their private careers, the gift of prophecy must have seemed a valuable by-product of sanctity. Only rarely did such influential people record their debt to those with whom they had been privileged to enjoy a "causerie surnaturelle." The authors of saints' lives were usually their disciples, monks who followed the example and the path of humility set by their masters even if that path brought them, willynilly, to the patriarchate, as with Philotheos Kokkinos, whose own lowly origins can hardly have marked him out for such distinction 30 The case of Hilarion of Didymoteichon is therefore of particular interest, for his saintly nature and prophetic gifts led not only to his being celebrated in hagiography but also to his being mentioned in dispatches by a soldier-emperor who was himself to retire into the monastic estate.

23. Life of Athanasios of the Meteoron. ed. N. A. Bees, "I:VJ,lpoX,,; El.. T11v ioroplOJ) "ou~u TWU M
TWU

••• Oi>6E, xap'C1lJ.dTWlI. l4lol.Por; 1fapa geov

fJTElar;

IX

#lETEOXEV.

E{jflx~. d.\i\a

Kat 1fPO,¥Vt.:.)(IEWC; Kat 1fPOc/J-

Specific examples of his prophecies are given on pp. 238-39. Cf. the

later Greek translation of the Life of Athanasios, ed. S. P. Lampros, "l;v,,~oAa, <1< ni", 'Ioropiav rwv Movwu TWIJ METEWPWV," Neo(' 'Ei\i\nvoJ.lV"r1llwIJ, 2 (1905),49-156 (~reek text: pp. 51-87), esp. 84-85. For the various versions of the Life, see D. M. Nlcol, Meteora, The Rock MO~Qsteries of Thessaly, 2nd ed. (London: Variorum Reprints, 1975), pp. 73-76. 24. Dionysios: Laourdas, "M'lTpoq,duov<," p. 56, I!. 418-19, and p. 57, I!. 44548: • • • b 6wpanKwruTof; fKfWo':: lfPELk, d liuw.:: hE"YW ~OJ.l.ETW'::, TW d-y~ fJ,l7l'VfIJU"fk 'll'JlEwan Kai WU'II'fP 1:'11" aiITov KU)'I') "fi.::. 'll'POf/rrlTI.KW,:: rrpo.:: TOV Oeurrfawv .:l.wvtiawv t'q'wJ • , , ; p. 65, 11, 759-60: OiiTw 6rj I
25. Joannou, pp. 109-10. 26. Enco"!ium on Kypri4nos, Metropolitan of Larissa (1318-<. 1330), by his successor Antomos (c. 1330-post 1362). MS. Aedis Christi (Wake MSS) Oxon. no 66 fols, 288~-313v, fol. 309 r : ... 'I1"EOV 6' ~v",.:: AoUTOV, em'1"Cr. J.l.f1"Cr. 1"1/11' a1f'oP''w~tV T~hEV: -lJElITa, 6w. Triv d",E1"plav Ii 'll'Pcxl"lnKW( ~~EtEf 'Kat "'ETa niv KoiIJfJatv ErEAev6TJ KaTaA.'1I'Oija~. •.. TaV1"a --yap. 'll'poflpfJ1"O Tt.jJ"'E"tdh~, Kat: el( E'p"YOV d'll'~fJ 1"a TWV npopp'rjaewv, I am mdebted for thIS reference to Dr. Paul Magdolino and his unpublished Oxford D. ~il. Diss. (1976) on The History of Thessaly, 1266-1393, where the Oxford MS. of tht. Encomium is transcribed. See also Cod. Iviron 571. 27. Halkin, "Deux Vies," pp. 48, 58, and 93-94. 28_ Idem, "La Vie de saint Niphon," p. 17, § 5' p. 23 § IS' p 25 § 18' and pp 26-27, §§ 19-20. ' , ,., , .

and2:i8~apadopoulos-Kerameus,

'AvdAEKTa 'IepoaoAuJ.l.tTtKij( :t1"aXIJOAo"Yta(, V. 322

30. On Philotheos Kokldnos, Patriarch of Constantinople in 1353-54 and again in 1364-76, see H_-G. Beck, Kirche und theologisch. Literatur im byzantinischen Reich Handbuch ~er Altertums~issenschaft, 12 Abt., 2 T., I B. (Munchen: Beck, 1959): pp. 725-26, Meyendorff, mdex S.Y. He was born of a Jewish mother and into an un..... alIy humble background_

191

Hilarion was one of the four prize pupils of an acknowledged master of the spiritual life called Makarios, whose biography was written by Philotheos, Bishop of Selymbria. 31 Makarios came from Sampson between Ephesos and Miletos. After a short marriage arranged by his parents he was ordained deacon and priest and entered one of the monasteries on Mount Latros (his Wife became a nun). He then joined the community in the Monastery of Kroitzos on Mount Sipylos in Magnesia. 32 The new waves of Turkish or Turcornan raiders were then beginning to make their first forays towards the coast of Asia Minor. The sudden incursion of the "Ishmaelites" brought panic to the district and Makarios fled to take refuge in Constantinople. 33 This event may be dated to the first decade of the fourteenth century. Magnesia and Sipylos are known to have been incorporated into the emirate of Saruchan by 1313. 34 In Constantinople Makarios was admitted to the Monastery of the Virgin 'called Kalliou, although he was a welcome guest at various of the other

31. Lile of Makarios by Philotheos of Selymbria, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, cl>lAo6eou ~fJAu(3p':ac; BI.O"YPat/>la MaKapwu TOV €~ 'E~ac; (Ad"Yo~ el~ TOV aawv na'd.pa ~,uwv MaKdpl.Ov TOV rrpoT€pov EV 'EwQ.. varepov 6E Kat ~V KwvoravrtVOUnOAel Ka1"a rrjv J.l.OvrlV rov KaXAlou daKrjaavra), '0 EV KwvOraVTtVOU1TOAel 'EAAfJVI.KO( 4tlAoAo'YtKO( tVXhO'YOC;, XVII, napdpTfJlJa (Maupo'YopSd1"el.O~ Bq3~I.O"rjKfJ ('AvEK6o'Ta <EAAfJVlKa ... D

(Constantinople, 1885-88), pp. 46-59. On Philotheos of Selymbria, see Beck, pp. 776-77; Meyendorff. index s.v. A few of Philotheos's other works survive and he was most probably the author of the still unpublished ~tdhO"YO( 1fepl 6eoAO'Yla~ SO'Y,u.aTucii( (Cod. Patm. gr. 366), a dramatisation of the hesychast controversy in which the parts are played by the leaders of the Palamite and anti-Palamite factions. See esp. G. Mercati,

Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota. ed altri appunti per la stori4 della teologia e della letteratura bizanti1lJJ del secolo XIV, Studi e Testi, 56 (Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1931), pp. 24648; M. Jugie, in Dictionnaire de theologie catllOlique contenant l'expose des doctrines de la theologie catllo/iques . .. , ed. A. Vacant et al., 18 vols. (Paris: Letouzey et Ant', 1908-72), XI, 2, cols. 1798-99. Yhilotheos became Bishop of Selymbria during the second patriarchate of Philotheos Kokkinos (1364-76) and before May, 1366, the date at which he anathematized Nikcphoros Gregoras: document in Acta et Diplomata graeea medii aevi sacra et profana, ed. F. Miklosich and 1. Muller, 6 vols. (Vienna: C. GeIOld, 1860-90), I, no. CCXIX, 490; cf. Mercah, pp. 247 and 512. 32. Life of Makarios, pp. 47 A49A. 'the monastery called TO TOV Kp{TtOV must be the patriarchal monastery known as Krytzos or Kroitzos on Mount Sipylos in Magnesia, whose abbot in 1370 was another Makarios. Acta et Dipl011lllta, I, 539; and n, 96. See Helene Ahrweiler, "L'histoire et la geographie de la region de Smyme entre les deux occupations turques (1081-1317), particulierement au XIIIe siecle," Travaux et Memoires, I (1965), 82 (49),96-98, and 108. 33. Life of Makarios, p. 49A-B. 34. P. Wittek, Das Fiirstentum Mentesche. Studie zur Getchichte Wettkleinasien. im 13.·15. Jh., Istanbuler mitteilungen ... , Heft 2. (istanbul: Uniyersum druckeri, 1934), p. 20; P. Lemerie, L 'Emirat d'Aydin, Byzance et l'Occident. Recherch .. :IIlr 'La ge.te d'Umur Pacha', Bibliotheque byzantin, Eludes, 2 (Paris: Presses uniYersitaires de France, 1957), pp. 39 and 63-64; S. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in A.I4MiMr and the Process of /slamization from the Eleventh through the FlftHnth Century (Berkeley: Univ. of California Pres., 1971), pp. 138-39_

•

IX

IX 192 city monasteries, among them that of the Savior in Chora, "rebuilt by that paragon of virtues, the Logothete Metochites."35 His reputation for sanctity attracted people of all ages and classes of society to visit him, among them the Emperor Andronikos n, "that pillar and champion of the faith."36 Although he is said to have travelled in Thessaly and to have spent some time in the towns and villages of Macedonia, Makarios was not really in the starets class. He was endowed with the gift of prophecy; for on one occasion he forewarned the monks at Mandra of an invasion by the "Scythians" which, though unprecedented, duly occurred within the year. 37 But his fame as a holy man seems to have rested not so much upon miracle-working as upon his perfect comprehension of the "true philosophy" and his gift for imparting it to his disciples. Philotheos of Selymbria, the biographer of Makarios, names four of these disciples: Andreas, Hilarion, Sabas, and Theodoros. Andreas lived with his master for over sixty years, accompanying him wherever he went. 3 8 Sabas was an uncle of Philotheos who brought up and educated the young man at Dakibyze near Nikomedia after his father's premature death. It was Sabas who eventually tonsured and ordained Philotheos, who was to become Bishop of Selymbria about 1366. 39 The editor of the Life of Makarios conjectured that this Sabas might be identified with the Sabas of Vatopedi (mentioned above), whose biography was written by the Patriarch Philotheos 40 But this seems to be impossible. Sabas of Vatopedi came from Thessalonica and had no known connection with Asia Minor. His extensive travels took him no nearer to it than Cyprus_ Furthermore, he resolutely declined to be ordained as a priest, so that he could never have ordained Philotheos of Selymbria.41 About the fourth disciple of the great Makarios, Theodoros, we are given

HILARlON OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

42. Life of Motorio., p. 58A. 43. Ibid., p. 55A-B ( ... xapw"aTo< KaTllhwi/ll

~'l'v),

35. Life of MaIe.rio., pp. 49B-SOA. On the Monastery of Kalliou, otherwise known as the Monastery of Kyr Antonios, see R. lanin, La geograpilie eccJesiaslique de I'empire byzantin, 2nd ed., I: Le siege de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumenique, 11[: Le. egli... et I.. mona.tere. (Paris: Institut fran~ais d'etudes byzantines, 1953-), pp. 44-

46_ Philotheos mentions that the monastery had been occupied by the Latins who had destroyed its surrounding walls. Makarios w-as also invited to the Monasteries of Studios. of SI. John the Baptist, and of Bassos, on which last see Janin, pp. 66-{;7. 36. Life ofMaIe.,ios, p. SIA: ... ni< .~u.~.ia< "Iv UTlJAOV Ka< ".p,.oTaTOV 1Ipd"axov

"tU tPLADpwJjawlJ abroKpdTopa. 37_ Life of MaIe.rIos, p. 53A-B. This may refor to the Mongol invasion of Thrace

described by Cantacuzene, Historille, 11, 302-04, and dated to 1342. 38. Life of M.t.rior, p. S4A-B. 39. Ibid., pp. S7B-58A. Philotheos was already Bishop of Selymbria when he anathematized Nikephoros Gregoras in 1366. See above n. 31. 40_ Life ofMaleartol, p_ 57, n. 2 (Papadopoulos-Kerameus). 4I.LifeofSllb.. th. Younger, 192f_, 209-15, 305, and 343 f., f.

193

no biographical details, merely a hint at his virtues. 42 But about the secondnamed disciple, the "most holy and spiritual" Hilarion, we are told much. Hilarion was brought up by Makarios from childhood presumably in Asia Minor and must have gone with him as his disciple to the Monastery of Kalliou in Constantinople. At the age of thirty he was, on the advice of Makarios, ordained as a priest by the then patriarch. For another thirty years Hilarion lived in monastic obscurity and humility, constantly adding to the sum of his virutes. But he could not for ever hide so great a light under a bushel, and when he was about sixty he was nominated to the Bishoprie of Didymoteichon in Thrace. It was normal procedure for a candidate to express or to feign reluctance when offered a bishopric. But Hilarion, because of his unrivalled sanctity, was put under great pressure by the patriarch's synod, by the people, and also by the emperors, the senators and the government. He accepted. But his elevation to the hierarchy did not impede the development of his spiritual life, one of the rewards of which was the gift of prophecy and power to foretell the future_4 3 The date of Hilarion's preferment was probably 1341. The lists of Bishops of Didymoteichon are far from complete. 44 But it is clear that Hilarion's predecessor was one Theodoulos. Seven documents of 1315,1324, and 1329 bear the name or the signature of Theodoulos as V1tEPTljJ.O<; and it must be assumed that he is the anonymous Metropolitan of Didymoteichon mentioned in eight other documents within the same years.4S The identity of the anonymous holder of the see who was in the patriarch's synod in February, 1340, is less certain, but it was probably Theodoulos.46 Didymoteichon had been raised to metropolitan status by if not before 1300.47

1Ip<$jTtKOU Ka<

Tt. "fAMVTa "poll-

44. See R. Janin in Dictionlloire d'/Zistoire et de geogTophie ecclesill.tique. ed_ A. Baudrillart (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1912- ), XIV, cols. 427-29, listing Hilari~n in 1341; M. Stamoules. "l:VIJj3oXTJ E"l-: TT]V lOToplav TWV hKA110{WV TTjt: ElpcUcT)C:. 'Apx,. 'P'" 9pOx1j<," 9pOxlKa, 14 (1940),65-213, esp. \06-07, listing: Theodoulos (13151329): Hllarion (1340?); Anon. (1340, 1345); Theoleptos (1347-51). Philaretos Baphei-

dOll, "nXl1Po/f>opc.'at TWc:( Kat OTllleu..Joe,~ '1rEpt Ti)c: lI'OAEWC; Alliup.OTe{xov, 8~ KaTdAo'yo( fll"OKO~WV Kai IlrtTP01TOXlTWV TijC; noA.fW( Kat ETrapxlac: A,6uIlOTE{XOU," rp'r)'Yopc.oc; b II.~."a<, VI (1923), 193-212, esp. 196-97, which omits the name of Hilarion and lisu

only ll1eodoulos (1315-29) and Theoleptos (1350). 45. Documents in Acto et Diplomata, 1, 6, 14, 98, 99, 103, lOS, and 146 (naming Theoleptos as Bishop of Didymoteichon); pp. 8, IS, 18, 19, 34, 36, 106-07, and 128 (anonymous Bishop of Didymoteichon). Cf. Janin in Dictionnaire d'histoire. 46. Acto et Diplomato, I, 195. ~7. Beck, p. 174, says that it was so raised by Michael VIll. R. Janin "La hierarchie ecc1esiastique dans le diocese de Thrace," Revue des etudes byza"ti~es, 17 (1959), ~5, ".otes that Didymoteichon was certainly a metropolitan see under Andronikos 11. the."'!~ .A~dracha, "Les Rhodopes dans la deuxieme moitie du XlIIe sieele: Prosopo:f'Phle, ibid.~ 31 (1973), 292-93, maintains that it became so shortly before 1261, though the title of Metropolitan of Didymoteichon is not clearly attested in synodal doc uments until 1285 .

IX

IX 192 city monasteries, among them that of the Savior in Chora, "rebuilt by that paragon of virtues, the Logothete Metochites."35 His reputation for sanctity attracted people of all ages and classes of society to visit him, among them the Emperor Andronikos 11, "that pillar and champion of the faith."36 Although he is said to have travelled in Thessaly and to have spent some time in the towns and villages 0 f Macedonia, Makarios was not really in the starets class. He was endowed with the gift of prophecy; for on one occasion he forewarned the monks at Mandra of an invasion by the "Scythians" which, though unprecedented, duly occurred within the year. 37 But his fame as a holy man seems to have rested not so much upon miracle.working as upon his perfect comprehension of the "true philosophy" and his gift for imparting it to his disciples. Philotheos of Selymbria, the biographer of Makarios, names four of these disciples: Andreas, Hilarion, Sabas, and Theodoros. Andreas lived with his master for over sixty years, accompanying him wherever he went. 38 Sabas was an uncle of Philotheos who brought up and educated the young man at Dakibyze near Nikomedia after his father's premature death. It was Sabas who eventually tonsured and ordained Philotheos, who was to become Bishop of Selymbria about 1366. 39 The editor of the Life of Makarios conjectured that this Sabas might be identified with the Sabas of Vatopedi (mentioned above), whose biography was written by the Patriarch Philotheos.40 But this seems to be impossible. Sabas of Vatopedi came from Thessalonica and had no known connection with Asia Minor. His extensive travels took him no nearer to it than Cyprus. Furthermore, he resolutely declined to be or. dained as a priest, so that he could never have ordained Philotheos of Selym. bria.41 About the fourth disciple of the great Makarios, Theodoros, we are given

HILARION OF D1DYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

193

no biographical details, merely a hint at his virtues. 42 But about the second. named disciple, the "most holy and spiritual" Hilarion, we are told much. HiIarion was brought up by Makarios from childhood presumably in Asia Minor and must have gone with him as his diSCiple to the Monastery of Kalliou in Constantinople. At the age of thirty he was, on the advice of Makarios, ordained as a priest by the then patriarch. For another thirty years Hilarion lived in monastic obscurity and humility, constantly adding to the sum of his virutes. But he could not for ever hide so great a light under a bushel, and when he was about sixty he was nominated to the Bishopric of Didymoteichon in Thrace. It was normal procedure for a candidate to express or to feign reluctance when offered a bishopric. But Hilarion, because of his unrivalled sanctity, was put under great pressure by the patriarch's synod, by the people, and also by the emperors, the senators and the government. He accepted. But his elevation to the hierarchy did not impede the development of his spiritual life, one of the rewards of which was the gift of prophecy and power to foretell the future.4 3 The date of Hilarion's preferment was probably 1341. The lists of Bishops of Didymoteichon are far from complete. 44 But it is clear that Hilarion's predecessor was one Theodoulos. Seven documents of 1315, 1324,and 1329 bear the name or the signature of Theodoulos as inr€PTLIlOC: and it must be assumed that he is the anonymous Metropolitan of Didymoteichon mentioned in eight other documents within the same years.45 The identity of the anonymous holder of the see who was in the patriarch's synod in February, 1340, is less certain, but it was probably Theodoulos.46 Didymo. teichon had been raised to metropolitan status by if not before 1300.41 42. Life of Makarios, p. 58A. 43. Ibid., p. 55A·B ( ... xapll1l'ClTo< KaT~tIW"" "P04>rlTu
44. See R. Janin in Dietionnaire d'histoire et de gtiographie eeelesilJ.tiques ed. A. Baudrillart (Paris: letouzey et Ane, 1912· ), XIV, cols. 427·29, listing Hilari~n in

35. Llf~ Of Makarios, pp. 49B·50A. On the Monastery of KaIliou, otherwise known as the Monastery of Kyr Antonios, see R. lanin, La geograpilie ecc/esiastiQue de I'empire byzantin, 2nd ed., 1: Le siege de Constantinople et le palriarea! oecumen;que. 11[: Les eglises et les mOfUlsteres (Paris: Institut fran~ais d'etudes byzantines, 1953·), pp. 44·

46. Philotheos mentions that the monastery had been occupied by the latiJi. who had

E1I'tol(h-:.wv /(at IlfJTP01fOALTWV TT)('

destroyed its surrounding walls. Makarios w'as also invited to the Monasteries of StUdios,

VI (1923),193·212, esp. 196·97, which omits the name of Hilarion and lists only ll1eodoulos (1315·29) .nd ll1eoleptos (1350). 45. Documents in Acta et Diplomata, I, 6, 14, 98, 99, 103, 105, and 146 (naming Theoleptos as Bishop of Didymoteichon); pp. 8, 15, 18, 19, 34, 36, 106-01, and 128 (anonymous Bishop of Didymoteichon). Cr. Janin in Dietionnaire d'histoire. 46. Acta et Diplol1lllta, I, 195. ~1. B~ck, p. 174, says that it was so raised by Michael VI11. R. Janin, "la hierarchie eccleSlasllque dans le diocese de Thrace," Revue des etudes byzantines, 17 (1959), 145, notes that Didymoteichon was certainly a metropolitan see under Andronikos 11. Cathe.r~~ A~dracha, "les Rhodopes dans la deuxieme moitie du X1IJC' sleele: Proaop~ graphJe, Ibid.: 31 (1973), 292·93, maintains that it became so shortly before 1261, although the title of Metropolitan of Didymoteichon is not clearly attested in synodal documents until 1285.

of SI. John the Baptist, and of Bassos, on which last see Janin, pp. 66-67. 36. Lif~ ofMakarios, p. 51A: ... Tli< <~I1.:AopwlJ4WrJ ain'oKpdTopa.

37. Life of Makarios, p. 53A·B. This may refer to the Mongol invasion of Thrace deocribed by Cantacuzene, HlstorilJe, 11, 302-04, and dated to 1342. 38. Life ofMakarios, p. 54A·B. 39. Ibid., pp. 57B·58A. Philotheos was already Bishop of Selymbria when he anathe. matized Nikephoros Gregoras in 1366. See above n. 31. 40. Lif~ ofMakarios, p. 57, n. 2 (Papadopoulos.Kerameus). 41.Lif~ofSllbalthe Younger, 192 f., 209·15, 305, and 343 f.' f.

1341; M. Stamoules, "I:vI-lPoA.,j de;-

T"JlIl(IToplav TWV hK"Anolwv

ni('

9pdx'1(', 'Apxt-

14 (1940),65·213, esp. 106·07, listing: Theodoulos (13151329): Hd.non (1340?); Anon. (1340, 1345): Theoleptos (1347·51). Philaretos Baphei-

~ou, "nAllPO~p{at TtVE(' K~i OCll\Cllla<,

1I'fP' nil; 1I'OAEW(, .6"6u,,OTElXOU, B~ KaTdMlo~ nOAEWC; Kat E7r«pxlac; A,6ul'o'TEixou," rpl1,),dpSO( b

OTl/JEU,i>OEt('

IX

IX 194 As is well known, the city was the headquarters of John Cantacuzene and his supporters during his war against the regency of Anne of Savoy and her son John V Palaiologos in Constantinople between 1341 and 1347. It was there that Cantacuzene was proclaimed emperor on 26 October 1341 and it was there that his wife Eirene heroically held the fort during her husband's so· journ in Serbia and Macedonia in the early years of the war. It is incon. ceivable that the Bishop of Didymoteichon in those years could have been other than a Cantacuzenist. The "emperors" who are said to have urged Hilarion to accept the see must have been Andronikos 111 and John Canta· cuzene. It is true that the latter had not then claimed the imperial title, but in the minds of his later apologists such as Philotheos of Selymbria he had been co·emperor in authority if not in name for several years before 134 \; and, as will be seen, it is evident that Hilarion was personally acquainted with Andronikos Ill. Hilarion seems not to have been present at the famous synod of June, 1341 at which Barlaam of Calabria and his works were condemned and the theol~gy of Gregory Palamas was found to be orthodox. It may well be that he had just taken .uP his appointment in Didymoteichon and was therefore not among the bishops present in ihe capital. But he had by then an uncom· monly well.developed gift of prophecy and, as his biographer says, "he fore· told the troubles brought upon the Church by the error and twaddle of Barlaam of Calabria, who blasphemed against the divine light of Christ on Thabor. ... "48 Hilarion had also predicted to the day the melancholy event which occurred less than a week after that synod-the death of the Emperor Andronikos 1II, on 15 June 1341. This forecast he is said to have revealed to John Cantacuzene, whose succession to the throne he also predicted, though not before the empire had suffered terrible disasters and the new emperor himself had endured great dangers.49 The fulfJIlment of these predictions and the events that followed are succinctly told by Philotheos of Selymbria: The Empire passed to the most excellent John Cantacuzene, formerly Grand Domestic, a man who surpassed all those of the wealthy, noble, ruling class before him-in wisdom the wise, in courage the brave, in piety the most devout, in prudence the most prudent. For this emperor was so clearly a "'t"OPWIJll!O~ first and last and so possessed of this spirit that (despite all the difficulties in his way) he neglected no means of furthering the common good, never resting and always vigilant, as Homer recommends for all leaders of men 50 ... even though no

48. LI{e o{MlJklJriol, pp. 56B·57A. 49. Ibid., pp. 5SB-S6A. SO. Homer,R.II. 24-25.

I I

HlLARION OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

195

little disorder and destruction came about through him because of the struggle for the leadership. But time did not permit him to bring the affairs of the Romans to better state as he had always desired and striven to do. Wherefore in the end, seeking the heavenly kingdom he changed his worldly state, taking the name of Joasaph like his royal namesake of old, and leaving as successor his relative, the most pious and virtuous Emperor John (V), who later on went to see the Pope in Rome to ask for help against his enemies and there declared and de· claimed the Holy Symbol of tRe Fathers in the manner required by the Italians. He is the father of Andronikos (IV) Palaiologos, the Emperor who excels in all virtues . . . and the two together stand out as Em. perors readily recognisable above all others ... 51 The mention of John V and his son Andronikos IV in such glowing terms seems ·to indicate that Philotheos was writing before the year 1373, when Andronikos rebelled against his father. But those like Philotheos who held the name of Cantacuzene in such high esteem were prepared to think the best of Andronikos, for he was after all a grandson of the great 4I<>"opw!lawe; John VI, who was still alive in 1373.52 Much earlier in his life, at a crucial stage in his ambitious career, John VI had clearly relied upon the saintly company of Hilarion at Didymoteichon, savoring his "causerie surnaturelle" and marvelling at his prophetic powers. John Cantacuzene had an unshakeable belief that his own person was divinely protected. More than once he escaped assassination or death only as the result of divine intervention on his behalf.53 He was a deeply religious man who, like most of his contemporaries, believed in the possibility of miracles and admired the supernatural gifts granted to the saints, not least that of prophecy. Long after his abdication he penned a note in the margin of one of his own manuscripts naming the three saints whom he had known and whose miraculous powers and prophetic gifts he had witnessed. They were Athanasios, the former Patriarch of Constantinople; the most holy Hilation, former Bishop of Didymoteichon; and Gabriel, archimandrite of the Monastery of the Pantokrator in Didymoteichon. 54

51. Li{e o{MaklJrios, p. 56 A-B. 52. John was nevertheless to be forced to suffer as a hostage in the hands of hi. rebellious grandson in 1379. See D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine Familyo{X.nttJkouzetlQ, IClJntacuzenus) CIJ. 1100·1460, A GenealogicallJnd ProllOpographical Study, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 11 (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies 1968) . , , p.91.

53. Sce Cantacuzene, Historiae, 11, 378-79,417-19,477, and 559. 54. 111e marginal note in Cantacuzene's own hand is in the MS. of his An,ilrlletib against Prochoros Kydones (Cod. Paris.. K', 1247, fol. 93"), cited by Meyendorff, p. 34, n. 33. The identity of Gabriel of Didymoteichon remains obscure.

l

IX 196 Cantacuzene's respect for and trust in Hilarion is amply demonstrated in his own memoirs. He cites many specific instances of the bishop's prophetic talent. "The pronouncements of this bishop on future events," he writes. "were regarded as oracles, not only because he had so many times correctly predicted what would befall, but also because he had worked miracles such as can be wrought only by God or by those whose purity and sublimity of life keeps them closely in touch with him."55 Hitarion was a little aggrieved to be told of Cantacuzene's proclamation as emperor only on the day after the event. He complained that it would have been more correct to let him know in advance. Now he could only commend the state and its emperor to the protection of God for the future. 'To be Emperor of the Romans," he said, "is, as you know, something ordained by God. But the lips of those who eat unripe figs will swell up." TIlis cryptic remark was meant 10 infer that the new emperor would be beset by many difficulties and dangers. To show whence these dangers impended Hilarion called·to mind a vision of the future which he had while Andronikos III was still alive. The message of his vision, which he had recounted to the young Andronikos, was a warning against the machinations of A1exios Apokaukos, whose evil potentialities as a mischief·maker Hilarion had foreseen long before he came to power. 56 Hilarion did later admit that to begin with he had felt some doubts as to whether Cantacuzene had assumed the purple by or against the will of God. But, having devoted much prayer to the problem, he had been informed by the Holy Spirit that it was indeed God's will that Cantacuzene should be emperor. The information had been revealed to him in no uncertain words. The Lord had said: "It is my wish, my pleasure and my command that John Cantacuzene should rule as Emperor: so let it be.,,5 7 This revelation Hilarion imparted by letter to Apokaukos, telling him that it was God's will that not he but Cantacuzene, the former Grand Domestic and now emperor, should be the guardian of the co·emperor with the sons of the late emperor. Apokau· kos should therefore submit and stick to his job as admiral of the fleet, for no good would come to him from opposing the will of God. 5 8 Another example of Hilarion's miraculous powers is given in the case of a woman whose husband suspected her, rightly, of adultery and made her sub· mit to trial by fire to prove her innocence. The bishop, whom she consulted in her distress, told her that if she made a full con fession and did penance for her misdeeds he would see to it that the red·hot iron did her no harm, which

55. Cantacuzene, Hirtoriae, 11, 171,11. 17·22. 56. Ibid., n, 169-71. 57. Ibid., n, 340, 11. 9·17; p. 342, 11. 7-9: ... t.6Iliax">ival 7rapa "_oii aUra,. A£teaw'w(" 'lJIAw, er)6oKw, iJp(tw (jaa,Aevfw'lwdl1vr)v TdvKavTaKOVrTJvdl1,lCal'Ye"~rJ·

"....58.lbld.,n,

341,1.11-342,1. 21.

IX HILARlON OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

197

miraculously came about. Such. says Cantacuzene, were the graces of God granted to this man. 59 (This case incidentally raises the problem of the prac· tice of ordeal by fire in Byzantium. which was speCifically forbidden as barbarous by the canons of the Church.)60 It is true that Cantacuzene nowhere in his memoirs names the prophetic Bishop of Didymoteichon. But given his own testimony elsewhere (already cited) it is surely impossible to suppose that he has any other person than Hilarion in mind.61 It must have been encouraging for him, as well as for his wife Eirene, to know that in their darkest hours they had a saint and a prophet on their side. When, during Cantacuzene's absence in Serbia in 1342, his garrison at Didymoteichon was under attack by the rrpOTooTpaTwp Andronikos Palai· ologos, commmander·in-chief of the regency's forces, the bishop (Hilarion) contacted the enemy by letter. He implored Andronikos to desist because he had been assured by the Holy Spirit that Cantacuzene would win in the end. 62 At an earlier stage, when some of the Sij)).o<; of Didymoteichon who lived outside the walls tried to follow the example of their neighbors by re· belling against the ruling class, they were driven back and their houses were destroyed. The loyal 8ii)).0<; within the city then cleared the rubble and

59. Ibid., 1l,171, 1. 23'173, 1.14. 60. Some of the evidence for ordeal by fire in late Byzantine society has been col~ lected by D. J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258·1282: A Study in Byzantine·Latin Relations (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959), p. 23, n. 28. The practice was denounced as "barbaric," foreign, and contrary to civil as well as ecclesiastical law by the leamed canonist Demetrios Olomatianos of Ochrida in the thirteenth century and by his contemporary John Apokaukos. Metropolitan of Naupaktos. Demetrios Chornatianos in Ana/eela Sacra Spicilegio Solesmens; PlUYlla. ed. J. B. Pitra, 7 vols. (PariS: A. Jouby et Roger, 1876·82 and 1891), VII, no. LXXXVU, cols. 389-90: .•. n TOV 7I'E1TVpaKTwIJEVOV O',srjpov t7J'alPrl ... nav-rd7l'aaw 011 IJc:h.ocw roi<: b.KAl1olaanKo[, dAAa. Kat TOt, 1fOAtTtKOt'; 1'/'Y...oT)Tat, Tt ~EV~ lin EK TOU (1ap~apU(.oij r"II'OV'; ~p,uT)Tat. Tt OE: on Kat t)1r01TTeVETat ... , OVI( dlJa.aTp~~Tat TO TOWUTOV f'tJo(, wapd. nj ""ALT
IJn

Tpe!JJElEV;

61. I cannot therefore accept the statement of G. Weiss, Joannes KantakuztltOl, Aristokrot, Staatsmann, Kaiser und Monch, in der Gesellschaftsentwicklung lIOn Byzortz im 14. Jahrhundert, Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des ostlichen Europa, Bd. 4. (Wies' baden: O. Harrassowitz, 1969), p. llS, that: "Der Metropolit von DidymoteicllOl, des 'Hauptquartiers' des Kantakuzenen, mit Namen THEOLEPTOS, mamle zwar schon bald nach Beginn des Biirgerkrieges fIlr den neuen Kaiser durch Wcissagungen und Brief. politische Propaganda.... " Weiss seems to have been unawue of HDarion's existence. Theoleptos was Hilarion's successor at Didymoteichon. 62. Cantacuzene, Historiae, 11, 305, 11. 11·22.

IX

IX HILARION OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

198

199

cuzene made his triumphant return to Didymoteichon in 1343. He asked the bishop's blessing to set out along the road to meet him. Hilarion told him not to worry because his end was not in sight and foretold that Glabas would certainly see his emperor again and serve him in some capacity before he died. 67 Indeed George Glabas outlived Hilarion. though only by five days. The saintly bishop died probably in the summer of 1344 at the age of nearly sixty.five. His death caused great personal grief to John Cantacuzene who makes special record of it in his memoirs. 68 It was to take another two and a half years for Hilarion's prophecies about the victory of his emperor to be fulfilled. But at the time of his death the tide of fortune was already beginning to turn in Cantacuzene's favor. He himself had no doubt that his ultimate success was due to the workings of divine providence so ably interpreted and confirmed by the Bishop of Didymoteichon. That Hilarion was a Palamite seems certain enough, although it is nowhere explicitly stated. Philotheos of Selymbria, who made mock of Barlaam and Akindynos and went out of his way to anathematize Nikephoros Gregoras, would hardly have counted him among the prize pupils of Makarios if it had been otherwise. Nor would John Cantacuzene have had such confidence in his predictions. His successor as Bishop of Didymoteichon was Theoleptos. His name is not certainly attested until 1347, when he was among the Signatories of the TO/lO<; which confinned the condemnation of Barlaam and Akindynos and the vindication of Palamas.69 It may be that he was appointed by the Patriarch John Kalekas and felt unable to declare his Palamite allegiance until after the victory of John Cantacuzene in February, 1347. An unnamed Bishop of Didymoteichon figures as a member of the patriarch's synod in Constantinople in April, 1345, while the civil war was still in progress, and it is probable that this was Theoleptos. 70 It could certainly not have been Hilarion for he died in the previous year. Theoleptos ·Ior good measure also appended his signature and approbation to the Tc!poo: of i341; 71 and finally he signed that of the Council of 1351 over which

planted vegetables in its place. This too Hilarion had foreseen; for when Cantacuzene was preparing his western expedition he had ordered a ditch to be dug all round the walls of Didymoteichon as an added protection. All the people (KaTd 4>aTpia~) had been pressganged into digging. including the clergy who complained to the bishop, evidently on the ground that it was none of their business to assist in the conduct of war. But Hilarion had assured them that their efforts would in fact be of no help in that war, for before very long the district would be given over to growing vegetables6 3 The city of Didymoteichon was often hard pressed during the first two years of the civil wa{. When, in desperation, the Empress Eirene called on the help of John Alexander of Bulgaria she found that the Bulgarian anny sent to relieve the city had come to stay. It was the bishop who urged the people to hold out, explaining that their hardships were God's way of testing their love for the emperor who would assuredly soon return and reward them for their loyalty. As for the "Mysians" (Bulgarians) he promised that within seven days they would be tumbling over each other to save themselves by flight. The citizens took heart, for they believed in their bishop's powers of prophecy; and once again it was proved that he could read the future better than others could read the past. The miracle occurred when Umur of Aydin arrived in Thrace with his fleet and anny and, to the amazement and de. light of the people of Didymoteichon, the Bulgarians fled in confusion, as the bishop had foretold. 64 Hilarion's reassurances about the future sometimes brought comfort to individuals as well. Michael Bryennios, for example, the archon of Pamphilos, had been captured by the rebellious demos of that city and sent as a prisoner to Constantinople. He was so ilI·treated by his gaolers that a rumor reached Didymoteichon that he had died of his wounds. But the bishop, when asked to break the news to his wife and family, replied that Bryennios was not dead, that he would shortly be released from prison for medical treatment, and that he would die fighting on behalf of the Emperor John Cantacuzene. All of which came to pass. Bryennios did recover, escape and rejoin Canta. cuzene, at whose side he later fell fighting against Momcilo in 1344.65 "Of' such grace was (Hilarion) deemed worthy by God that he saw the future as clearly as the present."66 Hilarion also predicted a longer than expected life span for George Glabas the I1KOVTEpW~. Glabas feared that he was going to die before John Canta·

67. Ibid., 11, 401, 1. 20-402, 1. 8. On George Globas .kouterios, see Weiss, p. 39; R. Guilland, "Preteur du peuple, Skouterios, Protokomes," Revue des etudes sud-ell europeenne., 7 (1969), 85·86 (rpt. in R. J. Guilland, Titre. et /Ollct;oll' de I'EmpiH byzQntin ILondon: Variorum Reprints,1976)). 68. Cantacuzene, Historille, 11,426,11. 15-18. 69. J. Meyendorff, "Le Tome synodaI de 1347," Zbomik R.do•• Viz/lllto!o1koW I"IUM., 8 (1963), 224, 1. 448 (rpt. in J. Meyendorff, Byul1ItineHe6)lchtUm: HiItotit:lll. Theological and Socilll Problem. (London: Variorum Reprints, 1974)). 70. Acta et Diplorntlta, 1,242. 71. Mercati, p. 207 (wrongly reading "Theoktistos" for TheoleptOl). Cf. Weiaa, p. liS, n. 748 .

63. Ibid., 11, 287,1. 23-289, 1. 23. 64. Ibid., 11, 336, 1. 17·341, 1. 10; p. 344, lA f. Cr. Lemerle, L 'Emirat d'Aydi/l, p.150. 65. Cantacuzene, Hillorille, 11, 343, 1. 2-344, 1. 3. 66. Ibid., 11, 344, 11. 3-4: TO"""'n. 1\........ xciptTo. 7\~!W,,'vo. 1rapa " • .." .al .cI lucl"••a w< bpw"o••a "pcnjS•• Ibid., 11,431, 11. 21·24.

• 1

IX

IX 198 planted vegetables in its place. This too Hilarion had foreseen; for when Cantacuzene was preparing his western expedition he had ordered a ditch to be dug all round the walls of Didymoteichon as an added protection. All the people (KaTCi rf>aTpia~) had been pressganged into digging, including the clergy who complained to the bishop, evidently on the ground that it was none of their business to assist in the conduct of war. But Hilarion had assured them that their efforts would in fact be of no help in that war, for before very long the district would be given over to growing vegetables6 3 The city of Didymoteichon was often hard pressed during the first two years of the civil wa{. When, in desperation, the Empress Eirene called on the help of John Alexander of Bulgaria she found that the Bulgarian anny sent to relieve the city had come to stay. It was the bishop who urged the people to hold out, explaining that their hardships were God's way of testing their love for the emperor who would assuredly soon return and reward them for their loyalty. As for the "Mysians" (Bulgarians) he promised that within seven days they would be tumbling over each other to save themselves by flight. The citizens took heart, for they believed in their bishop's powers of prophecy; and once again it was proved that he could read the future better than others could read the past. The miracle occurred when Umur of Aydin arrived in Thrace with his fleet and anny and, to the amazement and de. light of the people of Didymoteichon, the Bulgarians fled in confusion, as the bishop had foretold. 64 Hilarion's reassurances about the future sometimes brought comfort to individuals as well. Michael Bryennios, for example, the archon of Pamphilos, had been captured by the rebellious demos of that city and sent as a prisoner to Constantinople. He was so ilI·treated by his gaolers that a rumor reached Didymoteichon that he had died of his wounds. But the bishop, when asked to break the news to his wife and family, replied that Bryennios was not dead, that he would shortly be released from prison for medical treatment, and that he would die fighting on behalf of the Emperor John Cantacuzene. All of which came to pass. Bryennios did recover, escape and rejOin Canta. cuzene, at whose side he later fen fighting against Momcilo in 1344.65 "Of' such grace was (Hilarion) deemed worthy by God that he saw the future as clearly as the present."66 Hilarion also predicted a longer than expected life span for George Glabas the OKOIm!pw<:. Glabas feared that he was going to die before John Canta.

63. Ibid., U, 287,1. 23-289, 1. 23. 64. /bid., 11, 336, 1. 17·341, 1. 10; p. 344, 1.4 f. Cf. Lemerle, L 'Emiral d'Aydill,

p. ISO. 65. Cantacuzene, HiBlorise, 11, 343, 1. 2-344, 1. 3. 66. /bid., 11, 344, 11. 3-4: TOUlllnJ( ,f. hoWo( XdptTO( llttwl"". 1I'apa 110ci>,
HILARION OF DIDYMOTEICHON AND THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

199

cuzene made his triumphant return to Didymoteichon in 1343. He asked the bishop's blessing to set out along the road to meet him. Hilarion told him not to worry because his end was not in sight and foretold that Glabas would certainly see his emperor again and serve him in some capacity before he died 67 Indeed George Glabas outlived Hilarion, though only by five days. The saintly bishop died probably in the summer of 1344 at the age of nearly sixty·five. His death caused great personal grief to John Cantacuzene who makes special record of it in his memoirs.68 It was to take another two and a half years for Hilarion's prophecies about the victory of his emperor to be fulfilled. But at the time of his death the tide of fortune was already begin. ning to turn in Cantacuzene's favor. He himself had no doubt that his ultimate success was due to the workings of divine providence so ably interpreted and confirmed by the Bishop of Didymoteichon. That Hilarion was a Palamite seems certain enough, although it is nowhere explicitly stated. Philotheos of Selymbria, who made mock of Barlaam and Akindynos and went out of his way to anathematize Nikephoros Gregoms, would hardly have counted him among the prize pupils of Makarios if it had been otherwise. Nor would John Cantacuzene have had such confidence in his predictions. His successor as Bishop of Didymoteichon was Theoleptos. His name is not certainly attested until 1347, when he was among the signatories of the T61.lO~ which confirmed the condemnation of Barlaam and Akindynos and the vindication of Palamas.69 It may be that he was appointed by the Patriarch John Kalekas and felt unable to declare his Palamite allegiance until after the Victory of John Cantacuzene in February. 1347. An unnamed Bishop of Didymoteichon figures as a member of the patriarch's synod in Constantinople in April, 1345, while the civil war was still in progress, and it is probable that this was Theoleptos.1 0 It could certainly not have been Hilarion for he died in the previous year. Theoleptos ·tor good measure also appended his signature and approbation to the T6~ of 1341;71 and finally he signed that of the Council of 1351 over which

i \

• I

J

I

II 11

i·'I

! ! !

67. Ibid., 11, 401, 1. 20402, 1. 8. On George Glaba. skoulerlos, see Weiss, p. 39; R. Guilland, "Preteur du peupl<, Skouterios, Protokomes" Revue des etudes sud-en europeonnes, 7 (1969), 85·86 (rpt. in R. J. Gui11and, Tlt:.e. el fonction. de I'Empn byzQnrin lLondon: Variorum Reprints,1976j). 68. Cantacuzene, Hisloriae, 11,426,11. 15-18. ~9. J. Mcyendorff, "Le Tome synodal de 1347," Zbomik Radovd Viz/llltololko, InSlllUIQ, 8 (1963), 224, 1. 448 (rpt. in J. Meyendorff, Byzantine HelYchllSnl: HiBorictll. TheolOgical and Social Problems I London: Variorum Reprints. 1174)). 70. Acta et Dip/omtlta, 1,242. 71. Mercati, p. 207 (wrongly reading ''Theoktistos'' for Theoleptos). Cf. Wells, p. 115, n. 748.

!! I!

II ~ ~

IX

x

200 John VI presided. 72 If the above account is correct Hilarion was Bishop of Didymoteichon for not more than about three years. But from Cantacuzene's incidental statement to the effect that Hilarion was one of the three saints who had most impressed and influenced him we may infer that the two men had known each other since long before 1341. John Cantacuzene's sincerity in the matter of religion and the monastic life has often been questioned, as though his convictions had no deeper roots than politics or self·interest. He may not himself have been of the stuff of which great ascetics were made. Nor was he, as V. Parisot long ago observed, "de la taille de ces geants auquel le monde pardonne leur intrusion, parce que leur intrusion ramene I'ordre, la paix, la gloire, cicatrise les plaies publiques, et ouvre une ere de splendeur et de prosperite. "73 He may have deluded himself about his divine mission. He was inclined to vanity and superstition. But he revered holiness and he believed that the holy man played a vital role in society. To suppose that his trust in a visionary such as Hilarion of Didymoteichon was purely a matter of self·interest, politics, or propaganda would be to misrepresent both the complex personality of the emperor·monk and the complex nature of the society in which he lived.

THESSALONICA AS A CULTURAL CENTRE IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY The renaissance or revival of learning and culture in Byzantium in the fourteenth century, is a well·attested, if paradoxical, fact. It was essentially an urban phenomenon. It could only have happened where the books, copyists and libraries were available. But it was not confined to Constantinople. It was a movement which, simultaneously and to some extent independently, affected the city of Thessalonica as well. Thessalonica in the early fourteenth century was the birthplace or the residence of such erudite scholars as Thomas Magistros, Demetrios Triklinios, 10hannes Katrares, Demetrios Kydones, Neilos and Nicholas Kabasilas, Constantine Harmenopoulos and Matthew Blastares, and of such leading churchmen and theologians as Gregory Palamas, Philotheos Kokkinos, Isidore Boucheiras, Isidore Glabas and Gabriel. Greater men than I have observed these facts and described the cultural and spiritual revival of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century; and it may be presumptuous of me to come before this learned society of Macedonian studies simply to tell them what they can discover for themselves by reading the works of Tafrali, Laourdas, Theocharides, Vakalopoulos, XyngopoulOB and others!. The revival of scholarship in Constantinople in the fourteenth century was fostered and sustained by imperial patronage and by the interests and influence of the court. Scholars were then as now frequently impecunious and books and writing materials were scarce and expensive. The Emperor Andronikos II was the greatest of the imperial patrons of

King's College, University ofLondon

1. Basic studies of the subject are: O. Tafrali, Tha.aloniqlMl "K q"""'nil_ .ih:Ie, Paris 1913; V. Laourdas, 'H HAuaalHl} rplAoAoyla si, ~ 8saauAlw6cop ......d ~o. ~ ro. Ti"ae~OP ulclw" (·E.....pctc. MOIICCBovl>'iOi>! Enou8&W, IMXA, 37), Thessa10nike f960, G. I. Theocharides, T"""yea.,la "u/ "0.1.,..,111} l<noela ~~ 8saauAo~ ....~d~.w 1<1' aldiou (·E.....pctc. Mr.xaSov,xii>v E"ouS6Iv, L'\D{A. 31). Thessalonike 1959; A. E. Vablop.oulo8, 'Iaroela ~ 8saauAo.~ 81S ... X.-1912, Thessaloruke fM7 (English translation by T. F. Carney, IMXA 63), Thessalonike 1963.

72. E. HOnigmann, "Die Unterschriften des Tomos des lahres 1351," Byzllntlnische Zelttehrl/t, 47 (1954), 108 and 111. The name of Theoieptos as Bishop of Didymo· teiehon also appears in a document of September, 1350: Acta et Diploma/a, I, 300. 73. V. Pariwt, Cantacuzene, homme d'etll/ et hiS/oritn .... (Paris: Joubert, 1845),

p.157.

I "

tr

:

x

x Thessalonica as a cultural centre in the 14th c.

122

123

as piety provided the necessary encouragement and patronage for echolarship and sanctity to flourish. Culture and piety went together. The numerous Encomia of The8salonica by fourteenth-century writers make this clear. Philothe08 seldom lost an opportunity of inserting a eulogy of his native town; and most of the contemporary Encomia of Saint Demetrios, six of them written by Thessalonians, include a passage in praise of the city, of its culture and its piety). One of the most striking is by Nikephoros Choumnos, who was imperial governor of Thessalonica for not much more than a year (1309-10). But he never forgot the city. He much admired its culture and kept up by correspondence with the many friends whom he made here. He composed a Discourse to its citizens, the first part of which is a memorable description of Thessalonica, its geographical position, its acropolis, its walls, its churches and its numerous and cosmopolitan population. He praises the taste and culture of its inhabitants, as well as their religious fervour whose symbol was their patron Saint Demetri08. Indeed the piety of the people seems to have impressed Choumnos rather more than their learnings. Demetrios Kydones, in his famous Monodia for the victims of the Zealots in 1345, likewise extols the size, the fine and healthy situation, the harbour and the buildings of Thessalonica -«8 city to make the sick and the sad well and happy and to cause the stranger to forget his motherland». He praises the passionate devotion of its people to their religion and their Saint Demetrios; and finally he observes that Thessalonica has a greater concourse of outstanding orators, philosophers and literati than any other city. It is a second Helicon of the Muses. One would think

this age in the capital. His court provided the focus for learned debate and discussion as well as rhetorical display. Men like Nikephoros Choum. nos and Theodore Metochites, wealthy men and patrons in their own right, enjoyed the emperor's favour. In Thessalonica too scholars and men of letters enjoyed imperial patronage and favour. For in the fourteenth century this city was very often the centre of the court or an imperial residence, a second capital of the empire. Andronikos Il and his son Michael IX both spent long periods here. Michael IX died here in 1320 and his Armenian wife Rita or Maria spent thirteen years as a nun in a convent here. His brothers, the Despots Constantine and Demetrios Palaiologos were governors of the city in the 1320s. The Empress Eirene (Yolanda of Montferrat), second wife of Andronikos Il, preferred Thessalonica to Constantinople and held court here from 1303 until her death in 1317, issuing her own imperial charters and documents. So also did Anna of Savoy, wife of Andronikos Ill, who ruled Thessalonica as her own imperial domain for some fifteen years. She died here as an Orthodox nun with the name of Anastasia about 1365. Her influence on the city was clearly great. Her name and her memory are still inscribed upon a gateway of the acropolis). Nicholas Kabasilas, at the invitation of his father, composed a Eulogy of her. He praises her as the l'-eyto""C'l ~IXo"LAt" the saviour of his native city, who had brought peace to it after the storm -the storm of stasis and bloodshed during the eight years of the Zealot regimes. Philotheos Kokkinos, whose standards of Orthodoxy were high as well as narrow, more than once describes Anna, foreigner and heretic though she was by birth, as the 6IXuI'-IXO"-rlj XIX' 'I"AOXPLO""CO, ~IXo"LAt" fired with zeal for the Orthodox faithS. As such her name was immortalised among the pious rulers of the empire in the Synodikon of Orthodoxt'. The presence in Thessalonica in the fourteenth century of emperors and empresses who were themselves concerned with culture as well

1. V. Laourdas, ,'EY"'"(L'''' d~ TOV •Ay,ov <1'1)(L~TP'OV "",~a .,ov B~"",TOV -riT"'PTOV "'!_ rova., 'E"'f7Je1, 'Efate.la, Bvea....w. E"O!·~w. 24(1954) 275-290; D. Balfour, Politico·Historical Works of Symeon Archhishop of TMssalonica (1416/17 to 1429) (Wiener byzantinische Studien, 13: Vienna 1979) 104-105. Cr. E. Fenster, Laudes Conslantinopolitanae (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 9, Munich 1968), 195, 309-3U. 2: Nikephoros Choumnos, ElE"""'AO",KE;;'" ""(Li30UAEUT'KO~ "opt a,y'''''oaUV'I)~, ed. J. F. BOlssonade, Anecdota Graeca, 2, Paris 1830, 137-187. Cr. J. Verpeaux. NicephoN ChoumllOs, homme d'litat et humaniste by.antin (ca 1250/1255-1327), Paris 1959, 50-51, 99-100. Pa~e Tafrali, Boissonade and Verpeaux, op. cit., 99, the "E(LV~V T"ljv8c yopou.lav,. TOU, Ai3p"'(L'lXtou~ I.Mlpo<~ of Choumnos (p. 146) does not refer to .la confrarie des Abramites, formee de moines et de lalcs*, but merely to the venerable age of the elder statesmen of Thessalonica. See R. J anin, Les liglises et les monasteros da graml c.~re. by.antins (Bithynie, HellespOnl, Latro., Galesios, Trebu.ndI!. AthBnes. TAu•• IonllJue) (Geographie eccMsiastique de l'empire byzantin: Paris 1915) 311 n. 9.

1. On Anna of Savoy see: R.-J. Loenertz, .Chronologie de Nicolas Cabasilas 1345-13M., Orientalia Christiana Periodica 21 (1955) 216-220 (= Loenertz, By.antina et Franco-Graeca, I, Rome 1970, 313-316); D. Nicol and S. Bendall, .Anna of Savoy in Thessalonica: the numismatic evidence., Revue numismatique 19(1977) 87-102. 2. M. Jugie, .Nicolas Cabasilas, Panegyriques inedits de Mathieu Cantacuzene et d'Anne Paleologine., I.vestija russkago arcMologiCeskago Instituta v Konstantinopole 15 (1911) 118-119. cr. Loenertz, op. cit., 224-226 (320-322). 3. Philotheos, Encomium of Palamas, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 151, cols. 605C-D, 612,A-C, 624B. 4. J. GouiUard, .Le Synodikon de 1'0rthodoxie, edition et commentaire., Travau:e d Me-;,os 2(1967) 100-103, lines 869-873.

*n

i

I

I

x Thessalonica as a cult"ral centre in tJu 14th c.

124 that one was in Athens conversing with Demosthenes and Plato l . In similar style Nicholas Kabasilas ranks the city's intellectual life, its "Hellenic" culture,. with that of Athens and its orators and philosophers with the comparuons of Plato and Aristotle 2• Manuel 11 Palaiologos, who lived here first as Despot (1369-73) and then as Emperor for five tragic years from 1382-87, was disappointed by the lack of cooperation and fighting spirit among its citizens. But in later years he remembered Thessalonica as "the Mother of Rhetoricians ... the fount of literature in fact and in appearance"8. Examples could be multiplied. Much of this is merely rhetoric designed to display the author's technical virtuosity and expertise. Kabasilas, like Theodore Meto(;hites, who spent two years here in his early career and who also wrote a Eulogy of the city, composed his Encomium of Saint Demetrios when he was a young man, eager to show off his classical erudition and philological skillc. Such displays of learning and technique were characteristic of the cultural revival in Thessalonica. As Professor Laourdas observed, a set piece in praise of a saint's city such as we find in the fourteenth-century Encomia of Saint Demetrios would never have been allowed by the earlier convention of Byzantine hagio~aphy. Laourdas pointed to two new influences on the hagiographical hterature of the fourteenth century -Plutarch and Isocrates. Philotheos Kokkinos, in his many lives of saints, followed the pattern set not by Symeon Metaphrastes but by Plutarch. Kabasilas and the other fourteenth-century encomiasts of Saint Demetrios followed the pattern set by Isocrates, the form of the ~Qt'nAlxol MyoI. These models of Greek antiquity seem to have held a particular fascination for the educated men

"",,.U"L.

. 1. Demetrios Kydones. MovlpBIct ~"l T.i~ tv e."aotA.VIKn Migne, Pal,.M1B-c. 644B. Cf. J. W. Barker••The "monody" of Demetrios Kydones on the Zealot rising of 1345 in Thessaloniki•• MeAenlpaTO ~ ,..1IIj,..'1 B. AaotJe6a, Thessalonike 1975. 285-300. _ 2. Nic~olas Kabasilas. Encomium of SI. Demelrios (llpoacp6>YIII''' Elt; Tbv lvBoE.. TaU Xp"'TOU ~Ol'tlpTUP" ll.71I'-qTPL.v TW Mup.(3),-qT7jv) ed. Th. loannou, MIIfJ,...ia d" ••.toy.om, Vemee 1884, 70 (from Cod. Marc. gr. 56; cited also, from Cod. Paris. gr. 1213, by Tafrali, .p. cil., 150 n. 1). The second. revised and shorter Encomium by Nicholas Kabasilas is edited by V. Laourdas, '&cen,el, 'ET"'I!8~ Bv'avr."';;" &I(0Il&IW 22 (1952)97-109. 3•. G. T·. Dennis, TJu. Leuers of ManuelIIPalaeologus (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, VIII: Washingtcn, D.C., 1977), ep' 45, 127 lines 82-84. 4. The Encomium by Theodore Metochites is edited hy Y. Laollrdas, «&tom... ~~•• iyxQl&'I& cl; TW ·Ay.... ll.71I&-qTl' ...... MClHllIYtwucd 4 (1955-60; 1960)

w,UJ Graeca, 109. cols.

125

f Thessalonica. It is no accident that Philotheol, though of eomparati-

~elY humble family background, studied ~nder Thomas Ma~ltrOll ..

Thomas Magistros was perhaps the pIOneer of the claSSical revival . Thessalonica. He certainly claimed to be and derided all his predecelrs (and colleagues) as ignorant dunces. He lived most of his life here ~d latterly became a monk here with the name of Theodoulos. His work as an editor, commentator and scholiast of the ancient tragedians is well enough known2• But he also composed speeches and treatises with political themes which are so classical in tone that one would not guess that they were written by a Christian and a monk8 • As a philologist Thomas Magistros was surpassed by his successor Demetrios Triklinios who, we nOW know, was born in Thessalonica and taught and studied here from shout 1305 to 134OC. Triklinios was the most brilliant of the scholars of fourteenth-century Thessalonica. His work on the editing and improvement of classical texts entitles him to be counted as "the forerunner of modern editors". Without his research and diligence we would now be deprived of about one half of the works of Euripides5 • A third contemporary whose name can now be added to the same list of learned philologists in Thessalonica is Johimnes Katrares (Katrarios). He is better known as a scribe than as a scholar, especially for his manuscript copy of the 24 books of the Iliad which he made here in 1309. But his other work shows him to have been a specialist in the study of ancient texts and their commentaries; and he was also a poet. The last folio of his Iliad manuscript contains his own attempt to write a Greek tragedy, or a "pastiche" of a tragedy. It is perhaps as well for Katrares's reputation at a poet that he completed no more than 37 lines'. Now the work of such scholars implies the existence of libraries and scriptoria in Thessalonica in the fourteenth century. There must allO have been schools where more than the mere rudiments of literacy could

I:

t. Laollrdas •• H ..Aaaa"", "IAoAo"la..• , 12-15. 2. On Thomas Magistros see: H. Hunger. Die Hochspracltlit:IN Pro/IJIUJ Lifmt. IUr w By.anliner, 2, Miinich 1978, 71-73 and references. 3. Laourdas, op. oil .• 16. ~. On Demetrios TriklinioB Ree: Hunger. op. eit.• 2. 73-77. For hia birth In Th. . lllllonica see 73 n. 87. 5. L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars. A GuiM to ",. TrM.. miHion Greek and Latin LillJralWVI, 2nd ad .• Oxford t97~. 66-68. .6. G. de And ....s. J. lrigoln. W. HGrandner. Nohannes Katl'tll'8ll und 18In. 11ft. matisch-poeUsche Produktiont. Jalu-bueh de O,_klliBehnl ByJII"'inilfill 28 201-2140. Cf. Hunger, op. cit•• 1, p. 5tO; 2, p. U7,

0'

(t"',

x

x 126 be acquired. Demetrios Triklinios was himself a schoolmaster. Thomas Magistros taught Philotheos among others. It is impossible to estimate the number of students or indeed the extent of literacy in Thessalonica at this time. It was certainly not very high. But the rediscovery of "Hellenic" literature and philosophy was much in fashion. Barlaam of Calabria, who was here about 1330, drew large audiences for his lectures on Plato and Aristotle, perh~ps partly .because of the novelty of his approach. The EncomIa of Samt DemetrlOs were delivered in public before large crowds on the saint's Feast Day'. No doubt they were delivered in .short~r form and si~pler style. Yet, as we have them now, they are wrItten m the most pamstaking Attic or Atticising Greek, with many often recondite classical allusions. Philotheos, for example, expects his audience to know that the birthplace or the motherland of Hephaistos is the island of Lemnos". He compares Demetrios not to some hero of the Old Testa~ent but to Philip of Macedon, as Metochites was to compare him to A~lstotle and Gregoras to Alexander'. Philotheos also compares the conflIct between Gregory Palamas and Gregory Akindynos to that between Herakles and the Hydra'. . Palamas, however,. heartily disapproved of this revival of pagan, Hellemc learnmg, at least m so far as it affected the monastic life. He would not have been flattered to be called a Herakles. Palamas took the oldfashioned, traditionalist view that the scholarship of this world was no part of a monk's business. He would presumably have denounced Thomas Magistros for continuing his scholarly activities after he had become the monk Theodoulos. He certainly believed that Barlaam of Calabria ha~ been led into heresy by his devotion to Hellenic learning. And yet Philotheos, who was a disciple of Palamas and an eager practitioner of hesyc~ast doctrine, could write an Ecomium of his spiritual master phrased m ~he most Hellenic style and language. He might have argued that Hellemsm was harmless so long as it was exploited only for the uses of rhetorical eloquence. But there was an unusual mingling of culture and piety in fourteenth-century Thessalonica. Nicholas Kabasilas, though he left his na. 1. The En~omium of St. Demetrios by Nikephoros Gregoras (ed. Laourdas, op. mt., M""sCJav,,,a ~,1960, 83-96) contruns valuable information on the dates and sequence of the four annual feasts of the Saint. 2. Philotheos, Encomium of Palamas, col. 6160. 3. Laourdas, •H "J.a""'xiJ '1,.}.aAoyla ... , 17. 6. Philotheos, Encomium of Palamas, col. 590A.

Thessalo nica as a cultural centre in the 14th r.

12'7

tive city for Constantinople in 1347, confessed that he was continually nostalgic for it despite the splendours of the capital!. He described it as centre of books and scholars but also as the "metropolis of philosophy", :nd by that he meant the "divine philosophy"". Kabasilas, perhaps with more sincerity than Philotheos, believed that scholarship could in fact be an aid to sanctity and that there was room for collaboration between saints and scholars. He could not agree with Palamas that learning was irrelevant to the pursuit of the angelic life'. Joseph Rakendytes the Philosopher, who also studied in Thessalonica and died here about 1330, laboured to prove the opposite by compiling an encyclopaedic synthesia of Hellenic and Christian knowledge, to effect a reconciliation between the "inner" wisdom of the saints and the "outer" wisdom of the scholars'. This was, of course, a perilous process for a Christian. As St Basil the Great had advised, it was necessary to be prudently selective in one's use of Hellenic literature, "to avoid the thorns while picking the roses"'. Philotheos, for all his love of Atticising eloquence, often emphasises the need for censoring the fables of Greek mythology. He tells us that Isidore Boucheiras, for instance, who was twice Patriarch of Constantinople in the fourteenth century, had earlier been a teacher of grammar and rhetoric. But he refused to let his pupils read the "Hellenic myths and legends" because these were unsuitable for Christians·. Similarly, Philotheos recalls that the holy Sabas of Vatopedi when a boy studied the best of Hellenic literature as a preparation for his researches into the "inner" wisdom. But he rejected mythology as pure nonsense'. 1. P. Illnepekides, «Der Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos Kabasilast, By.antiniscM ZeilSchrift .6 (1953), no. 7, 3.-35. Cr. Loenertz, ap. cit., 214 (311-312). 2. Nicholas Kabasilas, Encomium of St. Demetrios, ed. J oannou, 71. 3. A. A. Angelopoulos, N,,,oJ.aac; Ka{Jd,,"J.ac; Xa,..aBfoc; . •H Can) "ai TO EeJ'OI' aVToW ('A.~A£KTIX

BAIXT, Zapiski islariko-fiIoIoR. fakulteta Imperatarskago S. -Petersburgskaga Unioersitela 76 (1905) 63-610, 67-68. 7. Philotheos, Life of Sahas, ed., A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ·A.cUs....a'1I(JoaoAUI'ItI"qC; l:mxvaAoylac; 5 (1888) 197. Cf., in similar vein, Philotheos, Lif. of GomanOB, ed., P. Ioannou, .Vie de R. Germain I'Hagiorite par son contemporain le patria.... ch~ Philotbee de Constantinople, Analecla Bollandiana 10 (1952) 62; Anon., Encoml~m of Gabriel, ed., V. I,aourdas, (1'0 r,,~pL~A ec""cxAo.tx1l~», 'Af),pIa 56 (1952) 203; Philotheos, Encomium of Palamas, r.ol. 604. ~.

x

x 128 In this respect Philotheos himself was something of a hypocrite. On several occasions he cites the myths and heroes of Antiquity to colour his own narrativesl . It was one of the ways of advertising his erudition. This raises the question of the depth and sincerity of this revival of Hellenic learning. Was it anything more than a literary game, a jeu d'esprit, played for the delight of sophisticated intellectuals? Did the educated men of the fourteenth century really think of themselves as descendants of the ancient Hellenes, as some of them claimed? Is it possible to see in this cuI. tural revival what Laourdas called an ~6VLX~ &:v<XY&VV"I)O"L~?" In one sense I thinlr this may be true. What characterises the movement, aside from the philological talent of some of its greater representatives, is its ethnic limitation. There is plenty of evidence that Thessalonica in the fourteenth century was a centre of culture, in art and architecture as well as in lite· rature and learning. But there seems little to show that it was "a cross· road of cultural influences between East and West". One of the shortcomings of Byzantium in its decline was its failUl'e to appreciate or to come to terms with new developments in Western Europe. Fearful of losing face by doing so, the Byzantines retreated into a Hellenic past which was illusory and never real. Demetrios Kydones was one of the few in his time who saw beyond these narrow horizons. Kydones was a native of Thessalonica, born here about 1323. He was taught by Neilos Kabasilas and by the future Patriarch Isidore. But after the loss of his family's fortune in the Zealot revolution he never returned. His long career as a statesman and a scholar was connected with the court at Constantinople not with Thessalonica3 • If Kydones had stayed here he might never have learnt Latin; and it was this experience that opened his eyes to a wider intellectual world. None of the saints and scholars of Thessalonica in his day, so far as I am aware, knew anything but Greek; nor was there much chance of their acquiring a knowledge of Latin. There seem to have been no houses of western monks in the city, like the Dominicans who taught Latin to Kydones and others in Constantinople. The saints distrusted Latin as a potential vehicle of corruption and heresy. The case of Kydones, who went over to the Roman Church, proved the point. The scholars on the other hand were proud of the fact that they were the sole guardians and in1. See, e.g., Ioannou. tVie de S. Germain ...•• 62 n. 8. !. Laourdaa. •H xAaaalHf) ."AoAoyla..• , 17.

a. R.-J. Loenertz. tD4m4t.riua Cydonea. I. De la naisaance .. l'ann6e 137S., 0rWaIIIliIJ ChrWiaIl4 P.,.itHlica 36 (1970) "7·72.

rflnSlllonica as a cultural centre in the 14th c.

129

s of the treasures of ancient Greek literature and philosophy.

lerpreterthem a reassurmg . sense 0 f ' . superiority over their western Latin

It gave oraries. ThessaIomca . In . t h e fourteenth century certainly' had a contemp . ' Kd . market with . d and cosmopolItan popuIatlOn. y ones speaks of Its !B1Xe all I l and customers from over the wor d . Choumnos marvels at the ::~tude of its foreign inhabitants coming from everywhere. "No one" "need feel stateless (dt7tOAL~) so long as the city of Thessalonica he says, . . . \here".. Philotheos praIses the tolerance of Its native inhabitants 8 18 ards the foreign visitors and residents • toW None of these writers, however, descends from his rhetorical height. 10 indicate who these foreigners were. One assumes that they were all engaged in trade and ~om~erce. ~nfor.tunately ther~ is no document corresponding to the T£marron, which gIves such a VIvid description of the international trade fair in Thessalonica in the twelfth centurY'. But one can be sure enough that the business men, merchants and sailors who frequented Thessalonica in the fourteenth century were not trading in culture. Nor, it seems, were they trading in political ideas. Attempt. by modern scholars to link the political and social origins of the Zealot re· volution with similar developments in Genoa at much the same period have failed. There is no evidence for the existence of a Genoese colony in Thessalonica in the fourteenth century6. Philotheos, in one tanta· lising passage, says that the political disorder in his city was provoked not by the natives but by "barbarians from afar and from the neighbouring illands driven here as refugees"8_ But he does not imply that they came from the West. 1. Dem8trios Kydonee. Monodia, col. 6UB.

2. Nikephoros Choumnos, op. cit., ed. Boissonade, Aneedota Gra_, 2, p. 168: clI~ 068.~ 4""A~, tdxP~ iiv ~ M e~ fi • . Cf. p. 152: ..• M", I'S)'IiAll ..6>.0'. _ll-lup!'.v M iOv..... "A"I)eo.\"lI ••• S. PhUotheos, A6yo; clt;..-Ijv liy!<Xv 6a,o,""*p-rup,, 'Avua!ctv..-Ijv"~, 841. C. Triantafillis and A. Orapputo, Anecdola Graeca 11 codi<:ibus manu _iplY Biblio.., S. M_i, 1, Venice 1874, 100-101. Cf. Theodore Metochitea, ElICOmium of SI. lIfmIIrw, ad. Laourdaa, M......,.""xci 4(1960)58. On the population of TheasaIonica see Tafrali, .p. cit.• 17-19. . l. Timarion, ad. A. Ellissen, Analehten der milllll- wad neugrieclliechlln LiIfnnr, IAiplig 1860, U-186; ed. R. Romano. PulMlo-Lru:iano. Timarione. Naples 191'. ~. I. Sevfenko, «The Zealot revolution and the supposed Oenoeae colony In Th88A1on1C&t, lleol1rpOQd 11r. n. KvellJXld".. Theasalonike 1958, 603-617. Cf. O. L. Kllibatov and V. I. Rutenberg. tZiloti i Ciompit, YiHlllij."ijYNmIIMilr 30(1969) 3-37. 6. PhUotheos. Life of Sab".. ed. Papadopoul08-Kerameus, 1940.

rrm rip "IOil-ro CPIZVopo. imlLijCJCLu,

.1,

x

x ThtssaW nica as a cultural centre in the 14th c.

i28 In this respect Philotheos himself was something ?f ~ hypocrite. On . s he cites the myths and heroes of AntiqUity to colour bis seversI occaSIOn . . . of advertISIng · t own narra Ives.'It was one of the ways . , . his .erudition. Tbis this revival, of Hellenic . tlle qu estion of the depth and slllcenty rlllses .of, . Was it anything more than a literary game, a Jeu d esprit, play. Iearnmg. . I 1 D'd h d ed for the delight of sophisticated Illtellectua s. I tee ucated men 01 the fourteenth century really think of thems~lves a~ descendants of tbe . t Hellenes as some of them claimed? Is It pOSSible to see in tbis cui. anCIen, '0. \', ?2 t ral revival what Laourdas called an EvVtX"l IXvlXyevv"latC; In one sense IUthinlr this may be true. What characterises the movement, aside from th hilological talent of some of its greater representatives, is its etbnic e p . Th I' . limitation. There is plenty of eVidence that e~sa olllca III the fourteentb century was a centre of culture, in art .and architecture a~ well ~~ in lite· r ture and learning. But there seems httle to show that It was a cross· :ad of cultural influences between East and West". One of the short· :omings of Byzantium in its decline was its failure to appreciate or to come to terms with new developments in Western Europe. Fearful of losing face by doing so, the Byzantines retreated into a Hellenic past which was illusory and never reaL Demetrios Kydones was one of the few in his time who saw beyond these narrow horizons. Kydones was a native of Thes· salonica, born here about 1323. He was taught by Neilos Kabasilas and by the future Patriarch Isidore. But after the loss of his family's fortu· ne in the Zealot revolution he never returned. His long career as a sta· tesman and a scholar was connected with the court at Constantinople not with Thessalonica3• If Kydones had stayed here he might never have learnt Latin; and it wss this experience that opened his eyes to a wider intellectual world. None of the saints and scholars of Thessalonica in his day, so far as I am aware, knew anything but Greek; nor was there much chance of their ac· quiring a knowledge of Latin. There seem to have been no houses of west· ern monks in the city, like the Dominicans who taught Latin to Kydo· nes and others in Constantinople. The saints distrusted Latin as a po· tential vehicle of corruption and heresy. The case of Kydones, who went over to the Roman Church, proved the point. The scholars on the other hand were proud of the fact that they were the sole guardians and in· t. See, e.g.• Ioannou ••Vie de S. Germain ..... 62 n. 8. 2.

Laourdas. •H KAaaaoo} 'PIAOAoy/a.... 17.

8. R.·J. Loenertz••D~m~triU3 Cydones. I. De la naissance rYll/lllill Clu-iBli41111 P.,.iodicll 36 (1970) ft7·72.

a I'annoo 13731. O·

129

terpreters of the treasures of ancient Greek literature and philosophy. It gave them a reassuring. sen~e of superiority over their weat.ern, Latin contemporaries. Thessalolllca III the fourteenth century certainly had a mixed and cosmopolitan population. Kydones speaks of its market with goods and customers from all over the world'. Choumnos marvels at the multitude of its foreign inhabitants coming from everywhere. "No one" he says, "need feel stateless (&7tOAtC;) so long as the city of Thessalonica is there"2. Philotheos praises the tolerance of its native inhabitants towards the foreign visitors and residents8 • None of these writers, however. descends from his rhetorical height. to indicate who these foreigners were. One assumes that they were all engaged in trade and commerce. Unfortunately there is no document corresponding to the Timarion, which gives such a vivid description of the international trade fair in Thessalonica in the twelfth century'. But one can be sure enough that the business men, merchants and sailors who frequented Thessalonica in the fourteenth century were not trading in culture. Nor. it seems. were they trading in political ideas. Attempts by modern scholars to link the political and social origins of the Zealot revolution with similar developments in Genoa at much the same period have failed. There is no evidence for the existence of a Genoese colony in Thessalonica in the fourteenth century5. Philotheos, in one tantalising passage, says that the political disorder in his city was provoked not by the natives but by "barbarians from afar and from the neighbouring islands driven here as refugees"8. But he does not imply that they came from the West. 1. Demetrios Kydones. Monodill. col. 6UB. 2. Nikephoros Choumnos. op. cit .• ed. Boissonade. Anecdola GraoclI. 2, p. 148: naaL y~ ~oilTo 'P"vEpb. ~"oL-IjalXu ... ~ ou3d~ a"OAL~. jdxp~ ci. ij ~.... @s.....v.ov"""'. 1; ,,6AL~. cr. p. 152: ... o6~", iJ.CY«An ,,6A£t, ""l fL\lpl,.v ~.... ia..... "A'l60Uo-n ... 3. Philotheos. 1\6yo; d, rij. aLO!'4p~up" •Avualcx. rij. iv @caacxAo.txn, ed. C. Triantafillis and A. Grapputo. Anecdola Graeca • codicibus man.. scriplis BibliolAIc.., S. MDJ'ci. 1. Venice 1874. 100·101. Cf. Theodore Metochites. Encomium of SI. D'l/II!lrio•• ed. Laourdas. M"".6o.,xd ft(1960)58. On the popUlation of Thessalonica see Tafrali. op. cil.• 17·19. ~. Timarion. ed. A. Ellissen. AnlJleklen der miuel· ..1Id ne..,riecAisch4n Literal..,. Leipzig 1860.41·186; ed. R. Romano. Ps.udo·LuciaM. Timarion•• Naples 197ft. ' ~. 1. !lev~nko ••The Zealot revolution and the supposed Genoese colony in Thes. lalomcat. neoa'Poed .k ET. n. K"e"",(Il'l". Thessalonike 1953. 603·617. Cf. O. L. Kurbatovand V. I. Rutenberg. cZiloti i Ciompit. YWnlij.kijJfNmftllnilt 30(1969) 3.37. 6. Philotheos. Lif. of Sabas. ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 194.

x

x i30 Even the Venetian presence in Thessalonica seems to have been limited. There is no mention of the city in Venetian documents of the early fourteenth century, except for one forbidding merchants to go there at all. After 1328 things changed and Thessalonica became a market where the merchants of Venice did some business. But they were never a very large community. They were administered only by a consul like the Venetian communities in other trading posts such as Arta and CIarentza. They rente~ houses and they had their own. church. But nearly all of them were middle men from the larger Venetlan colonies like Negroponte and Crete, not from Venice itself; and such representatives of the Serene Republic were not noted for their culture. The fact is that Thessalonica lay rather off the normal and official Venetian trade route to Constantinople. The merchant ships that put into its harbour were engaged more in private enterprise than on state business. They came mainly to collect wheat from tbe plains of Macedonia and Bulgaria. They were interested in making money but not in admiring the finer qualities of Greek culture, whether ancient or modern'. In happier circumstances Thessalonica might have become a crossroad of East-West cultural influences during its brief occupation by the Venetians in the fifteenth century. But again the Venetians were not there to promote cultural contacts. A stronger case might be made for Thessalonica as a crossroad or meeting-point between North and South in the fourteenth century. It had much more direct contact with Serbia and with Ragusa than it had with Italy and the West2• More than one of its imperial rulers plotted with the Serbians, and there was much coming and going between the courts of Thessalonica and Skopje3• The 1. F. Thiriet, .Les Venitiens il ThessaJonique dans la premiere moitie du XIV. sieclet, Byz~ntion 22(1952). 323-332 (=Thiriet, Etudes .ur la Romanie greco ••enitienn., (X·-XY· siecles) Variorum: London 1977, no 1). 2. G. Ostrogorsky, ,Problemes des relations byzantino-serbes au XIV. sieclet Proceedings of"'" XIlIth International Congress of Byzantine. Studies Oxford 1967' 39-55; G. C. Soulis, ,Byzantino-Serbian Relations., ibid., 57-61. B. Kr~kiC, «Kurirski B~o~r~ D~b~~nika sa Carigradom i Solunom u prvoj polovini XIV veka (ll ser. V\Zl0 dl corner! dl Ragusa a Costantinopoli e SaJonicchi nella prima meth del 8ecolo XIV)t, Zbornih Rado.a Yisanrolo!hog Institu/a 1(1952) 113-120. 3. T~e Empress Eirene (Y olanda), wife of Andronikos n, during her regime in ThessaJon~ca before 1317, energetically intrigued with Stephen Milutin of Serbia, who had m~ed her daughter (Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, I, 242-244, Bonn). In 1326 John PaJ81ologos, then governor of ThessaJonica, rebelled and tried to set up his own principality in Macedonia with the help of Step hen De~anski, to whom he gave his

Thfssalonica as a cultural centre in the 14th c.

131

influence of the legal compendia of Har.me~opoulos and B1ast~e~ on the thern Slav neighbOurs of Thessalomca IS well attested. This 18 not to nor that' the cultural life of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century is sa~ worthy of serious study. It was of profound importance if only be~~use of the rediscovery and edition of classical manuscripts by the great hilologists . But its importance should not be exaggerated. The revived interest in the "outer" wisdom of Hellenic learning, the E8VLK~ OCVaty£vvtja~~ was comfortingly irrelevant to the problems of the contemporary wo~ld and to the social and economic problems of Thessalonica itself. For a short time, not much more than one generation, it helped to make this city "the very home of civilised men"-for a small coterie of saints and scholarsl. Political circumstances determined the demise of the intellectual revival. It was the culture of the inner wisdom that survived.

daughter in marriage (Gregoras, I, 373-383; Kantakouzenos, Hillwiae, I, 209-2U, Bonn). The Zealot leaders in ThessaJonica between 1349/1350 were in close contact with Stephen Dulan and hoped to make over the city to him (Kantakoul8nos, Ill, 10S·110).

1. Philotheos, Life of Sabas, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 193; ••• m>M"NIIO~ 4.op':II'o~ l(6C1l'o~ otl(.io~ ..•

XI

CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES A Prosopographical Note

C

ONSTANTINE Akropolites was a son of the statesman and historian George Akropolites who lived from 12~7 to 1282. The Emperor Michael VIII PalalOlogos took an active, interest in his upbringing and education; but Constantine, unlike his father, remained an outspoken opponent of Michael's policy of union with the Roman Church and of the efforts of the Patriarch John Bekkos to persuade the clergy and people o! Constantinople that that policy was dogmatically acceptable.' Andronikos II appointed him Logothete TaU yevlKou, perhaps in 1282; and as such his name appears among the witnesses to the Byzantine treaty with Venice in June 1285' But after the death of Theodore Mouzalon in 1294 he was raised to the dignity of Grand Logothete, holding this office at least until 1321, at which time he appears to have shared the title, if not the rank, with Theodore Metochites.' His greatest claim to fame rests on 1 George Pachymeres. De A nd1'onico Palae~ oIogo, I (Bonn), pp. 495-6. The career of Con,tannne's father George, who was Grand Logo. thete under the Emperors Theodore II Laskaris and Michael VIII, is summarized by A. Heisenherg, Glorgii Acropolitae Opera. 11 (Leipzig, 1903). pp. Hi-xiii. Constantine calls himself "the first-born aen" (see infra, p. SI); one Leon Akropolites, who could have been his brother, was Dux of the Theme of Senes and Strymon in November 1295. M. Goudas, 8\Jl.a\l'T1aKOr: ~a T% Iv "AeCf> I<pas IIOlrij, ",,0 BcrromSlov, 'E'1Ii'l1\pl, 'ETalpoI", ButalTTlvW' I1fouS... , III (I9~6), no. 6, p. 132; cf. F. D6lger, Regesl8.. de.

KIJIS"",kund~n

des osh-omische,. Reiches IV

(Munich. 1960), no. 2181.

•

panseuasto seuasto familiari Imperij Doatn logotheta de genico domino Constantino I '.' •• ,

AcropoJita." G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas,

U,~ ZUf' iiUer,'11 Hawls- "na: Staalsgesck.oAl8 41, R6fmblik Verudig, III (Vienna. ,857), p. 339• John Cantacuzene. Hismu.., I (Bonn), ~. 67-8. Cf. H.-G. Beck, Th.otlo,os MeIoohilss. DU Km. tUs byz-U"isch", Wellbild18 "" I 4. l"",-~ (Munich, 195'), pp. n, note 3; '40~K3_

his literary output which waS considerable and mainly hagiographical in content. His numerous versions of saints' lives earned for him, in later times if not in his own day, the narne of Neos Metaph,astes. Many of these remain unedited, and by far the larger part of his extensive correspondence has still to be published.' It has been stated that he married into the family of Cantacuzene, but this is a fallacy. Such is the extent of the biographical information hitherto provided about Constantine Akropolites in the works of reference and editions of his writings.' Some of those writings. however. and one surprisingly neglected item of iconographical evidence, provide some interesting additional facts about his family and career which seem not to have been collected or used by those concerned with the history of the period. M. Treu showed him to be the brother of the monk Me1chisedek Akropolites, to whom fourteen of the letters of Maximos PIanoudes are addressed.· Melchisedek was among those who helped to incite the Pi""-" Alexios Tarchaniotes Philanthropenos to rebellion against Andronikos II in Asia Minor in ug6. Pachymeres describes him as "an uncle of Alexios' wife.'" Philanthropenos was also , See inf,a for a provisional list of thewritiDp of Constantine. 6 Brief biographical notices of Constantine U8 given by A. Ehrhard, in Ko Krumhacher, G.sciicllte de .. byz4111iniscMfI Litlnflltw. 2nd eel. (Munich, ,897), pp. 204-5; M. Treu, M...w Monochi Pla...ulis Epis"",,, (Bxeslau, .Bgo). pp. 248-50; M. Jugie, Dil:no..nai,. 41 pogr"'" " d'Aisloi. . .""Us; ..Iiqtu, I, pp. 375-7; H_-G. Beck, unAo.. fiM TMol";' "lid Ki.... (F"';' burg, 1957), I. pp. 246-7; id_, KwcMuM TIMologisch. LiIer""" i.. Byz........""" R. . (Munich, 1959), pp. 698--9-

• M_ Treu, PI."""is EfJis"""', pp. .,.s-,lI>. , Pachymeres, Il (Bonn), p. " •• Uaos ••• I> 'At
,a--t,:

(~voiI)

yvvano!s ., •.

XI XI CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES

250 the friend of Planoudes, who congratulated him on the event of his marriage in a letter written in 1295.8 Shortly afterwards his wife's brother died at the tender age of fourteen, and from the letters which Planoudes wrote to him and to Me1chisedek on this occasion it emerges that the boy's father, and consequently the father-in-law of Alexios Philanthropenos, was the Logothete 70U YEVlKOV, namely Constantine Akropolites. 9 Constantine is therefore known to have had a daughter, not named by Planoudes, who married Alexios Philanthropenos. and a son who died in 1295. Philanthropenos was blinded in December I296 when his revolt was suppressed and thereafter lived in retirement until restored to favor in 1323.10 Treu, Planudis Epistulae, no. 98, lines 84 ft., pp. '27-8. , Ibid., nos. 90 and 94. pp. 114-17, 120-2. 8

For the chronological sequence of these letters, see Treu, op. cit., p. 252. 10 Two of Constantine's unpublished letters tell of his temporary banishment from Constan~ tinaple, perhaps to Thessalonica. and of his desire to return to the capital to stand trial and clear his name. This may suggest that he was implicated or suspected of implication in the conspiracy of Philanthropenos. See Cod. Ambros. H 81 Sup., Letters nos. 97, 98, fols. 307r to 308r. On the family of Phiianthropenos, see Athenagoras, Metropolitan of Paramythia and Philiates, Iwl30Aal EIs T~V looopfav TOO Bu[av~ TlVOU OiKOU TWV cI>IAaVepc.:rrrllVWV, hEATiov TTjS "a-r0pl1
The name of one of Constantine's daugh_ ters is provided by the first of two Testaments which he wrote with his own hand. In this document Constantine makes over all that he had inherited from his mother and from his father, the Grand Logothete, to his daughter Theodora. In addition he consigns to Theodora everything brought to him by his own wife as dowry from her father, Who is said to have borne the ancient and honorable name of Tornikes and to have been descended from the line of the KomnenoLll This statement may serve finally to dispel the myth formulated by Ch. Du Cange and

perpetuated by A. Papadopulos that Constantine Akropolites married the daughter of one Cantacuzene, a myth whose only foundation appears to be a misreading of a passage in the text of Pachymeres. Pachymeres clearly indicates that the daughter of Cantacuzene married not Constantine Akro~ polites but Theodore Mouzalon, the later

Grand Logothete. The wife of Akropolites was a member of the Tornikes family.12 II .6.lo:&TJKll &c., ed. by M. Treu, hfATlo\/ '101'0. PIKfjS Kol 'E6voi\OYIKTjS 'ETOlpfioS, IV (1892), p. 48,

II.25-34· 12 Ch. Du Cange, Familiae Augustae By. zantinae (Paris, 1680). p. 260, lists as the daughter of N. Cantacuzenus and Theodora, and so as the sister of the Emperor John VI Cantacuzene: "N. CANTACUZENA, uxor CONSTANTINI A CROPOLITAE,MagniLogolhetae, filii Georgii Acropolitae Magni perinde Logothetae ... ". So also I. C. Filitti, Notice sur les Cantacuzene du Xle au XVIle siecles (Bucharest, 1936), p. 5; A. Th. Papadopulos, Versuch einer Genealogie der Palaiologen (Munich, 1938), no. 26, p. 17. But see Pachymeres, I (Bonn), pp. 495, line 14496, line 4: TOCho ~uvtl3ll Kal aAi\OIS lTAefaT01S, ~uIlI3EI3i}Kel S~ Kat Koova-raVTI \/Cf' T~ 'AKPOlToi\iTTJ Kol T~ 9fOSWPCf' MOU[CU,WV1, tilv TOV ~ev Trapa TOV 1T
~Xp&ro.

The "Cantacuzena" in question cannot in any case be the sister of the future Emperor John VI. She must belong to the previous generation. On Theodore Mouzalon, her husband, who died in 1294, see V. Laurent, in Dictionnaire dt theologie catholique, X, 2, pp. 2581-4, and in Echos d'OY;ent, XXV ('926). pp. 3.8, 3'9; J. Verpeaux, "Notes chronologiques sur les livres II et III du de Andronico Palaeologo de Georges Pachymere," Revue des etudes byzan-

It is possible that Maria was an other-

ographical information is which Constantine prOVided y 1 brate the restoration of the composed too~e t~e Anastasis in Constantimonas~erihis monastery, reputed to have noplefirst built by Constanti~e and He~ena been re aired over the centunes by vanous and P h d fallen into a state of almost emperors, ~ during the "Italian" occupampiete rum C? of Constantinople between the years tIon and I26!. While Constantine Akropo~ 1.204 was still a child his father had underhtes n to reconstruct the church; and Co~

F~rthe~ prto~~Pspeech

take.

h'

251

wise unknown daughter of the John Tornikes, Dux of the Thrakesion Theme in 1258 and later sebastok,ator, to whom George Akropolites addressed a let ter.16 The more celebrated scbastokralor, Constantine Tornikes,

If as "the first-born of hIS

stantt~e Im~~ f;lt

it his duty to contribute father s sons, .' and to cooperate in thIS pIOUS work, even though his father had spent a great part of his expected inheritance upon It. He became in effect the kUtor, or founder, of the m~~as tery which, at the time when he was wntmg, had been rebuilt around the church. ~h~n his wife died he laid her body t.o rest wlthm

its walls; and the oratory dedIcated to St. Lazaros was erected at hiS exp~nse. ThIS interesting document concludes WIth a for~ of typikon of the monastery of the AnastaS!S in which it is prescribed, among other

regulations, that on the fifth day of the week the name of St. Lazaros should be commemorated; and that on the seventh

and last day of the week prayers should be offered for Constantine's late mother Eudokla, for himself, and for his wife Maria. Constantine's wife may therefore be designated as Maria Komnene Tornikina: and his mot~e~~

the wife of George Akropohtes, as Eudok!a. tines, XVII ('959). pp .• 68-70; id., Niciphore Choumnos homme d'etat et humaniste byzantm (Paris, 1959), pp. 35-40; 1. Sevcenko,. Etudes.~ur la poUmique entre Thlodore JlIUtochtle et NtcepAore Choumnos (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, Subsidia, 111 [Brussels, 1962]), pp. 7, note I; 147, note 5; 148; 159-60 . 11 A6yOS &c., ed. by H. Delehaye, A nalecta Bollandiana, LI ('933), pp. 279-8 4' 1& Ibid., p. 282. The history of the monastery of the Anastasis or Resurrection, which cannot apparently be traced further back than the twelfth century, is given by R.. J anin, geogt'aphie eccUsiastique de l' Emp'tre byzantln, I. Hi Les eglises et les monasteres (Paris, 1953). pp. 24-6. See also the title page of Cod. Vat. gr. 163 of the History of George Akropolites, ed. by A. Heisenberg, I, pp. vi and 3. The monastery of the Theometor on Mount Galesion, founded by St. Lazaros in the eleventh century. was

l:a

prefect of the City in Constantinople in 1264 and governor of Thessalonike until 1267, 15 known to have had two daughters. The first married the Despot John Palaiologos, brother of the Emperor Michael VIII. The second married John Doukas, son of the Despot Michael II of Epiros, and is described as "Tornikina Komnene Raoul(aina)" in an epitaph which Manuel Philes composed on the death of her daughter Helena." The parentage of Constantine's. wife remains to be determined, but the literary testimony for her name and lineage is united with the monastery of the Anastasis. by chrysobull of Andronikos II (drafted ~Y Nike· pharos Choumnos): text in J. F. BOlssonade, Anecdota Graeca, II (Paris, 1830), pp .. 77-84; F. Miklosich and J. MUller, Acta et DJPlomalG Graeca Medii Aevi (Vienna. 1860-<)0), V, pp. 2 6 4-7; cf. F. Dolger, Regesten, IV,. no. 208 5. There was a monastery of the Saviour called TOU 'AKPOlToi\ITOU in Mesembria; the doc~ments establishing and confirming its patri~ status are in Miklosich and Muller, Acla et Dlplo· mata, I, pp. 502-3 (dated April '369); 1,1, pp. 37, 15 2-3; A. Papadopoulos-~erameus. Av6NN:r.a 'lfpoaoi\u~l1TIKTjs ITaxUOi\OY'~' I (St. Petersburg, 189 1 ). pp. 470-1 (prostagma of 1379, wrongly attributed to John VI Cantacuzene). ~f..P. MutafCiev, "Km istorijata na MesemvrlJsklt~ Monastiri" Sbornik v lest' Ha V. N. ZltJttIrS~1 (Softa '9'25) pp .• 67-74; r. Velkov, "La has.lique de la ~er a Mesemvrie," L'A,t by..""'" chez les Slaves. Les Balkans (= O,ie"'~t ByzatICI. IV [PariS, '930 ]), p. 77MikI 'ch and Hi For John Tornikes, see 051 Muller, Acta et Diplomata, IV, pp. 73-4: Akropolites, ed. by Heisenberg, 11, pp. xx and 67""9· Cf. F. Dolger, "Chronologisches und ~po- graphisches zur byzantinischen Geschi~te ~ 13. Jahrhunderts," Byzantiniscne ZIUsC,,"/,. XXVII ('927), p. 309 and note 6. . 18 For Constantine Tomlkes, see Nikephoros Gregoras, I (Bonn),p. 79; pachymeres.' I (Bonn), pp. '08, 226, 243, 485, 487; F. Dolger, A.NS tUn Schatzkamme,n des H~iligen Bnc,s (Mumcb. '948), N. 34; Act" tk Zogra/>hou, eel. b~. Regel. E. Kurtz, B. Korablev, VuanUJs/nJ Vr,mennik, XIII, Prilo:lenie (1907). nos .. VI and VII, pp. .fr.8, '9-24. Manuel Philea, Carmina, eel. by E. Miller, I (Paris, 1855), LXXIX, p. 253, I. 15 f .; cf. no. CCU, J?P'J4a-:; Ca.....ina in.dita, eel. by Ao. MartinI ( &pi , 1900), no. 91, pp, 128-30 .

v.::

DB:

! i I

XI

XI CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES

252 handsomely confirmed by an icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria, fonnerly in the TroiceSergiev Lavra and now in the Tretjakov Gallery in Moscow,u In the lower corners of the intricately carved silver cover and frame surrounding this picture of the Virgin and Child are to be seen the figures of the donors (figs. I, 2, 3). On the left, bearded and wearing the headgear and robes of his offtce, stands: " SOVAOS TOV X(pICTr)OV K",vCTravTivos ">AKp07fOA!T~S. On the right stands: Mapla Ko~~vt1 TOpvlKlva ti 'AKpolTOAI'TlUao.

N. Kondakov, who first published reproductions of these portraits in 1906, comment-

ed on the discrepancy between the statement of Ch. Du Cange that Constantine Akropolites married a "Cantacuzena" and the evident fact that the portrait of Constantine's wife on this icon bears the names Maria Komnene

Tomikina. He was led to venture the opinion that Du Cange had erred, but with the literary and historical evidence available to him. he was unable to press the matter further and contented himself with a brief lament on the difficulty of disentangling the ratt;tifications of late Byzantine genealogies. It 15 now clear, however, that his opinion was right and that the donors here portrayed are Constantine Akropolites and his wife Maria. The occasion of their donation remains open to conjecture.IS In his second Testament Constantine speaks of his children and grandchildren in 17 V. I. Antonova and N. E. Mneva, Katalog dt'evnerusskoj livoPisi XI--nalala XVIII veka

(Gosudarstvennaja Tretjakovskaja Gallereja) 11 (Moscow, 1963), no. 221, pp. 262-3 and pI. '72. JI ~. P. Kondakov, I zobyaJenija Russkoj K nja115ko) Sem'i v miniatjurach XI ueka (St. Petersburg, 1906~, pp. 80-4, pIs. 10 and I I (details of the portr~lts of Constantine and Maria); id., Ikonografi)a Bogomateri, H (Petrograd, 19 15), pp. 201-3 and pI. 93. Icons with silver Covers and

frames of strikingly similar design exist in the of Vatopedi on Mount Athos. See

mon~tery

F. Dolger, Monchsland Athos (Munich, 1945), DOS. 78 and 79, pp. 146-7, 148-9 (the latter bears the name. of Andronikos [H] Palaiologos). Cf. also the s~verwork on an icon of the Theotokos

Hodegetrla formerly belonging to the monastery of the Panagia of Soumela near Trebizond. Chrysanthos, MetropOlitan of Trebizond 'H >£IQ().~cria T po:m;wilvros (= 'ApXeio. TT6~ IV V (1936], pp. 48.-2 and pIs. 68, 69. '

the plu~al,I9 His unnamed SOn died prema_ turely In I295. His grandchildren t~erefore have been the offspring eith:U~! hIS first daughter (Theodora 1), who was the wIfe of Alexios Philanthropenos, or of his se~o~d daughter, who married a son of the reIgmng Emperor of Trebizond. In his Sermon on the Blessed ~artyr Theodosia, Constantine re~ou~t~ a mlfa.c1e .brought about by the Saint s In~erventlOn In the case of one of his own. relatIves. The relatil1e is defined as "my son-tn-Iaw of noble and illustrious (descent), a nephew of the present pious Emperor [Andronikos I1] and a son of the [present] legItI~ate successor to the Empire of KOlchis [Treblzond] through his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents; for the daughter of the late Emperor [Michael VIII] was Jomed to hIm in matrimony and became the mother of this (my son-in-law)."" Eudokia, the third daughter of the Emperor Michael VIII, is known to have marr!ed J o~n II Komnenos, Emperor of Treblzond, In I282. Constantine's father George Akropolites, had some interest in th~ affair, having been sent on a fruitless mission to Trebizond by Michael VIII in 128I to try to mak~ arrang~ments for the wedding. ~ohn II reIgned WIth some brief interruptIOns from I~80 until his death on I6 August I297· Eudokla went home to Constantinople as a widow in June 1298, but returned to Trebizond in I30I and died there in December of the following year. She had two sons: Alexios, who was born in 1283 and succeeded his father as Emperor of Trebizond and M~chael, who was born about I285 (he is s";ld to have been fifty-six years old in I341). EIther of these could be correctly described as "a n~phew of the present pious Emperor" Andromkos II; and by terms of their deceased father's will Andronikos became their guardian in I297. It was his hope, for personal 19 tE'Ttpa IhxEltiK1'l. ed. by M. Treu, ae~'Tiov &c., IV (.892). p. 50. 20 Aoyo.s ElS"Tf)1.' aylav 6alolJ6:p'TVpa eeo5oaiav. ed. by Mlgne, Patrologia Graeca, CXL, cols.

9~5 D~28,A:

ra"~pb,

!"o,

trrl Ovycrrpl 'riO.

EV"yEvoov OIJ1'O') Kal 11'epl~).trrroov, aSe).cplSoUs yap 'ToO v~v eVae~oOs f]lJoov ~aalkVo\1'TOS, 11'cx1S 51; 'TOU Tilv 'T'lS Ko)'Xl5os apXtlv Et< TE 'lTaripoov, 11'O:mrCl)V Kal Em1TCX1T1TOOV l().11pooaalJtvou· 'TOVTct> yap f] 'TOU

1fpo~e~CXO'I1.evl"TrO' Ovyem,p yapov .6"", 011.",,&1-

aa, I.UII'l'TlP 'TOuSe yeyiv11'Tal.

and political reasons, that the young Alexios iI of Trebizond wo~ld m~rry Elfene, the second daughter of ~lS ~11lmster Nlkephoros Choumnos. But Alexlos Jumped the gun and deeply offended his uncle by elopmg WIth a lady of his own choice, a GeorgIan. prmcess, one of the daughters of Beka J aqeb, ruler of Samtzkhe. His younger brother Mlchael was about thirteen or fourteen years ol~ when he went to Constantinople with hIS mother Eudokia in 1298.21 Unfortunately, the Byzantine historians neglect to. record the event of his marriage, but the CIrCUmstances strongly suggest that it was he who became the son-in-law of Constantme Akropohtes. His only brother had already taken a wife; and it would be quite in keeping with the elaborate dynastic and marital schemes of Andronikos 11 that, having failed to marry off the daughter of one of his ministers to the Emperor of Trebizond, he should encourage or arrange the marriage of the daughter of his Grand Logothete to that Emperor's brother. Ba It is not clear whether Michael went hack to Trebizond with his mother in 1301; but forty years later he was certainly living in Constantinople. For when civil war broke out 11 Gregoras, I. pp. 148-9, 202-3; Pachymeres, I (Bonn), pp. 5I9-24; II, pp. 27O-I, 287-<)' J. Verpeaux, "Notes prosopographiques sur la famille Choumnos," Byzantinoslavica, XX

(1959). p. 260; on the somewhat strained relationship between Constantine and Nikephoros Cboumnos, see id., Niciphore Choumnos, pp. 40-1. Michael Panaretos, Chronicle, ed. by Sp. Lambras, Neos Hellenomnenon, IV (1907), pp. 267-9; ed. by O. Lampsides, M1xani\ 'ToO ncxvaphou nEp\ 'fWI.' MeyaA.ool.' KOIJIlf\VWI.', 'ApXeiov nO\1'TOU XXII (1958) (printed separately as TToV'TlKal 'EpEv,al, no. 2 [Athens, I958], pp. 62-3)· J. P. Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt (MuniCh, 1827). pp. 147-8, 158-9; W. Miller, Trebizond: the Last Greek Empire (London, I926), pp. 27-33. For Beka Jaqeli (called "Pekai" by Michael Panaretos), ruler of Samtzkhe and father-in-law also of the Il-Khan Dmitri II of Tiflis (1299-1301), see W. E. D. AlIen, A History oj the Georgian People (London, 1932), pp. II9, 120, 122 and note 2; N. A. BerdzeniSvili and others, Istorija Gruzii, I (Tiflis, I946), p. 283. III It would be pleasant to suppose, though perhaps impossible to prove, that the icon of the Hode~etria now in Moscow was a gift of Constan~ne Akropolites and Maria to John 11 of Treb~ond, on the occasion of their daughter's marriage to his son.

253

in Trebizond following the death of the Emperor Basil in April I340, John Cantacuzene, in his capacity as regent for the young John V Palaiologos in Constantinople, inspired a not very happy attempt to place Michael on his father's throne. The attempt was countered by the Dowager Empress Anne of Savoy, who put up Michae!'. son John as a rival candidate for the Empire of Tr~bizond. Neither succeeded in maintaining his position, however, and Michael, the son of John 11 and Eudokia Palaiologina, and the son-in-law of Constantine Akropolites, is last heard of in I35I, living, as he had lived most of his life, in exile in Constantinople.In conclusion, it can be stated that Constantine Akropolites was the elder son of George Akropolites, Grand Logothete, and Eudokia, and the brother of Me1chisedek Akropolites the monk. He married Maria Komnene Tomikina, who took from him the name Akropolitissa, and had three children: a son who died in childhood in I295, and two daughters, one of whom (probably the one called Theodora) married Alexios PhilanthIopenos the pinkernis in 1295, while the other married Michael, son of the Emperor John 11 Komnenos of TIebizond." He was still Grand Logothete in I32I, but he died in or before I324, for in May-August of that year, in a document concerning the Monastery of the Anastasis of which he was the founder, he is referred to as deceased. l i lI8 Michael Panaretos, ed. by Lambros. pp. 276-7; ed. by Lampsides, pp. 68-<). John Lazaropoulos, ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. Sbornik I stolnikov po istOt'ii Tt'apuundsko; Imperii (St. Petersburg, I897), pp. '34-6· FaIlmerayer, op. cit., pp. 183--91; Miller, ap. cil., pp. 49-56. Michael receives no mention in the ful-

some honors list of members of the Komnenos family included in the Epitaph on his brother Alexios 11 (died 1330), composed by Constantine Loukites (ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. 'Avl.:J.Aacra tlepoaoAUlll1'IKTlS I'T<X)(VOAOylas. I. pp. 42I-<)).

ll40 One would like to know more about the Maria Doukaina Akropolitissa who made over some of her property at Phanari to Maria Palaiologina, Despoina of the Mongols, before 1351. See document of October 1351 in Miklosich and Muller, Acta et Diplomata, I, pp. 312-17. lfi Miklosich and Muller, Acta ,t DiplOlJltJItJ. I, pp. 102-4: a report of the hieromona.chos Nikandros to the synod in Constantinople about the gifttohim three years earlierof someland near the Anastasis Monastery from the then Abbot

XI

XI CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES

254 THE FAMILY OF CONSTANTINE AKROPOLlTES

Om'

George Akropolites (1217-1282) m. Eudokia

Constantine Akropolites (died ca. 1324) m. Maria Komnene Tornikina Akropolitissa

Me1chisedek monk

I Theodora (Akropolitissa)

m. Alexios Philanthropenos {>ink....is (died ca. 1335-1340)

daughter m. Michael son of John 11 Komnenos and Eudokia of Trebizond

THE LITERARY WORKS OF CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES

Following is a list of the writings of Constantine Akropolites, published and unpublished, known to the present writer, who does not claim it to be exhaustive. Immediately below are the abbreviations that have been used:

BHG8=BibliolhscaHagiographicaCraeca,

3l"d ed. by F. Halkin (Subsidia Hagiographica Graeca, 8a [Brussels, 1957)). Delehaye = H. Delehaye, "Constantini Acropolitae Hagiographi Byzantini epistularum manipulus," A naleela Bollandiana, LI (I933), pp. 263-84. Ehrhard = A. Ehrhard, tlb.,U.f...."C IIfUi Beatand d., HagiograPhischM! "nd HomileIischen Literatu, der griechischM! Kirch., I. DU tlb.,lief.,..,.g, III (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der a1tchristlichen IJteratur, 52, I, 11 [Leipzig, 1943, 1952)).

Hierosol. Bibl. = A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'lepoooAvlIlTlkT) BI/lAloS1\KT], I-V (St. Petersburg, ISgI-19I5). lIIakarios Tarchaniotes, ,IIl1\aEl "'" TOil m\TOPDS ..mtn)s, TOil ~ Myoetrov IKElvov. Nikandros bad built a chapel and some kellia on this land which the said Grand Logothete, for reasons belt bown to himself, had ordered to be de-

moIiahed.

1 SOn (died 1295)

I. The Published Works

A. Encomia of Saints Athanasios of Atramyttion. Ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Varia Cra",. Sa.,a (St. Petersburg, 1909), pp. 141-7; Ph. Photopoulos, Nta IIWV, XII (I9I2), pp. 665--72. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, 16; BHGI, no. 192. Barbaros. Ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'AIIlicAEl("I"Q 'IEpoao1.vIIITIKijslTaxvo1.oyias. I (St. Petersburg, 1891). pp. 405-20. Cf. Hi.,osol. Bibl.• I. p. 122. 17; BHG3, no. 220. Constantine and Helena. Ed. by C. Simonides. 'Op60S6~",v 'ID1\Vc.>v 6eoAOYIIOlI ypo<pal Ttaaapes (London. 1853), pp. 1-37; extracts in M. Gedeon. 'EKKA'1aIClaT1tdj 'AA1\6ela. XXII (1902), pp. 221-3. 230-3. Cf. Hi.,osol. Bibl., I, p. 121. 22; Ehrhard. pp. 6o, 62. 64. 92. 336. 457. 826. 878; BHGI, no. 368. Demetrios. with two Letters to the Thessalonians. Ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. 'AvaAeKTa 'IEpoao1.vIIITIKijS lTaXVOAoyfas. I, pp. 160-215; et. pp. 492-3· Cf. BHGI, nos. 540-2. Eudokimos. Ed. by C. Loparev, Izveslija

1USskago archeologiceakago Instiluta • Konstantinopok, XIII (1908). pp. 199219; and separately os tit•• so. Evdohitna (Sofia, IgoB), pp. 48-68. Cf. Ehrhard,

BRG'. no. 606; Hi.,osol. Bibl., I,

p...... P 122, IS· :mos. Ed. by M. Koikylides. ~I Trapa Ger~. 'lopSc'xV'1V AaUPOI KaAall"'vos Kal Itylou rEpaai~ou (Jerusalem. 1~02). pp. 27-39. Cf. Delehaye. p. 266. 17. BHGI, no. 696. John of Damascus. Acta Sanctorum: ..May. ~I (Paris and Rome, 1866). pp. VlU-XXXV.; Migne. PG. CXL. cols. 812-85. Cl. Hierosol. Bibl., I. p. 122. 21; Ehrhard. p. 476; BHGI, no. 885· Leontios. Acta Sanctoru",. June. IV (1867), pp. 463-7. Cf. Delehaye. p. 265. 8; BRG'. no. 987. Tbeodore Tiron. Acta Sanctor"m, November. IV (Brussels. 1925). pp. 72-6. Cl. Delehaye. p. 265. 6; Ehrhard, p. 822; BHG'. no. 1765n. Theodosia of Constantinople. Acta Sancto"'... May, VII (1866). pp. 67-82; Migne, PG. CXL. cols. 893-936. Cf. Ehrhard. pp. 292. 336. 967; BHGI. no. 1774. Thomais of Lesbos. Acta Sanelor".... November. IV (I925). pp. 242-6. Cf. Delehaye. p. 265. 9; BHGI. no. 2457·

B. Other wo,ks Speech on the dedication of the restored church of the Anostosis. Ed. by Delehaye. AOrcs EIS -n'lv avaKalVlalV TOU vacu 1iis TOU KVplov fJlI6iv 'AvaaTc'xaEc.>S 6ta&"TlK6s. op. cit.. Appendix. pp. 279-84. Cf. BHGI. App. 11. no. 809g. Antiphon to the Theotokos. Ed. by M. Treu. Nlos K&>61~ T6iV fpy",v TOU lJEYa1.ou Aoy06hov K"'VaTaVTI vov TOU 'AKP01rOAlTOV, &1.Tlov Tijs 'laTOPlKijS KOI 'E6yoAoYIKijS 'ETalplas TijS 'EAAc'x6CS. IV (I892). pp. 42-4. Testaments. Ed. by M. Treu, .ll.la81\KT] TOij llE)'c'xAov l.oy06hov K"'VaTaVTlvov TOU 'AKpOTrOAiTOV. ibid .• pp. 45-9; 'ETtpa llla61\K'1. ibid., pp. 49-50. Homiletics. Ed. by Ph. Photopoulos. ' Ava.60TQ (K"'VaTaVTivov TOU 'AKPOTro1.lTOV), Nta IIW •• XI (19Il). pp. 862-9: IliyKplalS ~1.e'1I.lOO\'JV'1S Kal V'lan1as (pp. 863-4); SanS' El KaT' apm'!v /lIe.>Ttov (pp. 864-9); ibid.• XII (I912), pp. 278-81: "EKcppaalS Tijs KaTa -n'lv Meya1.'1. KVPtaKTtv (TOU nc'xaxa) TEAETijS.

255

Fables. Ed. by M. Treu. Kc.wonavrl-. , AKparroAlTov Mii80I, AU.Tiov etc., IIJ (I891), pp. 445-50. Letters. Ed. by M. Treu. AU.TIov etc., III (1891). pp. 450-1 (one letter); id., "EiD Kritiker des Timarion." By.antiflieche Z.'tschrijt, I (ISg2), pp. 361--5 (one letter); Delehaye. op. cit., pp. 272-8 (nineteen letters).

II. The UnpUblished works A. Encomia of Saints Epicharis. Cf. Delehaye. p. 26g, 37; BHGI, no. 2124. Euphrosyne. Cf. Delehaye, p. 266, la; BHGI, no. 626m. Euplos. Cf. Delehaye, p. a6s, 5; BHGI, DO. 630 P· Floros and Lauros. Cf. Delehaye, p. 069, 33; BHGI. no. 666m. George. Cf. K. Krumbacher, D., heilig.

G.org in d., griecll'schen tlb.,lief.,..,." ed. by A. Ehrhard, Abhandlungen tlIr k6nigl. bay.,. Akad. der W'ss""""",,jIen, XXV. 3 (Munich. 19I1), pp. 227-31; Delehaye. pp. 270-1; Ehrhard, pp. 92. 336. 826; BHGI, no. 684a. John the Theologian. Cf. A. Papadopou1osKerarneus, Mavpoyop5
H I.

XI XI 256 Panteleimon. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 21; BRG', no.I4 I8b. Paraskeve. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, 14; Delehaye, p. 270; BRG', no. I420X. Photios and Aniketos. Ct. Delehaye, p. 268,32; BRG', no. 15441. PIokopios. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 20; BRG', no. 1582C.

Saropson. Ct. Delehaye, p. 267, 19; BRG', nO. I6I5d. Theodotos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 265, 3; BRG', no.I783m. Zotikos. ct. Delehaye, p. 264, I; BRG', no. 2480. B. Other works

Letters. The Codex Ambrosianus R. 81 Sup., fo1s. 27o-333v, contains 194 letters of Constantine Akropolites, of which nine-

teen are edited by Delehaye. pp. 272-8; cf. p. 269, 34. Letter no. 184 (fol. 33fV) refers to an encomium of the Emperor (Andronikos II) which Constantine composed on some festive occasion. Account of a miracle wrought by the icon of Christ called the Antiphonetes. Ct.

Delehaye, pp. 265-6, Io-I!; BRG', App. Il, no. 797t. Chronicle. The Codex Vindobonensis Hist. Graee. 99, fo1s. 15L 3Sr, contains a Chronicle of Roman and Byzantine affairs from Aeneas to A.D. 1260 (or 1261), with notes relating to fourteenthcentury emperors added by a later hand. It is entitled: TOU 6:KP01TOAiTOV KVPOU Kat ~ey6Aou hoyo6'TOU. rnlTo~1j apxfis

TOOV POOlJaiwv e-rnKpOTeias KeD< Tivos l(Q'TcXyOvrCll Kcxt lTWS pWlJaiol hl,;Orjaav. The beginning and four extracts from this work are printed with a description of the manuscript by A. Heinrich, Die Chronik des ] ohannes Sikeliota der W iener H ofbibliothek. Jahresberichtdes K. K. ersten Staats·Gymnasiums ;11 Graz (Graz, 1892), pp. 10-15. This should pIobably be ascribed to Constantine Akropolites, though, as Reinrich, loco cit., p. 10, remarks, the pedantic and unliterary nature of the composition reflects little credit on its author. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Gesckichte der byzantini-

schen L£tteratu,r, p. 3~8 ; GeorgiiAcropolita, Opera, ed. by A. ReISenberg, II (Leipzig, 1903). p. XXIV; H. Hunger, Katalog d" griechischen H andschnjtcn der osterrei. chischen Nationalbibliothek. I (Vienna 1961 ). Codices Historici, 99, 2, p. I07.2~ Rhetorical and minor works. Cf. Delehaye,

pp. 264, 2; 265, 7; 267, 22, 23; 268, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31; Hierosol. Bibl. 1, pp. 120-1,500.

In. Letters addressed to Constantine Akropolites The following were among Constantine's correspondents: Gregory of Cyprus. Four letters, ed. by S. Eustratiades, 'EKKAllcrtQ0"T1KOS
(Ig08), nos. 2, 38, 39; V (1910), no. I6g. et. \V. Lamecre, La tradition manuscrite

de la correspondance de Grigoire de Chypre, patriarche d, Constantinople (I283-I289) (Brussels-Rome, Ig37), nos. 2, 38, 39, 183. Nikephoros Choumnos. Four letters, ed. by J. F. Boissonade, Anecdota Nova (Paris, 1844), nos. 79. 80, 81, 83, pp. 97-IOO, 103-5. TheodoIe Ryrtakenos. One letter, ed. by F. J. G. La Porte-du Theil, Notices ,t extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, 1800), no. 46, p. 13. Manuel Moschopoulos. One letter, unpublished, in Cod. Coislin. 341, fols. 305--6. Cf. R. Devreesse, Bibliotheque Nationale. Dipartement des manuscrits. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs, IT. Le Fonds Coislin (Paris, 1945), pp. 325-6; Krumbacher, op. cit., pp. 546-1. 26 A. Heisenberg, loco cit., describes the Chronicle as continuing up to the year A.D. 1323, but the last event dated in the manuscript (fol. 35 r) is the recapture of Constantinople by Michael VIII in July 6768 (which should read 6769 = 126r), and in the notes added by a later hand the last date recorded is 6849 (= 1341), the year of the death of Andronikos II Palaiologos. I am greatly indebted to Professor 1. Sevcenko for much helpful advice in the preparation of this note and more particularly for lending me photographs of the relevant sections of Cod. Vindob. Hist, Graec. 99 and Cod. Ambros. H.

Br Sup.

1. Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Rodegetria

XI Xl

256 Panteleimon. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 21; BRG', no.I4I8b. Paraskeve. Cf. Hi",osol. BiM., I, p. 122, 14; Delehaye, p. 270; BRG', no. I420X. Photios and Aniketos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 268, 32; BRG', no. I544f. Prokopios. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 20; BRG', no.1582C.

Sampson. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 19; BRG', no.I6I5d. Theodotos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 265, 3; BRG', no.I783m. Zotikos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 264, I; BRG', no.

schen LiU",atu" p. 388; Geo,giiAcroPolita, Opera, ed. by A. Reisenberg, II (Leipzige 1903), p. xxiv; R. Runger, Katalog der griechischen H andschrijten der iisterrei_ chiscken Nationalbibliothek, I (Vienna,

Ig6I), Codices Historici, 99.

p.

107.26

pp. 264, 2; 265, 7; 267, 22,23; 268, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31; Hie,osol. Bibl. I, pp. 120-1,500.

Ill. Letters addressed to Constantine Akropolites

2480.

The following were among Constantine's correspondents:

B. Ou... works

Letters. The Codex Ambrosianus R. 81 Sup., fols. 270-333", contains 194 letters of Constantine Akropolites. of which

nine~

teen are edited by Delehaye, pp. 272-8; cf. p. 269, 34. Letter no. 184 (fol. 331") refers to an encomium of the Emperor (Andronikos 11) which Constantine composed on some festive occasion. Account of a miracle wrought by the icon of Christ called the Antiphonetes. Cf. Delehaye, pp. 265-6, Io-I!; BRG', App. 11, no. 797f. Chronicle. The Codex Vindobonensis Rist. Graec. 99, fols. 15'-35', contains a Chronicle of Roman and Byzantine affairs from Aeneas to A.D. 1260 (or 1261), with notes relating to fourteenthcentury emperors added by a later hand. It is entitled: TOU OJ
1«11 IlEYcXAov Aoyo6tTov.

2,

Rhetorical and minor works. CL Delehaye,

E1T1TO~';

apxiis

-re;;. P"'lICli",. E1TlKPOTEfas KOJ< Tiros 1«1T&yOllT
Gregory of Cyprus. Four letters, ed. by S. Eustratiades, 'EKKA1l0IQCTrIKOs Cj)apos, I (1908), nos. 2, 38, 39; V (1910), no. 169. Cf. W. Lameere, La tradit£on manuscrite de la correspondance de Gregoire de Ckypre, pat,ia,che de Constantinople (I283-zz89) (Brussels-Rome, 1937), nos. 2, 38, 39, 183. Nikephoros Choumnos. Four letters, ed. by J. F. Boissonade, Anecaota Nova (Paris, 1844), nos. 79, 80, 81, 83, pp. 97-100, 103-5. Theodore Ryrtakenos. One letter, od. by F. J. G. La Porte-du Theil, Notices et extra its des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, 1800), no. 46, p. 13. Manuel Moschopoulos. One letter, unpublished, in Cod. Coislin. 341, fols. 305-6. Cf. R. Devreesse, Bibliothique Nationale. Departement des manuscrits. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs, 11. Le Fonds Coislin (Paris, 1945), pp. 325-6; Krumbacher, .p. cit., pp. 546-].

2.. A. Heisenberg, loco cit .. describes the Chron~ icle as continuing up to the year A.D. 1323. but the last event dated in the manuscript (fol. 3Sr ) is the recapture of Constantinople by Michael VIII in July 6768 (which should read 6769 = 1261), and in the notes added by a later hand the last date recorded is 6849 (= 1341). the year of the death of Andronikos II Palaiologos. I am greatly indebted to Professor I. Seveenko for much helpful advice in the preparation of this note and more particularly for lending me photographs of the relevant sections of Cod. Vindob. Hist. Graec. 99 and Cod. Ambros. H. 81 Sup.

1. Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Rodegetria

XI

XII

PHILADELPHIA AND THE TAGARIS FAMILY

The Byzantine city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor was one of the first to come under attack from the Turks in the fourteenth century, but it was the very last to surrender. Its long history of resistance illustrates something of the dilemma of the Byzantine Empire in its declining years. In 1304 it was rescued from the Turkish flood by the Catalan Company of mercenaries engaged, with such otherwise disastrous consequences, by the Emperor Andronikos n. In 1390 it finally fell to the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid, in whose army, fighting as his vassals, were the two Byzantine Emperors, Manuel n and John VII. In the intervening years, however, Philadelphia had been defended by a number of eminent generals of such great Byzantine families as Philanthropenos and Tarchaneiotes. Even its metropolitan bishop, Theoleptos, noted for his spirituality rather than his military experience, had taken a personal hand in its defence. 1 But there was one Byzantine family of lesser distinction whose fortunes appear to have been connected with Philadelphia - the family of Tagaris. The most celebrated member of this somewhat obscure family was a monk called Paul who flourished in the second half of the fourteenh century. Paul Tagaris, who assumed the name of Palaiologos, achieved notoriety by the enormity of his successful hypocrisies. In the east he masqueraded for a time as the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. When his imposture was discovered he fled to Italy, where he renounced his Orthodox faith and joined the Roman Church. In 1380 Pope Urban VI was hoodwinked into appointing him as Latin or Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople and apostolic legate to the East. As such, in 1385, he crowned lames I of Lusignan as King of Cyprus. But on his return to Rome he was anested for 2.

Detail of Lower Left Corner of Frame. Constantine Akropolites

3.

Detail of Lower Right Corner of Frame. Maria Komnene Tornikina AkropoHtissa

Moscow. Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria

For the defence of Philadelphia by Tbeoleptos see Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, vii, 3: Vo!. I, p. 221 (ed. L. Schopen, Bonn, 1829); and the Funeral Oration on Thealepto. composed by Nikephoros Cboumnos, ed. 1. F. Boissonade, A""cdotG C _ V (Pari., 1883), especially pp. 229-234. On Tbeolepto. in general see H. G. Beak, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich. 1949), pp. 698-694.

1

XII

XII

false pretences and put in prison. As soon as he was set free in 1389 Paul made his way to Avignon, to the court of the rival pope, Clement VII, who received him sympathetically as a victim who had suffered at the hands of the anti-pope in Rome. He spent several years in France, being entertained by King Charles VI and by the monks of the Abbey of St. Denys. But at the end of his life Paul's conscience began to trouble him. He went to Constantinople in 1394, abjured the heresies of the Catholic faith, and made a public confession of all his sins and deceptions before the Patriarch Antonios IV and his synod. 2 Paul Tagaris was probably a son of the first known member of his family in the fourteenth century, Manuel Tagaris. In his memoirs John Cantacuzene describes Manuel Tagaris as being of humble and undistinguished antecedents, but of senatorial rank and with a reputation for courage and audacity in battle. 3 The description fits well with Paul's own account of his father as a soldier well known for his bravery and for his many victories over the enemies of the Romans. The French monk of St. Denys, who recorded Paul's visit to his abbey in Paris, likewise comments on the lowly origins of the Tagaris family. 4 It was at Philadelphia that Manuel Tagaris demonstrated his prowess in combat against the Turks some time before 1321. The emperor, Andronikos II, who was hard put to it to find capable officers at the time, rewarded him by promoting him to the rank of megas stratopedarches; he • On Paul Tagaris see especially R. J. Loenertz, "Cardinale Morosini et Paul Paleologue Tagaris, patriarch.., et Antoine Ballester, vicair. du pape, dans le patriarcat de Constantinople (1332-34 et 1380-87)," Revue des Etudes Byzantines, XXIV (1966) ( = M~langes Venance Grumel, I), 224-256. Cl. also P. Wirth, "Ein bisher unbekannter lateinischer Patriarch von Konstantinopel," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, LIV (1961), 88-90; B. Krekic, "Deux notes concemant le patriarcat latin de Constantinople au XIV, sit;)cle," Revue de. Etudes Byzantine., XX (1962), 202-209; P. Wirth, "Nochmals: Ein baher unbekannter lateinischer Patriarch von Konstantinopel," Ostkirchliche Studien, XII (1963), 176-179.

I 0 ave Manuel one of his nieces in marriage. Her name was Theodora She was a daughter of Eirene Palaiologina, a sister of Androniko s n, and the Bulgarian tsar John Asen Ill. 5 Theodora was the second wife of Manuel Tagaris. He had earlier been married to a lady known only by her surnames of Doukaina Monomachina. This information derives from a patriarchal dispensation, addressed to the metropolitan of Philadelphia, concerning a grandson of the late megas stratopedarches (Manuel) Tagaris and his first wife Doukaina Monomachina. The grandson's own surname was Tarchaneiotes, which indicates that Manuel Tagaris had, by his first wife, a daughter who married into the Tarchaneiotes family. The dispensation clarified the legal position of the second wife of Tagaris, whom it names as Theodora Palaiologina Asenina. She was the stepmother of the mother of the said Tarchaneiotes; but she had acted as the godmother of his daughter, which raised a complicated point of canon law. Tarchaneiotes is described as being an oikeios of Emperor John (V); his wife was of the family of Laskaris. The document unfortunately does not bear the name of the patriarch who issued it, and it is dated only by the month May and the indiction 11, which, in the reign of John V, admits a choice between the years 1358, 1373, and 1388. But it illustrates in a small way how the Late Byzantine aristocracy perpetuated their species by intermarriage, and how parvenu families like that of Tagaris disgnised their own origins by marriage into the great houses such as Monomachos, Tarchaneiotes, or Laskaris. It is also not without interest that the document is addressed to the metropolitan of Philadelphia. 6 In the civil war between Andronikos Il and his grandson Andronikos III between the years 1321 and 1328, Manuel Tagaris evidently took the side of the senior emperor, to whom he was related and to whom he owed his

~:lai:logina Asenina.

a John Cantacuzenus, HistorUJe. i. 18: Vol. I, p. 91 (ed. L. Scbopen. Bono. 1828). linea 1-5.

, Cantacuzenus, Historiae, i, 18: Vol. I, p. 91. Cf. R. Guilland, "Le Stratop'darque et I. Grand Stratopedarque." Recherches sur les institutions by.antin... I (Berliner byzantini,che Arbeiten. 35, Berlin-Amsterdam, 1967), p. 507 (reprinted from By:antinische Zeitschrift. XLVI (1953». On Tbeodora Asenina see A. Th. Papadopulos, Versuch einer G....logie der Palaiologen (Munich, 1938), No. 44, p. 28.

Conf.ssio mOMchi Pauli Tagaris, in F. Miklosich and J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomala SacTa .1 profana, 11: A.ta Patrim.hatus COlllltantinopolitanae, 11 (Vienna, 1860), pp. 224-225; Chronique du roligieU% d. Saint-D.nys, contenant le rd".. d. Charles VI, de 1380 d 1422, ed. L. Bellaguot [Colleetion de documents in'dits sur I'bistoire de Fran.., Premiare ame. Histoire politiquel. 1 (paris. 1839), lib. cap. XUl (De quodam qui se finzil patriarcham Grecie), p. 637.

• Document in G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, lluvt"YI''' t61v 8o!Illv ""I tsp61V ""V6VIllV, V (Athen" 1855), pp. 138-140: •AalJAOU ""tptltPXQU, ".pl toO !y[ou ~""t[o""to\:_ Since the document refers to thr.. generations after Manuel Tagarls, ono of the two later po,sible dates, 1373 or 1388, s..ms preferable. On the significan.. of the tenn ol••to" see J. Verpeaox. "Les oikeioi: Notes d'histoire institutionelle et sociale:' Revue des Etude. By.antines, XXIII (1965). 89-99.

4

Graeca medii aeui

x.

10

u

[I £i

q

i!

•

XII

XII

poaition, In April 1321, when the young emperor contrived to escape from Constantinople to join his supporters in Thrace, Andronikos n ordered Manuel Tagaris in his capacity as megas stratopedarches to collect an arm and go in pursuit. Tagaris, however, freely gave it as his opinion, and suc~ ceeded in convincing the old emperor, that pursuit would be impracticable in the circumstances, 7 The next that we hear of Manuel is a few years later when he was back in Philadelphia as governor or kephale of the city. A note inscribed on a tenth-century manuscript of Job in the Vatican Library refers to one George, priest of Hagios Nikolaos near Philadelphia, in the year 1327. 8 Two of George's brothers had earlier been killed when the Turks attacked the fortress of Hagios Nikolaos. The people had endured a siege of one year and seven months, until they were rescued by "the pinkernes" who had been sent to relieve them. At that time Manuel Tagaris was governor of the city of Philadelphia. 9 The pinkernes is almost certainly Alexios Tarchaneiotes Philanthropenos, the famous Byzantine general who had fought with such success against the Turks in Asia Minor thirty years before, but who had been arrested for treason. Nikephoros Gregoras vividly records how Andronikos 11, now chronically short of experienced soldiers, released Philanthropenos from prison in 1324 and sent him, without either troops or money, to redeem his name by relieving the siege of Philadelphia. His repu. tation had lived on among the Turks; and the mere rumour of his approach was enough to send them into headlong flight. 1 0 Once again Philadelphia • Cautacuzenus.. Historiae, i, 18: Vol. I, pp. 90-93. Ursula V'. Boscb, Klliser Andronikos III PalaiolDgos: V"'such .iner DarsteUrmg d", bYZlUltinisch.n Gerchicht. in den /Ghren 1321·1341 (Amsterdam, 1965), p. 21. 8 R. Devreesse, Codic•• Vaticani Gra••i, 11 (Vatican City, 1937), No. 338, pp. 10.11. The note refers to the birth of George's daughter on 2 February 1327; but the otber must have occurred before that date.

evenlll

• Ibidem, p. 11:· nllbv ~. oP"lol'1ii toO lisou 6 IVIjUpv('1~ av6j&Gtt, n'ltp6...tcl ...., llavatGu ".l...t""~o~tG, ~••~ t'l It6 (A.. ) 'I,l.cx~.l.q>.I.., I'..VOYjA 0 ~ttycxp'l' t

taU

had been saved. But neither Gregoras nor the more nearly contemporary historian George Pachymeres reports that its governor at the time wat Manuel Tagaris. How long Manuel stayed at his post there is not known. But five years later he was back in Constantinople. For the last mention of hbn as megas stratopedarches seems to be in 1329, when he commanded a contingent in the army that Andronikos I1I and John Cantacuzene led against Orhan, the son of Osman, at Pelekanon in Bithynia. l1 The leader of the Turks who attacked Hagios Nikolaos near Philadelphia in 1324 is named as &A'ljoep. He is surely to be identified with the 'Alisuraa' of Pachymeres and the "Karmanos Alisourios" of Gregoras. 12 His Turkish name was Alishir, and it was from him that the emirs of the Germiyan later claimed descent. The emirate of the Germiyan (Karmanos) was one of the first established of the new Turkish principalities in Asia Minor after the Mongol invasion had shattered the old Seljuq Sultanate. About 1300 it covered the area from Ankara in the east to the valley of the Meander River in the south·west. The city of Philadelphia in fact paid tribute to its prince8 for a time. But the prize of Philadelphia was disputed also by other Turkish princes, notably by Umur, emir of Aydin, and Saruhan, the emir of Lydia. who had conquered the city of Magnesia on the Hermos River. 13 It seemB to have been with Saruhan rather than with Alishir that Manuel Tagaris bad dealings during his command at Philadelphia. During the latter stages of the civil war fought between John Cantacuzene and the regency for John V that broke out in 1341. the Empress..mother in Constantinople, Anne of Savoy, tried to enlist the military support of Saruhan. As her emissary to him she picked on George TagariB, who waa then megas stratopedarches. Cantacuzene, who alone records this affair in his

'oe..~~.o! [Th. Early OS1/Ulnlis/ (Athens, 1947), p. 42; D. M. NicoJ, ''CoDotauliDo Akropolite.," Dumbarton Oaks Pap..., XIX (1965), 249, 250, aDd Dote 10. 11 Cantacuzenus, Historiae, ii, 6: Vol. I, p. 349. Cf. U. V. Boscb,op. cit., p. 154; AmaIda, op.
George Pacbymeres, D. AndronU:o PolDeologo, v: Vol. 11, p. 421 (ed. I. Bekker, Boon, 1835), lines 5-6: ijxoue yap " ..I ".pl 'I,AII.&.lq>ol", .il d~.,va, " ..I Iil, ®v KopJu.vol, "'p'.til, t'IJ~ 1t6l.'~ .... Cf. pp. 427, 435. Gregeru, B~ HU/mi4, ..u, I: Vol I, p. 214, lin.. 14-17: " ..d.xo~ o~~, b I'l~ Kcxp....~~ 'A).,ooolp'o, tillll.slfl) . " ~••oyo!ou 'Ipuyt.. , ....1 It, till'txP' 'I,l.cx~.lq>o!.. , ....1 t61~ Iyy,.t.. d~tfl)~ 41<6 'tij, "apl u..!~~8p~ W~ "ot"l'h~ ,A~t'oX'!cx'. 11

Grogora., Byzonlino Hi.toria, viii, 12: Vol. I, pp. 361-362. In 1336 Gregoras wrote a 1etter to Philauthropenos recalling how he had saved Philadelphia. Correspollllanu de Nidphor. Gre,.,.,.., od. R. Guilland (Paris, 1927), No. 47, pp. 166.173. On the date and circUlDltaucea of the latter cf. P. Lemerl.. L'Emirat d'Aydin. Byzonc. et l'Occident: &ch",ches BUI "La Gute d'Umur PfJCho" (Paris, 1957), pp. 87 DOle 1, 111 note 2. On the of AIexioa Tarchllllllioles Philauthropenos the pinkemes, _, e.g., R. GuiJJand, &ch",.".. SUI lu institutions byzontinu, I, 246-247; G. Georgiades Ameki., 01 Bph. 10

'.u""por.,

18 Cf. P. LemerJe, L'Emiral "'A"din. pp. 106.107; C. Caheo, Pre-OtlomM TurIIq, IrIuIated by J. Jonu·WilJiama (London, 1968), pp. S08-SOS•

!i

I I

XII

XII

memoirs, points out that Saruhan had formerly known George's father at Philadelphia. He was therefore pleased to supply George with an army of Turkish soldiers to take back with him to Constantinople in 1346.14 This seems to imply that George was a son of Manuel Tagaris, who had held the same military rank before him. He was probably a child of Manuel's first marriage to Doukaina Monomachina and perhaps a brother of the notorious Paul Tagaris. He was evidently a loyal supporter of the rights of the house of Palaiologos against the usurper John Cantacuzene in the civil war. George Tagaris had a niece who married a member of the Monomachos family. The Monomachoi, to whom George himself was perhaps related through his mother, seem also to have opposed John Cantacuzene in the civil war. They had once owned great estates and properties in the district of Smyrna, not far from Philadelphia. But the most famous of them, Michael Monomachos, was appointed prefect of Thessalonica in 1343 and then corn. mander·in·chief of the army fighting against Cantacuzene in Macedonia. The unnamed member of the family who married the niece of George Tagaris was even willing to attempt the murder of Cantacuzene by poison in 1346.15 After the victory of John Cantacuzene, and during his reign as emperor between the years 1347 and 1354, the Tagaris family temporarily disappear from view. George seems to have retained his military rank; but he was among those who disapproved of Cantacuzene's policy of making alliances with the Turks, and who looked to the Christian powers of Western Europe to come to the aid of the Byzantine Empire. He was consequently a sup. porter of the proposal that the emperor, John V, put to Pope Innocent VI in December 1355, a year after the abdication of Cantacuzene. The proposal was to the effect that, if an army were to be sent to Constantinople from the West, the union of the Greek and Roman Churches could be realised. In 1356 George Tagaris was one of the select band in Constantinople who received a personal letter from the pope praising his good intentions toward the Holy See. It would be interesting to know whether he or his relatives were behind the proposal that some of the people of Philadelphia made to the ,. Cantacuzenus, HistoriIJe, iii, 96: Vo!. n, p. 591. Cf. Guilland, Recherche. sur le. institutions by'lIlItines, I, 510; Lemerle, op. cit., p. 222 and note 3. .. Cantacuzenus, HistorilJe, iii, 97: Vo!. n, pp. 597·598. For the estates of the Mono. macho! family near Smyma see Hel~ne Ahrweiler, "L'histoire et la geographie de la r6gion de Smyme entre les deux occupations turques (1081.1317), particuli~rement au XIII. BiKle," Travaw: et Memoires, I (Paris, 1965), p. 156. On the career of Michael MonomachoB see F. Bariiit, in Zbomik Radova VizlIlItoloikog Instituta, XI (1968), 215-234.

14

ope in 1352. 16 By that time Philadelphia was the only city left in Greek :ands in the interior of Asia Minor. But by paying tribute to the Turks and by the strength of its walls it seems to have maintained a precarious independence. Genoese merchants continued to reside there late into the fourteenth century. Some of them were even converted to Orthodoxy, which was good for business; and the metropolitan of Philadelphia, as the only remaining Ortho· dox bishop with any real jurisdiction in Asia Minor, was the object of much attention from the patriarchs of Constantinople. 17 But in 1344 the maritime league of Christian powers, organized by Pope Clement VI and supported by the Knights Hospitallers of Rhodes, had succeeded in capturing the harbour of Smyrna from the emir of Aydin; and this event seems to have inspired the hope among some of the citizens of Philadelphia that the Catholic rulers of Europe might come to their rescue. 1S Manuel Magoulas and Manuel Theodorokanos, the first the referendarius of the Church of Philadelphia, the second a soldier, went on an embassy to Pope Clement VI in 1352. They offered, in exchange for military aid against the Turks, to make their city a fief of the See of Rome and its inhabitants the vassals of the pope in perpetuity. By the time they got to Avignon Clement VI was dead, and it was Pope Innocent VI who answered their appeal in a letter addressed to the clergy and people of Philadelphia. His reply was not very encouraging, for he emphasized that their material submission to the papacy was of secondary importance to the spiritual benefits that would come to them by returning to the fold of the Roman Church. 1D There was no

I.

The pope's letter is addressed: "Nobili viro Georgio Tagaris megastralopedarchi." See O. Halecki, Un Empereur de By.ance a Rome: Vingt am de travail pour I'union des
11

See Ahrweiler, op. cit., pp. 27·28, 82, and the references there ciled.

18

Cf. N. Jorga, "Lalins et Grecs d'Orienl el ('elablisoemenl des Turcs en Europe (1342·

1362)," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XV (1906), especially pp. 194 If.; J. Gay, L. Pape Clement VI et le. affaires d'Orient (paris, 1904) pp. 41 If.; Lemerl., op. ciL, especially pp. 180 £f. ,. Lelter of Innocent VI of 19 January 1353, ed. by P. Gasnaull and M. H. Launnt, IMOcent VI (1352·1362): Lettre. secretes et curiales publU.. •1 lIlIIIlys~.. d'aprts la r.gistres des archive. Vatican .., I, i (Paris, 1959·1960), No. 71, pp. 24·26.11 is addmsed: "Clero et populo civilatis Filadelfie, veram fidem agooseere el agnilam eu.lodire." Cf. Gay, op. cit., p. 165; Haleeki, op. cit, p. 19 and nole 3; and especially Lemerle, op. cil.. pp. 236·237. For the family of Theodorokanos see N. Adonlz, "Notes Armmo-byuntiMo, IV: La famille de Theodorokan," Byrlllllion, X (1935), 161·170; John Zonaras, EpitDrne

IS

XII

XII

further correspondence on the matter. But it was the same Pope Innocent VI who in 1356 commended George Tagaris for his goodwill toward the See of Rome; and, given the connexions of the Tagaris family with Philadelphia in the past, it is at least possible that George had something to do with the offer. George Tagaris probably followed the lead of his emperor John V and became a Catholic in later years. His brother, or relative, Paul Tagaris was appointed Latin Patriarch of Constantinople by Pope Urban VI in 1380. Paul had his patriarchal seat in the Venetian island of Negroponte or Euboia; and it is known that he employed George Tagaris there in an admini. strative capacity.20 Paul's subsequent career is remarkably well documented, not least by the text of his own confession in 1394. But George had less to confess, and nothing seems to be heard of him after about 1384. I can find one other member of their family who flourished in the fourteenth century. She was a lady called Anna Laskarina Tagarina who brought a lawsuit against one Philip Doukas Aprenos, which was settled in the patriarchal court in August 1400. It would be nice to think that she was the daughter of that Tarchaneiotes, grandson of Manuel Tagaris, who married a Laskarina, and so was the god-daughter of Manuel's second wife. But this is pure conjecture. 21 Whatever the part played by the Tagaris family in the affairs and in the defence of Philadelphia, the ultimate fate of the city is well known. There are grounds for believing that it was formally ceded to the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid as early as 1379. But its citizens refused to accept any arrangements for their future made by the government in Constantinople which had for so long neglected them in the past. In the end the Turks had to lay siege to it and take it by force in the autumn of 1390. 22 The event is described by

the historian Doukas and more fully by Laonikos Chalkokondylet, in the followings terms: "Bayezid, son of Amurat, accompanied for the purpose by the Emperors of the Hellenes [Manuel 11 and John VII Palaiologos], campaigned against the Hellenic city of Philadelphia. For when the emperors were fighting among themselves he had asked them for Philadelphia, and they said that they would surrender it. But when the emperor Manuel sent a message to tell the citizens to give themselves up and to accept the government of a Turkish archon and harmost, they replied that they had no wish to submit themselves to the barbarian; and therefore did Bayezid lay siege to Philadelphia, taking with him the emperors of the Hellenes. The emperors are said to have distinguished themselves by being the first over the walls in the capture of the city. And thus was the well-founded Hellenic city of Philadelphia in Lydia captured."23

University of Edinburgh

Hisloriarum, III (ed. M. Pinder, Boon, 1897), pp. 601, 632, 716; V. Laurent, Documents de Sigilk>grllphie. La CoIl..,ti"" C. Orghidan (Paris, 1952), No. 471, pp. 236-237 .

.. R. J. Loenerto, op. cit, Revue des Etude. Byzantines, XXIV (1966), 229, and Document No. 10, p. 254 line 17. Document in Mildosich and MillIer, Acta et Diplomata Graeca, n, 424. Cf. Hlilecki, op. cil., p. 48 note 2; D. I. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopo· graphy [University of London Historical Studies, XXIII (London, 1968), No. 64, p. 103.

21

.. For the chronology and cin:umstances of the event see now J. W. Barker, Manel 11 p.....",.... (l391-1425): A Stud" in Late Byzantine St.tesmanship (New Brunswick, N. J., 1969), p. 79 and nole 211.

16

•• Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Histariarurn Dernanstrationes, I (ed. E. Dark", Budapest, 1922), p. 77; I (ed. I. Bekker, Bonn, 1843), .p. 64. Cf. Daukas (Ducas), Historia B~ (ed. V. Greeu, Bucharest, 1958), pp. 38-41; (ed. I. Bekker, Boon, 1834), p. 19. G. Zoras, XpoVl"bv It.pl <6iv To6p"OlV lioul
"ooa.""

11

XIII

The Byzantine family of Dermokaites circa 940-1453 The family of Dermokaites was one of the lesser known Byzantine families whose members only occasionally rose to positions of prominence in the church, the state and the army. Yet the name appears in sources ranging from the tenth century to the fifteenth century, by which time the Dermokaitai, like so many other aristocratic families, had become entitled through intermarriage to bear the imperial name of Palaiologos and numbered oikeioi of the Emperor among their members. One of the last of them in the Byzantine period was associated wHh the islands of 1mbros and Lemnos, others with the island of Chios; and it was in Chios that the family, employing the Italianised form of the name as Dromocati, was perpetuated after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and survived at least until the nineteenth century. Their traces are to be found in parts of the Byzantine world as far afield as Ochrida, Thessalonica, Eleusis and the Morea. But all the earliest known members of the family had their roots in western Asia Minor, and two of them were in the service of the Empire of Nicaea early in the thirteenth century. The sources for their existence are so incidental and so scattered that it is impossible to piece together a genealogical table. Nor does the present list claim to be exhaustive. It has been compiled in the hope that others may be able to add to it and perhaps assist in the further identification of some of the persons mentioned. The only serious attempt hitherto to list the known members of this family was made by Aimilia Zolotas in 1910. Her interest was attracted to the family'S history by the fact of its post· Byzantine survival In Chios and also by her father's ownership of a fifteenth-century signet ring bearing the name of Michael Dromokates (No. 25 below).1 I have been able to add some mites of information about the fourteen members of the Byzantine family whom she enumerated, and to add to their number another eleven from sources that were unknown to her. It is to be hoped that still more untapped sources will lead to further discoveries and further identifications. The name Dermokaites (L\EQI.IOXuitl]<;) probably derives its origin from a place or locality on the analogy of such names as Achyraites, Charsianites, Neokaisarites and the like. 2 It may not now be possible to 1 Almilla G. ZoIota., Bul;avno;xoc; ~o;xnJl.toC; EV XL",. 'A{}1jva XXII (1910) 141-186 (especially pp. 175-180). Other notices 01 the famUy may be lound In G, I. Zolotas, 'IO'OQLo; ,~c; XLOU, I, 2, Athens 1923, pp. 320-321; J. B. PapadopouIos, rQ1JyoQlov XLO\'u13ou '[ou (iotQo\·,)!J.ou EltUno).o.l. Thessalonikl 1929, p. 183. 2 The family of Neokalsarites (from Neokalsarela In Ponto.) I. even more elusive than that of Dermokaites, although its members also occasionally come into promInence in the 13th and 14th centuries, particularly as Civil servants or secretaries. See, e. g., D. I. Polemls, The Doukat. A Contribution to Byzanttne Prosopography, London 1968, pp. 149'-150, to whose list may be added: (I) Theodore Neokalsarltes, protoasekretls, known from Manuelis Philae Carmi1lll. ed. E. Miller .1, Pari. 1885, pp. 444-446 (It was Tbeodore and not Mlchael Neokalsarlte. whose daughter Eudokla married Constantlne Palalologos, .on of Andronlko. 11); (11) Mlchael Neokalsarlte., protoasekretls, tD whom

XIII

XIII 2 define the locality; but this seems a more convincing explanation of the form of the name than that of postulating an eponymous ancestor engaged In the tanning of hide, whose name was a compound of ~EQIt" and ""(00, or some victim or martyr whose own skin was burnt or flayed The name had been westernised as Dromoc(h)ati in Italian versions oi Greek documents by 1349 (see No. 13 below); but the Greek form Ora. mokates (l\QOltoxat1)C;) does not appear before the middle of the fifteenth century and evidently came into use through contact with the Genoese In Chlos and elsewhere.3

3

r::

Ing that he Is to be identified with John Dermokaltes (No. 11, tempt though the identification might be.4 Sou r c e s :

S. Eustratlades, 'l:UI'EOJV Aoyof} Ft1l; {, MF.To."QQ(ftl1C;, 'E.."t£'f'. 'ET.

Bvt.

1:nou6. VIII (1931) pp. 51, 53 and nole 3; Idem, '0 XQ6yo~ T~~ ux,,~~ 1:,......y tOU METU'I'QclotOU, 'Elt". ·Et. But· 1:ltou6. X (1933) pp. 29, 31 (texts of letters 01 symeon 10 Dermokaltes (no. 3) and to Olympos, Kymlnas, Lalros and Atbos (no. 4), where Dermokaites is entitled TOV nVEt'JlCL'UxDV f]JAWV :n;tUEQU).

3. Michael Dermokaites (f1oruit 10401 1. John Dermokaites (floruit 940) The first recorded member of the family was a celebrated monk In one of the monasteries on Mount Olympos in Bithynia in the middle of the tenth century. To him was sent the written confession of his Sins which the penitent ex-Emperor Romanos Lakapenos compiled about the year 946. Dermokaites and his fellow monks fasted and prayed for the Emperor's soul for two weeks until, by a miracle, absolution was seen to have been granted by the fact that all the writing had disappeared from the pages of the Emperor's confession. Dermokaites with the baptismal or monastic name of John, came to be honoured a~ a saint in the Orthodox Calendar, hIs feast day being on 17 November. Sou r c e s: Theophanes Contlnuatus, Chronograph la, ed. I. Bekker, Bonn 1838, pp. 439-440. - H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Eeeleslae Constanttnopolitanae e eodlee Sirmondlano (= Propylaeum ad Acta Sanetorum Novembris) , Bruxelles 1902, p. 234 § 3: TU alh'n -i)fLEQq. ~y{H.(.'l 'tOU OO'LOU 1tut'Q()(; "'J,uov 'Icorivvou tOU 4EQIJ.0xut'tou, 'tOU EV 'OAUJ.l1tql aycl)vl.OuJLE\·ou. L I I era I u re: A. Zololas, op. eit., pp. 175-176. - S. Runclman, The Emperor Romanus Leeapenus and his reign, Cambridge 1929, pp. 235-236.

2. N. Dermokaltes (f1oruit 10th century) A monk on Mount Olympos In Blthynla and spiritual father of Symeon Metaphrastes. He was the recipient of a letter from Symeon, from which It appears that Dermokaltes had distinguished himself as a soldier before entering the monastic life. There Is no warrant for supGreBory of Cyprus addressed a letter (ed. S. Eustratiades, 'EXXA7JO'tnatLxOt; q,uQOC;, It 1908, pp. 80-90); (Ill) N. Neokaisarltes, mentioned In a letter of the Emperor Manuel 11 to Kydones about 1385 (Letlres de l'empereur Manuel PaMologue, ed. E. Legrand, Paris 1893, no. 8, p. 11, linea 5-6). The unnamed pansebaslos Neokalsarltes mentioned In Ihe year 1267 may be Identical with the Michael Neokalsarlteo praised by Pacbymeres and Gregoras. Micbael Neokaisarites, apographeus in 1318, is also known as megas adnoumlasles In 1324 (F. DlIlger, Regesten der Kalserurkunden des ostromlschen Relehes IV, Mflncben-Derlin 1960, no. 2521 and references), and 10 referred to as snch by Mlchael Gabraa (letters of Gabras, no. 343 (cf. nos. 39, 138), ed. G. Fatour09, Wien 1973: see below No. 8 for full reference).

S The form ~Qo ..ox"t.Ij~, however, appears in a letter of Demelrios Kydones (8ee No. 14 below). For discussion of tbese and otber possible derivations of the family name, see A. Zolotas, op. eit., pp. 164-166. It seems not to figure in tbe often invaluable work of H. Moritz, Die Zunamen bei den byzantlnlsehen Hlslorlkern und ClIronlsten, Programm des k. humanllltlscben Gymnasiums In Landshut 1-11, 1696-1897, 1887-1898). Zorzl (George) Dromokaltes of Chlos, who died there In 1880, was a noled

benefactor of his blrtbplace and gave his name as well as mucb of his fortune to the hospital which Is still known ae the ~Qof'OXat'"'ov,

Mlchael was a Byzantine brigadier (~"oatQat1)y6c;), apPOinted to replace Basil Synadenos as commander of the army to repress the revolt of Peter Deljan in the Balkans about 1040. Synadenos, having led his army to Oevre, there fell out with the hypostrategos Mlchael Dermokaites. He was wrongfully accused to the Emperor of revolutionary plans, relieved of his command and put in gaol in Thessalonica. Dermokaites, appOinted in his place, proved to be so inexperienced and incapable that he quickly threw everything into confusion. His men turned against him and he fled by night, fearful of being punished for his ineptitude. Sou r c e s : Skylitzes-Kedrenos: in Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, ad. I. Dekker, 11, Bonn 1839, pp. 527-528. Lit era I u re: V. N. Zlatarski, H CTOPUR Ha 6..JleapCKaTa ih.p:J/Ca8Q npe. CpeOHUTe 8eK08e, 11, Sofia 1934, p. 52. - D. A. Zakythlnos, nEvl t~o; 6LOLX'l"X~<; 6LC111/6OE
4. N. Dermokaltes (f1oruit 1211) An officer in the service of Theodore I Laskaris of Nlcaea. He commanded the army that defended the town of Lentiana in Asia Minor against the forces of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, Henry of Flanders, In 1211. The town resisted desperately for forty days, but when It was finally taken Dermokaites was one of the three commanders captured by the Latins and held to ransom. The others were the brother of Theodore Laskaris and his son-In-law Andronikos Palalologos. He is perhaps to be Identified with No. 5.

-

Sou r c e .: Georgll Acropolitae Opera I, ed. A. Helsenberg, Leipzig 1903, p. 29, line 4 f. - Theodorl Scutarlotae Addltamenta, Ibid., p. 280, wbere tbe title of commander of tbe imperial army is credited to tbe Emperor's brother and not to Oermokaites. Lit era t u re: A. Gardner, The Lascarids of Nleaea, London 1912, pp. 84-85. J. Longnon, L'empire lalln de Conslanllnople el la prlnelpaut/! de Mane, Paris 1949, pp. 127-128. - A. Zolotas, op. ell., p. 177, gives this Oermokaltes the Christian name of George, for which tbere seems to be no evidence from Akropolltes.

• For Symeon Logothetes Metaphrastes, born under Leo VI [888-912), Lo&otbele under Nlkephoros Pbokae and John Tzlmlskes and BaeIl 11, wbo became a 1IlODk towards ~be end of bls life, see H.-G. Beck, Kt,che und tlleo/oglsehe Lltemu, Im bysantlnllt!lieJl etch, MUnchen 1959, p. 571 and references.

XlII

XIII

•

•

4

5. Millhael Dermokaites (floruit 1216) A document concerning the affairs of the Monastery of St Paul on Mount Latros describes Michael Dermokaites as having held the episkepsis of Sampson, with the title of pansebastos sebastos, in the time of the Empire of Nicaea. The document, signed by the megas logothetes Strategopoulos, Is dated only by the month, 24 March; and the IndlCtion 5. It seems likely to refer to the year 1216.5 Source: F. Mlkloslch-I. MUller, Acta et Dlplomata Graeca MedII Aeut IV m. i..OtE FlOVTOr;: 'n'l" 'Eni:ax£1pLv, nuvO'f'j3a.o:tOu xUQ MLj(a~A 1'0,0

1871, p. 294: .. , 't'ou deQp.oxu.i:(Ou ...

LIt era t u r a: A. Zolotas, op. clt., p. 177.

6. N. Dermokaites, kastrophylax (? 13th century) His existence, as kastrophylax at Eleusis perhaps in the thirteenth century, Is known only from a gold ring found there, which bears the following metrical inscription: C(!lPArI~ KA~TPO
Sou r C e: F. Lenormant, Recherches arch~ologtques a Eleusis, Paris 1862, p. 381. - G. Scblumberger, Slg/llographle de l'Emplre byzantln, ParIs 1884, p. 321 (corrected by Sp. Lambros, -E:rnnTOAil nlou 11 :1tQor;: "A'.f'sa\·3Qo,' "Aad,\'1')v "'EQ£ )(o:ro' lft",,",; Tfj<; 'II'~Q"V, Niu<; ·Ei.A~vO!""'I~Q)'· X (1913) 116-111). Lit era t u re: A. Zolotas, op. clt., pp. 114-115. - M. Hadzldakls, Un aMeau byzantin, Byz.-neugriech. lahrbuch XVII (1944) p. 195, no. 11. - D. A. Zakytbinos, Le Despotat grec de Morl!e 11, Athens 1953, p. 56, note 5.

7. N. Dermokaites, sebastos (floruit 1306-1307) This appears to be the first known member of the family active in the Imperial service in Constantinople after 1261. His name was put forward by the Patriarch Athanaslos I as the person most suitable, by reason of his honesty and piety, to take charge of the bread and grain supply and distribution in the capital during the lean years of 1306 to 1307. The Emperor Andronikos II seems to have adopted the Patriarch's suggestion; and the sebastos Dermokaltes was later assisted in his work by the apPointment of two demarchs called Antiochltes and Ploumas. Sou r c e s : Letters of the Patriarch Athanaslos I, nos. 93 and 100 In the forthcoming edition by Alice-Mary Talbot: text of one published from Cod. Vat. gr. 2219, fol. 15r -. by Angeliki E. Lalou, Constantinople and the Latins. Th. Foreign Policl/ of Androntcus 11, 1282-1328, CambrIdge, Mass. 1912, p. 339. Lite rat u re: R. Gullland, La correspondance InMlte d' Athanase, patriarch. de Constantinople (1289-1293; 1304-1310), In: Gullland, Studes Byzantlnes, ParIs 1959, p. 18. - V. Laurent, Les Rl!gestes des Actes du Patrlarcat de Constantinople, 1: Les Actes des Patrlarches, fase. IV: Les Rl!gestes de 1208 t2 1309, Pari. 1911, noli. 1652, 1121, pp. 446-441, 510. - A. E. Laiou, op. clt., pp. 196-191. I TIle date of this document Is discussed by DOlger, Regesten der Kalserurkunden Ill, UIIDCIum-Barlln 1932, no. 1693. For the Grand Logothata StrategopouIos, who aeems to l1li otherwise unknown, see R. Gullland, Les logoth'tes. Iltudes sur I'hlstolre. adml· IJIstl'Gtlpe de I'emplre byzantin, Rev. des £t. Byz. XXIX (1911) p. 104.

8. N. Dermokaites (floruit early 14th .century)

f the 462 letters of Mlchael Gabras Is addressed to one DerD1oOne °Thelr editor is Inclined to date It to the year 1327 and to Identify kaltes' l lent an admirer of the literary talents of Gabras, either as the liS ~e~iEos krites Theophylaktos Dermokaites (No. 14 below) or as the kat °t s Dermokaltes (No. 7 above). The latter seems the more likely ~e~:lgcation; Theophylaktos Is not known until 1362. It is possible lde he Is the same person as the Dermokaites who was a friend of the that mer Gregory Chioniades. Chioniades refers to him In a letter ~:ft~~~ from consta~tlnople to the protonotarios and protobesttartos Constantlne Loukites ID Treblzond. Sou r c e s: Letter of Mlchael Gabra.: G. Fatouros, Die Briefe des MIChael Gabras (ca. 1290-nach 1350), 11 (= Wlener Byz. Studlen, X/2), Wlen 1973~ no. 450, pp. 691-692. - ~etter. of Chion,lades:, T.. E. E~angelldls, 4 ~o fI"~Qv"IIXQ xEtJ.lE\'(1.

rQTlYOQLOU

XLOVUlliov. E1tlGto).o.l. tJEXaE'~

foX,

)!W~tXO~ ,BlEVYQl?",. He~·

olis 1910, p. 17; also in J.-B. Papadopoulos, rQT\YOQlO\1 Xmvwl\ou 1'OU Q.C'J,((JovoJ&OV f"LITtOAU£, Thessalonlkl 1929. Letter no. 7, p. 195: Chloniades defenda himself agaInst the charge of havIng S~ld ,unkind ~In~s abo~t Louklt~s, IIlI re'!orted by hi! friend Dermokaites .... :rto.Qa. CPL).", VVlloup 'tIP xnA).UJtfP CPl'lIU ~£Q~xnl.'flI). Lit era t u re: G. Fatouros, Die Brief_ des Mlchael Gabras, 1 (= Wlener B.,z. Studien, X/1), Wlen 1913, no. 23, pp. 40, 162. - I.-B. Papadopoulos, op. ell., pp. 163, 164.

9. N. Dermokaites (floruit 1318) A paroikos of the Monastery of Esphlgmenou, working a vineyard In the village of Brasta In the 'katepanlkion of Rentlna to the east of Thessalonlca. Sou re e: Praktlkon In favour of Espblgmenou dated 25 January 1318: J. Lefort, Actes d' Esphigml!nou (= ArchIves de I' Athos, VI), ParIs 1913, no. 14, p. 1118. Una 168.

10. N. Dermokaites (florult mid-14th century) This member of the family must have owned property In Macedonia. His name appears among the many benefactors of the Monastery of Batopedl on Mount Athos listed In the chrysobull of the Emperor John V of September 1356. Dermokaltes had made over to the monastery the land or village of Dragoboutzlsta near Serres. Sou r c e: M. Gouda., BU","'''''Clllci EYYQuq>11 'i1~ iv •Ail,!, ..oa~ .,ovijo; '1":,,«. 'E•• Bv~. };nou&. IV (1921) no. 15. p. 239. Lite rat u re: DHIger, Regesten V, no. 3059.

&,0".3""'.

11. Theodore Dermokaltes (floruit 14th century) A scribe known to have copied Codex Vatlcanus graecus 1500 (fol. 13 f.), containing works of Alexander of Aphrodlslas, of the sopld8t Aphthonlos, and of Hermogenes. Sourc . . : M. Vagal-V. Gardthausen, Die gr/ec/a/sc1len Sclal'elber dBl NUteIalters und der Renaissance, Lelpz18 1909, p.138. - C. Glallll8lU. COIlkea ValleGId Graecl, Codd. 1485-1683, Vatican City 1Utu. DO. 15110, pp. 211-30.

XIII

XIII

•

7

12. Na Dermokaitissa Asanina Palaiologina (died after 1330)

Known only from the surviving fragments of the portrait which once adorned her tomb In the monastery church of the Chora (Kariye Djaml) in Constantinople. Tomb F In the mortuary chapel or parekklesion of the church has a fresco depicting the lower halves of the figures of a man, woman and child. The man's garments are decorated with medallions enclosing the monogram of the Palaiologos family the woman's with monograms which have been interpreted as Dermokaitoes (or Dermokaitissa), Asanes (or Asanina), and Palaiologos (or Pal ala· loglna). The structural evidence of the chapel suggests that the tomb slightly post-dates that of Eirene Raoulalna Palaiologina nearby (1325 to 1330). The lady was therefore buried some time after 1330. The presumption from these portraits is that she was herself of the Dermokaltes family, since her husband's garments bear only the monogram of Palalologos. She is the first member of her family known to have married a Palaiologos, and the only one known to have been connected with the house of Asen; though the connexions between the Asenevlci (hellenlzed as Asanalol) and the Palalologol are well substantlated.6 Source and LI lera lure: P. A. Underwood, The Karlye D;aml, New York 1966, I, pp. 290-291; 11, Plales 546, 547.

13. NiIlolas Dromocati (floruit mid-14th century) Nlcolas Dromocati was evidently a landowner on the Island of Chlos under the Genoese occupation after 1346. He appears to have planted three trees. The document In which his name appears is dated 10 September 1349. He Is the first known member of his family to be associated with the Island of Chlos, where the later Dermokaltal and Dromocatl resided. Sou r c e: P. P. Argentl, The Occupation of Chios by the Genoese Ill, Cambridge 1958, p. 530.

14. Theophylaktos Dermokaites, katholikos krites (florult 1360-1370) The name of Theophylaktos Dermokaltes first appears In the chrysobOllllos horismos of the Emperor John V of October 1362, in which he and Constantine Kaballaropoulos were accredited as Imperial ambassadors to Venice. Theophylaktos is there described as a 'universal judge of the Romans' (xa{!oAlxov x{lltilv '(lov'Pool'aioov 0Eoq>1lAaxtov to'Y dEQI'ox"itT)'Y) and as an olkeios of the Emperor. In 1366 he acted again in his capacity as a universal judge In a case concerning the affairs of the Monastery of Batopedl on Mount Athos. The document is signed by him as: {, /louAo<; '(ou xQIlti«Ttou YoaL ayiou f)I'CPv au{!evtou >taL ~aaLHO). xa{!oALlw<; X"L-ri). tcil'Y 'PO)I'aLo)'Y 0 dE{lJ.toxaLtT)<;. He may be identified with the Xl/1\aTo. d"ol'oxattT)<; who conveyed a letter from Slmon Atumano in Italy written in the autumn of 1363 and addressed to the Emperor In Con• See, e. g., Th. I. Uspensklj, BOlleapCl
le

It has been suggested that he may also be the otberwtse

stantinox parakoimomenos Theophylaktos who went as the Emperor'. unname tative to see Pope Urban V at Viterbo In 1367.7 represen u r c e s: Mlkloslch-Milller, Acta et Diplomata Ill, p. 129; LaUn test In so M Thomas-R. Predelll, Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantlnum 11, Venice 1699, G. 87' [' ... Theophllalum (sic) Dromochaltl ludlcem unlversalem Romeorum'). p. M si AKTU U3 cBe.oeopcKux apxuBa, Beograd 1939, pp. 155-163, no. 1. V. 0 n Demetrios Kydones written tn 1364, ed. R.-J. Loenertz, D'm'trlus ~e~er i!~ Correspondance I, Vatican Clly 1956, no. 93, p. 125. L~ I:nr; I u re: Zololas, op. clt., p. 177. - DUlger, Regesten V, no. 3089; DIIlg8., Facsimiles byzantiniScher (lrkunden, Mlinchen 1931, N. 12; DUIger, Byzantlnl.che Di lomatik, Ellal 1956, p. 302; F. DOlger-l. Karayan!'opulos, Byzantlntsclle Urk:ndenlehre. Erster Abschnitt: Die Kaiserurkunden, MUnchen 1968, no. 58, pp. 163-164. _ P. Lemerle, Le /uge g~n~ral des Grecs, et la rlform~ /udlctalre d'Andronic Ill, in: Memorial Lous Pellt, Melanges d hlSlolre et d archAologle lie! = Archives de l'Orlenl chrellen, I) Bucaresl 1948 p. 312, no. 10. ~Z~~u::mt, La correspondance de Dlm~trius Cydoni!s, Echos .d'Orlent XXX_!19311 345' S G Mercatl Notizle dt Procoro e Demetrlo Cldone ete. [- Studl :4;;SIl, '56i, Vatican cil Y 1931, p. 493; H.-). Loenertz, Dlmltrlu, Cydonl., I, De la natssance d l'anMe 1373, Orlenl. Christ. Per. XXXVI [1970) p. 62.

i

15. N. Dermokaites (floruit 1395) His name Is mentioned in a patriarchal document of May 1395 dd ed to the Bishop of Lemnos. He seems to be the first known ~e~=r of his family to be associated with' the island of Lemnos. Sou r c e: Mlkloslch-Mliller, Acta et Dlplomat~ II, p. 236 [the text gives the name as ~EQ~ox.aitou, which Is surely a misprmt). Lite r a I u re: A. Zololas, op. clt., p. 178.

16. John Dermokaites (died before 1401) Mentioned in a patriarchal document of December 1401, deciding a property dispute. John was evidently deceased by that time, but the matter Involved his son and heir Alexlos (No. 17). sou r c e: Mikloslch-Mliller, Acta et Dlplomala II, p. 563, i",elvou •.•

17. Alexios Dermokaites (floruit 15th century) A son of John (No. 16), apparently living in Lemnos in 1401. Sou r c e: Mlkloslch-Mliller, Aeta et Dlp/omata II. p. 564, ~Ines 7-8: '(ov"U", 'tOU ASQIlOxo.i'tou, Me61l~ov Tl\v~xa.iho. iv TfI A-ql'vql nrrxUyOvta. ••• L I I era I u re: A. ZolDtas, op. elt., pp. 178-179.

11. Theodora Palalologlna Dermokaltlssa (florult 1400) Theodora's name occurs in a patriarchal document of August 1400. There is no means of knowing whether she was a Palaiologlna who

-

7 O. Haleckl, Un Bmpsreur de By.ance d Rome, Waruawa 1930, p. 164 end nota So

XIII

XIII 8

married into the Dermokaites family or the daughter of a Dermokaites who married a Palaiologos. The name of her husband is not given in the document. But she had a son, Demetrios, and an U1mamed daughter who married Nicholas Branas. Theodora outlived her husband as well as her daughter, both of whom were evidently dead by 1400.8 She seems indeed to have lived too long to be identified with the female member of her family who was buried In the Monastery of the Chora in Con. stantinople [No. 12 above). Sou r c e: Miklosich-MUller, Acta et Diplomata II, p. 420. Lit era t u re: A. Th. Papadopulos, Versuch etner Genealogie der Palaiologen 1259-1453, MUnchen 1938, no. 140, p. 83. - A. Zolotas, op. cit., p. 178. '

19. Nicholas Dermokaites [c. 1406) His name, as an oikeios of the Emperor, appears among the many signatories of Manuel H's treaty with Venice on 22 May 1406.9 Sou r c e s: Mikloslch-MUller, Acta et Diplomata Ill, p. 153; Latin text In Thomas-PredelU. Dtplomatarium Veneto-Levanttnum Il, p. 302 ('domino Nicolao Dromocatl'). Lite rat u re: A. Zolotas, op. cit., p. 179. - D61ger, Regesten V, no. 3311. _ DtIlger-Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre I, p. 162, no. 55.

21. Demetrios Palaiologos Dermokaites [floruit 1440)

•

Demetrios lived in the Morea in the first half of the fifteenth century. In October 1440 he sold his share in a plot of land In the region of Patras to one Nicholas Aboures. The transaction was confirmed by argyrobull of the then Despot Thomas Palaiologos. Demetrios is said to have gone shares with one John Rossatas in the acquiSition of the land at the time when Thomas's brother, the Emperor, was still Despot in the Morea. This presumably refers to John [VIII) Palaiologos, who assisted his brother Theodore 11 in the administration of the Morea between the years 1416 and 1418 and reigned as Emperor from 1425 to 1448. This Demetrios might conceivably be the son of Theodora Palaiologina Dermokaitissa [No. 18 above).10 Sou r c e: Mikloslch-MUller, Aeta et Diplomata Ill, p. 259 [where the document Is dated October 1440}; Sp. Lambros, IIuhmoi.oYELO, )(U1. n£Ao:rroV\'l'}o~a.')(a,IV, Athens 1930, pp. 231-232 [where It Is dated to 1445). Lit era t u re: The document is mentioned by Martin Crusius, Turcograecia, Basel 1584, p. 343, and Cited therefrom by C. Du Fresne Du Cange, Historla Byzantina I: Familiae Augustae Byzantinae, Paris 1680, p. 254. - A. Zolotas. op. clt., p. 179. - Papadopulos, Versuch einer Genealogte der Palaiologen. no, 141 (who for some reason credits Demetrlos Dermokaites with the title of strategos).

22. N. Dermokaites [floruit 1438-1439) 20. N. (1' Michael) Dermokaites [floruit 1425) Mentioned as a young man in Thessalonica in the notebook of the official of the Metropolis published by S. Kougeas. The entry is dated April 1425. Among the citizens of Thessalonica who were granted monthly. stipends by the Venetians in the same year 1425 there is listed one M'XaA'l'; DEMOCRAT!. It is tempting to read this surname as an otherwise unknown westernised version of the name Dermokaites; In which case this Michael would be of the same Thessalonian branch of the family as the young man mentioned above, or possibly the same person. Sou r c e s: S. Kug~as. Nottzbuch efnes Beamten der Metropolis in Thessalonike aus dem Anfang des XV. Tahrhundens, Byz. Zeitschr. XXIII [1914-1919; 1920), p. 150, § 65:

Ta

3£ 61("{0. [VO)LLO"JJQTa] e3avELao:ro n\l'to<;

ano

'tou "im • .6.oQJ.loxahou

(stc) xu.i. 3il)ooxE ~Ol 'taUta. - K. D. Mertzlos, M"YHlfi:a Max£l)ovuc;l<; tIo't8Qla<; (= M"x.6o\',"~ ~t~l.,ol}{IX'l, 7), Thessaloniki 1947, p. 50, line 6.

• G. I. Zolotas, clo'toQi:a 1"'1<; Xiou, I, 2, p. 320, wrongly cites this document for evidence of a male member of the family, 'Theodore Palaiologos Dermokaites' whom he dates to the year 1420. ' 8 Tbe title 'Oermonophit1' applled to Nlcholas Notaras and his father George in the Venetlan document of 1397 published by J. w. Barker. Manuel 11 Palaeologus, New BrunSWIck, N. J. 1969, pp. 486-487, Is not, as Barker suggests, a corruption of the name Dermokaltes, but simply one of the many latinisations of the Greek word dferm.eneutes, meaning Interpre~er. TSee, ~. g., the Byzantine treaty with Venice In 1418, wbare the Greek tezt NLXOAao\1 NU'toQ<1 bLEQJ.l'lvev'toU Is rendered in the Latin as 'Nlcota. Notara Dlarmlneptl' [MildoSicb-MUller, Acta et Dlplomata Ill, p. 162; ~.lt-Predelll, Dlplomatarlum Veneto-Levanttnum 11, p. 317).

A chamberlain [kelliotes) of the Emperor John VIII, whom he accompanied to Italy to attend the Councils of Ferrara and Florence in 1438-1439. He presented a request from the Bishop of Media to the Emperor in Florence; and later, still as ke/liotes and aSSisted by one Manuel [? Adam), he escorted the Emperor Into the council chamber. Sou r c e: Sylvester Syropoulos, ed. V. Laurent, Les «Memotres» du Grand Ecclestarque de l'Eglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropulos sur le Conctle de Florence (1438-1439), Paris 1971, p. 124, line 26, p. 322, lines 27 and 29. Lit era t u re: Laurent, ibid., p. 125 and note 6, puts the question whether this Dermokalte. should be Identified with Oemetrlos Palalologos Dermokaites [No. 21 above)

23. George Dromokates Palaiologos [floruit mid-15th century) George was governor of the Island of 1mbros in the middle of the fifteenth century. He succeeded one Manuel Asen Laskaris in that office, and was the last Greek to hold it. He is known from two inscriptions found on the island, one of which bears the date 1446-1447. A letter of the Senate of the Venetian Republic dated 12 November 1456 to the regimen of Modon in the Morea indicates that George Dromokates ['Chyrgeorgius Dromocati') was then intending to make over to Venice the islands of Imbros and Lemnos. Preparations were to be made to ID For the Rossatas family [or Rossotas) and other landed gentry at the htres area, see Zakythlnos, Le Despota! grec de Mor~e 11, p. 216. The Aboures (or Avourl,,) family were also connected with tbe same district; tor Andrew Ahoure&, norarlos In Patras In 1436, see Zakythlnos, op. elt., 11, pp. 127-126 and note 1.

XIII

XIII 10

accept the offer. It seems therefore that George lived beyond the faU of Constantinople in 1453. Sou r c e 5: The inscriptions have been publ1shed several times: A. Moustoxides_ B. Koutloumousianos, ·Yl[(»),.lvrHtC1 iotOQ,xQV 1tEQL 'ti]; ,.1'100\1 'Itt!)Qou, Constantinople 1845, p. 44; Nlkephoros Glykas, Metropolitan of Methymne, fI£Ql 'ttV(J}\, dVEXbo'too\' imYQo.q)(tl" "til~ 'rrl<Jou "I~tPQou, '0 EV }(O)\'OtclVTLOO\JItOA,£t <EAA1lvLXOC; cf>l/'OAOYlXO~ I;uAi.oyoC; XIII (1880), 'AQXmoj,oYO(l} 'E1tI"tQO:TUl flClQa(Hll)l<X, p. 13, no. 26 (rEOOQYlO<; dQo.lOxutrT]<; 0 naAa.to}.oyoC;) i C. Fredrich, 1mbros, Mttteil. d. kaiserl. deutschen Instituts: Athenlsche Abteilung XXXIII [1908) p. 91. - Text of letter of Venetlan Senate in K. N. Sathas, MVYIIAELa <EHrl"lxfje;
', .• oblationem illius nobilis Greet Chyrgeorgii Dromocatt pro lOCis et insulis Embri et Stalimine'. L 1 t era t u re: A. Zolotas, op. elt., p. 179. - For discussion of the date of the inscription (1446-1447 in preference to 1450-1451), see Sp. Lambros, 'E1(Latok~ Hiotl 11. Nio<; rEk1l:rlvo!J.vlHLClH· X (1913) pp. 116-117. - Papadopulos, Versuch no. 165. - F. Thtrlet, R~gestes des D~lib~rations du Sl§nat de Venise concernant la Romanie Ill, Paris 1961, no. 3025, p. 214.

24. N. Dermokaites, sebastos [floruit mid-15th century)

11 I be conjectured. She was the daughter of Manfredlna Dorla, can on \ied John Chrysoloras, nephew of the famous Manuel Chryso· who mar nfredina was one of the three daughters of Ilarlo [Hllarlon J loras. ~a Genoa and Isabella [Zampea J Palaiologina, the illegitimate Dona of the Emperor Manuel 11. Could it be that lsabella was daughdter the Dermokaites family and that the mistress of Manuel 11 relate t 0 s a Dermokaitissa 711 wa 1454 Michael Dromokates Chrysoloras travelled from Milan to Turin In. F.lelfo's letter of recommendation to Mario Filelfo. From there bearmg ~ave gone on to France to seek help from the King. But In he ~o~rOWing year he was back in Italy. On 13 Oc~ober 1455 Francesco t~e If wrote to the Marquis of Mantua recommendmg Mlchael and two File 0 noble Greek emigres, Demetrios and Michael Assanes. He deot~i~d him as: ' ... virum illustrem Michaelem Dromocatem Chrysolose Manuelis illius Chrysolorae necessarium, qui extincta. bonarum ~~~~m studia in lucem ad Latinos revocavit .. .'. No more IS known about him, though it seems probable that he may have returned to the still Genoese colony of ChlOS before hiS death. Sou r c e s: A. Zolotas, op. clt., p. 147 f. - M. Hadzidakls, Un anneau byzantfn, Byz.-neugriech. Jahrbuch XVII [1944) p. 194, no. 6. - E. Legrand, Cent-dlx Lettres grecques de Fran~ois Filelle, Paris 1892, no .. 33, 'pp. 69-70 ([Dromokates) f.)( XllhEtU.C \'O~Iq> fUll\' tuYXcivf-t, 0.;(0 Tofi Tll<; ofl~ 1l11'tQI)':; YHOU<;); the Lat1~ text of Filelfo's letter to the Marquis of Mant~a is repro~uced by Legrand, ibid. (from Bpistolae Francisci Philelfi ex origlnarlO exemplarl tr~nssumptae, Phorce MDVI, lib XII [unpaginated). Cl. Martin Crusius, Turcograecla, p. 57). . L l't era tu re: G. Cammelli, I dotti bizantini a le origini dell'umaneslmo J: Manuele Crisolora, Flrenze 1941, pp. 21-23 and Appendice pp. 169-201 (where the idenUty of Dromokates is discussed but not proven).

A citizen of Ochrlda in the fifteenth century, bearing the titles of sebastos and protonobellissimos. His existence is attested only by the text of a marriage contract drawn up and signed by his wife Theodora, probably during the time when Mark Xylokarabes, former Patriarch of Constantinople, was ArchIJishop of Bulgaria, in 1466-1467. By then Dermokaites was dead. His widow Theodora [Dermokaitissa) was a daughter of Iberopoulos, megas oikonomos of the Archbishopric of Bulgaria. Their daughter, called Stratege, married Alexios Taronas, nephew of Theodore Taronas and his wife Maria. Sou r c e: Text of marriage and dowry contract first published by M. I. Gedeon, Rui;nv"vo. au~~6),o.,o., Byz. Zeltschr. V (1896) 112-115; corrected by A. papadopoulos-Kerameus, But;avnva U\'clA.£y.Tn, ibid. VIII (1899) 79-81. L j t era t u re: G. 1. Zolotas,
25. lIfichael Dromokates Chrysoloras [15th century) Mlchael was the owner of a fifteenth-century gold signet ring found in Chlos and bearing the legend: MIXAHA 0 LlPOMOKATH~ inscribed around the figure of a lion. He Is probably to be identified with the Michael Dromokates Chrysoloras who took refuge In Italy after 1453 and who was known to Francesco Filelfo. In a letter written In Greek ~o his son Glan Mario, and dated Milan, 4 June 1454, Fllelfo recommends Dromokates Chrysoloras' as one deserving of hospitality and friendship; not only because of his misfortunes as a result of the fall of New Rome, but also because of his relationship to the Chrysoloras family. Dromokates Is said to be related to Marlo Fllelfo on his mother's side; In other words, he was a relative of Francesco's wife, Theodora Chrysolorlna. How Theodora came to be connected with the Dermokaltes family

-

11 On Manuel Chrysoloras and his descendants and relatives, see G. Cammell1, op. ,,/t.; Manuel Chrysoloras and the Early Italian Renaissance. Greek, Roman ~d Byz. Studies VII [1966) 63-82; K. M. Setton, Tile Byzantine .Background to tile Italian Renaissance, Proceedings 01 the American Phllosophlcal Soclety, C (1956) p. 72. One Thoma. Chrysoloras was a member of the three·man delegaUon that went from Thessalonlca to Venice In June 1425. Also living In Thessalonlca at that Ume was the Mlchael 'DemocraU' [7 Dermokaites) referred to above (No. 20). Mertllos, op, clt., p. 50. On Ilarlo Doris, see Papadopulos, Versuch, no. 104; Barker, Manuel 11. pp. 158-159, and Appendix IX, pp. 474-478. As a Genoese, Dorta may well have had links With the Island of Chlos.

J. Thomson,

XIV

'!HE PROSOPCGRAPHY OF 'IRE BYZANTINE ARIS'lOCRACY

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes Prosopography as ... fruitful technique'" 1n the furtherance of classical scholarShip. As a technical tern it has a short history. Du Cange compiled a list of what he called the Familiae Augustae, with short biographical sketches of the members of each family and the genealogical links that bound them together. In more recent years pro8opography has become recognised as one of the instruments studiorum for RomanistB and for Byzantinists. The monumental Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire lists all members of the leading Roman families up to the year 641. Byzantinists can now benefit from special studies of some twenty aristocratic families (Argyros. Asen, Cantacuzenus. Choumnos, Dermokaltes, Doukas, Gabras, Kabakes, Kabasl1as. Hal1aseno8. Palaiologos. Philanthropenos. Pleustes, RaouI, Sklero8, Synadeno8, Tagarls. Tarkhaneiotes I Tornikes, Tzamplakon); while for the later period there are now, six {asciculea of the Proao~ graphlsches Lexlkon der Palalologenzeit.

It may be significant that Roman and Byzantine prosopography are within our capabilities. A pr090pography of the ancient Greek world would be much harder to achieve. So also would a prosopographical study of the Ottoman Empire. That is not to say that the Oxford Classical Dictionary and the Encyclopedia of Islam do not provide adequate biographical sketches of tmportant persons. But it is often very difficult to establish the family links between tho<Je persons. Prosopography and genealogy (and the two are complementary) depend on 8 rather Roman concept of the family, with a paterfamilias at its head, but also with a wife and mother who has certain rights and 8 family name of her own. The ancient Greeks, who took life with less dignitas and gravitas, also took less trouble to record their intermarriages. We know the name of Socrates"'s wife, because she was a famous shrew, and of Perieles"'s mistress; but we do not know the names of their grandchildren. The ancient Greeks, for all their obsession with the horrors of the house of Atreus. seem not to have shared the Roman or the Jewish longing to achieve personal i .... ortality through procreation. Upperclass Romans looked to their young to carry on the torch of a Julius or a Claudius. So they kept family records, they carved inscriptions, made tombstones and copied busts taken from the deathmasks of their ancestors. The Ottomans on the other hand had a welldeveloped sense of the male line of succession; but they paid little attention to recording or naming the wives of the progenitors of those males; and their rulers had so many wives. A glance at Alder80n's Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty will soon demonstrate how very hard it often is to decide wflo were the anteeedents of a Turkiah

XIV

XIV

prince in the female line. One Byzantine example nruat suffice: the youngest of the six sons of the emi r Orkhan by his various marriages was Ha111. He was captured by Genoese pirates off the coast of Asia Hinor in 1356. The incident led to war and to the payment of • ranaom by the Emperor John V which he could ill afford Halil then betrothed to John's ten-year old daughter Eirene. ~ But who was Hall1' s mother? She might well have been Theodora. daughter of J:~: Cantacuzene, who had married Orkhan In 1346. But we are not t Id The identification of Halil's mother would help to explain \h~ motives behind his kidnapping. The Romans then had a more developed sense of genealogy than the Greeks. The Byzantines, being both Greek and Roman, come In a special category. It Is arguable that they did not have the sense of hereditary aristocracy in families that one finds in Roman In ~e8tern feudal society. , There were the eugenels, there' wa~r the golden line of noble birth, 8S Pachymeres puts it. 3 But nobility had no legal definition. Nor was it hereditary in the sense that the title held by a 'nobleman passed to his heirs. Byzantine nobles Were ~ nobles, in contrast to the ~ nobility of the West. The growing adoption of surnames and patronymics in and after the 9th century illustrates the point. It became the fashion among those who were unsure even of their de facto position in Byzantine society because they were outsiders. Emperors like Justinian, Heracliu8 or Leo III did not need to identify themselves by advertising their clan. In the 9th and 10th centuries, however, the need was felt by the great clans of Phokas, Skleros, Maleinos and Doukas. These families. as Mango has observed. introduced a new aristocratic idp.al. Most of them came from Armenia where such tribal affiliations were significant. But they invented or discovered ancient lineage for themselves in more respectable quarters. The Phokas family claimed to be descended from the Fabii, the Doukas family from a cousin of Constantine the Great. These claims were about as sensible as those of the later Cantacuzeni that they were descended from one of Trajan"'s generals or from one of Cftarlemagne"'s peers; or the tale put about by refugee Pa1aiologoi in Italy that they came from Viterbo because Palaios Logos is the Greek for Vetus Verbum. On the othe; hand, there is little evidence for the cult of emperors in Byzantium for the building of imperial mythologies in or after their lifetimes: such as occurred in Serbia and Bulgaria. Constantine was of course canonised. John Vatatzes of Nicaea became a local saint; so also did Theodora of Arta. But these are exceptions.

The value of prosopography for the historian is that it enables him to know as much as possible of the bare facts about a given prosopon or person. about his background, his antecedents and his offspring. This can sometimes lead to new interpretations. To take one example. there is the case of John Cantacuzenus. Earlier genealogists like Du Cange believed that he had a brother and a sister. There is no evidence for their existence. It seems clear that the future Emperor John VI had no siblings that he was born just after his father's death and that he was a~ only child brought up by his mother. These fact. tell us something about the public image of the man, his prosopon. They may even explain some of the peculiarities of his character and so of his career. That he was a mother' 8 boy may account for his religiosity, even for his deviousness and indecisive nature. But this is not the business of the

80

prosOpographer. He must stick to the laborious taak of IUpplyina tha factual evidence on which the interpreters can erect their hiltorical structure. He cannot and IDUst not stretch that evidence. ADd the idence for John Cantacuzenus is sadly lacking. 1U. antecedent. on :~s father"'s side are totally obscure, and on his mother"'. aide not much better. His mother Theodora was known by the naae. of Palaiologina Angelina Cantacuzena. It is safe to assuaae that she lOt her last name from her husband rather than from her father. But DO one knows how she came to be connected with the fallilie8 of Angelos and Palaiologos. Various authorities have connected her also with the family of Tarkhaneiotes, a name which she seems not to have borne. But ihis is. pure guesswork; and guesswork has no place in prosopography. The use and abuse of family names by the Byzantine aristocracy creates many problems. In England one assumes that a man called Grace-Groundllng-Marchpole Is descended from and incorporates those three families in his prosopon. The double or triple-barrelled name indicates a marriage of properties as well 8S of persons. On the other hand, it is regular English practice to express one's indebtedness to grandparents or uncles by adopting their Christian or forenames rather than their surnames, such as Charles Augustus Fortescue. The American use of the terms Jr. and Sr. , or Henry Ford 1, 11 and III makes things simpler for the genealogist. Another helpful practice is that used in Greece today, describing someone as "'the son of such and such a father"'. Michael Doukas, founder of the separatist state in Epiros in 1204, is frequently described in the sources as "'Michael, son of the sebastokrator John Doukas"'. But in later Pyzantine times top people were in the habit of carrying long strings of names, all of them surnames or family names, and not nec.essarily in any accepted order of succession or precedence. The nearest parallel to this practice may perhaps be found again in Roman usage. This is instructive because, a8 Giinter Weiss has observed, the structure of late Byzantine upper class society was in many ways very simil~r to that of the last century of the Rasan Republic or early Empire. In Rome, when a man taIled himself Quintus Fabius Maximus, it clearly indicated that he belonged to the family of Haximus and to the gens or clan of Fabius; so also with Publius Cornelius Scipio. In Byzantium, when a man calls himself Theodore Doukss Laskaris, one can assume that Laskaris is his family name inherited from his father. But one cannot unfortunately assume that Douk8S is the name of his J.!.!!! or clanj indeed one cannot make any universal 'assumptions about the use of such middle names in the Byzantine aristocracy. The rules of the game in this late Byzantine name-dropping are hard to follow. One of them is fairly consistently applied, however. The members of a ruling imperial dynasty regularly employ the family name of Comnenus, Angelos, Laskaris or whatever, and regularly put that name last on the list, qualifying it with the
0t

81

,I I

XIV

XIV

the choice of the middle names which they employ seem to defy re 1 classification; and among the leBBer fry of the aristocracy tg~n S! were even IDOre haphazard. Take, for example, the calle of the rule~B of Spir~s in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The founder of the separatist state of Epiros, Hichael I, was the illegitimate son of John Doukss, who was the son of Constantine Angelos and Theodora Comnena. Kichael therefore had access, if not right (aince he w•• a bastard), to the three names of Angelos Komnenoa and Doukase But hi. father John is slways called by the single name of Doukas in the sources; and Hichsel himself is sometimes called Hichael Doukas sometimes Michael Comnenus, but hardly ever Michael Angeloa. Gearg; Akropolites does not dignify him with any surname; but this is just spite. His admirers, the bishops John Apokaukos and Demetrios Chomatianoa, preferred to call him Comneous. lJ,e himself seems to have opted for the name Doukaa. His more famous half-brother, !headore, who made himself emperor at Thessalonica, preferred to call hi!Dself Comnenus and Doukas j Chomatianos, who crowned him, even calls him Megas Komnenos. The son of Michael I and nephew of Theodore Hichael II of Epiros, most often used the single name of Douka.' though sometimes the compound form of Komnenodoukas; only his detrac~ tors call him Angelos. His legi timate son Nicephoru8, on the other hand, ia never credited with any surname in the extant Greek sourcesi though the Latins knew him as Comnenus and Doukas. Michael's illegitimate aon John, the celebrated bastard of Thessaly, is regularly called John Doukas or John the sebastokrator; but his Wife, Who was a Vlach, is called Comnena Doukaina. ' It would be nice to think that something could be learnt about Byzantine laws of inheritance or of succession from the surnames adopted by such families. The accumulation of long strings of names seems to be a late Byzantine phenomenon; and the later the date the mor·e important it appears to have been for some people, who were perhaps a little unsure of their social status, to include 8S many famous names as possible. Thus. one finds the Serbian Emperor at Trikkala in Thessaly in the 1370s calling himself John Angelos Comnenus Doukas Uro~ Palaiologos; or the otherwise unknown son of the Bulgarian tsar Smilec (died 1294) calling himself John Comnenus Doukas Angelos Branas Palaiologos; or, best of all, an obscure 15thcentury gentleman, whose name appears only on an icon, called John Doukas 7Angelos Palaiologos Raoul Laskaris Tornikes Philanthropenoa Aaanes. One can only assume that he was in some way connected with each one of these noble families; but the order in which he sets out their names remains obscure. A set piece for the study of Byzantine prosopography and genealogy is the Lincoln College Typikon. This is the foundation charter of the Convent of Our Lady of Good Hope (Bebaia Elpia) in Constantinople. It contains the names and better stllI the portraits of the foundress, of her parents, her husband, their children and their grandchildren. It is an object lesson in the accumulation of aristocratic names in high Byzantine circles. But it leaves one in the dark about how those names were properly employed or acquired. The foundress was Theodora, the nun Theodoule, daughter of Constantine Palaiologos, the brother of Hichael VIII. Theodora's mother was c.alled Eirene. Her portrait lists her surnames as Comnena Branaina Palaiologina, in that order; but in the text of the Priton she is deSCribed aa Branaina Comnena Laskarina Cantacuzena Pa a 0 ogina, in

82

that order. Tbeodora married John Angelos CoaDenu. S,. ...deno.. At h very outset therefore we have nine of the leadlDI Byzantine : e iUes involved in thia foundation·. But only the naaea at Palalol::OS, ComnenuB, Doukas and Synaden08 were c.at'ried on by Tbeodor .... I ons. One of them, Theodore, married the daughter of one Tbeodore :ouzakios, but that name was quickly dt'opped, presumably because Lt was not grand enough. The other 80n, John, however, d1d t'ather better for himself. He married a lady (Thomaia) with the naae. Comnena Dou~aina Laskarina Cantacuzena and Palaiologina; and .11 these names were adopted by her daughters - though they, a. i t happens, acqu1red yet more surnames by their reapec.tive . .rt'1al.a. Her daughter Anna, for example, was born Cantacuzena Co.nena r.la10logina, and added the names of Bryenissa and Philanthrope ne by . .rrying Hichael Laskaris Bryennios Philanthropenos. She had dropped the name of Synadene, which she had from her father, and that of Laskarina, which she had from her mother. One does not know why ahe did so, except that she probably had to draw the line sollewhere. One prosopographical lesson to be learnt from this remarkable document is that, in the last centuries of the empire, the leading Byzantine families were obsessed with the perpetuation of their own species by intermarriage. Eighteen descendanta of Constantine Palaiologos, brother of Hichael VIII, through four generations, are Usted in the Lincoln College Typik:;n. All of them had by birth or by marriage three or more surnames rawn from fourteen famllies; and only one of those families, that of Mouzakios, could be described a. being 'obscure' or 'of undistinguished origin'. The Typikon 10 a splendid and vivid advertisement for the late Byzantine obsession for name collecting among the aristocracy. Again one is reminded of the society of the late Roman Republic and early Empire. Caius Octaviu8, later Augustus, was a grandnephew of JuliuB Caesar, and so a Ju11aD. He married, as his second Wife, Scribonia, who was connected tht'ough her father with the family of Pompey. He married, as his third wife, Livia Drusilla, who was descended from the Claudl1 and the Livl1 and was the widow of a Claudius Nero. It was much the same sort of ratrace among the very few top families, to stay on top by producing joint-stock companies in the form of joint issue. The Byzantines had a strongly developed sense of family and family connexions. But a man would seldom trace his ancestry back for more than "bout three generations. The imperial family and aristocracy in exile at Nicaea or Epiros after 1204 liked to clai. links with the great ruling families of Doukas and Comnenus. But Andronikos II dropped them all in favour of the slngle surname of Pa18io10gos. Encomiasts of emperors sometimes allude to their illustrious forbears, but this is a rhetorical device. Gregory of Cyprus, for instance, praises the ancestors of Michael VIII, kut only in general terms and without naming anyone of thea. Nicholas KabasUas likewise extols the ancestry of Matthew Cantacuzenus in the following words: "'You whose ancestors were emperors, whose grandfathers were the Bons of emperors, more blessed and finer by far than the sons of Alakos ••• whose parents were emperors better and IROre wonderful than all the emperors'. But he does not mention a alngla name. Demetrios Kydones goes on in much the same vein about John Cantacuzenus's marvellous ancestors, and then a few yeara later. whew he had changed his political affiliations, about those of John V. But it is all hot air. Steven Runciman and others have remarked that

83

•

XIV

XIV the emperor, the Despot.. take prec:edenc:e over the brothe. . and ~ of the emperor, even though they too ar. Despots". ~ therefore. cOlles to denote not only • son-in-law and a brother-in-la" but alao any outoider Marrying a close relative of the emperor, auch 88 a 8randdaughter, a niece, a grandniece, a cousin or a cousln once removed.

the Byzantinea, especially in Constantinople. lived in a more or 1e88 CODstant state of nervous tension. Perhaps this caused them to live for the moment. They had a sense of tradition, because tradition meant security of a kind. But they had a deeper sense that real security was only to be found in the life beyond the grave. Another lesson of the Lincoln College Typikon is that it was important to have plenty of joint issue to pray for your 80u1 when you were gone. A helpful rule of thumb in Byzantine genealogy is that grandsons would usually, though not invariably, take the Christian names of their grandfathers. ThuB Mlc:hael IX was the grandson of Mlchael VIII; Andronikos III of Andronikos 1I; Theodore II Laskarts of Theodore 1. Otherwise, the Greek terms for parenthood, brotherhood, sisterhood, wife and husband are generally clear enough in the texts. But the Byzantines had a maddeningly indeterminate view of the more extended relationships in their very extended families. The words for cousin and nephew, for instance, are sometimes interchangeable; the word for son-in-law can mean a number of things; and the words for uncle and aunt have such wide connotations that one loses track of the generations with which one is dealing. Some examples may illustrate the problem:1.

2.

the words for nephew and cousin (anepsios and exadelphos): John Angelos, who flourished in the 1340s, is variously described in the sources as a relative of John Cantacuzenus, sometimes as a "close relation", sometimes as a cousin, a first cousin, or a nephew. CantacuzenuB, who should have known, calls him his exadelphos on one occasion and his anepsios on eleven occasionf6 Gregorac describes him as the emperor's "first cousin"". One has to conclude that the words for cousin and nephew were interchangeable. the word gambros (= son-in-law) can mean, literally, the husband of a man's daughter; but also, by extenSion, it can mean a brother-in-law (i.e. husband of a man"s sister or brother of his wife); and again it can mean an uncle acquired by marriage (i.e. the husband of an aunt on one"'s father"s side). Lucien Stiernon worked out for the court of the Comneni in the 12th century a kind of palace pecking order in which, it is clear, the appellation of gambros constitutes a rank or class. The emperor heads the list; then come the sebastokrators, who include the sons, brothers, paternal uncles and grandpaternal uncles of the emperor and their wives; next come the gambroi of the emperor, who include his sons-to,-law and by extension his brothers-in-law. And each gambros has hts proper rank: the husband of the emperor's eldest daughter is Caesar, of hts second daughter panhypersebastos, of his third protosebastohypertatos, and of his 4th (the 'benjamine') sebastohypertatos. Finally, there is a distinction between those who are parrebastos sebastos gambros and those who are gambros alone. In the De Officiis of Pseudo-Kodinos, the word gambros 1s employed to mean almost any close relative by marriage of the emperor. The text begins by saying: 'The sons of

84

3.

The words. theias or theia meaning uncle or aunt. These too are empl,Jyed in what"'t'O"C)ur minds ia a very wide and almost arbitrary manner. The word uncle can mean far more than the simple relationship between a child and its father'. or its mother's brother. It is used a180 to denote the degree of affinity existing between the child of an uncle and the child of the nephew, as if the 80n of your uncle Tom Cobley were the uncle of your own son Harry. The matter can even be taken into a third generation, so that the grandson of an uncle is designated as the uncle of a grandnephew. Sometimes this relationship is so tenuous and so far removed as to be almost indistinguishable from the relationship implied by such words as olkeios; and sometimes too the word theios is used, as we would say, of a "'courtesy'" uncle, to indicate a specially privileged member of the family. For example, Alexios Philanthropenos and Theodo~e Synadenos a~e both called 'uncles' of Andronikos though in fact there was no direct affinity between them.

IIh

Such imprecise use of technical terms for family relationships bedevils the task of the prosopographer. But a more prevalent problem is the haphazard nature of the documentary or other evidence for a particular person. All too often a man who was clearly important in his day, perhaps a gambros or a theios of an emperor, 10 mentioned only once or twice in the documents that happen to be available. He may once have gone on an embassy or have commanded an army. Often too there are considerable gaps in the hiatory of a particular family; and even in, the 14th century new families emerge into prollinence and make it to the top. The Apokaukos family may exemplify the first of these categories. Early in the fourteenth century the famous Alexius Apokaukos suddenly hits the headlines, apparently dragged out of the gutter by John Cantacuzenus. He 10 presented in the literary sources as a man of humble if not despicable origins. Yet a hundred years earlier the family of Apokaukos had produced one of the most learned of Byzantine bishops, John of Naupaktos; and in 1342 there was a George A~~kaukos with the rank of meg .. droungarios, a theios of the emperor. New families of wealth and influence are typmea-by those of Kydones and Hetochites. These are new names in the 14th century. We know quite a lot about the father of Theodore Metochites and something about the father of Demetrios Kydones; but of their earlier antecedents we know nothing. It would be intereating to know more about the soos of Theodore Metochites. two of whom clearly reacted against their father and suffered from a generation gap. But when the end came in 1453 there was one distinguished member of their family In Constantinople, the last mef!s atratoped~ of Byzantium, Demetrloa Palaiologoa Metochitea. Two of the most pOignant and revealing documents that have aurvived are the passenger Usts of refugees taken aboard Genoese ships at Constantinople on 29 Hay 1453. They include the names of 80me very 85

XIV

XIV

aristocratic rats leavi", the sinU", ship. But it is hard to identify the.. and harder .till to prolopoguphise thell. They include five Pal.ialogol, two Cantaeuzen!. two Laakarids. aa well 8a a number of mellbera of le •• celebrated familiea, among them two Notaradea. But there la no meana of knowing. for example t how the Blas108 and Matthalo8 Notaraa, who escaped on Due of the ships, were related to the famoua Loukas Notaraa, who did not and was executed with ..ost of hh family by the Sultan Mebmed.

rked that there is here no proh1e.. , becau •• the - dsuahter of r:::nos 11 and the niece of John Tzi .. hke.- are el.ply t.... 'lffereDt of saying the ....e thing. 50 they ..iaht be; but aa StaveD Rund ..an pointed out, in his review of JenUnl, thlo would ...... that have here the only recorded caae in Byzantine hlotory of e dauah~:r having the same name aa her mother, for Theopbano .... IIOther u14 .lso be called Theophano. This .how. how careful one has to be.

:'Y.

!8

rgcape

said earlier that prosopography provides the bare f.ctl for historians to interpret, the structure round which they C.D buil. their bricks. Two example. must suffice to show how thia .iaht be done. The first comes from the thirteenth the second frOll the fourteenth century. In 1260, after the battle of Pel.goni., Klchael VIII published a New Year-. Honours list. His brothers John and Constantine were raised to the ranks of Despot and leb•• tokratot' respectivelyAlexlua Strategopoulo8 was made Caesar; Conltantlne Tornlkes f the emperor' 8 aympentheros. was a180 made aebaatokrator (though with a difference). Also honoured in various ways were Joh.. Raoul, Alexius Phlleo, Balanidiotes, Alexius Philanthropenos and one Angelos. Of these, the first three had been persecuted by Hichee1 VIII-s predecessor, Theodore I I Laskarh; and all of them had _rrie' into the Palaiologos family. The only newcomer waa AlexiuI Phllanthropenos. The only old stagers were Alexius 5trategopoulo. .nd Michael Laskarh, both elderly and both honoured presumably •• a aap to Laskarid sentiment. Pro.opographical study of these exalted gentlemen reveals to what an extent Michael VIII gathered men around him who were fat. It also reveals that all but two of ~~_ vere either dead or disgraced and in prhon fifteen year. later.

Sometimes there is a vital link missing in the chain of family relationship, which could only be supplied by further evidence of a pro.opographical n.ture. To take one instance from the family of Cantacuzenua: Matthew Cantacuzenus, aon of John VI, had five children, two 80Da and three daughters. The 80Da were called John and Demetrios and both lived ..ost of their live. in the Morea. Their uncle Manuel, who had been Despot in the Morea since 1349, died in 1380. One of the.. , either John or Demetrios, at once claimed th succession for 'the Cantacuzenu8 family and waged war against Theodor: Pa181010808, who had been sent out from Constantinople to take Over. The only evidence for this incident is the Funeral Oration for Theodore Palaiologo. composed in 1407 by his brother, the Ellperor Manuel 1I. But this is a document composed in the pure.t rhetorical style and therefore names no name.. On the balance of probability it hao been assumed, by myself and by others, that the rebellious -cousinof Theodore Palaiologos, who died in 1384, was Demetri9s rather than John CantacuzenuB. But there Is no substantial proof.

Now, in the next generation there is documentary evidence for six members of the Cantacuzenua family, three brothers and three sisters, who played an important part in affairs in the Morea, in Constantinople, in Serbia, in Treblzond and even in Georgia. But who was the father of this brood? Demetrio8 Cantacuzenua seemed the moat likely candidate, since they are known to have been -grandchildrenof Matthew and so the offspring df one of his children. But H. Hunger has since proposed that their father was in fact one Theodore Cantacuzenu8. a correspondent of John KhortfAmenos and an 'uncle' of Manuel n, who died of the plague in 1410. There are quite good reasons why this might be true. But it means that one has to admit the existence of a hitherto unknown third Bon of Matthew Cantacuzenus and grandson of John VI, by name Theodore; and this, given the fairly full information that we have about at least the names of the emperor's immediate family, seems a bold assumption. (One observes that the Pi~sopograph1sches Lexikon does not enshrine Hunger-. theory as fact). Here then is a large lacuna in the succession of a leading Byzantine family in midstream.

The second example of the uses of prosopography has to do with the Zealot revolution in Thessalonica between the years 1342 a ..d 1350. Much has been written about the causes, the course and the consequence of this episode; but much of it remains obscure. A prosopographical approach to the problem, however. might yield sOIDe results. Who, for example, were the leaders of the movement? What was their social and economic background. especially in its lalt aDd bloodiest phase after 1345. when it might seellL to be at iU most revolutionary? Two of them were members of the imperial faally. Michael and Andrew Palaiologos; a third was Alexiu. Laskarh Metochites, one of the four sons of the wealthy Theodore Metochites. None of them could be said to be a penniless demagogue. If we knew how Mlchael and Andrew Palaiologo8 were related to the e.peror .... household we might be nearer to understanding what the Zealot revolution was about. But we do not, and 80 we have to surmise. W•• there a black sheep branch of the Palaiologos family? Or. bar sinister? Papadopulos suggested that Michael Palaiologos of The •• alonica was really M1chael-Demetrios Koutroulis of Epiros, a son-in-law of Michael VIll. 22 If this were .0 he would have been about 82 year. old When he became a revolutionary. The only social up.tart 8110", the Zealot leaders was George Kokalas; but even he married into the Palaiologos family. More pr08opographical work here might produce some interesting results. A study of the Metochltes fully would iD itself be fa.cinating and useful.

There are other and IDOre celebrated cases, for example, that of the princess Theophano, who married Otto 11 of Germany in 972. German scholars, almost ever aince, have been writing articles entitled -Wer war Theophano?The lady herself said that .he was a daughter of Romanos 11, a granddaughter of Constantine Porphyrogenitu., and so a great-great-granddaughter of BasU I. In fact she claimed to be the porphyrogenita or blueblooded princes. that Otto had asked for. But in the diploma announci", the marriage .he is called -the niece of John Tzimiakes'; and a nearly contemporary German chronicler, ready to believe that .11 the Greeks Were tre.cherous said that Otto had been deceived liut had decided to put a good face ~n it. Jenkln.

So far as the Palaiologan age is concerned the aspiri", prosopographer is now understandaMy daunted by the _erg_lICe of the machine-made Prosopographlaches Lexikon der Palaiologeftze1t (PLP).

86

87

.

'I

!

X.V

XIV NOTES

.,ix fasclculea of this monumental undertaking have now appeared, with a slim volume of addenda. There are four more to come. The material in them 1s processed and collated electronically by computer, which accounts for its provisional appearance. Eventually, ln five to eight years time, the whole work, with its cumulative indexes, will be revised. All the corrections and additions will by then have been incorporated and it will be published ln properly printed form. So far there are 15,236 entries, ranging from Aaron to Lochomalates. It

Argyros: J.-F. Vann1er, FamilIes byzantine.. (IXe-XIIIe sUclea) (Paris, 1975).

Le. Ar"roi

Asen: T.1. Uspen.kij, 'Bolgarsk1e Asenevic1 na Vizantijlkoj iIUYbe", Izvestija rUBskago archaeolog. Inst. v Konatantlnopole, XlII (1908), 1-16;B. KrekU, 'Contribution a l'lItude del Asanb il Byzance', I'll 5 (1913), 347-55; E. Trapp, 'Beitriige zur Genealogie der A.anen in Byzanz', JOB 25 (1976), 163-77.

1s a remarkable work and a great tribute to the brains as well as the organlsin g

machines of the AUBtrian Academy, and not least to the talents and sCholarship of Professor Trapp.

Cantacuzenua: D.M. Nlcol, The Byzantine Family of ICantakouzenoS (Cantacuzenus) ca. llOO-1460. A genealogical and proaopofraKhical study (Dumbarton Oaks Stud1es, Xl: Washington, D.C., 96 ); D.M. Nicol, 'The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenoa. Some Addenda and Corrigenda', OOP 27 (1973), 309-15.

It is, as it calls itself, a Lexikon of the Palalologan age, flot simply a register of persons with Greek or Byzantine names found in the sources for that age. It thus lists such Latin family names as Vlscontl or Glustlniani t but only when they appear in texts transcribed in Greek, as 'Vlskountis' or "'Ioustinlanos'. In other words it is confined to names recorded in hellenised form in Greek text~ and sources. This seems to be one of its weaknesses or limitations. Under the heading of Asanes, for example, there are 65 entries. Many more members of the Asen, Asan or Asanes fimily are In fact known from this period; but they are excluded because their names occur only in latinised form in non-Greek documents. Similarly. there are many Angevln, Ragusan, Venetlan and other non-Greek documents which contain large numbers of Greek names. But because they are in wes~ern or latlnised for-m they are omitted from PLP. By contras'" it does not seem very helpful to provide potted biographies of, . for instance, Pope Benedict XII or Pope Innocent IV because they get one mention each in Greek sources as "'Benedittos'" and 'Innokentios"'. Marsllio da Carrara rates a whole column on the strength of one mention by Khalkokondyle ••

Choumnos:

CiiOuDiiiOs',

J. Verpeaux, 'Notes proaopographiques sur la famille BS 20 (1959), 252-66.

Dermokaite.: D.M. Nicol, 'The Byzantine Family of Dermokaites, circa 940-1453', BS 36 (1975), 38-45. A.P. Katdan, ibid., 192. Doukaa: D.I. Polemis, The Doukai. t1QeProsopography (London, 1968).

A Contribution to Byzan-

G.braa:

A. Bryer, 'A Byzantine Family: the Gabrade., c. 979-c. University of Birm1ngham Historical Journal, XlI (1970), 164-B7; A. Bryer, St. Faasoulaki., D.M. Nicol, 'A Byzantine Family: the Gabrades. An Additional Note', BS 36 (1975), 3845.

my;-

Kabakes:

This exclusion of all forms and variants of Byzantine family names 1n non-Greek documents is laudably consistent. But it means that the PLP has serious limitations for the genealogist, who will want to trace all the recorded members of a given Byzantine family whether their names are transcribed In Greek. Latin, Slavonic or other form. EVen prosopographically it imposes its own limitation •• The career of a man like Syrgiannes Palaiologo8, for example. that Alc1biades of the fourteenth century, will only be incompletely told without reference to the Venetian documents 1n which he appears 8S ... dominus'" or 'roannes Lepischerni"". the pinkernis. None the less, the PLP has already proved its worth as an invaluable reference work the --product of a successful marriage between meticulous 8cholar8hl~ and the new technology.

St. Fassoulakis, 'The Family of Kabake.' (in Greek),

~ai Spouda1, V, ~, II (1980), 39-48.

Kaba.ilas: A. Angelopoulos, 'The genealogical tree of the Family of Kabasila.' (in Greek), Makedonika, XVII (1977), 36796. Mal1asenos: B. FerjanH~, 'Porodica Maliasena u Teaal1j1 (La Fam1lle de. Mal1aaaanes en Theasalie)', Zbornik fllosofakog fakulteta, VII (Belgrade, 1963), 241-9. Palaiologos: A. Th. Papadopulos, Ver.uch dner Genealog1e der Palaiologen 1259-1453 (Munich, 1938). Philanthropenos: Athenagoras, 'Contribution to the history of the Byzantine Hou.e of Phllanthropenos' (in Greek), ~ Hhtorikes kat Ethnolog1kea Hetatre1as, n. s., I (1929), 61-74.

In the field of Byzantine prosopography there remains a gap of some 600 years between the point where the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire ends and the PLP begins. A scheme is now afoot to fill this gap with what can onlybe called a PBE or Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire from the seventh to thethirteenth centuries. The hope La that i t "Ul be undertaken as a British Academy project, like the~. The details have yet to be worked out. Inevitably it will be a collaborative effort, and inev1tably it w1ll go on for many yean. But it is pleasant to think that the British Academy and British scholars will have taken the initiative 1n the production of ODe of the vital instrumenta of Byzantine studies.

Pleustes: N.M. Panagiotakh, 'The Byzant1ne Family of Pleustes. A contribution to the genealogy of the Phokadea' (in Greek), ~, I (Ioannina, 1972), 254-64. Raoul: St. Fa.aoulak1., The Byzantine Family of Raoul-Ral(1)e8 (Athens, 1973).

88

89

I

.:..l

XlV

XIV Sk18ros, W. Selllt, Die Sklerol. line pr080pograph18ch-81111_ iOiHPhhche Studie (Vienna, 1976).

15.

Svadenos, C. Hsnnick and Gudrun Schmalzbauer, 'Dle Synadenol. Proloposraphlsche Untersuchung IU einer lIy.antin1ochen Fa..Ute' JilB 25 (1976), 125-6l. '

V. Laurent, 'Le dernler souvernaur byzantln de Con.tant.lnop18. Dia'tdus Paliologue Mitoch1ta, Grand Stratop'darqua (+ 1453)', !!! 15 (1957), 196-206. The passenger liats were pubUahed by ((.0. Mertzio., in Carea A. ((eramopoulou (Athens, 1953), 355-72; and ln Actaa du"mi (Ballrade, 1964), Congrb International 41 'Itude. Byzantine.

Tagads, D.M. Nlco1, 'Ph11ade1phla and the Tasula Famlly', Neo-Hellenlka, I (1970), 9-17.

171-6. Hicol, op. cit., no. 50, pp. 158-60.

Tarkhaneiotes, G.I. Tbeokhaddes, 'Mlchae1 Doukaa Glabas Tarchaneiotes (Pro80posraphika)' (In Greek), Ip1otemonike Epeterlo tis Ph11080phlk1o Scholia tou Panepistemiou Tbessalonlkb, VI! (1957), 183-206. Tornikes (Tornik1os), Gudrun Schmalzbauer, 'Dle Tornlklol ln der Pa1aiologenleit. Prosoposraph1sche Unterauchung IU einer lIy.antln1scher Familie', JOB 18 (1969), 125-61. T.amplakon, G. I. Tbeokharide., 'The Tzamp1akonea. Contribution to By.antine Macedonian pro.oposraphy of the 14th century' (in Greek), Makedonika, V (1961-3), 125-83.

2.

Cantacuzenu. (Bonn), 504-9. Cf. Nicol, n. 4.

3.

Pachymere. (Bonn), I p. 65, 11. 12-13.

Ill, pp. 320-2; Gresora. (Bonn), Ill, pp. Byzantine Family of Kantakoulenoa, p. 134

4.

Nlcol, op. dt., nos. 20, 21, pp. 27-33.

5.

G. We!ss, Joannes Kantakuzenol - Ariatokrat. St._teIlBan, Kaiser und Manch - ln der Gesellschaftsentwicklung von By.anl 110 14. Jahrhundert (Viesbaden, 1969), especially pp. 138-55.

6.

Nlcol, op. cit., pp. x-x1.

7.

Po1emis, Tbe Doukai, nos. 58, 69, 152, pp. lOO, 104-5, 162.

8.

J.F. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, I (Paris, 1829), pp. 31J-58.

9.

Nicol, op. cit., p. 28.

10.

Rlcol, op. dt., pp. 147-8. Pro.opograph1oches Lexikon der Palaiolosenleit, ed. E. Trapp, 1. Walther and H.-V. Beyer, I (Vienna, 1976), no. 204 [dted hereafter as ~).

11.

L. Stiernon, 'Notes de titulature et de proaopographle byzantines. Sibaste et sallbros', ~ 23 (1965), 222-43.

12.

J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodlnos. Traiti des Office. (Paria, 1966), p. 133, 11 3-6.

13.

S. Binon, 'A propos d'un prostas... inidlt d'Andronic Paliolosue', BZ 38 (1938), 133-55, eapecially 146f.

14.

~.

18.

H. Hunger, Johannes Chortaamenoa (ca. 1370-ca. 1436/7). [Vlenar by.antin1.che Studien, VII) (Vienna, 1969), pp. 104-8.

19.

~.,

20.

1.

21.

Pachymere. (Bonn), I pp. 108-9, 410-11; Greloraa (loon), I, pp. 72, 19.

22.

Papadopulos, p. 29.

V, no. 10966.

JeRkin., Byzantium. The Imperlal Centuriea. (London, 1966), pp. 294-5.

Venuch einer

Ge"eal~gie

I, noa. 1180, 1183. 90

der 'alal010gan,

.".

III

91

AD 610-1071

DO.

47,

xv

xv

Byzantium and Greece It has been said or Italy, and it is no less true of Greece, that the history of the country is the history of its invaders. In Greece the turmoil of invasion has occurred with depressing frequency, from the Dorian conquest to the Roman conquest, to the Italian and German occupation in the Second World War. The longest period of foreign domination that the Greeks have suffered was that brought about by the Turkish conquest of their country, from the fifteenth century until the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence in 1821. Before the Turks arrived, however, Greece had been included among the several European provinces of the Byzantine Empire. If one measures history simply in terms of years, the longest consecutive period in the life-span of the Greek people has been that of their Byzantine phase, lasting, with interruptions, for some IIoo years. Alternatively, if one measures history in terms of achievement and influence, the greatest age of Greece, the Pentekontaetia, lasted for a bare fifty years. Yet for all the upheavals that have disturbed their country, the inhabitants of Greece continue to call themselves Hellenes or Greeks. How justified are they in doing so? Is there any thread that links the Greeks of Col. Papadopoulos with the Greeks ofPericles? To try to throw some light on this problem I propose to toy with three questions: first, how Greek were the Byzantines? second, how Greek were the Greek inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire? and third, how Byzantine did the inhabitants of Greece become? One of the sanest treatises on the subject of Greeks ancient and modern is that by the Hon. Frederick North Douglas published in 1813 and entitled An Essay on certain points of resemblance between the Ancient and Modern Greeks. 'Some confusion', he writes, 'has been occasioned by the different ideas attached by various writers to the denominations Greece and Greeks. When they are exclusively restricted to those commonwealths that took part in the Peloponnesian War, or those that sent deputies to the council of Amphictyons, Macedonia, Epirus and Constantinople will lie withont their limits; and if a wider range be taken, besides the barbaroi, whim I have already mentioned, there will be danger of confounding with the descendants of the Hellenes, many nations of perfectly different origin, but whose religion and habitual language have embodied them with the Greeks'. Douglas was, of course, writing eight years before the Greek War of

Independence broke out: At that tim.e,. like Lord Byron in his earlier days, he was cautioUs to the pomt of sceptiCism about the chances of the Greeks throwing off the Turkish yoke, or even about the desirability of their so doing. 'In such a nation', he says, 'we cannot expect to find a Leonidas, and we are tempted to leave them to have recourse to their saints, for the restoration they so little deserve'.' Enlightened Europeans of the early nineteenth century, brainwashed by the cadences of Edward Gibbon, had no time for Byzantium or for the Byzantine period of the history of Greece. They felt that the Byzantine Empire had promoted the decadence of the Greeks, which had merely been consummated by the Turks. Yet curiously their attitude was in one respect similar to that of the Byzantines themselves. For so far as the territorial entity of modern Greece is concerned it is safe to say that the Byzantines could never have foreseen that such an entity would come into being. They could never have predicted a Greek War of Independence, still less its outcome in the establishment of a Hellenic nation. The Byzantines were, on the other hand, constant! y aware of a Hellas that had once existed, of the ancient Greek world. But it bore litt!e or no relationship to the physical nature of the country which we now call Greece or to its actual inhabitants. The centres of Byzantine civilization in Greece were not those which had lIourished in ancient times. Athens was, for most of the Byzantine era, a onehorse town; Sparta hardly existed; Thebes acquired some importance as a factory for silk in the middle Byzantine period. But the main centres were often places that had barely any significance in classical times, such as Thessalonica or Serres, Neopatras or Halmyros, Monemvasia or Mistra. The Byzantines therefore had no antiquarian or archaeological interest in Greece as a country. Some curious local superstitions about the great men of the past survived in Greece itsel£ Sir John Mandeville, for example, travelling in Macedonia in the fourteenth century, came across the tomb of Aristotle and what amounted to a local cult in his honour near Stagira. 3 But the educated Byzantine of Constantinople had a vision of ancient Greece derived entirely from his textbooks of Attic style and sophistic rhetoric. He was not moved to go and admire the temples of Athens or muse in the ruins of the Stoa. In 1018 the Emperor Basil II paid a state visit to Athens after his defeat of the Bulgars to give thanks in the Parthenon, or as it then was the cathedral of the Mother of God. This was certainly an act of piety, but not to the revered • F. S. N. Douglas, An Essay • •. (London, 1813), pp. 40, 186-187. • M. Letts, Mandeville's Travels. Text and Translations (The Hakluyt Society. series D, vols. Cl, CII: London, 1953), I, pp. 11-12.

•

xv

xv memory of ancient Athens; for Basil the Bulgar-slayer despised scholarship, suspected philosophy, and 'was very imperfectly instructed even in Greek Grammar'.' Pilgrims and tourists did go to the Parthenon in Byzantine times, but not to see the Elgin marbles. The greatest attraction in the cathedral was its icon painted by St. Luke; but there was also a golden dove representing the Holy Ghost which flapped it~ wings ~ perpetual m~tion, and a sanctuary lamp miraculously kept bUrning by oil that never failed.' The Bishop of Athens at the end of the twelfth century, Michael Choniates, was of a different breed from Basil 11 ; he was celebrated for his learning and proud of his classical scholarship. He had a feeling for the great past of his city. His flock in Athens were a bitte~ ~~appointment t? him because they did not share that feeling; and the Attlclzmg Greek of his sermons went far above their heads. But we should note that Michael Choniates was not a native Athenian nor even a native Greek in the strict sense of the word. He and his elder brother Niketas, the historian, came from Chonai in Phrygia. 1 He was exceptional in relating the dream world of his classical education to the physical realities of his disappointing incumbency in Athens. But the first person on record as having appreciated the aesthetic beauties of the ruins of Athens was neither a Greek nor a Byzantine, but a Spanish king of the late fourteenth century, Pedro IV of Aragon. 'The castle of Athens', wrote Pedro, (and he has been much praised by modern writers for his discernment), 'is the most precious jewel that exists in the world, and such that all the kings of Christendom could in vain imitate'. It seems uncharitable to point out, however, that Pedro too was living in a dream world, for the evidence suggests that he never in fact visited Athens. In the end it was left to the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed the Conqueror, to grant exceptional favours to the Athenians in consideration of their past services to humanity. 7 • R. Jenkins, Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries, A.D. 610 to 1071 (London, 1966), po 301. I W. Miller, The Latins in the LewmI. A Historyof Frankish Gr«ce (1304-1566) (London, 1908), pp. 16-17· • Sec G. Stadtmilllcr, Midr«1 Choniattl, Metropolit von AtheiJ (ca. 1138-C4. lIZZ) (Orientalia Christiana AnaIecta, XXXIII: Rome, 1934). The scholarl}' Emperor of Nieaea, Theodore n Laskaris, expreued some aesthetic appreciation of the roW of Pergamon. Themhri Duelfl! I.tucaril Epistu/1fI! CCXVII, ed. N. Festa (Florence, 1898), no. pp. 107-108. On the Byzantine view of ancient Greek monuments, see C. Mango, 'Antique statuary and the Byzantine beholder', Dumbarton 0aIt.s Papers, xvn (1\)63). pp. SS-7S (especially pp. 69-70). 7 x. M. Setton. Cato/an Domination of Athens 1311-1388 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), pp. 17. 187-i88, aoo. Mehmed spent four daYJ sightSeeing in Athens in 14S8: ICritoboulos, cd. V. Grecu, Critobul tlm Din Domnia tui Malwmetlal I1-Iea, anil 1451-1467 (Buclwest, 1\)63), nI, 4-7, pp. 231-:&]3; Chalkokondyles, cd. B. Dark6, Lrtmki CJr.lcocantIyIae Historlarum Demon.tratiOlltI, (Budapest, 1923), p. 2II.

xxxn.

n

1."

n

4

How Greek then were the Byzantines? It used to be quite c:ommon practice to call the Byzantine Empire the 'Greek Empire'. It is true that nearly all Byzantine literature is in the Greek language, so that by the test of language one would think that the Byzantines had been predominaDdy Greek. But most of the Byzantine literature that survives, in the forms of history, theology, poetry, or correspondence, is written in a style of Greek painstakingly acquired at schools and universities as an artificial if not a dead language. It was the medium of polite communication among a very small circle of intelligentsia in the sophisticated world of the great cities of the Empire. For something approaching the spo~en tongue of or~ Byzantines one has to turn, for example, to the slxth-century chronicle of John Malalas, who was a Syrian, or to the fourteenth-century Chronicle of the Morea, which was written by a half-caste Greco-Frank.' Greek of an artificial kind was the literary language of the educated minority in Byzantium, and demotic Greek in some form was the lingua franca of the Empire. But this is not to say that Greek was by any means the only spoken language. For Byzantium, like the United States of America, was a multi-racial society. The Byzantine historian Genesios, narrating the rebellion of Thomas the Slav in 820, lists the races from which the rebel armies had been recruited, all of them then living in Anatolia. There were Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Iberian:s. Kabiri, Slavs, Huns, Vandals, Getae, followers ofMani, Lazes, AIans, Chaldi. Armenians, and all sorts of other people.· We must also remember that it was imperial policy to transfer populations from one province to another. Thus we find Armenians being transplanted into Macedonia and Greece, Monophysite Syrians being moved to Thrace, Mardaites from the Lebanon being resettled in the Peloponnese, in Cephalonia and in Epiros. The natural tendency, encouraged by the imperial government, was for the Greek language to predominate; and in the later centuries it probably did, although in Greece itself the V1ach and Albanian languages were spoken in the fourteenth century, as they are today. But in the heyday of the Byzantine Empire, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, its graecitlU, by the test of language, is debatable; and it is doubtful if Greek was then the majority language. lO

• See R. Browning, Metlieval anti MotIem Greek (London, 1969), especially pp. SHI. • Genesius, Regum liber 11: De Miehlfl!le Amoriensi, ed. C. Lacbmann (Bonn, 1834). p. 33 lines 13-17. er. P. Lemerle, 'Thomas le Slave', T,_ et MInroirtl, I (l96s). pp. 2SS-297· ,. P. Charanis, 'Observations on die Demography of the Byzantine Empile', Procettlings of the XlIIth International Congress of Byzantine .~ (0xf0Id, 1!I61). especially pp. 461-463.

s

...

xv

xv To call the Byzantine Empire the Greek Empire is therefore misleading. The Byzantines of whatever race called t~emselves 'Romaioi', as the inhabitants of the Christian Roman Empire. It IS arguable that they were just as conscious of their links with ancient Rome as they were of their classical Greek heritage; and in their golden age they certainly never thought of themselves as being Hellenes. The usual meaning of the word Hellene for most of the Byzantine era was one wished upon it by the fathers of the Church-pagan, or pre-Christian. The Hellenes of old, for all their sterling qualities, had been unredeemed pagans; and much of their literature, especially their philosophy, was periodically censored by the Orthodox Church as being unsuitable for Christians. Michael Psellos in the eleventh century was accused by the Patriarch of 'Hellenism' for his devotion to Plato and the neoplatonists; though Psellos in turn brought the same charge against the Patriarch for dabbling in magic and the occult. l l To be a Hellene was thus, in one sense, no compliment. Nor was the word used collectively to describe the inhabitants of what we now call Greece or Hellas. The word Hellas was employed to designate the military and administrative district or theme of eastern and central Greece. But its inhabitants were called sometimes Athenians or Thebans, sometimes Helladikoi, but not Hellenes. The people of other regions of Greece were similarly designated Peloponnesians, Lakonians, Thessalians and so on. Byzantine historians were in the habit of attaching classical Greek names to the Empire's enemies beyond the frontiers. The Turks were the Persians, for example, the Bulgars the Scythians, the Franks the Celts, the Serbs the Triballians, But the inhabitants of Greece were never dignified by the collective name of Hellenes, partly because of the pagan associations of the name, but chiefly because, living as they did within the boundaries of the universal Empire, they were Romans or Romaioi." Byzantine writers, however, were not always consistent in their use of the word Hellene. John Moschos, for instance, in the sixth century can describe

.. J. M. Hu~ey, Church ~nd Learning in the Byzantine Empire, 867-1185 (London, 1937), pp. 73-88 ; Idem, AscetICS and Humanists in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 6-10. :. !he uses of«;he temt Hellene are discussed by: N. G. Polites, "EAA'lVEC,; l\ 'PCDlltO{;', m Ecp'ljl£pl~ A'YdlV (Ath~, 19?1) (rep~ted in Polites, Aao'Ypacpucu l:ulljI£tKTa, I (Athens, 1920)); S. R,,?"clDlan, B~tme and Hellene in the fourteenth century', T611~ KCDVCTtavnvou ~Pjl£VOItOUAoU (Thessalonike, 1952), pp. 27-31; K. Lechner, Hel1~ un1 Barbaren '~ Weltbild der Byzantiner (Dissertation: Munich, 1954); H. B~pfla~Ot, EAA'lV&~ und 'PCDllaiot bei den letzten byzantinischen Geschichtsschre,bem, Actes du XlIe Congres International des Elndes Byzantines, IT (Belgrade, 1964), PP: 273-299;. R. Browning, Greece-Ancient and Mediaeval (An Inaugur~ Lecture delivered at Btrkbeck College: London, 1966), especially pp. I5-I7; S. RunClD1an, The Last Byzantine Renaissance (Cambridge, 1970), pp. I9-23.

D!rten,

6

a Saracen (or Arab) as a Hellene.18 Constantine Porphyrogcnnetos in the tenth century refers to the inhabitants of the Peloponnese as 'Gnikoi', a wcxd seldom found in Byzantine literature; but he reports that the people of the Mani were locally known as Hellenes because (he says) 'in the very ancient times they were idolaters and worshippers of images after the fashion of the ancient Hellenes'.14 Michael Psellos can describe a Byzantine general as being 'not a Hellene by birth, but a person of the noblest character'; though elsewhere he tells us that the Chinese are 'Hellenes by religion', that is to say pagans." This use of the word persisted. In the fourteenth century Demetri05 Kydones translated into Greek the Summa Contra Gentiles of Thomas Aquinas. He entitled it: the work of Thomas against the Hellenes. ,. Yet the same Demetrios K ydones could also employ the term Hellene to mean Byzantine. For in the last centuries of Byzantium some of the Iiterati of Constantinople adopted a fashion of calling each other Hellenes instead of Romaioi or Romans. This was not altogether a mere literary affectation. Scholars like Theodore Metochites in the fourteenth century, who were rediscovering the legacy of Hellenic learning, sometimes used the word Hellene as a term of self-congratulation. The Byzantines might not have much of an Empire left, but they were still in exclusive possession of the accumulated capital of ancient Greek wisdom; and this, if nothing else, marked them off from the Latins, the Turks and other lesser breeds without the law. 'Be a Hellene', writes Metochites, 'and have nothing to do with the ideas of the Scythians or the Persians or any other foreign races'." " John Moschus, Pratunt Spirituale, in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia series gr""co-/at;'11J, LXXXVII, 3, cap. CXXXIII, col. 29960 (I:apaK'lV~ Tt~ ·EAA'lV). C£ Evagrius, Histori. Ecclesiastic., ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), p. 238. "Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Adntinistrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins, 2nd edition (Corpus Fontium Historiac Byzantinae: Dumbarton Oaks Texts, I: Washington, D.C., 1967), cap. 49, pp. 228-229, cap. 50, pp. 236-237. "Michael Psellus, Chronographia, cd. c. Sathas, The History '!fPsellus (London, 1899), cap. XXXVI, p. 86 line 25; Psellus, Solutiones breves quaestionul/I naturaliuln, in Migne, Patrologia series grocco-latina, CXXII, col. 788B: &lai 06 [01 l:ivotJltcivtEC,; 'EllllVEC; TO 06YlJa, ItAl1V Itaw OtlCatOTaTol. " G. Mercati, Notizie di Procoro c Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Trod.ro Meliltflio/d ed altri appunti ... (Studi e Testi, 56: Vatican City, 1931), p. 363 line 23: to tOu E>CDlld Kall' 'EAAilvrov ~t~Aiov. "Theodore Metochites, l:totx&iCDal~ tltl TlI dmpovolltKt! tlttCTtillltl Dpooijllov, ed. K. Sathas, M&aalCDV1Kl1 Bt~A10llilK'l, I (Venice, 1872), pp. It'l' -Idl'. Examples of the use of the word Hellene as a temt of praise can be cited from as early as the twelfth century. Cf. Browning, Greece-Ancient and Mediaeval, 16. The Emperor John III Vatatus proudly referred to his imperial predecessors as Hellenes' and to his ancestors as being •of Hellenic stock'; but these were the words of an Emperor in

t

7

xv

xv But the accepted lIse of the term Hellene in a national or ethnic sense Was slow to develop. It was not until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 that any Byzantine writer regularly employed the word Hellenes to mean Byzantines and Romans to mean westerners. The last Byzantine historian, Laonikos Chalkokondyles, specifically denounces the traditional use of the word Romaios. He had lived through the fmal collapse of Byzantium and the triumph of the Ottomans, and he had a very Herodotean view of history. For him the sack ofConstantitiople in 1453 was the revenge of the barbarians for the sack of Troy by the Greeks. The Hellenes of the Byzantine and Orthodox world must now halt the tide of barbarism by co-operating with the Romans of the western and Catholic world. Chalkokondyles even calls the Pope 'Bishop of the Romans' and the Patriarch 'Bishop of the Hellenes'.lO For Byzantines of an earlier age this would have been going far too far. What scholars like Theodore Metochites advocated was an ideal or romantic Hellenism. They did not think of themselves as being Hellenes in any racial sense. Nor did they worry their heads about whether the inhabitants of Hellas were the lineal descendants of Perides. For them Greece was an abstraction, divorced from the hard facts of its subsequent history; or, as Shelley put it: 'Greece and her foundations are Built below the tide of war, Based on the crystalline sea Of thought and its eternity'.

I.

The Byzantines must surely have been aware that the material contribution made to their Empire by the Hellenic race properly so called was comparae"!le at Nicaea, addressed to the Pope, whom he was trying to impress. The text of this letter to Pope Gregory IX, dated 1237, originally published by I. Sakellion, in 'A01jvalov, I (1873), pp. 372-378, is reproduced in A. Meliarakes, 'Ia'topia 'toO IlacnAetOIl 'ti\~ N\1cat~ Kui 'toO AEaltO'ta'tOIl 'ti\~ 'HnElpoll (1204-1261) (Athens, 1898), pp. 276:"279. C£ V. Grumel, '~'authen~cite de la lettre de Jean VatatUs, empereur de NIeCe, au Pape GregOlre IX, &hosd Orient. XXIX (1930), pp. 452 -454; A. E. Vacalo.poul.os, Origins of the Greek. Nation: The Byzantine Period, 1204-1461 ~R~t!F' Uruvemry Press: New BrunsWlck, N.]., 1970), pp. 37-38; J. Irmscher, Nikia aIs "Zentrum des griecbischen Patriotismus.. ', Revue tks ltudes sud-l!st europIennes, VIII (1970), pp. 33-47. " Speaking of the Russians, e.g., Chalkokondyles, ed. Dark6, I, p. 122. lines ~, ~: bti 'to~ :EUl1~ !idAM>v t6't~VOl oil naw aull/PtpoVTal 't~ I'IDIIatmv dpxl6p8t, EU~V\KI{I 3t ~PXl6p8t XpibV'tal .•.. On the terminology oC Chalkokondyles, see especially H. D1tten, op. at., Actes Ju XII' Congres IlIImIIltiolflll iu Etutks Byzlllltines, n (Belgrade, 1964), pp. 2.73-299. " P. B. Shelley, HelltU. A LyriaII Dr_ (London, Ib2.).lines 696-699.

8

lively small. The greatest of their Emperors were all of what the ancient Greeks would have called 'barbarian' blood. Consuntine and Justinian were Ulyrians; Heradius was probably an Armenian from Africa; Leo m was aa !saurian or Syrian; Basil I and his house came from Macedonia; RomanOl Lakapenos from Armenia; Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes from Analolia; and Basil 11, the greatest of them all, may, if Professor Jenkins is to be believed, have been a Norman bastard. 2 • The aristocratic families of the Empire derived their wealth and breeding mainly from Asia Minor QC Armenia, or in later times from Byzantine Macedonia. This is not to say that no eminent Byzantines came from Greek soil. The wife of the Emperor Theodosios II in the fifth century, and the formidable Empress Eirene in the eighth century both came from Athens. St. Luke, whose great monastery in phokis is now on all the tourist routes, came from Stiris. Leo the Mathematician, perhaps the most promising scientist that Byzantium ever produced. was born in Neopatras. So also was Athanasios, founder of the monastery of the Great Meteoron in Thessaly. And there were others. But the fact remains that even in the eleventh century the districts of Hellas and the Peloponnese were regarqed as faraway places, poor and barbarous, whose standards of civilization had nothing in common with those of antiquity nor with those of Constantinople... How Greek then were the Greeks of the Byzantine Empire? Byzantine writers of the seventh and eight centuries used the official term Helladikoi to distinguish the inhabitants of Hellas not merely from the ancient Hellenes but even from the Romaioi of the Empire." The eighth century was, of course, about the darkest period in the whole history of Byzantine Greece. The darkness set in with the invasion of Greece by the Slavs in the late sixth century, and light did not noticeably da wn again until the begirming of the ninth century. It was a dark age for the inhabitants of Greece, isolated from Constantinople and from the traditions and habits of civilization. And, although a deal ofink has been spent upon the problem, it remains a dark age ,. Jenkins, Byzantium. The Imperial CCllturies, p. 302. " A. Bon, Le Pl/opolI..esc byzalltin jllSqu'en 1204 (Biblioth&!ue byzantine, Etudes, I: Paris, 1951), pp. 153 If. "Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor. I (Leipzig. 1883). pp. 405. 475. Other examples are cited and discussed by P. Charanis, 'The tcrm HeIIadikoi in Byzantine texts of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth centuries'. 'En6'tl1p~ 'E'tUlp8t~ Bul;UV'tlV&V tnoll6cl\v, XXIII (1953) (=KuviaKlovtlluUkoVl!. KOUKouM). pp. 61S~lO. c£ Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarulll COmpetrdilllll. ed. I. Bekker (Bonn. 1838). p. 796. Charanis argues, pace G. FinJay, J. B. Bury and others, that the term Hellaclikoi was used to denote not merely the Wiabitants of the theme oCHellas, but also those of the Peloponnese, i.e., in an ethnic and not merely an administrative sense.

9

______ '"'

:1

xv

xv

fOr the modern historian. No one can deny that the Slav occupation of Greece marked a break in the history of the Greek people comparable to that produced by the Dorian conquest of prehistoric times. The question at issue, at least since the nineteenth century, has been whether, when the darkness lifted around the year 800, the people of Greece who were then resuscitated and rebaptised in Byzantine Christian waters were in fact Hellenes at all. Or had the racial link with the people of PericIes and Plato been snapped for ever? And were the Greeks of the ninth century and afterwards and today all Slavs or Slave-Byzantines? In 1830 Jacob Fallmerayer propounded his now famous theory that, as a result of the Slav invasions of their country, not one drop of Hellenic blood Bows in the veins of the modern Greeks.23 It was a time when the Greeks were exciting great interest and sympathy not least among starry-eyed poets and classical scholars in western Europe by their struggle to throw off the Turkish yoke that they had borne for nearly four hundred years. It was the wrong moment to say that the Greeks were really all Slavs, and that all the descendants of Miltiades, Themistocles and Epaminondas had been drowned or suffered a sea-change under the Slavonic tide. Fallmerayer's theory provoked a storm of prote~tand then a .barrage of scholarly criticism, notably from Karl Hop£ Then, WIth the establIshment of the Kingdom of Greece it became a matter of patriotic duty for Greek scholars to defend the Helle~ic purity of their race. One of them, Constantine Sathas, went so far as to say that the Slavs had never really invaded Greece at all. 24 Fallmerayer and most of his works were buried under a heap of more or less scholarly verbiage. The m~dem Greeks we~e evid.enrly Greek and not Slav. Fallmerayer became something of an a~ter-dinner Joke. But nowadays we are not so sure. Eight years ago the questIon was raised again in a now celebrated brace oflectures delivered in Cincinnati by Professor Jenkins. 25 The ghost ofFallmerayer was

S, }..Fallmerayer, Geschichte det .1!al~inse/ Morea wiihrenJ des Mitte/alters, I (StuttgartTiibmgen, 1830), Vorrede, pp. m-XIV, and especially pp. 143-21 3. :' C. Hop£' Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mitte/alrers bis au! die neuere Zeit ~ J. S. Ers(ch .an~ J. G. Gruber, AI1gemeine EncyklopiiJie tier Wissenschaften unJ Kiinste: ~V ,f:elpZlg, 1867), especially pp. I03-I19; C. N. Sathas, Documents ineJits r~lat!fs. d 1hlStoire de la Gr.ece au moy~n 4ge, I (Paris, 1880), p. XXVIII: 'I1 n' a as histonqu~m"!'t une quesnon slave, Jamais des Slaves tels que)'etlmologie nIode~e Ies c~n~olt, n ~y"."t p.~etre dans le Peloponnae'; IV (Paris, 188 3), . XLII: ' ••. "ai 3Cqws la c°len~cnon mebranlable, qu'excepte Ies Valaques et les ~anais jamais ~e autre peup n est entre en Grece pour s'etablir'. ' ~' Romill le : ThYJe~,

Brzantiu"'. an.d Byzantinism (Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft emp. e Uruvemty of Cmcmnati 1963)' blish d' Vi' . .r .. . ClasSical Stud·leS, I (Pnnceton, . repu e ID nlvewty '!! Cmcmnatl 1967)" . 10

made to walk again. These lectures must be read to be appreciated, and very ood reading they are. I shall not try to summarise their contents. But in general terms Jenkins based his conclusion that Fallmerayer was right on two foundations: first, that the supposed link between certain aspects of ancient and modern Greek life can be shown to be an artificial creation caused by the reintroduction of Hellenism at second hand from Byzanrine Constantinople in the ninth century and after; and second, that Fallmerayer was a much more competent, though sometimes less cautious scholar than any of his detractors. There is justice in both of these points. But taken neither singly nor together do they seem to me to prove that the modem Greeks are all Slavs. I would like to emphasise again that this was a question that never exercised the minds of the Byzantines; it was of no interest to them. George Finlay, whose History of Greece from the Roman Conquest to 1864, though the work of a disappointed idealist, remains a classic, was of opinion that the identification of the modem Greeks with the ancients was a late invention. 'The modem identification of the Christian Greeks with the pagan Hellenes', he writes, 'is the growth of the new series of ideas disseminated by the French Revolution. . . . Before the commencement of the present century, no modern Greek would have boasted of any ancestral conneccion with the pagan Hellenes'. 28 It is true that the idea may have been put into the heads of the Greeks themselves at a relatively late date. But there is ample evidence to show that it was widely believed in western Europe at least as early as the seventeenth century. Byron, who died four years before Fallmerayer formulated his theory, knew all about the supposed connection, but he had a remarkably balanced view of the matter. Others, who wanted to believe in it, became discouraged by the harsh realities. Shelley, at the time when he was writing 'Hellas', had his first encounter with some flesh and blood Gteeks in the harbour at Leghorn, and complained that they reminded him more of Hell than of Hellenism. 'Come away', he cried, 'there is not a drop of the old Hellenic blood here. These are not the men to rekindle the ancient Greek fire'. n The Greeks had on the whole an unsavoury reputation in the West for treachery, guile, graft and corruption. But this did not necessarily tell a~t their ancestry; for the same vices could be. Illscovered among the anClent •• G. Finlay, A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Tinre, B.C. 146 toA.D. 1864, cd. H. f. Tozer, V (Oxford, 1877), ep. 7 and 122 note I. E. J. Trelawny, Records of Shelley, Byron and the Author {London, 1878), pp. 71-71Cf. T. Spencer, Fair Greece Sad Relic. Literary Phi/he/lenism from Shakespeare to Byron (London, 19S4); G. Pfeiffer, Studien zur Friihphase des europiiischen Philhe/IetU.m. (14S3-17S0) (Dissertation; Erlangen, 1969).

s,

Il

xv

xv Greeks too, as John Covel remarked in the seventeenth c~ntury: 'Believe me, Greeks are Greeks still; for falsenesse and treachery they stdl deserve Iphigenia's character of them in Euripides, Tn/stthem ami hang them, or rather hang them fmt for sureness'.1I Or, as a French merchant in Athens observed to Lord Byron: 'Sir, they are the same base canaille .that existed i;1 the Jays of Themi$/ocles'. Byron himself, who understood the Greeks and human nature rather better, sensibly concluded that many westerners based their low opinion of the poor Greeks 'on much the same ground that a Turk in England would condemn the nation wholesale, because he was wronged by his lacquey, and overcharged by his washerwoman'.·· Classical scholars were apt to feel that the degeneration of the Greeks under Turkish rule was their own fault. If only they had remained faithful to the promise of their aneient past and not lapsed into becoming superstitious and decadent Byzantines all wonld have been well. But it was left for Fallmerayer to suggest that the Slavs were really to blame for the degeneraey of the Greeks."O The period of Greek history between the sixth and the ninth centuries remains, as I have said, a dark age for modem scholars. The literary evidence that Fallmerayer marshalled to prove his point in 1830 remains almost as meagre and debatable 140 years later. The only notable additions to it have been made by the archaeologists excavating at Corinth, Athens and elsewhere, and theirfmdings too are debatable. We really have no more substantial or irrefutable clues to the problem than Fallmerayer had. The total literary testimony for the history of Greece between the years 580 and 750 consists of a dozen isolated and incidental references in sources ranging from the sixth to the tenth centuries. 31 On such haphazard foundations is the purity of •• John Covel, Dr. Couel's Diary (167~1679), in Early VOYdges dntl Trduels in the LeVdnt, ed.J. T. Bent (The Hakluyt Society, vo!. LXXXVII: London, 1893), p. Ill. •• Byron, Childe Hdrold. Notes to Canto the Second, Stanza lxxiii, line I. ,. See, .e.g., F. S. N. Douglas, An ~Y : .., p. 183: '~ut if their tyranny (of the Byzantine Empe?,n) oppressed ~ subjects, the ptofllgacy and meanness, which flowed flom their court, beeatne mcotporated with the nature of the Greeks, and effectually corrupted the little that remained of the Hellenic e1raracter and blood'. The literary sources are listed and analysed by A. Bon, Le Pelopo'lnese byzdntin (19S I): pp. 31-36. See. also M. ,(asmer, Di. Sldven in Griechfl,Lmd (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademle der W"senschaften, 1941, Phil.-hist. K1asse, No. I2 (Berlin, 1941)), pp. II-19: P. Charanis, 'The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the question of the Slavonic ~emen~ in ~', DIlllllNuton Odks Pdpers, V (19S0), pp. 139-166; P. ~erle, La Chromque unptoprement dite de Monemvasie', Revue des ltudes byzanunts, XXI (1963), pp. S-49. For the arelraeological and nwnismatic evidence ICe Bon, ~I'. at., pp. 49-SS: to which may now be added: A. Bon, 'Le ptoblone sla~ clans le PeJop~ a la lum.iffi, de I'arelreologie', ByzdntiM/, XX (19S0), pp. 13-30: If

Hdlenic blood supposed to stand or fall. No one can seriously deny that the slays invaded Greece and succeeded in occupying most of the country for a period of about, two hundred years. The re~~t and r~stianizariOll of Greece was directed from Constantmople ID the mnth century as a military and missionary enterprise. But not until the tenth century was the whole peninsula reconstituted as a Byzantine province; and the Slays that remained were driven into the mountains, where their descendants were still to be found as late as the fourteenth century. IS The question that has provoked most discussion is that of the effect of the Slav occupation on the continuity of the Greek race. la Had the occuparion been imposed by a central authority as a deliberate act of colonization it might have been easier to assess its effects. As it is, Constantine Porphyrogenitus says that, in the eighth century, 'the whole of the Peloponnese was

.]

I

I 1,

P. Charanis, 'On the Slavie settlement in the Peloponnese', Byzanti~ Zduchrij't, XLVI (19S3), pp. 91-103; idem, 'The significance of coins as evidence for the histocy of Athens and Corinth in the seventh and eighth centuries', Historid IV (19SS), pp. 163-172 : R. L. Scranton, Corinth, XVI (Cambridge, Macs., 19S7), pp. 27-28; H. A. Thompson, 'Athenian Twilight, A.D. 1.67-600' ,JOU1lIlJ/ ofROnlllll StuditS, XLIX (19S9), pp. 61-72: D. M. Metcal("The Slavonic threat to Greece ciTCII S80: Some Cvidence from Athens', Hesp.rid, XXXI (1962), pp. 134-IS7; ilkm, 'The Aegean coasdands under threat', Annual Of the British School at Athens, LVII (1962.), pp. 14-2): S. Hood, 'Isles of Refuge in the early Byzantine period' , AnnUdI of the British SchoollJt Athens, LXV (1970), pp. 37-4S· ,. The most important contributions to the mass of secondary literature on the subject up to 19S0 are listed by Bon, op. cit., p. 30 note I. See also P. Charanis, 'Ethnic changes in seventh-century Byzantium', DIlmlNuton Odlu PdperS, xm (19S9), 1'P· 2S-44; itItm, 'Observations on the history of Greece during the early middle ages, &/ltllll Stu/iu, XI (1970), ep. 1-34: idem, 'Graecia in Isidore of Seville', Byzantinisthe :&ibtltrift, LXIV (1971), pp. 22-2S; A. P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slav. into Christendom. An Introduction to the Medieval History ofthe SldVS (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 6-12. .. See, on the one side, Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinism, pp. 2.1 If.; C. Mango. 'Byzantium and Romantic Hellenism', Journal of the Wmrg ;mJ COUT/dUltI IItSIiIlUts, xxvm (196s), pp. 39-43. On the other side, see A. E. Vaka!opoulos, 'Icnoplluo\) Ntou'EA.A.1'\VLapoil, 2. vols. (Thessalonike, 1961,1964); idem, n1'\ytt;~t;'I~ toil Ntou 'EA.A.1'\VL<JlIOiI (Thessalonike, 1965); idem, Origins ofthe Gr«k NlJtion, J:lOf146/ (New Brunswick, N.]., 1970), pasim. See also the review of the two former works ofVaka!opoulos by C. Mango, inJoUTndI ofHel1enic Studies, LXXXVIU (1968), pp. 2.S6-2.S8: and the replies ofVaka!opowos, in &1JuIII Studies, IX (1968), pp. 101-136 (entitled 'Byzantinism and Hellenism. Remarks on the racia1 origin imcl the iDte1lectual continuity of the Greek nation'), and pp. 495-498 (Letter to the Editor of &IJrM Studies). C£ I. N. Moles, 'Nationalism and Byzantine Greece', Gr«k, R-. ... ByZllllline Studio, X (1969), pp. 9S-I07; S. G. Xyc!is. 'Mediaeval Origins of Modem Gn:ck NatioDalism'. B<JIuIII SiilJits, IX (1968), pp. 1-30.

13

r

xv

xv

slavised and became barbarian'. U The word he uses is Ea9A.aj361Ih1, which could mean either that the Greeks were 'made slaves' or that they 'became Slavs'. And this is the nub of the matter. Seldom can so much nationalist and academic passion have been aroused over one word in any other context. Broadly speaking, if you are a Greek or an uncritical philhellene, you believe that Constantine's Ea91.aj36l91l means that the Peloponnese was 'enslaved'; if you are a Fallmerayer man, or a Jenkins man, you believe that it means 'made Slav'. Even with the paltry evidence that we have, however, one can hardly avoid the conclusion that if the country was enslaved its slave-drivers were the Slavs. What we really need to know is the extent of the assimilation by the Slavs of the native Greeks, and the Greek assimilation of the Slavs. Much work has been done on the distribution of Slav place-names in Greece and on Slav elements in the Greek language. Toponymical research supports the theory that the western Peloponnese was more slavised than the east. But the .tr~th of the matter could only be derived from a set of the population statIStics of Greece, or from registers of intermarriage between Slavs and Greek~; and such records are never likely to be discovered. A dark age is an age without documents; or, as the French have it, 'pas de documents pas d'histoire'. But, when all is said and done, and even though the process may not have been. compl~ted for many years, the Greek element is seen to have predo~mated m Gue~e. The most compelling proof of this is surely the survival and contmulty of the Greek language. For I find it hard to believe that Greek as a spoken language died out and was then reintroduced into the country by Byzantine officials and missionaries in the ninth century and after, and that all the allegedly 'Slav' or 'slavised' population in due course adopte? it. If <:reec~ had really become a Slav country, why did not the B)'z~ntme tnISS10nanes sent there evangelise its people in the Slav language? ~y~l.and MethodlOs and their followers went out of their way to avoid mfllctmg t~e use of liturgical Greek on the Slavs of the northern Balkans. The C~nlhc scnpt and liturgy were available at least by the 860's for the conversion of the Slav peoples. Why should the Byzantine Church in Greece then ha~e. mad~ Greek its official language if in fact the majority of the country s mhabltants were Slav and Slav-speaking ?36 ; Constantin)e Porl'hyrogenitus, De thematillUs, ed. A. Pertusi (Studi e Testi 16~. ome, 1952 ,p. 91 line 33. Cf. Bon, op. cit., p. 29 note 1. ' • " On the Byzantine reconquest of G P ch .,. of Greece from th Sla ' B . reecebsee. arams, Nlcephorus I, the savior p 37-48· D Obol yzantma Meta yzalllina, I (1946), pp. 75-92; Bon, op. cit., · do ' .) ens y, The Byzantine Commonwealt~. Eastern Europe 5 0 0-1453 L (J on n, 1971 pp 69-101 cr C t . P h . ' Itnperio, U: Con:m~tary ed· R ]. Ho]nsnkinsantme( orp yrogerutus, De Administra.Jo , . .. . e London, 1962), pp: 182-1 87. On the

e

'1'

The continuity of the Greek language therefore seems to me to imply a ontinuity of the Greek mentality among the inhabitants of the country. The ~omposition of their blood-stream is a matter that I would rather leave to the chemists. The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogeneous. What matters is that, after that occupation, the inhabitants of what we now call Greece re-emerged as Byzantines or Romaioi. T~ey ~ould ha.ve done thi~ as Slav~, being a Slav()phone province of the Empire like Serbia or Bulgana. But history shows that they emerged as Greeks, speaking Greek and thinking Greek, as they had done before. This brings me to my third and last question: how Byzantine did the inhabitants of Greece become? How successful and permanent was the rebaptism of Greece in Byzantine waters after the ninth centlIty? Horace said of the Roman conquest of Greece that Greece took her wild conqueror captive ('Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit'). 36 But the wild conquerors of Greece in the middle ages were not taken captive by the Greeks. It would be truer to say that some of them, like the Greeks themselves, were taken captive by Byzantium, or rather by Byzantinism and the Byzantine Weltanschauung. For it was this that survived the storms of the numerous invasions of the country in and after the ninth century. First came the Arabs, then the Bulgars; though they came more as pirates and raiders than as colonists or settlers. Much more permanent consequences were felt from the arrival in Greece of the Vlachs, and later of Albanian immigrants. The problem of the Slav invasion of Greece has excited, as we have seen, great passions. But the Vlach occupation of Thessaly has provoked less comment. Among the reasons for this must surely be that the Vlachs are still there in large numbers, that no one can pretend that they are of Hellenic blood, and that many eminent men of the modern age of Greece are of Viach descent. Furthermore, evangelisation of Greece, see Bon, op. cit., pp. 64-70. The most celebrated missi:onary in the Peloponnese was St. Nikon called Metanoeite, who came from Armcrua ~d died in 998. Vlasto, Entry of the Slavs into Christendom, p. H, remarks that, followmg the rapid Chrutianisation of the Slavs in Greece in the ninth century, 'by the end of the century the Slav language was almost everywhere extinct'. Obolensky, Byzantine Commonwealth, p. 61, draws a distinction between 'the Slav lands that lay beyond the Empire's borders', where Christianity was propagated in the Slavonic vemacul:ar, and 'the Slav countries at home', who were subjected to 'Hcllenisation through Chrutianisation'. On Cyri! and Methodios, see now F. Dvomik, By~antine Missicnu IIIIIOfIg tIw Slavs. ss. Ccnutantine-Cyril and Methadius (New Brunswick, N.J., 1970); Vlasto. op. cit., pp. 29 If. " Horace. El'. 2, I, 156.

IS

xv

xv

the extent of their incorporation even into the Byzantine fold is dubious. The Vlachs or WaIlachians from the lower reaches of the Danube were already well-established in the plain and in some of the towns ofThessaly in the eleventh century. In the twelfth century the whole district came to be caIled Great Vlachia." The Albanians also began to arrive in northern Greece in the eleventh century, bringing their own customs and their own language. Not until rather later, however, did they reach the Peloponnese, as mercenaries of the Byzantine Despots of Mistra. Around 1400 there are said to have been about 10,000 of them there, and flfry years later as many as 30,000. 38 In the nineteenth century the entire population of Attica and Megaris, with the exception of the capitals, and large parts of Boeotia and the Peloponnese, were Albanian and Albanian-speaking. Their descendants, like those of the Vlachs, are still to be fowld in surprising numbers on the soil of Greece, no more Hellenic and hardly more Byzantine than the Slavs of old. The term 'Arvanitis' may be one of abuse among the peasants of modern Greece. But it does no harm to recaIl, with George Finlay, that 'the soldiers of Suli and the sailors of Hydra, the bravest warriors and most skilful mariners in the late struggle of Greece to regain her independence, were of the purest Albanian race, W1aItered by any mixture of HeIlenic blood' .•• Of all the mediaeval invaders of Greece, the most Byzantine in spirit as in ambition were the Serbs in the fourteenth century. Their occupation of northern Greece was short-lived. But they were weIl aware, so long as it lasted, that they were privileged to be the masters of a thoroughly Byzantine province. The charters with which the Serbian Emperor Stephen Dusan took care to endow the many Byzantine monasteries in Greece, including MOWlt Athos, were painstakingly composed in the official Greek of the Byzantine chancellery. The Meteora monasteries of Thessaly grew rich through the

F~r ~e Vlachs in Thessaly in the twelfth century, see especially The Iti"",4ry of BeI!l411"" ofTutl~la, ed. M. N. Adler (London, 1907), p. II. Cr. Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek N4tlon, pp. 12-15;~. S. Nasturel, 'Valaques, Coumans et Byzantins sous le regne de Manuel Comnme, I (Thessalonike, 1""") pp 166-186', E Stanescu 'Les "B' de Byzantina, . yvy,. b' .' ""'XOI Kinnamos et Choniat~ et la presence militaire yzantme au nord du D~ube s?u.les Comnmes', Re~ue tits etutles mkst europeennes, IX (:971), pp. 58S-S9~; l/km, Byzance et le. pays roumains aux IX'-XV' si~c1es', XIV Co"grts Internll/lonal ties E/Utlts Byzantines, R4'Prports IV (Bucharest 1971) pp.zolf. " , 17

L

..

~. D. A. Zakythin~, Le J?espotatgre~/k Morle, I (Paris, 1932 ), pp. 101-105; n (Athens,

~3), Pf· 29-36, J~,

ByzantIum anti Byzantinism, pp. 34-35; Vacalopoulos, VTlglHS Dj the Greek NatIon, pp. 6-u. J. Finlay, Hi,tory ofGreece, ed. Tozer, IV, p. 32. 16

lavish benefactions of the. Serbian p~ces of Trikkala. 'The mingling of Byzantine-Greek and Serbian blood might have revitalised the counrry. tu it was, it pro~uced sllch~mark:ble flgudreds ha~ John Uros Kornnenos Doub Angelos PalalOlogos. Jo Uros succee e IS father at Trikkala about 1371 with the title of Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks, of all Albania and Great V1achia. Later he became a m?nk.and the sc:cond founder of the monasrery of the Great Mete?ron. HIS sISter ~rta Atlgelina married Thomas Preljubovic, the Serbian D~spot of Ioannma acr~ss .the mountains; and when ThontaS was caIled to the Judgment seat for his SIDS she ntarried a dashing oung Florentine nobleman called Esau Buondelmonti. 4• The mixture of ~aces in northern Greece was almost a joke by the fifteenth century. One of the Iatterday Despots in Epiros, a successor of the good Maria, was called Bongo (or Bongoes). He was almost certainly an Albanian himself, but he hoped to secure the 10y~lry of all the inhabitants of his linle domain by styling himself ~erbarvamto~ulgarov.l~chos. But the predominating element was the Byzantme. The rulmg families whether of Serbian, Albanian, or Italian origin, fostered the Byzantine tradition, espoused the Byzantine faith, and mastered the Byzantine Greek language as their passports to success. U Such was not, of course, the case with the western genrry who set up their feudal duchies and principalities in Greece after the Fourth Crusade. They were and remained an ascendancy, a ruling aristocracy, given to despising the wily Greeks as an inferior breed. Some of them adopted the Greek language and ntarried Greek wives. But it did not make them Greek. Still less did it make them Byzantine. But here again it was the reconquest of the Peloponnese from Constantinople in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which made that part of the country once more Byzantine in spirit. Mistra, which became the capital of the restored Byzantine province, remains as the ruin of what could be nothing other than a Byzantine city. Vet it was at "D. M. Nico!, Meteora. The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly (London, 1963), pp. 5~5, 84-87 lo5-II2. For the Serbian occupation of northern Greece, see G. C. Soulis, 'H lI;,ront lIspiollo~ 'tf\~ l:splJoKpa'ti~ &V 9sGaaA.iCJ (1348-58)', 'Emm'lplr,; 'Etalpsi~ Bu~avnvcbv l:lIoullcbv,

XX (1950), pp. 56-7]. The Greek charten of the

Serbian rulen are collected by A. Solovjevand V. Molin, Grlfee po~eye srpmIJ ~W

(Belgrade, 1936). " For Bongo (Bongoes, or Bouges) the source is the so-ealled Chronicle of 10/1IIII;"'" ed. S. Cirac Estopafian, Bizancio y Espafia. EllegaJo tie la basilissa Marla y tit los ~SPO/4s Thomas y Es,," tit Ioannina (Barcelona, 1943), n, p. 54, § XLI: formerly edited u Bpirotica in the Bono Corpus of Byzantine historians (Bono, 1834), p. a37. A. L Vranousis, 'To XPOVlKOV tcbv 'IroavvivCllv Kat' dvtKllotov IllljUblill mtOlIllv', 'E_llP~ toll MSGaICllVl1Coll 'ApXsiou, XII (1962), pp. 5,]-II S (p. IOI). Cf. Cirac Estopafian, I(Commenta7.)' p. 176; Hop£. Gesdaichte Griechenlantls! LXXXVI, p. I~~~ Dj. Sp. RadojiCic, "Bulgara1banitoblalios" et Serbalbamtobulgaroblahos , Rmnlllloslavica, XIII (1966), pp, 77-79, 17

'.,

--H

I'

xv

xv Mistra that the idea of a renaissance of Hellenism was first planted in the soil of Greece itsel£ Theodore Metochites had observed that 'we (the Byzantines) are the descendants of the Hellenes and owe them almost everything we have'. U But to have to go and live in Hellas or the Peloponnese would have been, to him, an exile and a penance. Manuel Cantacuzene, the first Byzantine Despot of Mistra, found southern Greece in 1349 to be a 'Scythian desert', a barbarous and depopulated country. But less than fifty years later, thanks largely to Manuel's efforts, the city of Mistra had become the centre of a new enlightenment, of an intellectual and artistic revival-and of a new idea.• a Greece, it was said, or rather the Peloponnese, since most of northern Greece was Turkish by 1400, was peopled by men who were directly descended from the ancient Hellenes. If anything was going to stem the Turkish tide it would be a revival of the Hellenic spirit, fostered and organised in Mistra. The chief exponent of this rather bizarre notion was the Byzantine scholar George Gemistos Plethon. Plethon presented to the Emperor Manuel II an elaborate scheme for the reform of the social structure, of the constitution and of the defence of the Peloponnese, and also for its regeneration as some kind of Platonic version of ancient Spartan society, complete with Helots and all. Consistently with this restoration of ancient Hellenism, Plethon went so far as to dispense with the Christian religion and to substitute what he called a new 'Hellenic theology', in which the ancient pa.ntheon of
T. Kiessling (leipZIg, 182.1), p. 595 •

.. On Manuel Can~e's regime ~ the Peloponnese, see Zakythinos, Dtspolat grec de Morie, I, pp. «-Il3; D. M. NICol, The Byzantine Family of Kanlakouzenos (CtIIllacuz,!,us) ca. 11°0-:1460. A Genealogical anti Prosopographical Stwly (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XI: Washington, D.C., 1968), pp. I2.2.-I2.8. ~On p~, see F. Masai, Pllthotl elle pltltonismt de Mistra (Paris, 1956). C£ Zaky~ a(~f' 32.2.-32.9, 349-356, 360-376; S. Runciman, The Lasl Byzantine Greek u • ridge, 1970), pp. 77-80, 100-101; Vacalopoulos, Origins of the "iatiOtl, pp. 126-135.

achieved their greatest and most famous exploits'." Plethon'5 views OD hi tory and politics seem to have aroused little interest among his c:oIJtemo ~rary Greeks. But his religious ideas were quite ~not~r matter; and to dge from the number of churches and monastenes still packed into the {~tle circuit of the ruins of Mistra it would appear that Plethon the prophet ~as without much honour in his own country. The appeal of the Orthodox faith was far too strong to be drowned by any call to hark back to a pre:christian past. For all the Utopian dreams of Plethon, the predominating spirit in Greece as in Constantinople remained the Byzantine spirit permeated by the Orthodox Christian faith. It is significant that the little we know of the religious ideas of Plethon comes from the fragments of them which survived their destruction. For the treatise in which he expressed them was committed to the flames by his pious friend George Gennadios Scholarios, after he became Patriarch of Constantinople. Correctly so; it was an atheistic tract. Plethon's Hellenism, when it trespassed the field of religion. was seen to be an un-Byzantine activity, all of a piece with the Hellenism of which Psellos and others had been suspected in the eleventh century. Gemistos Plethon was an odd man out. His Platonism and his evidently arresting personality caused far more of a flutter in Florence than in Greece or in Constantinople. To those who had to contend with the practical consequences of conquest by the Turks only three years after Plethon's death his ideas seemed to be at best hopelessly romantic and at worst positively dangerous. While to later generations of Greeks even his name was unknown. For them the heroes of that fateful hour in 1453, when the Byzantine Empire fmally gave place to the Ottoman Empire, were the last Christian Emperor of the old regime, Constantine Palaiologos, and the first Patriarch under the new regime, George Gennadios. The one had gone down fighting for the Byzantine tradition. The other survived. to bum the works of Plethon. but also to be the accepted leader and saviour of the orthodox Christian people under the Ottoman dispensation. Four centuries later Constantine Sathas was to describe Gennadios and not Plethon as 'the last Byzantine and the first Hellene', whatever exactly that may mean." And ironically, it w~Jacob Fallmerayer who in 1836 unearthed the works of Plethon from theix long

r

.. Translation by E. Barker, Social anti Political Thoughl in Byzanti~'" (Oxfom. 19~7). pp. 198-199. Mazaris, who was a contemporary ofPlethon, describes the p?pulation of the Peloponnese in rather differellt terms in his satire called the Dutznt ~to ~/I. He accoWlts for seven different races living aroWld Mistra about 1415: LaccdaimOllWll Italians. Pe!oponnesians, Sthlavini, Wytians, Egyptians andJews. A~ ~P'K6I;. '8111811l1lu Matap, av·AIIou, cd. J. F. BoissODade, Anealota gr~ m (Pans, ~83~~ p. 174; ed. A. Ellissell, AllalcktclI Jer lIIittel- ulltilltugritchistltcn L.ttratur, IV (Lelpzll. 1860). p. 2.39.

18

19

, I

!

xv

XVI oblivion and presented them as a somewhat embarrassing gift to the resurgent

HcIIencs. " For the roots of the new Hellas which began to emerge in

firmly embedded in the Byzantine Orthodox tradition. To the vast majority of Greeks at that time the ancient Hellenic heritage was a closed book, an irrelevant and foreign abstraction. It did no harm to pander to the classical proclivities of western idealists who wished to help the cause, especially with their money. But the saints in the family icons, still faithfully copied from Byzantine prototypes, were infInitely more alive than the shades ofLeonidas or Epaminondas. Simi1arly, the tales about the fall of Troy were far less familiar to the ordinary Greek than the tales about the fall of Constantinople. It is no exaggeration to say that the Greek war of independence from the Turks had as its ultimate goal not merely the liberation of Greece but the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. The more literate of its leaders and supporters, like Alexander Hypsi1anti, might urge the men of Greece to imitate the action of their ancestors at Marathon and Thermopylae. But for him too the goal was Constantinople. It was the recovery of Byzantium, the Great Idea, which befuddled the minds of Greek statesmen and politicians for about a hundred years after 1821. It was the Great Idea that prompted the ghasdy fiaSCO of the Greek military adventure in Asia Minor in 1922. It has now probably blown itself out. Greece today, within the territorial limits imposed by historical circumstances and force majeure, has at length settled down to the smaller and less dangerous idea of being a Hellenic nation in western European style. But there remains some doubt as to the proper identity of that nation. The awkward fICtions of 'Christian Hellenism', enshrined in the 1968 Constitution of Greece, and of 'the values of Hdlenic Christian civi1ization' so much vaunted by the present Greek regime admirably demonstrate the dilemma. It must be very hard to have to live with the double legacy of a remote classical heritage which has been universally admired and of a much nearer and more familiar Byzantine Christian tradition which has been almost universally despised. But a shot~ marriag~ of Hellenism with Christianity will hardly solve the problem. It IS a mamage that was never consummated in Byzantine times. In the twentieth century it seems naive to suppose that the partners would ever reac;h the altar. ., C. N. ~ DocumttJls.iIrItIi/s re/dtijs .I "hirtoire tit la GRee, IV (paris, 1833), p. vu. On the Pa~ Getmadios, see S: Runciman, The Grellt Church ill ClIJ'tivity. A SIu4z of the Plltriarchatt of C_linople from the Eve of the Turkish COlfiUUt to the Gtwk War of l~te (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 168-170. 18z-186, and pIISIim; C. J• G. Turner, .ne: career of George-GennadiU Scholarius', Byzantion, XXXIX (1969-1970), pp. .po-·455. ;l.;~yer, Gtlchichtt tier HaU,illstl Mored, (Stuttgart-Tilbingen, 1836),

n

ao

GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

1821 were

Greece today stands at the end of two powerful traditions; the Hellenic and the Byzantine; the ancient and the medieval. The two traditions have something in common. Both were evolved and conveyed in the Greek language. But the Byzantine tradition was Christian, the Hellenic was pagan; and the Byzantines were always a little suspicious of the legacy of ancient Greek literature and philosophy. To them a Hellene meant an unredeemed pagan. Definitions of periods of history are bound to be relative. The end of the Middle Ages in Europe is sometimes arbitrarily set in the fifteenth century, about the time of the discovery of America. But in Greece the Middle Ages, or the medieval period of the country's history, lasted well into the eighteenth century. The Byzantine Empire as a political institution had a beginning, a middle and an end. It began in AD 330 when Constantine founded his New Rome on the site of the ancient Byzantium; and it ended on Tuesday 29 May 1453, when the Ottoman Turks conquered the city of Constantine. But its ideas and its spirit lived on among the Greek-speaking people for centuries after that date; and their influence is still far from spent. The soil of Greece today is littered with the ruins of classical antiquity. The most impressive of them are temples, for temples were built to last. Greece is also littered with the monuments of its Byzantine or medieval past. And here again, most of them are temples, or rather Christian churches. The many Byzantine churches and monasteries of Greece do not look as if they were built to last. Their masonry and brickwork sometimes appear slipshod and clumsy compared with the finesse of the ancient temples. But they have lasted because they have been in constant use ever since they were built. The monastery church of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos was built in 963, and though its dome has now and then collapsed. it has been in daily and nightly service as a Christian temple for 1020 years. It was built in the middle age of Byzantium. It

i· . 1

.\

XVI

XVI 2

continues to exist and to serve its divine purpose in the modern age of Greece. The legacy of ancient Greece to the whole world is so overwhelming that one can scarcely quantify it. The legacy of Byzantium was not so widely spread. But it has influenced all the European countries which once formed part of the Byzantine Empire and most of all Greece itself. Its most obvious manifestation is the Orthodox Church. This is not surprising. In 1453 the Sultan Mehmed II who had conquered Constantinople needed a representative of the millions of Orthodox Christians within his empire. He picked the monk Gennadios. It was the Sultan who invested Gennadios as patriarch, handing him his insignia, his robes, his staff and his pectoral cross, as the first Patriarch of Constantinople under the Muslim dispensation. Gennadios was given the task of working out a lasting concord at between triumphant Muslims and humiliated Christians. He was the Ethnarch, the leader of the Christian millet or nation within the Ottoman Empire. He and his successors were to be personally answerable to the Sultan for the conduct of that millet. It was a heavy responsibility. The Byzantine Church in all its long history had never been burdened with so large a measure of secular authority.! Byzantine political theorists had generally held that church and empire, patriarch and emperor, went together. A church without an empire was an impossibility. The one could not exist without the other. In 1453 they were proved wrong. The empire as a political institution was dead. But the church lived on as the embodiment of the Byzantine spirit and tradition. It is often said that the Orthodox Church kept the torch of Hellenism alive during the dark centuries of the Turkish occupation of Greece. This is a persistent myth. What the Church really kept alive was the Byzantine Christian tradition. Constantine Sathas, a great scholar and a great patriot of modern Greece, once described the Patriarch Gennadios as "the last Byzantine and thefiTst Hellene"? Gennadios would not have liked the tribute. "I do not call myself a Hellene,» he said,

GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

3

because I do not believe as the Hellenes believed. I might call myself a Byzantine because I was ?or~3 at Byzantium. But I prefer simply to call myself a ChrIStIan. The surviving Byzantine Church quickly came round to the idea that the empire still existed, albeit in another form. Christians still lived under a theocracy. The emperor was now unfortunately a Muslim. But he was still the Basileus, the Sultan-Basileus, ordained by God to rule the world from Constantinople. Kritoboulos of Imbros, one of the historians of the fall of the city, dedicated his work to "the Supreme Autokrator, Emperor of Emperors, Mehmed ... by the will of God invincible Lord of land and sea."4 The Church nonetheless encouraged the hope of a miracle. Prophecies abounded, foretelling that the Christian Empire would be restored, however briefly, before the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the world. The priest who had been celebrating the Liturgy in Hagia Sophia on that fateful Tuesday had disappeared behind the wall of the sanctuary when the Turks broke into the cathedral. He would yet return to finish his interrupted sacrament. 5 There was a legendary king who had been turned to marble and lay asleep in a hidden cave near the Golden Gate of Constantinople. At any moment he would awake and expel the infidel from the city. His name was sometimes John and sometimes Constantine. But in either case, his waking would be heralded by the bellowing of an ox. All these hopes and fears were to be found in a huge corpus of messianic and prophetic literature, including the so-called Oracles of Leo the Wise. They were eventually assembled in a prophetic book ascribed to one Agathangelos, who was said to have lived in Sicily in the thirteenth century. In fact, the compilation was made by a Greek archimandrite from Adrianople in the eighteenth century. It was immensely popular and had a wide circulation in manuscript and printed editions. 6 For at least two centuries after the fall of Constantinople this was the kind of literature that shaped the minds and

XVI

XVI GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

the hopes of the Greeks. The church and the Christian faith were for long their only links with the past and their only certainty for the future, whether in this world or the next. There is no evidence that the Greeks of these centuries felt any affinity with the Hellenes of antiquity or read any of their works. The Byzantine church had, in any case, always taught that true wisdom could only come through grace and revelation; and what, said one of its saints in the fourteenth century, of these things could Euclid, Ptolemy, Socrates or Aristotle have known? "To know God in truth is immeasurably greater than all the philosophy of the Hellenes. _7 The church was also suspicious of the new technology. It had to keep a watchful eye on what the Greek printing presses of Europe were publishing. The first such press in Constantinople was set up in 1627. The machinery was imported from London by that eccentric and enterprising Patriarch, Cyril Loukaris, sometimes called the "Protestant Patriarch." It seems never to have printed anything, for it was destroyed by a combined effort of the Janissaries and the Jesuits. The Turks thought it was a secret weapon. The Jesuits were jealous, because they had their own Greek press in Rome for churning out anti-Orthodox propaganda. s Greek books were, of course, printed elsewhere in the Orthodox ,:orld in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, notably m Roumania, in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, and by the Greek community in Venice. But it was th~ church that called the tune and paid the piper, or rather the prmter, for what it considered to be fit reading matter for the G~ek Ch~istian public, whether within the Ottoman Empire or m.t~e dlaspora. The great majority of books printed were of ~ relIgiOUS nature -liturgical texts, psalters, gospels and the like. This was so until the middle of the eighteenth century, when some Greek presses began to print translations of the authors of the new enlightment in the West. The church was q.uick to censure this tendency. But even in the eighteenth century, when some new ideas were beginning to

filter through the eccle~iastical net to the Greek-reading public, religious works still held the field. Out of 1521 books rinted between 1700 and 1800, 956 (or about 60%) were ~ligious in content. The other 40% did not, as one.might have hoped, include the wo~ks of Homer, Plato, or Anstotle ..The secular literature most m demand was clearly not that wntten in classical Greek, unless one includes Aesop's fables, which ran through twenty printed editions between 1775 and 1821. The Erotokritos, for example, was reprinted seven times in the eighteenth century, and the "Romance of Alexander the Great" six times. 9 It was towards the end of the eighteenth century that things began to change. Greek schools were founded at Ioannina, Chios, Smyrna and other cities, where a feeling for the glorious past of ancient Greece was deliberately imparted. They were endowed by wealthy Greek business men, such as the Zosimades brothers of Ioannina, who had made their fortunes in the West and knew what the western world expected of the Greeks. It expected them to be Hellenes, the proud descendants of Pericles and Themistocles, not pitiable Byzantine Christians. Paintings of the "Hellenic philosophers," Plato, Solon, Aristotle, Plutarch and Thucydides, had already appeared on the walls of churches in the sixteenth century. In the late eighteenth century they begin to appear no longer labelled as Hellenes and adorned with haloes, as Saint Ploutarchos and Saint Thucydides. 1O But for the most part, people s~il1 felt ~~re at home with the familiar forms and faces of their Christian saints than they did with these exotic creatures from their allegedly Hellenic past. By then the Greek War of Independence was drawin~ near. Theodore Koloktronis, one of the heroes of that war, hked to wear what he thought was a Homeric helmet. T~at was a~t the extent of his classical education. He admitted that hIS childhood reading had been entirely religious - the prophecies of Agathangelos, the psalter, the oktoechos and the lives of saints. l1 Rigas Pheraios, who in 1796 drew up a

XVI 6

Constitution for the as yet to be constituted "Hellenic Republic," had already persuaded a publisher in Vienna to print an edition of the prophecies of Agathangelos.1 2 Rigas Pheraios, or Velestinlis, was one of the first to break out of the Byzantine mould, but only to a limited extent. The Constitu_ tion of his proposed Hellenic Republic, like the map that went with it, was designed to cover the inhabitants of Rumeli (or Turkey in Europe), Asia Minor, the Archipelago and the Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. All these people were said to be descended from the ancient Hell enes . The official language of this Republic was to be Greek; its citizens were to be known as Hellenes, not Romaioi. The revolutionary flag was to show the club of Hercules surmounted by three crosses. It is significant that the church was left out of account. But in other respects what Rigas envisaged was a restored Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as its capital. 13 The most celebrated Neohellenist of this age was Adamantios Kor~~s. Kor~es hated Byzantium and the Byzantine spirit and tradltlon, which he saw as a dead weight on the otherwise pure and free Greek spirit. His mission in life was to recall the Greeks to the great heritage of their ancient past. His most imp~rt~nt work i.n this respect was his Hellenic Library (Hellenilce Blbllotkelce). This was a series of classical texts supplied with edifying introductions about the cultural, educational and linguistic problems of contemporary Greece. lf Koraes was a ~eat man and a great scholar. But for most of his life he lived m wester~ Europe ..He was the son of a silk merchant in Smyrna and tried to go mto business himself in Amsterdam before settling in Paris. He was an absentee· patriot, seventy-three years old when the war of independence broke out in Greece' an~ .he ~as deeply influenced by the enlightenment and th~ political Ideas of the French Revolution. These were the ideas that fed the flames of the Greek desire for liberation and for a national identity as Hellenes. For Koraes, as Arnold Toynbee

GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

7

Puts it "Modern Western Enlightenment" and"Classical Greek ' Hellenism" were interchangeable terms. ~ Enlightened western Europeans of the early nineteenth century, captivated and brainw~shed by Edward Gibbon's account of Byzantium, were inchned to blame the Greeks for their own degeneration under the Ottoman Empire. They should never have allowed themselves to sink into the superstition and decadence of that monk-ridden society. As Koraes would have agreed, it was the Byzantine period of their history that had promoted the corruption of the Greeks, which had merely been consummated by the Turks. What, as one German scholar put it, was the point of studying a depraved form of the Greek language in which the preposition apo takes the accusative instead of the genitive case. 16 Such were thought to be the symptoms of the Byzantine corruption of the soul and spirit of ancient Greece. It would be unkind to say that the Orthodox Church had a vested interest in maintaining that state of corruption. But certainly the church was alarmed by the wind of change blowing from the West in the eighteenth century. Its leaders condemned the baleful influence of the new enlightenment and French revolutionary thinking on the minds and political aspirations of their flocks. In 1768 at Leipzig, Eugenios Voulgaris published the first Greek translation of one of the works of Voltaire. Translations of Locke, Descartes, Newton, Rousseau and others followed. 17 A Greek enlightenment seemed in danger of breaking out. The liberal principles of western European thought found eager audiences in all the cities where there w.ere Greek communities-in Paris, Vienna, Budapest, Venice, Rome, Bucharest, Jassy, Odessa, Moscow, St. Petersbu~, and in Constantinople itself. The church and its aristocratiC patrons reacted swiftly to this dangerous development. By 1790, the patriarchate had its own printing press in Constantinople. Patriarchs, bishops, monks and laymen poured out pamphlets which were widely distributed denoun-

XVI XVI GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

9

8

ing often in the most violent terms, the philosophers and of the West. Voulgaris, translator of Voltaire, had by then been invited to the court of Catherine the Great in St. Petersburg. He changed his tune and became a bishop. In 1791 he published a tract called "In Refutation of a certain impious Prattler." Two years later the P.rattler, V oltaire, was officially condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople-and along with him Rousseau and Spinoza. One of the pamphlets produced that same year is entitled: "The Wretchedness of the Pseudo-Sages, or an Apology on behalf of the Christian Faith towards the Refutation of Certain philosophical Babblings." Another is called: "A Reply to the Irrational Zeal of the Philosophers coming from Europe. "18 "The teachings of these new libertarians," as one of the patriarchs wrote, "are hostile to the Holy Scriptures and to the Apost<;>lic teaching ... and should be hated as a device of the fiendish Devil, ever alert for the spiritual destruction of Christians." In the 1790s the Patriarch of Constantinople issued a series of encyclicals warning the faithful against "the wily snares of unrest and rebellion" being propagated by the French. 19 In 1798 a document was published in the name of the Patriarch of Jerusalem called the Paternal Exhortation (Didaskalia Patrike). It restated in unambiguous terms the old Byzantine theory of the divine order of things. The Ottoman Empire was the guardian of that order. It had been set up by God. The Sultan ruled by God's grace. The current western notions of political liberty were inspired by Satan.

~cie~tists

Our Lord raised out of nothing this mighty Empire of the Ottomans, in the place of our Roman Empire which had begun, in some ways, to deviate from the beliefs of the Orthodox faith; and He exalted the Ottoman Empire higher than any other kingdom so as to show without doubt that it came into being by divine will and not by the power of man, and to assure all the faithful that in this way he deigned to effect a great mystery, namely the salvation of His chosen people. 20

The Church also mistrusted the revived interest in h ancient Greek heritage and in the natural sciences in Greek ~c~ools and colleges. Both represented "Hellenism" in the worst and pagan sense. By ~1I means let young men study the writings of selected claSSical authors for style and grammar; but they must beware of their content. I~ the .s~venteeth and eig~ teenth centuries the models for style m wntmg Greek were sull those that had been favored in the middle and late Byzantine era. Voulgaris translated his Voltaire into ancient Greek, not into the spoken language of his time. Alexander Mavrokordatos, who held the distinguished and lucrative post of Grand Interpreter to the Sublime Porte for close to forty years, wrote all his published works in the ancient language. Even his letters are in the highly rhetorical style of Byzantine epistolography; and indeed they were used in Greek schools as exemplars of the genre, along with the letters of Libanios and Synesios. Byzantium still ruled the rhetorical waves. The Greek language was, of course, also a part of the Byzantine heritage, whether in its pure katharevousa form or in the demotic, vulgar version. The co-existence of "learned" and "popular" forms of Greek was, indeed, older than Constantinople. Ifit was true, as Koraes maintained, that "the character of a whole nation may be known from its language," then it was important to reach some agreement about the form of that language, for fear that you might end up with two nations instead of one. Koraes himself favored what might be called an evolutionary purifying of the spoken tongue. 21 Others of his day were for developing the demotic to the exclusion of the literary form. Still others were "Atticisers" pure and not so simple, who would have everyone talking and writing a dead language. Enthusiasm for the new Hellenism took some strange forms. In 1817, at the Greek college at Ayvalik (Kydonies) on the coast of Asia Minor, the excited students passed a resolution to converse only in the language of Demosthenes and Plato. "The gross and vulgar language,"

XVI

XVI 10

they resolved, "is wholly unbecoming to us as the descendants of the ancient Hellenes. Each of us therefore, is to speak, so far as possible, in the Hellenic language. Whoever does not do so is, as a punishment, to recite a page of Homer before us. -22 The students also resolved to change their names. They could no longer put up with Christian names such as Iannis, Georgios and so on. They would adopt names worthy of their ancestry, like Xenophon, Aristides, or Themistocles. This practice, too, was quickly condemned by the church. In 1819 the Patriarch Gregory V fulminated against what he called "the innovation of giving ancient Greek names to the baptized infants of the faithful. - The Patriarch also warned the faithful against the perils of the natural sciences, which could lead only to ungodliness and atheism. He was all for education, but it should be confined to grammar, rhetoric and true religion. "For what use is it," he asked "to the young to learn numbers and algebra, and cubes and cube roots, and triangles and triangulated tetragons ... and elliptical projections, and atoms and vacuums ... if, as a consequence, in speech they are barbarians, ungrammatical in their writings, ignorant of their religion, degenerate in their morals ... and unworthy of their ancestral calling?'23 The students at Ayvalik and the Patriarch Gregory were in agreement that young people should make themselves worthy of their ancestors. But they were thinking of different sets of ancestors. Alexander Mavrokordatos was one of the Phanariote of Constantinople, those priviliged and wealthy aflstcx:rats who served .the Sultan in various ways, especially as ~e pflnces of Moldavla and Wallachia in the eighteenth and n~neteenth centuries. Their special relationship with the Turks dId not make them traitors to Chris.tianity. Their fortunes helped the church to survive; and the world in which they made their fortunes was the world of Orthodox Christianity. It extended from Moscow in the north to Alexandria in the south. It was in fact the Byzantine world. For business

G~ks

GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

tI

s at least Greek was still the lingua franca ofthat world, I purpose f Ch· . . . as Orthodoxy was the common form 0 . f1stIamty. ts Just t was still Constantinople. The PhanarlOtes were not cen er . . II . R bl. a He emc epu IC. muc h I·nterested in the Idea of settIng up . . Their dream of liberation from the. Turks I~volved nothIng less than the recreation of the ByzantIne EmpIre. They looked to Moscow and to Bucharest for the fulfillment of that dream, not to Greece or to the West. Moscow, the Third Rome, se.at of an Orthodox Patriarch and an Orthodox Tsar, was th~ whIt~ hope for the liberation of the Byzantine people. The hberatI~n ~f Greece could wait until the double-headed eagle flew agaIn In Constantinople. 24 Catherine the Great of Russia was rather taken with this idea. Her friend Voltaire encouraged her to imagine a new Russian Empire with Constantinople, not Moscow, as its capital. This is surely not what the Greeks had in mind. But Catherine was interested in the Greek cause as well; and she toyed with the idea of a Greek Empire too-or rather an Orthodox Empire, which would comprise the Slav as well as the Greek Christian populations of European Turkey. It would be centered on Constantinople, and its first Emperor would be her own grandson Constantine. There were some who could already hear the bellowing of the ox and the stirring of the sleeping giant at the Golden Gate of the City. Once again Orthodoxy, not Hellenism, was to be the test of nationality. But it was all fantasy. The Greeks were quickly and sadly disillusioned by Catherine's only direct intervention in their affairs. During the course of the Russo-Turkish War that she instigated in 1768 a small Russian force landed at Navarino to help rouse the Greeks of the Peloponnese to rebellion. It was massacred in 1770, and the Turkish reprisals were terrible. More and more the Greeks looked to the West for their salvation. 25 The Orthodox Church would probably have approved of the re-establishment of an Orthodox Empire centered on Constantinople, if it had ever come about. But when the real

XVI

XVI 12

Greek War of Independence finally began, the church at once registered its disapproval. In March 1821 an encyclical was posted in all the Greek churches in Constantinople. It was signed by the Patriarch Gregory, the Patriarch of Jerusalem and twenty-one other Orthodox bishops. It excommunicated all those responsible for taking up arms in revolution against the protector of Christians and the lawful sovereign of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan. "For there is no power but of God' the powers that be are ordained of God, and he who objects t~ this Empire ... rebels against God's order."26 This was pure Byzantine political thought, unchanged and unadulterated. It ~i~ ?ot save the Patri.arch Gregory. The Turks laid the responsibility for the rebellIOn at his door, as head of the Christian millet; and they hanged him at the gate of his palace in the Phanar. Fourteen of his bishops suffered the same fate. 27

T~e Greek rebellion, or war of liberation, did in the end result m the establishment of a monarchy in Gre"ece, western style. It was not the Byzantine Empire of the Romans revived' it was the. Kingdom of the Hellenes. The protection of the Or~ ~odox faith was enshrined in the first article of its Constitution. Nonetheless, it was a Hellenic and not a B t' k'· yzan me mgdom. ThiS was what the western powers had wanted and expect~d; and for a time, largely due to western influence Helle~lsm duly prevailed in Greece. King Otto was ~ BavarIan, no mo~ Orthodox by birth than Catherine the G~~t had .been. HIS German architects went to work to make a ~Im-Mumch out of Athens. Only at the last moment were the dissuaded .from turning the Parthenon into a royal palace. Hi~ Greek subjects ent.husiastically recreated all the administrative apparatus of anCient Athens-an Areopagos a B I Acad h ' ou e, an I emy, nomarc s, demarchs and the rest. Slav or Turkish p:e :mes were altered to their supposed ancient forms to m e e new Hellenes feel more at home. The d' f Koraes w fi II a vice 0 as 0 owed with regard to th G k language It . . e ree . was purged of Its Impurities so drastically

GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

13

that almost no one could write it any more, let alone speak it. Even the Church of Greece became a national, Hellenic institution, autocephalous and independent of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And then came Constantine Paparregopoulos with his monumental History of the Greek Nation, first published in five volumes between the years 1860 and 1872. His purpose was to point the moral that after all, Hellenism and Byzantinism, the ancient and the medieval traditions of the Greek people, were one and the same in spirit. There was a historical continuum between Homer and King Otto of Bavaria. The Byzantines, or rather the Byzantine Greeks, had been Hellenes at heart, though sometimes regrettably led astray by oriental influences. The marriage of Hellenism and Christianity had at length been celebrated in the Christian Kingdom of the Hellenes. Generations of modern Greeks have been brought up on the great History of Paparregopoulos. It has inspired them with a sense of the unity and continuity of their race; and it is perhaps presumptuous for foreigners to question the validity of a national myth so ably and often poetically expressed. But it is a fact that the roots of the new Hellas of the nineteenth century were still firmly planted in the Byzantine Orthodox tradition. Hellenism was something strange and foreign. People who lived in Vodena, Karavassara or Velestino were puzzled when they were told to rename their towns with the ancient names of Edessa, Amphilochia and Pherai. The heroes of Homer, of Athens, of Sparta and of Thebes were no doubt splendid warriors. But the Christian soldier-saints of Byzantium painted on the walls of the local church were nearer, more familiar and more comforting. One only had to enter an Orthodox church to be wafted back into the halfremembered glory of the Byzantine Empire. The paintings and icons recalled that strange but familiar blend of Byzantine imperial and celestial mystery, from the all-seeing eyes of the Christ Pantokrator in the dome, to the Virgin in the apse, to the figures of Constantine the Great, the first Christian

XV!

XVI 14

GREECE AND BYZANTIUM

Emperor, with his mother Saint Helena, robed and crowned and haloed like a holy emperor and empress. Every church however humble, enclosed a piece of heaven. Every church wa~ a microcosm of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constan_ tinople. It is easy to see how the idea grew that the establishment of

t~e kingdom .or nation of the Hellenes was only a begin-

mng. When, In February 1821, Alexander Hypsilantis called on the Greeks to rise up and shed the blood of the tyrant Turks he reminded them of the brave deeds of such as Epaminondas' Miltiades, Themistocles and Leonidas. 28 Hypsilantis made hi~ famous proclamation not in Thebes or in Athens, but in Roumania. He was a Phanariote Greek who had been prince acros.s the Danube .. He had also served in the cavalry of the RUSSIan Tsar. He lIked to roll out the names of ancient Greek warriors and heroes. Most of his audience had little idea of what he was talking about, but they loved the rhetoric of it all Hypsilantis sincerely wanted to turn the Turks out of Greece: But tha~ was only the first step. For him, as for so many others at the .tlme, t~e ul~imate g~al. was Constantinople. His proclamatIOn begInS WIth the stIrrIng words: "Fight for Faith and F~therland!" But where, for Greek-speakers of the Orthodox f~lth,.was the Fatherland? This question has bedevilled the entIre hIstory of the post-Byzantine world.

~o~aes would probably have agreed that the true line of contInuIty between Homer and King Otto, or between Mycenaeans, Hellenes, Byzantines and modern Greeks is that of the ~reek.language. This is the current that has nev~r been cut ~ff, In spIte of numerous historical interruptions. Greek has persIsted long~r than any other language except for Chinese. The problem In post-Byzantine, or even post-classical history has been wh.ere to locate the center of its supply. Was i~ Athens or. ConstantInople or Bucharest or J assy or Odessa or AlexandrIa. ~r S~yr~a or Ayvalik? The Greek-speaking and ByzantIne-thInkIng world was so scattered. The Ottoman

15

E pire after all covered almost exactly the same geographical ma as the Byzantine Empire; and its Greek-speaking Chri8~:: inhabitants had been designated from the start as the "Greek Nation," the millet-i Rum, of Orthodox Christians. But what would be the limits of that nation, and what would be its center, once it became independent? For many years after the war that secured the independence of Greece, the fatherland, the patris of the Greekspeaking people was held to be Constantinople. Their identity as Hellenes was not enough. Hellenism was only one of their roots. They were also Romaioi, or Byzantines. That pan of their identity required the possession of Constantinople as well as Athens. Their Byzantine tradition was indeed closer and more alive than that of ancient Greece. The continuity of the Greek cultural heritage, as of the living Orthodox heritage, must therefore, be proved and achieved through the realization of a Great Idea-the Megale Idea-the recreation of the Byzantine Empire as a Hellenic institution. The Idea was clearly expressed by Ioannes Kolettis when addressing the Constituent Assembly in Athens in 1844: "The Kingdom of Greece is not Greece. [Greece) constitutes only one part, the smallest and poorest part. A Greek is not only a man who lives within this kingdom. He is also one who lives in Ioannina, in Thessalonike, in Serres, in Adrianople, in Smyrna, in Trebizond, in Crete, in Samos and in any land associated with Greek history or the Greek race ... There are two main centers of Hellenism: Athens, the capital of the Greek kingdom, [and) 'the City' [Constantinople), the dream and hope of all Greeks."29 The Great Idea, the dream of fulfilling that hope by taking over Byzantium, fuddled the wits of Greek statesmen and politicians for about a hundred years after 1821. The bubble was finally pricked by the disaster of the Greek military adventure in Asia Minor in 1922. Greece today has accepted the smaller and less dangerous idea of being a

XVI

XVI 16

western European nation in a community of like-minded nations. In making this adjustment it has in many ways outgrown both of its burdensome traditions, the Hellenic and the Byzantine, the ancient and the medieval. The Hellenes of antiquity never succeeded in living together in harmony as one people, until unity was imposed upon them first by the Macedonians and then by the Romans. The Byzantines of the Middle Ages always thought in terms of a universal empire in which there was no place for separatism. They would have found the modern concept of nationhood undesirable and unintelligible. Ever since Lord Byron, and indeed long ~efore, the western world has had impossibly high expectatIons that the Greeks would one day live up to the promise of their classical heritage. Ever since Edward Gibbon, the we~tern world has misunderstood or despised the Byzantine hentage of the Greeks as a deadening influence. Koraes taught the Greeks themselves to feel the same. But surely both he.and Gibbon were wrong. The legacy of Byzantium is no less Important than that of ancient Hellas in defining the modern Greeks as Europeans. For it links. them to a culture and a religion which they imparted to and shared with most of the non-Hellenic people of Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages.

NOTES

I. Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii 1401-1477, ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest, 1966) pp. 446-56; Kritoboulos, ed V. Grecu, Critobul din Imhros (Bucharest, 1963): pp. 173-74. S. Runciman, The Greal Chu~ch in Captivity. A Studyoftlu Patriarcbole of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish CO"'luest to the Greek War of Ind£pentlm<e (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 168-70. 2. C. N. Sathas, Documents inidits relatifs aI'histoire de la Grece au ""!Y4" ag" 4: (Paris, 1833), p. vii. 3. Gennadios (George Scholarios), Against theJ.ws, in Oeuvres complites de GmnadeScholarios, ed. L. Petit, X.A. Siderides and M.Jugie(Paris, 1928-36), 3, p. 252. 4. Kritoboulos, ed. Grecu, p. 25 lines 4-6. 5. N. G. Politis, Meietai pen tou viou leai les glosses tou Hellmilcou Iaou. Paradoseis (Athens, 1904), I, p. 23 no. 35; 2, p. 678. 6. C. A. Mango, 'The Legend of Leo the Wise,' Zbomik Rtulooa Vizantolollrog Instituta, 6 (Belgrade, 1960), pp. 59-93. On Agathangelos: B. Kniis, L'Histoire de la Littlrature NIo-Grecque, 1: La piriorJejusqu'en 1821 (Uppsala, 1962), pp. 461-62.

7. Gregory Palamas, Capita, in Migne, ISO, 1137. D.M. Nicol, "The Byzantine Church and Hellenic Learning in the Fourteenth Century," Studies in Church History,S, ed. G.]. Cuming (Leiden, 1969), pp. 23-57, especially 50-51 (reprinted in D.M. Nicol, Byzantium: its ecclesiaslical history and relatiDns with the westem world. Collected Studies (London, Variorum 1972 ), no. 12. 8.Runciman, Great Church in Captivity, pp. 271-74; G.A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestanl PalriDrch. The Life of Cyril Lucaris (Richmond, Virginia, 1961), pp. 78-90. 9. Catherine Koumarianou, "The Contribution of the Intelligentsia towards the Greek Independence Movement, 1798-1821," in R. Clogg, ed., The Slruggle for Greek Inrleptndnu:e. Essays 10 mark tIu 150lh anniversary of tIu c..Jc War of Independence (London, 1973), pp. 70-71. 10. K. Spetsieris, "Eikones Hellenon Philosophon eis ekklesias," Epistemonike Epeteris tes Philosophikes Scholes Iou Panepistemiou Alhmon, 14 (1963-64), 386-458. 11. T. Koloktronis, ApomnemoneumaltJ, ed. T. Vournas (Athens, n.d~p. 70. 12. A. Politis, "He prosgraphomene ston Riga prote ekdose Iou Agathangelou. To rno.no gnosto antitypo, 0 Era"islis, 7 (1969), pp. 173-92. 13. The Revolutionary Proclamation and the New Political Constitution

XVI

XVII 18 of Rigas Velestinlis are translated in R. Clogg, ed., The Movementfor Greek Intkpmdmct 1770-1821. A collection rif documents (London, 1976), pp. 149-57 157-63. See D.A. Zakythinos, The Making rif Modern Greece. From Byzantium t~ lrukptndmce (Oxford, 1976), pp. 157-67. 14. C. Th. Dimaras, A History rif Modern Greek Literature, translated by Mary P. Gianos (New York, 1972; London, 1974), pp. 189-211; G. P. Henderson ThtRtvival rifGreek Thought 1620-1830 (Albany, New York, 1970), pp. 142-69: Zakythinos, The Making rif Modern Greece, pp. 174-77. ' 15. A. Toynbee, The Greeks and their Heritages (Oxford, 1981), pp. 233-34. 16. Cited by K. Krumbacher, Geschichtederbyzantinischen Litteratur(Munich, 1897), Preface, p. v. 17. Knos, L'Histoire, pp. 504-13; Zakythinos, Modern Greece, pp. 107-8, 154. Henderson, The Revival, pp. 69-74. ' 18. Zakythinos, Modern Greece, pp. 168-70; Dimaras, A History, pp. 136-40. 19. Zakythinos, Modern Greece, pp. 170-1. 20. The Paternal Exhortation of 1798 is translated in Clogg, Movementfor Greek Independence, pp. 56-64. Runciman, Great Church in Captivity, pp. 394-95. 21. P. Sherrard The Greek East and the Latin West. A Study in tht Christian Tradition (Oxford, 1959), pp. 179-86; Toynbee, The Greeks, pp. 251-64. 22. A. F. Didot, Notes d'un Voyage fait dans le Levant en 1816 et 1817 (Pa . 1826), pp. 385-7; translated in Clogg, Movement for Greek Indenendenee pflpS, 51. r ,. 23. Translated in Clogg, Movementfor Greek Independence, pp. 86-8. 24. ~unciman, Great Church in Captivity, pp. 360-84; C. Mango, "The Phanaflots and the Byzantine Tradition," in Clogg, Struggle for Greek Indepentimct, pp. 41-66. 25. C. M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece: A Short History (London 1968) pp 118-21. ' ,. 26. Anathematization of the Phllike Etairia by the Patriarch Gregory V translated in Clogg, Movementfor Grtek Indeptndence, pp. 203-6. ' 27. Ibid., pp. 206-08. 28. Ibid., pp. 201-03.

.

~.:olettis, cited by R. Clogg, "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire"

.. r~ude and B. Lewis , eds., Christians andJews in tht Ottorncm Em ire Tire FunctIoning rif a Plural Society, 1 (New York, 1982), p. 193. P . m

BYZANTIUM AND ENGLAND· At the very beginning of the Roman Empire, Horace, the court poet of the first Emperor, described the imperium romanum as extending from Persia at one end to Britain at the other. «Praesens divus habebitur Augustus,adiectis Britan nis imperio gravibusque Persis»l. Britain was the furthest point west that anyone could imagine. At the very end of the Roman Empire, and at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, we find a court historian of the Sultan Mehmed II still expressing much the same opinion. Kritoboulos of Imbros, dedicating his history to the Sultan, declares that if his great deeds were to be written in Turkish then only Orientals would be able to read them; but if they are written in Greek, then not only Hellenes will be able to read them but also all the peoples of the western world, those beyond the Pillars of Hercules and even those who live in the Britannic islands"_ To the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines and the Turks Britain was always the remotest extremity of the known world - the ultima Tlzule. Kritoboulos was perhaps too optimistic about people's ability to read Greek in Britain. It was not really until about 1600 that classical Greek came to be taught in all the public schools of England. The statutes of St. Paul's school in London, founded in 1510, directed that the High Master should, if possible, be learned in Greek. Even at the Universities the teaching of Greek was erratic. The present degree examinations in classics at Oxford and Cambridge were not established until 1800 and 18243 • But the classical scholars in England in the 18th and 19th centuries were not interested in Byzantium and despised Byzantine Greek as a depraved and corrupt form of the language of antiquity. Kritoboulos would have been disappointed to know that his History was not widely read in Europe, let alone in England. There is only one manuscript of it; and even that was not edited until 1870'. Western interest in Byzantium was generally connected with trade. The Italians of Venice and Genoa, being the nearest to the Byzantine markets, enjoyed the most continuous • The text of this paper was delivered as a lecture at the Institute for Balkan Studies in March 1974. 1. Rorace, Odes, III, v, 2-4. 2. (Kritoboulos of Imbros) Critobul din Imbros, Din Domnia IKi Maltomed alll·kG @;; 1451-1467, ed. V. Grecu, Bucarest, 1963, § 3, p. 27. 3. Cf. M. L. Clarke, Greek Studies ill England 1700-1830, Cambridge, 1945.pp.lO IT., 2!1·39. 4. C. MiilIer, Fragme1lla Historicorum, V, i, Paris, 1870.

XVII XVII 180

being the furthest removed, had no regular relation_ English contacts. The , . I . h B ntl'um at all . But there were occasiOn a contacts and exchanges ships Wit yza between the two societies. . The English may not often have thought about ByzantIUm. But the lack about England. If they f · t t was mutual. The Byzantines rarely. thought omeres f'ld'h" d 'd h thought of it as an island or a collectIOn 0 IS an s ID t e lar west that I t ey ' h h d I' I d' had once belonged to the Roman Emplfe: But t ey ~ Itt e Irect knowledge of it. Imperial envoys from Constantmople sometimes got as far afield as Germany or France; but few ventured across that d~ead stretch of water called the English Channel. If they read their Pr~coplUs the~ would have discovered some passages describing England and Its strange I~habitants in the 6th century'. And some may have remembered that ConstantlDe the Great was first proclaimed Emperor at York, where his father Constantius died in 306. The army of Britain had the distinction of being the first to recognise Constantine as Emperor. One of the English chroniclers tells us that when he left England Constantine took with him 30,000 Britons to his new city of Constantinople; and that such men of British race in Byzantium, in token of their blood and lordship, were allowed to carry axes". This of course refers to the Emperor's bodyguard, the celebrated Varangians, who, after the I Ith century, were mainly or wholly of English stock. To them we shall return, Another legend had it that Constantine was in fact related to the Kings of England. The legend has been immortalised in the nursery rhyme of Old King Cole. It was first written down by a Welsh chronicler in the 12th century, Geoffrey of Monmouth. Old King Cole was a merry old soul and he called for his fiddlers three ... His fiddlers three were his three sons, who went by the Celtic names of Trehern, L1eweIlyn and Merio. He also had an only daughter called Helena who married Constans; and he had by her a son called Cystennyn (or Constantine). This Constantine, with his three uncles, made war upon Rome and «Maxen the Cruel» - i.e. Maxentius. So, St Helena was a daughter of Old King Cole of England, and Constantine was his grandson. There is a measure of truth in this legend - but St Helena was not the daughter of any English king". We cannot claim a British ancestry for Constantine-though we can for some of his successors on the Byzantine throne. It is a provable fact that all the last Byzantine Emperors, from John V to Constantine XI Palaiologos, 1. Procopius, History of the Wars, Ill, i, 18; ii, 31, 38; VI, xv, 4 f.; VIII, XlI, 4-6. 2. (Adam of Usk) Chronicon Adae ck Usk, A. D. U77-1421, 2nd ed., E. M. Thompson, LoIIdoD, 1904, pp. 97, 272. 3. Geofrtey of Momnouth, Historia l/egum Brittlll1liae, ed. A. Griscom, London, 1929, JIP. 338-340.

Byzantium and England

181

ere descended from the Norman, WiIliam I, the Conqueror, who was King :f England from 1066 to 1087. The line of descent can be traced back through nine generations from John V's mother, Anne of Savoy, who in 1326 became the wife and Empress of Andronikos Ill. It is also possible to prove that the same Anne of Savoy was descended from Duncan, King of Scotland-the Duncan who was murdered by Macbeth in 1040'. So, by a stretch of the imagination, one can say that the last six Emperors of Byzantium had flowing in their veins a mixture of Norman-English blood and of the Scottish blood shed by Macbeth, which Lady Macbeth found so difficult to wash from her hands. But to return to the England of pre-Norman times. There are many stories about the activities of Greek missionaries in England before St Augustine arrived in 596 to organise the English church and make Christianity official. The earliest monks in England and in Ireland were certainly strongly influenced by Egyptian and Palestinian example; and Irish historians are still very fond of stating that the knowledge of Greek language and literature never died out in the monasteries of Ireland during the Dark Ages. This is hard to prove", But we do know for sure that Greek learning was revived for a while in England in the 7th century. In 668 a Greek priest from Tarsus called Theodore was appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury. Theodore of Tarsus had a profound effect on the church in England, as an administrator and as a scholar. He convened its first synod, at Hertford in 673-anevent which has been described as «a landmark in the making of England». But he also established schools for the education of the barbarous Britons. The most famous was that at the Monastery of St Augustine at Canterbury. This was the first centre of Greek studies in England. It had a library, to which Theodore presented the large number of manuscripts that he had brought with him from the East, including a copy of Homer. The part played by Theodore of Tarsus in educating and civilising the English can hardly be overrated. He died in 690 and was the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be buried inside his cathedrals. I. Duncan's granddaughter Matilda married Henry I of England. Their grandson, Henry II (died 1189), had a daughter and a granddaughter who each married Kings of Castile. It was a granddaughter of Alfonso X of Castile called Yolanda who, in 1284, married Andronikos II Palaiologos, the grandfathe~ and (for a time) co-emperor of Andronikos m, who married Anne of Savoy. Her genealogy can be traced back through the same number of generations to Louis VI of France (died 1137) and to Matilda, the granddaughter of Duncan of Scotland. I am indebted for these observations to Mr. Christopher A. Lake. 2. See, e.g., the cautious remarks of W. B. Stanford, «Towards a History of Oassical Influences in Ireland», Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, LXX, Sect. C, 3 (1970), pp. 13-91 (especially pp. 22 ff.); L. Bieler, «TheCIassics in Celtic IrelanID), in Classicall'l!1lU1l/CG on European Culture, A.D. 5()()"1500, ed. R. R. Bolgar, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 45-49. 3. On Theodore of Tarsus see E. Amann, in Dictlo1lllllire de Tlle%gre CathoUf/_, XV,

XVII

XVII 182

His disciples continued the study and translation of Greek texts for some time' but the knowledge of Greek in England died in spite of their efforts. The:e is said to have been a Greek bishop at the court of King Edgar (died 975). But Edgar, although a very devout king, was accused of the crime of favouring heathen customs and inviting too many foreigners to settle in England. And in any case the monks at Ely found the Greek bishop, whoever he was, to be more of a politician than a scholar!. People forgot how to read the texts of Greek manuscripts. But they could still admire and copy the pictures. Greek or Byzantine influence on English art became very noticeable in the 8th and 9th centuries. This was partly the result of the arrival in the West of numbers of Byzantine monks and artists fleeing as refugees from the iconoclast Emperors of the time. They came clutching their icons and their illuminated manuscripts, which western monks copied and adapted. In England the Byzantine influence on art can be seen from Winchester in the south to Northumbria in the north". But the Greek monks who brought their treasures with them were anonymous. We do not know who they were; and they must have felt that gloomy old England was a very long way away from the bright lights of Constantinople. In and after the 8th century traffic began to move in the opposite direction-from West to East. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem became both fashionable and popular. To begin with pilgrims made the journey by sea since the overland route was too dangerous. The most famous of the early English pilgrims was WilIibald, who later became Bishop of Eichstiidt in Bavaria. He took ten years over his journey from England to Jerusalem and back, by way of Rome, from 719 to 729. An interesting account of it was written by a nun. His travels did not take him to Constantinople; though he did stop off at Cyprus and also at Monemvasia or, as he calls it, Malvasia, which he found to be inhabited not by Greeks but by Slavs (but that is another matter)3. Later pilgrims came through Eastern Europe by land. All pilgrims coming this way had of necessity to pass through Constantinople. They came in their thousands. The great pilgrimage led by oCrman bishops in 1064 numbered at least 7,000 men and i, cols. 229-231; B. Colgrave, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, p. 17. Cf. R. S. Lopez, «Le probJ6me des relations aoglo-byzantines du septieme au dixieme siecle», Byzantion, XVDI (1!148), pp. 139-162 (especially pp. 147-149). 1. See F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon Englallli, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1971, pp. 181-182. 2. See, e.g., R. Byron and D. Talbot Rice, The Birth of Western Painting, London, 1930; D. Talbot Rice, ByzantiM Painting and Develop_ms in the West before A.D. 1200, London, 1!I48; idem, «Britain and the Byzantine World in the Middle A&es», in ByzantiM Art-All I!.iITopt!IIII Art, Athens, 1966; Lopez, op. clt. 3. On WiDibald see B. Colgravc, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, p. 945.

Bylll1ltl um and England

III

women. It included a party from England, among whom was the English secretary of WiIliam the Conqueror!. A curious relic of this pilgrimage is an 11th-century Byzantine seal found during recent excavations at Winchester. It shoWS the scene of the Anastasis on one side, and on the other is inscribed the name of Sophronios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who died soon after receiving the German and English pilgrims in his city. From an independent source we know that the Patriarch Sophronios gave his visitors a cordial welcome, entertaining them with music and illuminations. He seems also to have issued them with medals to commemorate the occasion - one of which found its way back to Winchester in the pocket of an English pilgrim·. There seems to be little evidence of official diplomatic exchanges between the Anglo-Saxon kings of England and the Emperors in Constantinople. But one curious tale is told about King Edward the Confessor, who died in 1066. The English chronicles record that Edward sent ambassadors to the Emperor in Constantinople to enquire about a dream that he had had. Edward, who founded Westminster Abbey, has been called rather more of a monk than a king. He was to be made a saint after his death. The dream that troubled him was about the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. He dreamt that they had turned over in their sleep and that this was a bad omen for the future because they would not turn again for 74 years. We are told that the Emperor received the English envoys with kindness and sent them on to Ephesus to make investigations. They then returned to England to report to King Edward that the Seven Sleepers had in fact turned over and were sleeping on their left sidess. Another Byzantine lead seal found at Winchester bears the name of Joannes Raphael protospatharios. He is thought to have accompanied or led a diplomatic mission from Constantinople to England about the year 1070, to recruit soldiers to fight the Seljuq Turks'. If so, he came to England at the I. E. Joranson, «The Great German Pilgrimage of 1064-1065», in The Crustlde and Ot_ HIstorical Essays Presented to D. C. MUllro, New York, 1928, pp. 3-43; S. Runciman,«The Pilsrimages to Palestine before 1095», in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. SeUon, I: 77te Fir.t Hundred Years, ed. M. W. Baldwin, Philadelphia, 1955, pp. 76-77. 2. V. Laurent, «Un sceau inedit du patriarche de Jerusalem Sophrone n trouv6 to Winchester», Numismatic Circular, LXXII, 3 (1964), pp. 49-50. 3. The LIfe of King Edward who rests at Westminster attributed to Q mank of St. &,tlll, ed. and transl. F. Barlow, London, 1962, pp. 67-71; WiUiam of Malmesbury, De aestls Regum A/lflorum, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series, London 1887-89, p. 275. Possible indirect Byzantine influences on Anglo-Saxon life and customs (e.g., the adoption of Byzantine titles and offices by the Kings of the 10th century) are discussed by Lopez, op. cit., pp. 156-162. 4. V. Laurent, «Byzance et I'Angleterre au lendemain de la conquete normande. A propoa d'un sceau byzantin trouY6 to Winchester», Numismatic Circular, LXXI, 5 (1963). pp. 93-96. et. M. Biddle, «Excavations at Winchester 1962-1963. Second Interim Rcpod», 77te blllournal, XLIV (1964), p. 195.

q._,

XVII

XVII 184

right moment. The year 1066 is a memorable one in English history. In fact it was a year of anxiety and ill-omen all over Europe. Men sensed disaster when they saw an unusually brilliant comet in the sky. It was the first record_ ed appearance of what we now call Halley's comet. In England it portended the end of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy and the beginning of the Norman occupation of the island. King Harold, successor of Edward the Confessor, was defeated and killed at the Battle of Hastings by WiIliam of Normandy, the Conqueror. The Normans were already well known to the Byzantines. The had appeared in the Byzantine province of south Italy nearly forty years b:fore; and five years later, in 1071, they were to conquer Bari and bring an end to Byzantine rule in that part of the world. They were much more familiar to ~e Byzantines than the Anglo·Saxons (or English) whose land they occupied In 1066. Their ancestors, the Northmen from Scandinavia, Vikings or Varangians d found their way to Byzantium in the 9th century. They had come first a~ raiders, then as mercenary soldiers. Many had returned to the frozen north when .they had ma~e ~heir fort~nes and told of the wonders of Constantinople, or ~Icklegarth as ~t IS called m the Nordic Sagas. They fought alongside Byzantme troops agamst the Arabs in Crete and Anatolia in the 10th century. They came to form the elite Varangian Guard - the palace guards of the Emperor. Their weapons were heavy axes and two-edged swords. The greatest of the~ wa.s Harold Hardraada of Norway. The Byzantine writer Kekaumenos m hiS Strategikon tells how Harold was the son of a king ('ApuA.'tT]~ f3acrl~tOl~ /lEV Bapayy!a~ . .. u!6~). And yet he was content to come to Constantmople to serve the Emperor (Michael IV) with his 500 soldiers. That ~as about the year 1034. He was in the imperial service for nine years, fightmg t~e Arabs and the Bulgars, until he returned by way of Jerusalem and RUSSia to become King of Norway. But we are told that he «never lost his love for the Romaioi» and that he was always proud to bear the titles of mangiabites and spatharokandidatos which the Emperor of Constantinople had given him!. Ha.rold ~as a real Viking or Varangian, not an Anglo-Saxon. He was killed trymg to I~vade England, at the battle of Stamford Bridge, in September 1066. But there IS no doubt that the tales of his career of glory in Byzantium and the East ~ere well known in England by that time. The city of Constantinople, the ~ddle of the earth, had already acquired a mystical significance for the English.

hlI:

The Norman conquest of England was virtually completed by 1070. Many (Kckaumen08) Cecaumem Strat ' . cd B1. Wusiliewsk eglcon et Incerti scriptoris De officiis relfiis libellus • • y and V. lernstedt, St. Petersburg, 1896, chap. 12, p. 97. '

ByzlJ1/tlum and England

115

aristocratic families in England today pride themselves on their alleged line of descent from William the Conqueror, the Bastard of Normandy, who con· quered their country in the 11 th century. But in 1066 there were many AngloSaxons , and Danes too, who preffered to emigrate and seek their fortunes elsewhere rather than live under foreign domination. Some of them sailed for the Mediterranean, and after many adventures found their way to the city of Constantinople of which they had heard so much. The fact is confirmed by a number of English or Norman chronicles. Orderic Vitalis, the 12th century monk of Normandy, gives a long account of the English emigration in his Ecclesiastical History. «And so the English» he writes «groaned aloud for their lost liberty and plotted ceaselessly to find some way of shaking off a yoke that was so in· tolerable and unaccustomed. Some sent to Swein, king of Denmark, and urged him to lay claim to the kingdom of England which his ancestors Swein and Cnut had won by the sword. Others fled into voluntary exile so that they might either find in banishment freedom from the power of the Nor· mans or secure foreign help and come back to fight a war of vengeance. Some of them who were still in the flower of youth travelled into remote lands and bravely offered their arms to Alexius, emperor of Constantinople, a man of great wisdom and nobility. Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia, had taken up arms against him in support of Michael, whom the Greeks - resenting the power of the senate - had driven from the imperial throne. Consequently the English exiles were warmly welcomed by the Greeks and were sent into battle against the Norman forces, which were too powerful for the Greeks alone. The Emperor Alexius laid the foundations of a town called Civitot for the English, some distance from Byzantium; but later when the Norman threat became too great he brought them back to the imperial city and set them to guard his chief palace and royal treasures. This is the reason for the AngloSaxon exodus to Ionia; the emigrants and their heirs faithfully served the holy empire, and are still honoured among the Greeks by Emperor, nobility, and people alike»l. This account of Orderic Vitalis is amplified and embellished in two other 1. Text and translation in M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History 0/ Orderlc Vitalls, II (Books III and IV), Oxford, 1969, pp. 202-205; cf. IV, pp. 14-17. The fundamental study on the arrival of the English in Byzantium in the 11 th century is that by A. A. VasiUev, «1be o~ing stages of the Anglo-Saxon immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh Century», SemiIUlrlUm Kondakovianum, IX (1937), pp. 39-70, where the older literature is cited and discussed. ~. F. D(Olger), in I!yzantinische Zeitschri/t, XXXVIII (1938), pp. 235-236; and see now 1. epard, «The English and Byzantium: A study of their role in the Byzantine army in the later eleventh century», Traditio, XXIX (1973), pp. 53-92.

XVII

XVII 186

sources - one the so-called Saga of Edward the Confessor, the other a recently published World Chronicle in Latin. The Saga reports that the party of Eng_ lish refugees from the Normans was led by Sigurd, Earl of Gloucester, two other earls and eight barons. They sailed from England in 350 ships. Their wanderings took them south to Gibraltar, North Africa, Majorca and Minorca and then to Sicily. There they heard that there was a great war at Micklegarth (Constantinople). The city was under attack from pagans by land and sea. The great Emperor «Kirjalax» (Alexios) had only just come to his throne and was in great difficulties. So the English sailed from Sicily to help him. They arrived by night and destroyed all the ships of the pagans who were attacking the city. The land army fled in terror; and great was the surprise of the citizens in the morning to see that their enemies had gone and that there were ships of a new and strange appearance in their harbour. The Emperor then asked the English to stay as his bodyguard. But Sigurd and the other earls felt that they would rather have a piece ofland to call their own. The Emperor told them that there was a land that lay to the north across the sea. It had once belonged to the Empire, but had now fallen into the hands of heathens. If the English could conquer this they could have it. Some of them then remained in the Emperor's service, but the rest sailed off to the north (up the Black Sea). After six days they reached the place, attacked it and drove all the inhabitants away. They then took it over and gave it the name of England and settled there. They gave English names to the towns that were there, calling them London and York; and they gave other English names to the new towns that they built. They would not accept «the law of St Paul, which is current in Micklegarth», but they sent to Hungary for bishops and priests of their own faith. «This land lies six days' and nights' sail across the sea to the east and north-east of Micklegarth; and there is the best ofland there; and that folk has abode there ever since»'. The newly published Latin chronicle tells much the same tale but with some important differences and additionsl. It tells us that the prin~s of Eng1. The Saga 01 £dwa,d the Cotifesso" in The Orkneyinge,s' Saga, Ill, Rolls Series, London, 1894, pp. 425-428. Cf. R. M. Dawkins, «The Later History of the Varangian Guard: SomeNo~,Jourlllll 01 ~man Studies, XXVII (1947), pp. 39-46 (especially p. 42); Shepard, «The En&Jish and ByzantIUm...», pp. 79-84. The problem of the identification of the AnsloSaxon or Varangian settlements on the Black Sea coast as recorded in the Saga of Edward has recently been studied by J. Shepard, «Another New England?-Anglo-Saxon Settlement on the B~~ Sea», ~yzantine Studies I Etudes Byzantines, I, j (Pittsburgh, Pa., 1974), pp. 18-39. ~ KriJnc N. Ciggaar, «I.'emigration ang1aise 1 Byzance apres 1066. Un nouveau texte f111atln IlIr Ies Varangues ~ Constan~nople», Re.1IB des Etudes byzantines, XXXII (1974), pp. ~1-342, whete the English trans1ation of the Edward Saga version is reprinted aB an appendix (pp. 34Q..342). The possible location of «Domapia" is discussed at pp. 334-337.

ByZlillllum

and England

187

\aDd who declined to subl~it to .King William s~t out to sea in 235 s~ps (not 350). that the year of theIr arnval at ConstantInople was 1075 (which may ell be right); and that the Emperor A1exios issued them with a sealed charter :nfirming them and their heirs as defenders of the Empire and guardians of his own person, of his wife and sons, and of the whole imperial family. The number of those who stayed in Constantinople on these terms is given as 4,350. But a much larger number left to seek their fortunes elsewhere, in a place called Domapia on the Black Sea, which they conquered and called Nova Anglia. This Nova Anglia lies at a distance of twice three days sailing from the imperial city towards the north, «in the beginning of the Scythian count!)'». The chronicler goes on to relate two interesting ancedotes about those whom he calls the «Oriental Angli». We hear that «Nicephorus, prothosimbolus of the Emperor Alexis, was sent by him to demand tribute from the Oriental Angli, and was murdered by them. Whereupon the Emperor of the Greeks made plans to kill all the Angli; and many of them were driven by fear of this prospect to cross over to Nova Anglia, while others (deserted the Emperor's service and) took to piracy. The Emperor then regretted his threat and sent messengers to invite them back. The Oriental Angli did not wish to be subject to the Patriarch of the Greeks, so they sent some of their own priests to Hungary to be consecrated as bishops who would be under the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff - a fact which greatly displeased the Emperor and the Greeks»'. The other anecdote tells how «the Oriental Angli sent a man called Hardigt to the Emperor. He was reputed to be the strongest of all the Angli, for which reason he was suspect to the Greeks, who cunningly let loose a lion to devour him. Hardigt was alone in the courtyard of the palace. But he ran to the marble columns that stood in the atrium of the palace to use them as protection against the lion. Then (by a series of adroit manoeuvres) he succeeded in braining the lion by bashing its head on a column. This Hardigt of the race of the Angli was later wrongfully accused of treason by two Greeks, but he defended his innocence against them in a flight on foot, brave though they were. One of them he forced to the ground with his arm severed from his side; the other he fell upon and split him in two from his chest. The Emperor appointed this man leader of all his guards and not long afterwards made him commander of the naval forces»B. Such were the barbaric English who took over the duties ofthe Varangian Guard in Constantinople and came to be known as the «axebearing Britons» (It8A.eKUIpOPOl Bp&'tavvoi), who carried their swords on their right shoulders. 1. Ciasaar, op. clt., p. 323, lines 85-91 (text), p. 337 (commentary). 2. Ciasaar, op. cIt., p. 323, lines 95-109 (text), pp. 337-338 (commentary).

XVII

XVII 188

These are the men whom Anna Komnene calls the
Byzantium and England

of St John on Patmos in 1088. One of the many privileges granted to both monasteries was that of not having to provide quarters for soldiers, whether Greeks or foreigners-and among the foreigners are listed the Varangians and the Inglinoi; though the fact that Varangians and English are so distinguished must mean that there were still some Scandinavians in the imperial service'. Inglinos (or Englinos) is the commonest form of the word for English thereafter; and the compound form «Englinovarangoi» is later used for the name of the imperial bodyguard, which clearly indicates the nationality of its members. Kinnamos, writing of a campaign in Macedonia in 1123, says that the axe-bearing barbarians were of British race and had then been for long in the Emperors' service'. Niketas Choniates later refers to the «captain of the axe-bearing Britons whom they now call 'English'» (6 'tIDV 1tEM:truqlOproV 3t KutapxOlV BpETtuVIDV, oil~ vuv qlucrlv 'IyyA.ivou~)". When the Venetians and the knights of the Fourth Crusade laid siege to Constantinople in 1204, the English Varangians were prominent among the defenders of the city, fighting heroically on the side of the Byzantines. Niketas Choniates specifically records the bold counter-attack of the «axe-bearing barbarians» on the Golden Horn near Blachernai<. Geoffrey of VilIehardouin and Robert of Clari, who were there at the time, both say that there were Danes as well as English among the defenders on the walls. But this is the kind of distinction that a Byzantine would not have observed. He would have regarded these fearsome barbarians from the furthest north as indiscriminately barbaric. Robert of Clari informs us that the English had their own priests in Constantinople". We have already seen from the Saga of Edward the Confessor that, at the beginning, the English refused to acknowledge the Patriarch of the Greeks and preferred to find their I. «Chrysobull of Nikephoros III Botaneiates (l080»), ed. M. Goudas, >, ed. F. Miklosich and J. Miiller, ACla el Diplomala graeca medii aevi, VI, pp. SI-53. Cf. VasiJiey, op. eil., pp. 55-56; Shepard, «The English and Byzantium ... », pp. 60-70. 2. loannis Cinnami Epilome rerum ab [oanne .el Alexio Comnenis ges/arum, eel. A. Meineke (BODO, 1836), p. 8, line 15; Jean Kinnamos, Chronique, trad. par J. Rosenblum (Publications de la Faculte des Lcttres et des Sciences Hnmaines de Nice, 1a), Nice, 1972, p. 20 (text), p. 198 (notes). On the term
1. Annae Comllenae Alexias, od. A. Reifferscheid, Leipzig, 1884, ii, 9; I, p. 84, lines 1820: too. tIC tf\. 0061..11. Baparrou. (t06tou. 6", Myro too. IIe1..SICUIp6pou, Ilapllapo~); ii,ll: I, p. 90 line 10: too<; 6.110 tf\, 0061..11, vl'taou Ilappapou,. Cf. Dawkins, op. Cil., p. 40; and especially Vasiliev, op. cil., pp. 55-56. 2. AIIIIIre Comnenae Alexias, ed. Reifferscheid, vi, 10: I, pp. 208-213. Cf. Geoffrey of Malaterra, De Rehus Gestls Rogerii Calabriae el Siciliae Comilis, ed. E. Pontieri (Rerum [talicarum Scriplores, V, i), Bologna, 1928, iii, pp. 27, 29, 74, 75. See Vasiliev, op. cil., pp' 56-58; Shepard, «The English and Byzantium ...», pp. 72-76. 3. C. H. Haskins, <
189

Pp. 207. 213.

.AY ..

XVII

BYzantium and England

lto own bishops from Hungary, a Catholic country. Whether the English clergy in Constantinople in 1204 were sti11 from Hungary or sent f~om England ot be determined. But the chances are that they were English. For there ~n. ccount of the building of an English church in Constantinople IS a CUriOUS a . at the end of the I Ith century. It comes in the Life of Saint Augustme of Canterbury written by an English monk called Goscelin ~h~ died c. 11001 • «While the first king from the Normans, William, was relgnmg ov~r England, honourable man educated in the chapter of the Blessed Augustme, along With many noble exiles from the fatherland, migrated to Consta~tinople; he obtained such favour with the Emperor and Empress as well as With other powerful men as to receive command over prominent troops and over a great number of companions; no newcomer for very many years had o~tained s~ch honour. He married a noble and wealthy woman, and remembering the gifts of God, built, close to his own home, a basilica in honour of the Blessed Nicholas and Saint Augustine, his patron... ». The Latin World Chronicle mentions one «Coleman» who also built a church in Constantinople. Perhaps the two men are to be identified". The Emperor and Empress at the time were probably Alexios Komnenos and his wife Eirene Doukaina. That an English nobleman should have settled down and married a Greek lady in the 11th century is not at all unlikely. The Byzantine families of Raoul and PetraJiphas were the hellenized descendants of Norman knights who had come to Byzantium and married Greek wives at about the same time. The name VarangopouJos must mean the son of a Varangian; such a one was kephale of Kos in the 13th century". Unfortunately we have no record of any of the descendants of either of these Englishmen; nor is it possible to identify the church of Sts. Nicholas and Augustine which one of them is said to have founded (though some have identified it with the ruined chapel at Bogdan Sarai)'. There was, however, a monastery in Constantinople dedicated to the Panagia Varangiotissa, which was still in existence as late as 1361".

:m

1. M/racula SflIIctl Augustini Epiacopi Cantuariensis, in Acta SflIICtorum, May, VI, p. 406; translated by Vasiliev, op. cit., pp. 60-61. 2. On the identification of this Englishman and on the relation between the Life of St. AugrutlM of Canterbury and the Latill Chronicl. see Ciggaar, op. cit., pp. 309-313, 326-328. 3. MikIosich and Miiller, Acta et Diplomata, VI, pp. 186-187. On the family ofRaoul see D. I. Polemis, The Doukal. A contribution to ByzflIItine prosopography, London, 1968, pp. 172-174; S. Fassoulakis, The Byzontlne Family of Rooul-Ralli (a), Diss., Uni-uty of London, 1972. On the family of Petraliphas see D. M. Nicol, The Despotat. of Eplros, Oxford, 1957, pp. 215-216; Polemis, op. ell., pp. 165-166. 4. R. Janin, La Gda,raph/e .•cc;esiIlstlque de l'Emplre byzantill, Ill: Conslfllllillople. Les 161J1u 11I01IIUlir••, 2nd ed., Paris, 1969, p. 579. a. Ciggaar, op. ell., p. 328. 5. MikIosiI:hand MiIIler, Acta., Diplomata, I, pp. 423-42S. a. Janin,op. Cil., pp. 16S-166.

.,Iu

191

Later references to the Varangian Guard are few and scattered. But it seems to have survived the Frankokratia and to have been reconstituted first in Nicaea and then in Constantinople after 1261. The Chronicle of the Morea relates that when Wi11iam of Vi11ehardouin, Prince of Achaia, was taken prisoner by Michael Palaiologos in 1259, he was held under guard by the Varangians and Greeks who protected the Emperorl. Pachymeres writes of the «axe-bearing Kelts» in the service of the Empire at Nicaea, and it seems probable that by Kelts he means English or Danes'. The «Englinovarangoi» as an imperial bodyguard in Constantinople in 1172 are specifically mentioned in aprostagma of Michael VIII; and it was presumably they, called simply Varangians, who were set to guard the Patriarch Arsenios when he was arrested in 12643 • A neglected passage of Pachymeres reveals that about 1285 the captain of the guard in Thessalonica was an Englishman called Henry CEppfj,> t; 'Eyd.ivOlv). He was not a good advertisement for his country, since he conspired to arrange the escape from prison of one of the Emperor's more important political prisoners, Michael, son of John Doukas, the Sebastokrator of Thessaly. The escape was easy because, as Pachymeres says, Henry was entrusted with the keys of the city gate. If the plan had succeeded he was going to marry Michael's sister. But they did not get away quickly enough, and they were all arrested. That, we must assume, was the end of Henry the Englishman's career as captain of the guard at Thessalonica'. It is not clear whether the Varangian Guard was a hereditary organisation or whether its soldiers were always recruited direct from England. There seems to be no evidence of such recruitment in English sources. The Guard was certainly sti11 in existence in the 14th century, as we know from incidental references in Nikephoros Gregoras and John Kantakouzenos. In 1329, e.g., Kantakouzenos speaks of the «Varangians with their axes» ('roil,> 1tEA.EICU'> I!XOV't1llO IIapaylCouc;), whose duty it was to keep the keys of any city in which the Emperor was staying". The L1'~Y7ja,. TOV IIwl!'ICoAOyov (Book of Fruits) has the 1. Chronicl. of the Morea, ed. P. P. Kalonaros, Athens, 1940, lines 4318-4321. 2. George Pachymeres, De Mlch...l. Pa/oeologo, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1835), p. 71, line 10; cf. p. 378, line 16. 3. Prostagma of Micbael VIII for Andronikos 11 (November 1272), ed. A. Hcisenberg, Aus tkr Goschlchte und Literalur der Palaiologenzelt (Sitzungsberichte der Bayeriscben Akademie der Wissenscbaften, Philol.-hist. KIasae, 1920, Abbandlung 10), Munich, 1920, pp. 37-41 (especially p. 39, lines 30 and 41); «Testament of Anenios», in Misne, Palro/ogla GrtMco-Latillo, CXL, col. 956 B. 4. Pacbymeres, D. Andronico Palaeologo, pp. 73 fr. 5. John Cantacuzenus, Historl..., ed. L. Schopen (Bonn, 1828-32), I, p. 389. line IS.

_le,

-

XVII 19J

192 Varangians in attendance at the court of King Kydonios (King Quince)l. And fiDally Ihe Book of Offices of Pseudo-~odinos, which dates from t~e mid~le of Ihe 14th century, records the interestlDg fact that at the Emperor s Chnstmas banquet it was the custom for Ihe Varangians, among other forei~ners, to salute the Emperor in their own language. After the Genoese, the Plsans, Ihe Anconitans and Ihe Venetiims had said their piece, «then came the Varangians and wished the Emperor long life in the language of their country, namely English, at the same time clashing Iheir axes wilh a loud noise» rE1tSlTU ~P X0vtul Kui 1tOA.OXpov{~oo
aa-.

of Alexios, is well-known for his fondness for westerners. He believed that he

had a special relationship with King Henry II of England; and after the Byzantine defeat at the battle at Myriokephalon in 1176 he wrote a long and celebrated account of the disaster to Henry, whom he describes as «the most noble King of England and his dearest friend (carissimus amicus)>>. Among other matters he was pleased to report that some of the leading men of the nobility of England had fought at Myriokephalon1 • One English chronicle tells of Greek ambassadors being sent to Henry II in 1170 with a proposal that his son John should marry the daughter of the Emperor Manuel. This marriage never materialised. But Manuel was quite justified in reminding King Henry that they, or at least their children, were already closely united by ties of blood. For Manuel's children by his second wife Mary of Antioch were the second cousins of the children of the English Queen Eleanor, Henry's wife". There are several entries in the royal archives of England concerning Ihe visit of Byzantine ambassadors in 1176. We know that they were entertained by King Henry at Westminster, and that an English Knight, GeotTrey de Haie, was sent to Constantinople to return his king's respects to the Emperor. Another Byzantine embassy came to England in 1177 and was delayed for some time at Dover-a frustating but not unusual occurrence". The English (or Welsh) chronicler Giraldus Cambrensis writes that the Emperor Manuel was so eager to learn about the kingdom and people of Britain that Henry 11 wrote for him an elaborate account of the customs and peculiarities of the island. As a result of these friendly exchanges the King, who had no doubt been told about Manuel's love of hunting, sent him a pack of English bloodhounds. The dogs were dispatched on a ship going to Constantinople from Bremen, at a cost of £ 6.6.94'. In 1185 we hear of an English nobleman, Richard of Limesia, travelling to Constantinople on the King's services. The public records of the English Chancery no doubt contain many more such entries and perhaps some information of greater significance. But so far they have only been consulted for limited periods. A systematic search has yet to be made. The Fourth Crusade was almost wholly destructive to Byzantium. But it brought numerous benefits to Western Europe. One of the consequenoes of I

I

1. A. Vasiliev, «Manuel Comnenus and Henry Plantaganet», ByztllJllilische Zeitsclr(ft. XXIX (1929-30), pp. 233-244 (translation of text: pp. 237-240). The Latin text of MIIIIUd'a Ictter is in the Chronicle of Roger of Hovedon: CIuo1lictl Magistri R~ ,. HtJNtieM. od. W. Stubbs, RoDa Series, London, 1869, 11, pp. 102-104. cr. D6tg.,r, R.qcrtm. D. DO. 1S2A. 2. Vasiliev, «Manue1 Comnenus...». pp. 234-236. 3. Ibid., pp. 240-242. 4. Ibid., pp. 242-243. S. Ibid., pp. 243-244.

\ !I "!

XVII Byzantium and England

194

the establishment of a Latin Empire of Constantinople was that travel to and contacts with Byzantium became easier for westerners. Unfortunately, very few of them were interested in appreciating Byzantine culture. But some took the trouble to learn Greek; and others brought Greek manuscripts home with them. The slow revival of Greek learning in the West which resulted owes not a little to English scholars -especially the Franciscans Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon in the 13th century. Grosseteste, who was Bishop of Lincoln collected a whole library of Greek manuscripts and assembled a group seminar of native Greek scholars to help him with his commentaries on Ari. stotle and the Fathers. Most of these were Greeks from south Italy and not from Constantinople'. But Grosseteste's great friend, John of Basingstoke, who died in 1252, had actually studied in Athens. He was a monk of the Monas. tery at St Albans and later Archdeacon of Leicester. He claimed to have learnt a great deal in Athens from a young lady called Constantina, a daughter of the Archbishop. Constantina, though barely twenty years old, had already mastered all the trivium and quadrivium and knew more than John himself had learnt in all his own years of study in Paris. She was also infallible at predicting eclipses and, better still, earthquakes. She must have been a very remarkable girl-though there is some doubt about her identity. If she was a daughter of the Greek Archbishop of Athens, her father would have to have been the learned Michael Choniates. But Michael expressly states that he had no children. Anyway, John of Basingstoke returned to England well.versed in Greek and bringing with him a large number of manuscripts. He also corn. piled a Greek grammar, and introduced Greek numerals ~nto England". The most famous of the English Hellenists in the 13th century was of course Roger Bacon. He lived a generation later and so was able to build on the work of ~s ~redecessors, as well as benefiting from contact with Greeks already Iiv. IDg ID England. He too compiled a Greek grammar which, it is interesting to note, follows the. Byzantine style in pronunciation of the language and arrange. ment of the subJect-matter3. Unfortunately this renaissance of Greek studies in England in the 13th century did not last. An ordinary Englishman's account of Constantinople, its people and its customs about the year 1350 is contained in the Travels and Voyages of Sir

0;

1. K.~. Setto~, «Th~ Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance», Proceedings C (1956), pp. 60 ff. 2. Matthew Paris, Chron~ca ma/ora, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series, London, 1880, V, pp. 285-~7. Cf. Setton, op. Clt., pp. 61-62; W. Miller, The Latins in the Levant. A History 01 FrankISh Greece (1204-1566), London, 1908, p. 20. 229. 3• ll. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its lJeneficiaries, Cambridge, 1954, pp. 228.

of the American PhilosophIcal Society,

19'

John Mandeville'. The first part of this amusing work described the pilgrims' route from England to Jerusalem by way of Constantinople where, as he says, lived the Emperor of Greece. And there, he goes on, is the most fair church and the most noble of all the world, the church of Saint Sophia. And in front of that church stands the statue of Justinian the Emperor, covered with gold, crowned and sitting on a horse. He used to hold a golden apple in his hand; but it has fallen out. And men say that this is a token that the Emperor has lost a great part of his lands and of his lordships: for once he was Emperor of Romania and of Greece, of all Asia Minor, and of the land of Syria, of the land of Judaea, in which is Jerusalem, and of the lands of Egypt, Persia and Arabia. But he has now lost everything, except for Greece. That is the only land he has left". What impressed an English Christian like Mandeville was the number of churches and holy relics in Constantinople. He does give an interesting description of the Emperor's palace and of the hippodrome. He also tells the tale, which I have already mentioned, that St Helena, the mother of Constantine, was a daughter of King Cole of England. But he writes at much greater length about the relics -from the True Cross and the tunic of Christ to the bodies of St Anne, of St Luke and of St John Chrysostomos, all of which were preserved in Constantinople. And he was especially intrigued by the differences between the Greek form of Christianity and his own Roman faith and creed. «If so be», he writes, «that the men of Greece are Christian, yet they differ from our faith. For they say that the Holy Ghost comes not from the Son, but only from the Father. And they say that their Patriarch has as much power on his side of the sea as the Pope does on this side. Therefore the Pope sent letters to them, how the Christian faith should all be one; and that they should be obedient to the Pope who is God's Vicar on earth.... And they answered him in these words: 'We know well that your power over your subjects is great. We cannot tolerate your pride, which is also great. We do not intend to satisfy your great avarice. So the Lord be with you, since the Lord is with us'». Mandeville also lists the differences in creed and custom-in the sacraments, in the matter of Purgatory (which the Greeks deny), and in the rules for fasting ao,d the marriage of the priests. Finally, he remarks that «the Emperor of Constantinople makes the Patriarch, the Archbishop and the Bishops ... and so he is lord both spiritual and temporal in his country»3. I. M. Letts, Mandeville's Travels. Text and translations (Hakluyt Society, Series 11, vols. Cl, Cll), London, 1953. 2. Letts, op. cit., I, pp. 5-6; n, pp. 232-233. 3. Ibid., I, pp. 13-15; II,pp. 237-239. English travellers occasionally passedthroughByzantine Trebizond on their way to places further east. See W. Miller, Trebizond. The Last GlWk Empire, London, 1926, p. 31; E. Janssens, Trebizonde en Colchide, Brussels, 1969, pp. 93-94.

XVII XVII ByIII1IIium tIIII1 Engltmd

These are the observations of an average pilgrim or tourist visiting Constantinople in the 14th century. He is interested in the sights o.f the city and in the strange ways and beliefs of a foreign people. He even hsts the let~rs of the Greek alphabet in case anyone should want to know how these foreIgners write their language. But he reveals no interest in the literature written in that language, whether ancient or contemporary. It is a pity that we do not have any other English traveller's account which might have shown a deeper and less superficial appreciation of Byzantine culture and civilisation. The event which ought to have done most to promote contacts between England and Byzantium was the visit of the Emperor Manuel 11 to London in 1400. I have written about this elsewhere; but perhaps I may briefly describe the circumstances' . The visit had been preceded by a number of exchanges of ambassadors and letters. After the failure of the crusade at Nicopolis in 1396, in which an English contingent had participated, Manuel wrote to all the rulers of the western world, urging them to send men or money for the rescue of Constantinople. Charles VI of France seemed the most likely to help; but his neighbour King Richard 11 of England might be approached too since he had a reputation as a crusader. So in 1397 and again in 1398 we find Byzantine ambassadors crossing over from France to England. They were well received by King Ricbard 11, who even conferred a knighthood on one of them at a ceremony at Lichfield; and the king's council voted that a sum of money should be contributed by every bishop and lord of the land for the relief of Constantinople. In the meantime the Pope had set up a defence fund for Constantinople, and his agents came to England in 1399 to establish collection centres in Lincoln, Leicester, Winchester and York. Records survive of the exact amounts subscribed and collected. The Archbishops of Canterbury, York and London made private donations. A special box for offerings was placed in St Paul's Cathedral in London. And King Richard advanced the sum of £ 2,000 for «the liberation and support of Manuel, Emperor of Constantinople, and for the prolllction of his Empire from extermination by the infidel» Turks. The money was to be conveyed through a bank in Genoa. Richard wrote to Manuel apologizing for not being able to do more. By 1399 England was on the verge of civil war; while the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish were all making troubJe8. Eventually it was decided that the Emperor should visit France to put 1. D. M. Nicol, <eA Byzantine Emperor in England: Manuel II's visit to London in 1400-1401», Ulli"Mrsity 01 Birmingham Historictll JO/mllll. XU, 2 (1971). pp. 204-22S; NPdm.. la D. M. NicoI, ByZlllfl_: its eeclesUutical history I11III ,elation.r witJI tU we"em -Id,

SIudles: Vuionun Reprints), LondoD. 1972. 2. NicuI, tip. ell., pp. 2011-210.

(CGIIecIaI

his case in person. The arrangements w~ made. by the French Marshal BooclC8ut. who led a small army to Constantmople In 1399; and Manuel and his party reached Paris by wa! o.f It~ly in June I~. He tra~elled in style, brinaiog his own priests and dlgmtanes as well as gIfts of relIcs and teasures for his hosts. From Paris he made inquiries about visiting England. By 1400 things had changed at the English court. Richard 11, who had promised Manuel £ 2000. had been dethroned by King Henry IV; and in the summer of that year Henry was away in the north of the island fighting the Scots. Several months passed before he was back in London and ready to receive the Emperor. Finally. on 11 December 1400, Manuel sailed from Calais to Dover. The sea was. as usual, rough and he was glad to reach the soil of England. From Dover he proceeded first to Canterbury, where he was welcomed by the Prior of Christ Church and his Augustinian friars on 13 December, the Feast of St Lucy. There he was entertained for some days. The King had commissioned a nobleman to greet the Emperor and escort him to London; and on 21 December King Henry himself came out to Blackheath, some nine miles from the city, to meet his honoured guest1• Manuel was in England for nearly two months. His stay in London is Dot as fully documented as his much longer stay in Paris. But some of the English chroniclers of the time provide snatches of information. The Chronicle of Thomas Walsingham has this to say: «At this time (1400) the Emperor of Constantinople accompanied by several Greeks came to England to ask for help against the Turks. The King met him with a noble retinue at Blackheath on the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle, properly receiving him as a hero, and led him to London. There for many days he entertained him in glorious fashion, defraying all the expense of his hospitality and lavishing gifts upon him. The King spent Christmas of that year at his palace at Eltham; and with him was the Emperor of Constantinople with his Greek bishops»8. People were evidently very impressed by the Emperor's piety. They noted that he attended Mass every day in his own apartments, and that he and all his company took c0mmunion daily. Another English chronicler, Adam of Usk, gives this account: «This Emperor always walked with his men, dressed all alike and in one colour, Damely white, in long robes cut like tabards; he finding fault with the many fashions and distinctions in dress of the English, wherein he said that fickleness and changeable temper was betokened. No razor touched head or beard of his chaplains. These Greeks were most devout in their church services, which 1. NIcoI. OJI. cif., pp. 210.213. 2. Thmnaa WaJainsbam. ~ RIetlMl SKfIIIIiI et a-tcI Q-'4 ell. H. T. . . . . RIIIII ScriIa, LoatIon. 1_ pp. 334-335. .

XVII

XVII Byzantium and England

1~

were joined in as well by soldiers as by priests, chanting in their native tongue»l. The Christmas party held in the Emperor's honour at Eltham Palace outside London was clearly a grand and expensive occasion. There are records of a great tournament that was staged in the palace grounds for his entertain_ ment. The people of the city of London also seem to have enjoyed the occasion. A chronicle of London records that the aldermen of the city and their families staged a masquerade or mummery for the Emperor, for which he expressed great thanks'. Manuel hardly saw London at its best in the bleak month of January. But he had great hopes of the positive results of his journey. There is a letter that he wrote from London to his friend Manuel Chrysoloras, who was then in Italy. It is full of praise for «the King of Britain the Great, or, as one might say, of the second universe» (6 ,fje; Bperaviae; pij~ ,fje; Il£YUA,1]e;, ,fje; /ieIJ,epae;, roe; liv einol tte;, ohcoUIlEV1]e;). Manuel praises Henry's virtues and commends him for his courtesy, friendliness and generosity; and he concludes ~at the king is going to provide substantial help for Constantinople with soldiers, money and ships, which will transport the army wherever it is needed". Alas, these high hopes were never realised. No regiment of English soldiers no flotilla of the British navy followed Manuel to Constantinople. He left th~ shores of England laden down with presents from the king and richer by a sum of money, but otherwise he had nothing to show for his visit. Even the money that was supposed to have been collected for his cause was hard to find when it was needed. The collecting boxes in St Paul's and othe~ churches appeared to be empty. And the £ 2,000 assigned to the Emperor by ~Icha~d I! had never passed through the bank in Genoa. Henry IV ordered an InveStigatIOn. It was still going on more than twenty years later, as the records reveal. But at least he made sure that Manuel got the promised £ 2 000 And ~n 3 Fe~ruary 1401 the Emperor gratefully acknowledged receipt of thi~ sum In ~ Latm document written in London and sealed with his own golden ~ull. It IS the only Byzantine imperial chrysobull in the Public Record Office ~ En~l~nd. He left London for Calais and Paris in mid-February. Some of hi~ OffICIalS stayed in England until May and are known to have visited Staines WIn~sor .and Gloucester. Back in Paris the Emperor wrote to his friend Eu~ thymIOs In Constantinople telling him that preparations were already being 1. A~am of U~, Chronicon, ed. E. M. Thompson, London, 1904, pp. 57, 220. 2. Nlcol, op. Clt., pp. 214-215. The manuscript of the St Alban's Chro . I . th L'b of Lambeth Palace Lo d • rue e ID e I rary Henry IV and th D on (Cod. 6. (E. a. 2], fol. 240') has an illustration of the meeting of e peror ManuellD the throne-room of a palace

Em

~ ~:~a: I'~mpereur Manuel Paleologue, ed. E. Legrand: Paris, 1893, pp. 51-52; B)l%Q/ltiM 8tate8:::U~QiplNW' BBarker,. Manuel 1I Palaeologus (1391-1425). A study in late , ew rUDSwlek, N.l., 1969, pp. 175-180.

199

ade in Europe for the assembly of a great army to which «the Britons and all :ur other allies» were to send contingents. But it was an illusion; and early iD 1402 the Emperor sadly sent word to his nephew John VII, who was in charge of Constantinople, to say tha~ after all King Henry of England had Dot been able to provide any real help ID the way of troops or of moneyl. John VII, however, thought that a letter from the scene of action might have more effect; and in June 1402 he wrote a letter of his own to Henry IV, appealing for assistance. He paid tribute to the English noblemen who were then actively engaged in the defence of Constantinople. It would be interesting to know who they were. Perhaps they were survivors from the crusade of Nicopolis who had found their way to the city. But it did not seem that any of their countrymen were going to leave England to join them in the East. The news that the Sultan Bajezid had been defeated and captured by Timur the Mongol at Ankara in July 1402 reached the Emperor Manuel in Paris in September of that year. He left Paris in November; but he did not get back to Constantinople until June 1403. Before that he sent another embassy over to England, probably to let the king know about the changed situation in the East. And in 1403 thirteen Greeks are known to have been in London on the Emperor's business, presumably to make another effort to get help from Henry IV. This was, perhaps, the last official Byzantine embassy to England". There may have been some Englishmen fighting in the defence of Constantinople fifty years later, in 1453. It has been suggested that the army engineer in the service of Giustiniani called John Grando was really a John Grant who came from Scotland and not from Germany3. But there was no official British contingent. And the fall of Constantinople made little immediate impression in England. One might have thought that the Emperor Manuers visit to London would have inspired both the English and the Greeks to want to know more about each other. But there is no evidence that it had this effect. It is possible that the long account of the geography and customs of the British given by Laonikos Chalkokondyles (the longest in any Byzantine source) derived from someqne who had been there in the Emperor's company. Among other pecularities of these strange Englishmen Chalkokondyles particularly notes the fact that they are in the habit of kissing their ladies a great deal and that they are not ashamed to allow their wives and daughters to be kissed by other men in public'. Some scholars have misread this statement as if it implied that I. NicoI. op. cit., pp. 216-219, 222-223. 2. Ibid., pp. 222-224. 3. S. Runeiman, The Fall 0/ Constantinop/~ /453, Cambridge, 1965, p. 84. 4. Loonici Chalcocondylae Historiarum Demonstration.., ed. I. Bekker (Boon, 1843). pp. 92-95; ed. E. Dark6 (Budapest, 1922), I, pp. 86-89. Cf. W. Miller, «The Laat AtbcDian

XVII

XVII ByZOlltium and England

the English were immoral, adulterous and promiscuous. But in fact this innocent custom of greeting a lady with a kiss was noticed also by Erasmus when he first visited England in 1497. «The English», says Erasmus, «have one practice which cannot be too much admired. When you go anywhere on a visit the girls all kiss you. Tbey kiss you when you arrive; they kiss you when you go away; and they kiss you again when you return. Go where you will it is all kisses». Erasmus enjoyed this social custom. But he was a westerner. To a Byzantine all this kissing must have seemed very strange1 • Byzantines and English were indeed still strangers to each other in the 15th century. Even the interest in ancient Greek philosophy and literature which English scholars had shown in the 13th century did not last. The revival of Greek studies in Italy in the early 15th century is well known. It was stimulated by the teaching there of Manuel Chrysoloras and then by the event of the Council of Florence in 1439 and the settlement there of Bessarion and Gemistos Plethon. But all this had distressingly little effect in England. As the late Roberto Weiss has shown, the work of such men as Grosseteste and Bacon was not followed up by their countrymen; and indeed it is doubtful whether Greek was studied at all in England in the 14th century2. We know that Petros Philarges from Crete, who later became Pope Alexander V, studied at Norwich and Oxford about 1370. We know that Manuel Chrysoloras himself visited London and the library of Salisbury Cathedral in 1409. But neither of these scholars found any scope for teaching Greek in England. When the Florentine humanist Poggio Bracciolini came to England at the invitation of the Bishop of Winchester in 1418 he found it quite impossible to pursue his studies in Greek because he could not find any Greek books or teachers. The Venetian scholar Del Monte encountered the same problems twenty years later; and he was also discouraged by the horrible climate and the barbarous customs of the country". The humanism of English scholars in the 15th century, such as Historian: Laonikos Chalkokondyles», Journal of Hellenic Studies, XLII (1922), pp. 36-49 (especially p.46); K. Dieterich, Byzantinische Quellen zur Lander and Volkerkunde 5.-15. Juhrhundert, Leipzig, 1912, 11, pp. 124-125. It was believed in some Byzantine (or postByzantine) circles that the English were polygamous: Ps.·Pbrantzes (MakariosMelissenos), Chronicon, in Georgio. Sphrantzes, Memorii 1401-1477, ed. V. Greeu, Bucarest, 1966, p. 362, lines 20-21: 'Ev Bpstavviq. 51: ,,)..slatOl tlilv civ5plilv 1110. CJIl'YKaOsi>501lm yuvuuc1 l
201

't was was based on classical Latm not on Greek. Hardly any English human:sts k~ew any Greek at all. Those that did were mainly interested in obtaining MSS of religious works, or of Plato and Aristotle. Greek secular literature was simply not studied, except in Latin translation. Towards the end of the century we know of a number of Greeks who were employed in copying MSS. One was Emanue\ of Constantinople, who may even have taught some Greek at oxford. Andronikos Kallistos and Georgios Hermonymos of Sparta spent some months in Oxford and London in 1475. Demetrios Kantakouzenos was in London in the same year and copied a volume of extracts from Herodotus. While lohannes Serbopoulos of Constantinople worked in Oxford and then in an Abbey at Reading for some years in the 1480's. He transcribed several copies of the Greek Grammar of Theodoros Gazes, which seems to indicate that there were people in England anxious to learn Greek1 • But, as has already been observed, it was not really until the 16th century that Greek language and literature found their rightful place in the education and scholarship of England. The English were slow to enter the common market of Greek culture. But by a strange series of circumstances, the soil of England received and still contains the mortal remains of one of the last reputed descendants of the last Byzantine Emperors. In the parish church of Landulph in Cornwall an inscription records the burial there in 1636 of one Theodore Palaiologos from Pesaro in Italy. He is said to have been descended from the imperial line of the last Christian Emperors of Greece, and the inscription is adorned with the doubleheaded eagle. The genealogy of Theodore is traced through four generations from Thomas, brother of Constantine Palaiologos, the Emperor'. Theodore was born about 1560 and was the nephew of two gentlemen of Pesaro called Leonidas and Scipione Palaiologos. All three were convicted of attempted murder. Leonidas was executed, but his nephew Theodore was exiled from Italy. He found his way to England in the dishonourable capacity of a hired assassin 1. Weiss, op. cif., pp. 144-148; Geanakoplos, op. cit., p. 157; A. E. Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Nation. The Byzantine Period, 1204-1461, New Brunswick, N. J., 1910, pp. 250-254. On Demetrios Kantakouzenos see D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family of K_ lakouzenos (Cantacuzenu,,) ca. 1100-1460 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies,XI), Washington,D.C~ 1968, No. 100, p. 228. 2. The inscription on a brass plaque (now set in the wall inside the church at Landulpb) has been published several times. See D. A. Zakythenos, L. Despotal flr« de Morh (12621460), I, Paris, 1932, pp. 295-297; D. M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453, London, 1972, pp. 425, 437, and references there cited. Theodore's claim to be a descendant of Thomas Palaiologos through Thomas's son John must be held unproven since there is 110 independent evidence for the existence of this John PalaiOIOg08. Cf. Zakythenos, op. cII~ pp. 295-297.

AYIJ

XVII

and a soldier in the service of the Earl of Lincoln. There he settled and in the year 1600 married Mary, daughter of William ~alls, ~f I:Iadlei~h in Suffolk. The wedding took place at Cottingham in YorkshIre. HIS fltSt child, Theodore, was born only ten weeks after the marriage, but he died in infancy (September 1601). He had three other sons and three (not two) daughters. He is known to have fought as a soldier in the Netherlands between 1609 and 1621; then to have lived in Plymouth; and finally to have settled at Clifton mansion in Landulph, Cornwall. The register in Exeter Cathedral gives the date of Theodore's burial as 20 October 1636 (not, as in the inscription, 21 January). In 1795 his grave was accidentally opened revealing an oak coffin. When the lid was lifted the body was found to be in perfect condition - so that it was possible to see that Theodore Palaiologos had been a very tall man with a strong aquiline nose and a very long white beard'. His eldest daughter Dorothy married a genteman of Cornwall called William Arundtl in 1636. Th.: entry in the marriage register says she was of imperial stock (<
Byztllltlum and England

. I'alline of the last Christian Emperors of Greece». His son Theodorious . . Th odore) named, Greek style, after hIS grandfather, became a sailor, re(or edeto England (in fact to Stepeney in London) and died at Corunna in turn . f S ain in 1693. He mamed a Martha Bradbury 0 Barbados, and we know that Phd a son born in Stepney and perhaps also a daughterl. they a " ' It would be interestmg to know If there were any descendants of the Va'an English (any Varangopouloi) still living in Greece or Constantinople ra~~te as the 16th and 17th centuries. It would be interesting to trace the faas'!i S of some of the nobility of England who fought on the Byzantine side at : ~okephalon or in the defence of Constantinople in the 15th century. But th; evidence, so far as I know, is not available. One would like to know too why the author of the Song of BelillariulI (AtiI'YTjO't~ 'toll ~eA\O'a~tou) c~ose En land (vTjO'iv 'tfj~ 'EyyA.Tj't&pa~) as the scene of one of hiS hero s explOits·. contacts between Byzantium and England in the middle ages were, as have tried to show, irregular and infrequent. Sometimes they were fruitful; and at least they were never hostile. But it was not until long after the faIl of Constantinople that the English acquired a lasting taste for Greek culture. And by then it was too late for the Romaioi to learn anything from England. ~~

Tb!

I

1. 1. H. Adams, op. clt. %. The Stmg 0/ Belisariu. is published in three venioDs by G. Waaner. CGI'IIIiRrI ~ Medii A.nl, pp. 304 rc.• 322 rc., 348 rc.

INDEX

:r,

Abingdon: XVI! 192 Aboures. Nicholas: XIII Acheloos : IV 14; V 172 Achyraites family: IV 14: XliI Adalya: IV 12 Adam. Syr Nicholas: III 118 Adam of Usk: XVI! 197 Adrianople: VllI 522:XVI 3 Aeneas Sylvius: VI 276 AeBchyluB: VI! 11 Aesop: XVI 5 AgathangeloB: XVI 3,5-6 Agrelopousaina. monastery: III 120 Aitolia:IV 17,19 Akarnania: IV 17,23,32 AkindynoB, Gregory: VllI 521;IX 199; X 126 Akrokeraunian mountains: V 172,187 AkropnliteB family: IV 27 ;XI 249-56 Akropolites. Canatantine: XI 249-56 _, George: I 38;IV 10;XI 249-52 -, Leon: XI 249 _, Melchisedek: XI 249-50,253-4 Akropolitissa. Eudokia I mother of Constantine: XI 250,253-4 _. Maria. wife of Canstantine :XI 250 _. Theodora. daughter of Conatantine: XI 250,252 Albania, Albanians: IV 6.24-S.33:V 174-9,194;XV 5,16-17 Albert of Aix: 1lI 123 Alexander V. pope: XVII aDO Alexander of Aphrodisias: XIII Alexander the Great: X 126 ;XVI 5 Alexander of Wa.llachia: IX 188 AlexioB I KomnenoB: III 114-17,122-3, 127,131 ;XVII 185-8,192 AlexioB III AngeloB: I 38,50;111 128-9; IV 9-11 AlexioB 11 of Trebizond: XI 252-4 AUshir, emir: XII 13 AUaUuB, Leo: 11 145 AlyateB family: IV 6 Amiroutzes, George: VIII 519Amsterdam: XVI 6 Anastasis. monastery: Xl 2-51.253 Andrea., monk: IX 192 Andrea., Salos: IX 187 A.drew. St.: 11 150 Andritsopoulo., Nicoolo: V 186

Androniko8 11 Palaiologoa: J 46: III 117;IV 21,3t;V 183,192-3; VIII 523;IX 187-8,192;X 121-2: XI 249,252-3;XII 9-t2;XIII 4; XIV 83 Andronikos III Palaiologos: I 46: III 117;IV 31;VIII 521-2,524-6; IX 194,196;XII 11 ;XIV 85; XVII 181 Andronikos IV Palaiolocos: IX 195 Andronikos of Rhodes: VU 2-6.8-10, 14-15

Angelina. Maria of laanninR: XV 17 Angelokastron: V 194 Angelos. CODatantine: XIV 82 Angelos, John: XIV 84 Angelos (see also Alexios: taBac) Ankara: Xil13; XVII 199 Anna Comnena: III 114.123 Anne of Savoy, wife of John V: I 47, IX 194;X 122;XI 253;XII 13; XVII 181 Anthimo. of Iberia: VIII 514.517 Antioch: 11 161;111 125

Antiochites. N.: XIII .. Antonics IV. patriarch: I 48: 11 166-7: XII 10 Aphthonios: XIII 5 Apokaukos, Alexios: VII 524;IX 196: XIV 85 -, George: XIV 185 -, John. bishop of Naupaktos: I 43; IV 19-23,26,32;XIV 82 Aprenos, Philip Douku: XII 16 Aquinas, Thomas: II 159,163 Arbanon: IV 24-6 Argos: IV 25 Aristotle: VII 1-16;X 124,III6;XV 3 Ar lenio, Arnoldo: VII 1

Armenia: XV 5.9 Arsenios patriarch: 1 46;XVU 181 I

Arsenios of Monemvlsia. solibe: VII 9,13-14 Arsenites: III 129-30 Arta: 1lI 134-5;IV 5.IO.1lI.89-30: V 172-92 Aaen, Asanes. family: XIV 88 As ... , Jobn 11 of Bulgaria: IV 9.16-11 -. John III of Bulpria: XII 11 A....lna. Eire... , wile of Jobll VI:

-3-2-

VIlI 520,524;IX 194,197-8 Assanes. Demetrios and Michael: XIlI II _, John: XIV 82

Athanasios I. patriarch: IX 187.189, 195:Xlll 4 Athanasios. patriarch of Jerusalem: II 155 Athanasios of the Meleoron: IX 189190;XV 9 Athens: XV 3-4

Athos. Mount; VI 279-81 : VIII 514 523: IX 186-8 ;XlI 5-6 ;XV 16 ;XVI I Atumano. Simon: XIII 6 Augustine St •• of Canterbury:XVII 181 190 Autoreianos (see MichaeI) Avlona (see Valona) Ayvalik (Kydonies): XVI 9-10 J

Bacon. Roger: XVII 194 Balanidiotes. N. : XIV 87 8aldwin I of Flanders, Latin emperor: 141 Baldwin JI. Latin emperor; IV 6;V 175 BalaamoD, Theodore: I 51 ;111 121,127 Baisignano Jacobo de: V 177 Barbados: XVII 202-3 Bardanes. George, bishop of Corfu: II 156-7;IV 22-3,33 Bardas family: IV 6 Barlaam of Calabria: 11 160-1 : VIII 521;IX 194,199;X 126 BarleUa: V 188 Bartholomew of Constantinople:1I 143: Vlll 525 BasH,St.: X 127 Basil I: XV 9 Basil II: XV 3-4,9 Basil Komnenos of Trebizond: VIII 518; XI 253 Basil I of Moscow: I 48;II 167 Batopedi, monastery: VI 280; XIII 5-6 Bayezid, Sultan: XII 9,16-17 Bebaia Elpis, convent: XIV 82-3 Beka Jaqeli of Georgia: XI 253 Bekkos, John. patriarch: n 158-9; III 122;V 183-4 ;XI 249 Belisarios, Song of: III 135;XVIf 203 Benevento: V 174 Seral: V 172.177 Berroia: IV 14-17 Bessarion, cardinal: XVII 200 Bithynia: IV 12;IX 189;XII 13 Bizzari, Pietro: VI 277 81achernal palace: III 126; V 190,192: VI 271 -church: III 135;IV 30-1 I

Blackheath: XVII 197 Blastares, Matthew: 11 165-6;X 131 Bohemond of Antioch: III 114,123,127. 131 Bongo(es):XV 17 Boniface of Montferrat: III 119; IV 7. 11-12,15 Boucheiras (see Isidore) Boucicaut, ~shal: XVII 197 Boudonitza: IV 7 Bracciolini. Poggio: XVII 200 Branas family: IV 4 Branas. Nicholas: XIII 6 Brasta: XIII 5 Brincoveanu, Constantine: VIII 511, 513-15,525-6 Brindisi: V 182,168 Bryennios, Joseph: VIII 513 _, Michael: IX 198 Bucharest: VII 511-26;XVI 11 Bulgaria. Bulgarians: IV Sf., 22f . ; IX 186,198 Buondelmonti, Esau: XV 17 Butrinto (Bouthroton) : V 175,184185,194 Caesarea: III 131 Caiazzo: III 131 Calais: XVII 197-6 Cantacuzene (Kantakouzenos), Demetrios: XVII 201 -. John and Demetrios, sons of Matthew: XIV 66 -, N,: IV 14 -, Theodore: XIV 86 - (see also Eirene; John;Manuel; Matthew) Cantacusino. Constantine, Stoln10: VlII 512,516,519,525-6 -, ~erban, prince of Wallachia: VIII 512 -, Stefan, son of Constantine: VlII 516 Canterbury: XVII 161,166-9,196 Carthage, Council of: I 45 Caserta: III 131 Catalans: III 117-20;XII 9:XVII 192 Catherine the Great of RUssia: XVI 8,11 Cephalonla (Kephallenla):lII 134;IV 5; V 172 Chalcedon, Council of: 11 143;III 121 Chalkokondyles, Laonikos: XV 8: XVII 199-200 Chamaretos, John. despot: IV 16-19,33 -, Leo: IV 16 Char le magne: I 49 Charles I of Anjou: V 170-94

Charles n of AnjOU: V 193-4 Charles VI of France: XII 10;XVII 196 Charsianeites family: XIII 1 Charsianeites. John: VI 280 Charsianeiles. monastery: VI 280-1 Chaus. Anselm of: V 179 Chitandari monastery: III 133 Chimarra: V 187 Chinardo, Gazo: V 179 _ Philip: V 175r. chioniades. Gregory: XIII Chios: [[! 120;XIll 1-2,6,10-11; XVI 5 Chomatianos. Demelrios. archbishop of Ochrida: I 43f.;III 120-2;IV 5-6, 10r. ,33 ;XIV 82 Choniales. Michael: IV 19,22;XV 4; XVI! 194 _ Niketas: I 37f.,50;IV 12;VIII520; ~V 4 ;XVII 189 Chora monastery (Kariye Djami): IX 192;XIll 6.8 Chorlasmenos, John: XIV 86 Choumnos, Nikephoros: X 122-3: Xl 253 Choumnaina. Eirene: XI 253 Christodoulos of Patmos: XVII 188-9 Chrysoloras, John: XIII 11 _, Manuel: XVII 198,200 Chrysolorina. Theodora: XIII 10 Chrysomakariotissa monastery :111 126 Chrysos, Dobromir: IV 6-9,25 Clarentza: V 185-6 Clement, St.: IV 24 Clement IV, pope: II 157,159 Clemant VI, pope: VIII 525; XII 15 Clement VII, pope: XII 10 Comana: III 131 Comnen, John (Hierotheos) of Bucharest: VIII 511-26 Constance, widow of Raymond 11: '" 125 Constantine 1 the Great: XV 9; XVII 180 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: XV 7,13-14 Constantine XI Palaiologos: XV 19; XVII 180,201 Corfu (Kerkyra): 11 151;111 132; IV 7,IO,13;V 171-2,175f.,194 Corinth: IV 25 Cornwall: XVII 201 Cosmas 111, patriarch: VIII 516 Courcelles, Henri de: V 177 Courtenay, C atherine of: V 193 -, Peter of: V 161 -, Philip of: V 181,191,193 Crete: III 120; IX 186-7

Crispin, Robert: In 115 Cumans: IV 6,6 Cusmen: IV 11.26 Cyprus: IX 186 ;XVll 182 Cyril, St.: XV 14 Dagobert: 111 123,127 Daimonoioannes, George: IV 18 Dakibyze: IX 192 Oalassenoa (see Rogerios, John) Deeanski, Stephen UroA III of Serbia: X 130 Deljan, Peter: XIII 3 Demetrakopoulos, Andronikos: 11 145 Demetrios, St.: I 45;IV 26;X 123-4 Demnites, Theodore: IV 13 Denmark, Danes: XVII 185,189,191 Dermokaites family: XIII 1-11 -, Alexios: XIII 7 -, Demelrios: XIII 9 -, George: XIII 9-10 -, John: XIII 2,7 -, Miohael: XIII 3,4 -. Michael Chrysoloras: XIII 10 -, Nicholas: XIII 6,6 -, Theodore: XIII 5 -, Theophylaktos: XIII 7-6 Dermokaitissa. Theodora Palaiologina.: XIII 7-8 Devol: III 114,117,123,128,131 Didymoteiohon: III 123;VIII 522; IX 186-200 Dimitri, Grand Duke of Russia: 11 166 Diogenes: IX 16B Dionysios of Athos: IX 188-9 Dobrochoubista: IV 14 Domapia: XVI 167 Dometios: IX 190 Domokos: IV 7 Dorla, IIario: XIII 11 -. Manfredina: XllI 11 Ooukaina. Eirene: III 126 -, Helena: V 172,175 Doukas family: IV 4 ;XIV 60 -, historian: VI 274-6,278-9 -, Constantine: IV 19 -, Demetrios: V 171,164-5 -, John: III 132 -, John, son of Michael 11 of &piros: IV 6;V 171,180-3;XI 25 -, John, father of Michael I of Epiros: XIV 81-2 _, Michael-Demetrios. son of Nikephoros of Eplros: V 185,191 ;XIV 87 _, Michael, son of John: XVII 191 Dover: XVII 197 Dragoboutzista: XIII 5 Dragotas fa.mily: IV 27

-5-4-

Drama: IV 10 Dromocati (see Dermoka.ites) DrougobiUc;Tv 13.23 Drystra: VIII 515-16 Duca, Constantine: VIII 512 _. George: VIII 512 _, John: VIII 512 Duncan of Scotland: XVII 181 Dullan, Stephen IV UroA of Serbia: IX 188:X 131:XV·16 Dyrrachion (Durazzo): IV 4.6.10; V 171,1751.,1881.:XVII 188 Edgar, King 01 England: XVII 182 Edward the Confessor: XVII 183,186 Eirene. empress. wife of Leo IV:XV 9 Eirene Cantacuzene. daughter oC John VI: XIV 80 Eirene-Yolande of Montcerrat ,empress: X 122,130 Eleusis: XIII 48ltham: XVII 197-8 Emanuel of Constantinople. scribe: XVII 201 England, EngUsh: IV 7:XVII 179-203 Ephesos: IV 191 :XVII 183 Splros: I UI,:III 117,119-20:IV 41.: V 170f. Era.muB: XVII 200 Erotokrllos: XVI 5 Elaias. patriarch: I 47 Elphigmenou monastery: XIII 5 Etherianus, Hugo: 11 143 Eton: VIII 515 Eademas of Rhodea: VII 3 Euphroayne, wife of Alexlos 1/1: IV 12 Eurlpides: X 125 Filelfo, Franceaco: XIII 10 "lIog•• : 11 1411,,1531, ,158 Florence, Council of: 11 184,167: XIII 9:XVII 200 'Fool008 ': V 182 Fogllel., Uberto: VI 277 Fourth Cr.Beds: 11 1441.:111 117,119: IV 3f,:XV 17:XVII 189,193 F.....ce: XII 10:XVII 196-7 Gab.... family: IV 14 -, Michael: XIII 5 -, Stephen: IV 26 GMrlel. archimaadrile:1X 195 Galota: VI 278 GalUidl. Chronicle of: IV aD aalllpoll: n 161 a .._loe: III liS aattlh...... Fr_oo, oraanoa: VI 2TS-8

Gazes, Theodore: XVII 201 Genesios: XV 5 Gennadios, George Scholarios. patriarch: XV 19:XVI 2-3 Genoa, Genoese: III 120;IV 12;VI 27527B:X 129:XII 15:XIII 2,6,l1:XIV 80,85:XVII 179,192,196,198 Geoffrey of Monmouth: XVII 180 George of Trebizond: VIII 518-19 George Gorgos. monastery: IV 27 Germanos 11, patriarch: 144;11 151. 154 Germanos, bishop of Nyssa: VIII 512 Germanos the HagiorUe: IX 188-90 Germiyan. emirate: XII 13 Gesner, Conrad: VII 1 Ghln family: IV 6 Ghin, son of Progonos: IV 24 Giraldus Cambrensts: XVII 193 Giustinianl. Agostlno: VI 277 _, Giovanni: XVII 199 Glabaa. George: IX 198-9 Glykas, Mlchael: VIII 513 Godfrey of Bouillon: III 123.127 Golem: IV 25,29 Goudeles. Constantine: IV 6 Grando. John: XVII 199 Graptoi (Theodore and Theophanes) : III 130 Gregoras, Nikephoros: I 42: VI 270-3. 279:VIII 519-20:IX 188,199 Gregory IX, pope: 11 154 Gregory X, pope: 11 1571. Gregary II or Cyprus. patriarch: V 192. XIV 83 Gregory V. patriarch: XVI 10.12 aregory of Sinai: IX 186,188 Grevena: IV 22-3 Grosseteste. Robert: XVII 194 Gugltelmo of Montferrat: IV 12 GulBcard, Robert: III 122-3.127,131: XVII 185,188 Ha"os Nikolaos. near Philadelphfa: XII 12-13 HaUl. aon of Orchan: XIV 80 HaImyros: IV 8,11 Hudr.ada. Harold. of Norway: XVII 184 Harmenopoulos. Conatantine: X 131 Harold, king of England: X VII 184 Helens Cantacuzene. daughter of John VI: VIII 522 Heliodorus 01 Prusa: VII 2-4,8-10,13IS Helladlkol: XV 6,9 Helle• • , Hellenism: XV 6-20: XVI 2-7,9-16

Henry I, king 01 England: XVII 192 Henry 11 king of England: XVII 193 Henry IV. king of England: XVII 197-9 Henry of Flanders, Latin emperor: n 14B:IV 26,28:XIII 3 Heptaskalon: VI 274 Heraclius: XV 9 Herakleia: VIII 511 Hermogenes: XIII 5 Hermonymos of Sparta: XVII 201 Herve. Norman: III 114.123 Hierakares: IV 7 Hierissos: JII 132 Hierotheos (see Comnen. John) HUarion, bishop of Didymoteichon: VII 186-200 Hodegetria, monastery: VI 279 Honorius, pope: II 151 HosiOs Loukas. monastery: IV 14 Hospitallers. Knights of Rhodes: XII 15 Humbert, cardinal: 11 142 Humbert, dauphin of Viennoie: VIII 525 Humbertus de Romanis: III 122 Hypsilanti. Alexander: XV 20: XVI 14 I

Iasites, Elrene: III 126 _, Job: III 134 Iberopoulos • N • : XIII 10 Imbros: XliII. 9 Innocent Ill, pope: II 144.146.148151:111 119:IV 7,24 Innocent V. pope: V 181 Innocent IV, pope: XII 14-16 loannina: IV 10,14.20f .. 29,3lf.: V 172:XV 17:XVI 5 laaac II Angelos: III 119,128.132; XVII 192 Isidore I Boucheiras, patriarch: VIII 522:X 127-8 laocrates: X 124 IIhaka: IV 5:V 171 Iviron monastery: VIII 517 Janlssaries: XVI 4 Jassy: VIII 512 Jeremias Ill, patriarch: VIII 516 Jerusalem: VIII 514 :XVII 182-3 Jesuits: XVI 4 Jews: IV 7 Joan,pope: 11 160 Joasaph, scribe: VI 280 John. Chryso.tom, SI.: VIII 575 John X Kamateros, patriarch: 11 1451. John XIV Kaleka., patriarch: IX 199

John I T.lmIBkeB: I 51 :XIV 86-7: XV 9 John 11 Komnenos: 1I1 124 John III Vat.toe.: III 120,129:IV 4, 5,10,17-25,29:V 172:XIV 80 John IV Laskaris: I 42 John V Palaiologos: I 47:VI 270-80: VIII 522,526:IX 188,194-5:XI 253; XII l1,13-14,16:XIII 5-6:XIV 80, 83:XVII 180-1,192 John VI Cantacuzene: I 46-7,50;11 161: IV 31-2:VI 269-83:VII 1-16:IX 187188,194-200:XI 253:XII 13-14:XIV 80,83-4,86:XVII 191-2 John VII Palalologos: XII 17:XVII 199 John VIII Palalologos: XIII 9 John Alexander of Bulgaria: IX 188,198 John 11 Komnenos of Trebizond: XI 252-4 John-Joasaph Uro§, Serbian emperor and monk: VI 280:XIV 82:XV 17 John of Basingstoke: XVII 194 John, bishop of Herakleia Pontica: IX 188-9 John of Santa Mavra, scribe: VII 8.14 Joseph. patriarch: I 46;11 157f .. Jo.eph the Philosopher (Rakendyte.): X 127 Justinian. emperor: I 44 ;XV 9; XVII 195 Kaballario., family: III 118-19 Kaballarios I Alexios: III 118 -, Michael: III 119 KaballaropouloB, ConstanUne: XIII 6 Kaba.na. family: IV 6 Kaba.na., Nellos: 11 162:X 128 -, Nlchola.: X 122-4,126-7:XIV 83 Kaleka. (see John XIV) Kaliman of Bulgaria: IV 27 Kallikle., Nichol.s: III 123,126 Kallistosl, patriarch: I 45,48;11 166; IX 188 Kallistos, Andronikos, Bcribe: XVII 201 Kalliou. monastery: IX 191-3 K.lojan 01 Bulgaria: I 41:IV 8f.,15, 26,28 Kamateros, Basil: I 40 -, John X, palrlaroh: IV 12 Kamonas. Demetriol!: IV 24 -, Gregory: IV 24t. Kamytzes, Manuel: IV 9 Kanlna: V 176t. ,190r. 'Kantakouzenatos I: XIV 81 'KantakouzenismOB' :VI 281 Kantakouzen08 (Bee Cantacuzene) Kuyophyllls, J.;bR. Manual &ad

-7-6-

Rhallis: VU! 513 Kato Panagia. monastery: HI 134 Katrares. John: X 125 Kekaumenos: XVII 184,188 Kephallenia (see Cephalonia) Kerkyra (see Corfu) Kiev: 11 166 Kilidj Arslan: III 132 Kinnamos: In 125;XVII 189 Kivotos (Civitot): XVII 185,188 Klokotnica: IV 9 Kokalas, George: XIV 87 Kolettis, Ioannes: XVI 15 Kolokotronis, Theodore :XVI 5 Komanos: IV 15 Komnene, Anna, daughter of John Rogerios: IIJ 125 -, Maria, daughter of John IJ: II 124-5 Komnenos, Andronikos, son of John Rogerios: III 126 -, Theodore and family:VIII 518 -, (see also Alexios;John;ManueI) Kontophre family: III 117-18 Koraes, Adamantios: XVI 6-7,9,12, 14 Kos: III 116,121 Kosmas II, patriarch: III 124 Koutroulis (see Doukas, MichaelDemetrios) Kovatzes of Serbia: VIII 524-5 Kozyle: V 192 Kritoboulos of Imbros: XVI 3; XVII 179 Kroia: IV 24f. ,29 Kroitzos monastery: IX 191 Kydones, Demetrios: 11 163f.;X 123124,128-9:XIV 83:XV 7 Kyminites. Sebastos: VIII 513 Kyprianos, bishop of Larissa: IX 190 Lakapenos family: IV 14 Lakonia: IV 17f. Lamia: IV 16 Landulph, Cornwall: XVII 201 Larissa: IV 7 Laskaris family: XII 11 -, Manuel Asen: XIII 9 -, Michael: XIV 87 Latros: IX 191jXIII 4 Lavra monastery: IV 9; XV Laza.ros, St.: XI 251 Lazaros, patriarch of Jerusalem: I 47: VIII 522 !.embos: IV 10 Lemoos: XUI 1,7

!.entlana: XIlI 3 !.eo Ill: XV 9

Leo the Mathematician: XV 9 Leo of Santa Croce: I 41 Leon, son of Radomir: IV 15 Lesbos: VI 275-6,278 Lichfield: XVII 196 Lincoln: XVII 202 Litoboes (Litovoj) family:!V 27-8 London: XVII 196-200 Loukaris Cyril, patriarch: XVI 4 Luke (Loukas), St., of Sliris :XV 9 Loukites, Constantine: XIII 5 Lusignan, James I of: XII 9 Lyons, Council of (1274): 11 156f.; V 182-3,192 I

Macbeth: XVII 181 Magistros, Thomas: X 125-6 Magnesia: IX 191;XII 13 Magoulas, Manuel: XII 15 Maina: IV 18 Makarios, bishop of Ankyra: I 52; Il 162 Makarios, monk: IX 191-3,199 Makrembolites, Theodore: IV 13 Makrinitissa, monastery:IV 10 MalaIas John: XV 5 Maliasenos: IV 10 Manasses, Constantine: I 49 Mandeville, John: XV 3 ;XVII 195-9 Mandra: IX 192 Manfred of Sicily: V 172f. ,185 Mangana, monastery: VI 279-80; VlIl 523 Manglabites family: IV 27-8 Manotas family: IV 27 Manuel I. patriarch: IV 24 Manuel I Komnenos: I 37-8;111 124-5, 132 :XVII 193 Manuel 11 Palaiologos: I 48;X 124; XII 17:XlIl 8,II:XIV 81,86:XV 18: XVII 196 Manuel Cantacuzene, son of John VI: VI 282:VlIl 524:XV 18 Manuel Komnenos Doukas. emperor at Thessalonica: IV 17 Margaret (Maria) of Hungary: III 119 Margaritone of Brindisi: IV 5 Martin IV, pope: V 193 Matthew I, patriarch: VI 280-1 Matthew. bishop of Ephesos: 11 165 Matthew Cantacuzene, son of John VI: I 47-8:VI 282-3:XIV 83,86 Mavrocordato, Alexander: VIII 512; XVI 9-10 - I Nicholas: VIII 516-17 Maxim08 Kavsokalyvites , monk: IX 187-8,190 Mazaris: XV 19 I

Mehm ed n, sultan: II 167-8;XIV 86; XV 4 :XVI 2-3 :XVII 179 Meletios bishop of Herakleia: VII 51 B Meletios, confessor: 11 156 Melnik: III 134; IV 26-9 Mendonis family: III 120 Mesarites, John and Nicholas: II 149-54 Mesembria: III 117 Mesopotamites, Constantine: I 43 Mesothynia: III 118 Meteora monasteries: XV 9,16-17 Methodios, 8t. : XV 14 Metochites, Alexios Laskaris: XIV 87 _ Demetrios Palaiologos: XIV 85 _: Theodore, Grand Logothete: IX 187, 192:X 122,124:XI 249:XIV 87: XV 7,18 Michael I Keroularios, patriarch: II 142 Michael IV Autoreianos, patriarch: I 38:I1 152 Michael VIII Palaiologos: I 46,50,52; II 1561.:III 1I9,129-30:IV 31: V 1721. ,1801. ,1891. :XI 249,251-2: XIV 82-3,87:XVII 191 Michael IX Palaiologos: I 46,49;X 122 Michael I of Epiros: IV 12 ,20f. ; XIV 81-2 Michael 11 of Epiros: tll 134; IV 5-6, 8,10,301.:IV 17lf.:XI 251 Michael of Anchialos: 11 146 Michael, Archangel: IV 21 Miletos: IX 191 Milutin. Stephen Uro~ Il, of Serbia: IV 27 Mistra: VI 282;XV 16-19 Moglena (Meglen) :IV 9 MoIdavia: VIII 512,514:XVI 4,6,10 Molyvdos, Alexios and John: VIII 518 MomiHlo: IX 198 Monemvasia:VII 9,13-14;VIlI 523; XVII 182 Monomachina, Doukaina: XII 11,14 Monomachos family: XII 14 -, Michael: XII 14 Montferrat (see Boniface; Eirene) Morea , Chronicle of: XV 5 Morosini, Thomas. Latin patriarch: II 148-9,152 Moschopoulos. Leo: IV 26 Moschos, John: XV 6-7 Moscow: VIII 512;XVI 10-11 Mouzakios, Theodore: XIV 83 Mouzalon, Theodore: XI 249-50 Myriokephalon: xvn 193,203 myron: I 40f. Myroslava: IV 15 I

Naupaktos: IV 19f.;V 172,193-4 Navarino: XVI 11 Negroponte (Eubota): XII 16 Netlo8 patriarch: If 165-6 Nemanja, Stephen II: IV 24 Neokaisarites family: XIII 1 Neorion: VI 274 Neopatras: IV 7,16:V 183;XV Neophytos, bishop of Herakleta: VlIl 518 Nicaea , Empire of: I 38.42,!?0;111 115. 118,129,133:IV 17,24,27,30:XIII I' XVII 191 Nicholas Ill. pope: V 183 Nicholas Ill, patriarch: 11 155 Nicomachean Ethics: VII 1-16; VIII 524 Nicopolis: XVII 196 Nikephoros II Phokas: XV 9 Nikephoros III Botaneilltes: III 127; XVll 188 Nikephoros of Epiros: III 134 ;IV 31: V 1701. :XIV 82 Niketas, bishop of Durazzo: V 176,178 Nikomedia: IX 192 Niphon of Athos: IX 188,190 Normans: IJI 113f.;V 180;XV 9XVll 184-5 Norway: XVII 184 Norwich: XVII 200 Notaras. Btasios: XIV 86 -, Chrysanthos: VIII 513-14,516 _, Loukas and Matthaios: XIV 86 Novgorod: 11 166 I

Ochrida: IV 101.,16,221.: V 177: XlII 10 Ogerius: V 183 Oliver, John, of Serbia: VIII 524 Olympiodorus of Alexandria: VII 2-4 I 10-11,15-16 OIympos, Mount: V 171 ;XIII Onouphrios, St.: IX 187 Oppian: VII 11-12 Oracles of Leo the Wise: XVI 3 Orchan, emir:VI 278:VIII 520:XIII3: XIV 80 Orsini I Maio: III 134 ;IV 5 Orvieto: V 191 Otto I of Greece: XVI 12-13 Otto 11 of Germany: XIV 86 Oumpertopoulos family: III 116-17 Oumpertos: III 128 Oxlord: XVII 200-01 Pachymeres, George: 146.50.52; 1II 130-1 Padua: VIII 512-13 Palaiokappa.s • ConstanUne ,scribe:

-9-

-8-

VII 14-15 Palafologina. Anna. daughter of Mlohael VIII: V 185 -. ADa. Kantakoulene. basiliss&: V 173f •• 182.192 ---. Ann •. daughter of Thomais: XIV 83 -. EireDe. daughter of John V: XIV 80 -. I!:irene. daughter of Michael VIII: XII 11 -. Eirene. mother of Theodora (Theodoula): XIV 82 -, Eirena (Eulogia), sister of Mlchoel VIII: V 173-4.192 -. Eudokia. daughter of Michael VIII: XI 252 -. laabella. daughter of ManuellI: XIII 11 -, Mari •. dau&hter of John V:VI 275 -, Mart •. sister of Michael VIII: VIII 524 -, Rita-Mart., wife of Michael IX: X 122

-. Theodora, wif. of Michael VIII: IX 188 -. Tbeadore Asenina: Xliii -. Tb.oder. Cantacuzena, mother of John VI: XIV 81 -. Theedora (Theodoulo). wifo of Coaotootino: XIV 82 -. Thomais. wife of Tbeadore Mo....kioo: XIV 83 Palalologos. Andrew: XIV 87 -. Androniko8, prot08trator:IX 191 -. Androniko8. 8on-in-Iaw of Theodore I Laskaris: XIII 3 -, ConstanUne. brother of Mlohoel VIII: XIV 82-3.87 -. Coaotaotioe. son of Andronlkos 11:

X 112 -. Demetrios: X 122 -. Ferelinood: XVII a02 -. JcIuI. brother of Mlchoel VIII: V n8:XI 250:XIV 87 -. John Theadore: XVII 208 -. t.oaldu: XVII 201 -, Mlohul: XIV 87 -. Thoodoro I. despot: XIV 88 -. Thoodoro 11. despot: XIV 86 -. Thoodoro (died 1636): XVII aOI -, Thoodorious: XVII 203 ~. 'ftIom... de.pot: XIII 9:XVII 201 -. <- .180 Andronikoa, Coa8tantine: Job: Mu. .l: Mloh. .l) Pal...... Groaory. St.: 11 160:VIII Ul:lX liN.199:X 128 ~"":IX 198 ......... MaIIIIew A_laa: 11 113 ' - ' - : y 11$,187

Pantokrator. monastery at Constantinople: III 124.128 Pantokrator. monastery at DidymolatchoD: IX 195 Paparregopoulo8. ConetanUne: XVI 13 Parastron, John: 11 156

Paris: VIII 514 :XVII 197-8 ParoassDs. Mount: V 171

Paroria: IX 186.188 Parthenon: XV 3-4 ;XVI 12

Patmos: XVII 188-9 Patras: IV 20;XIII 9 Paul of Smyrna: II 161 Pediatites. Basil, bishop of Corfu: 11 151-3 Pedro IV of Aragon: XV 4 Pegonites. ConalanUne: IV 16

Pelagonia: IV 30:V 172.176 Pelekanon: XII 13 Pesaro: XVII 201

Peter. St.: 11 143r..148f •• 156 Peter or AlIra: 111131.133 Peter of Anlioch: IJ 142 Peter the Athonite: IX 187

Periblepto8. monastery: VI 279.281 PetraUphas family: III 131-5:IV -. Alexios: III 132 -. AndronikoB: III 133 -. Constantine: III 132 -. Joh.: III 132-3 -. Nikephoros: III 132 Nikephoros Komneno8: III 132 -. Thoodore: III 133-4 PetraUphina. Euphrosy.e: III 135 -. Moria: III 133-4:IV 5 -. No: '" 134 :IV 28 -. Th.adora: III 134-5:IV 5: V 173.176:XIV 80 PhaDar. Phanariots: VIII 512 :XVI lOII Philadelphia: III 135:XII 9-17 PhUanthropeno8. Alexloa Tarcha.elotas: XI 249-50.253-4 :XII 12: XIV 85.87 -. Michael: XIV 83 Phlle. family: IV 4 -. Alexios: XIV 87 Phllip of Mocado.: X 126 PhiUppopoUo: IV 28 PhUotheo8 Kokkil108. patriarch: I 48: 11 166:VI 270:IX 187.190:X 122-9 Phllotheoe. bishop of Solymbrl.: IX 191-2.1iN.199 Phok •• family: XIV 80 PhotiOB. patriarch: 11 142f .. 185 Phr_uloB family:'" 114-16 Plonoude•• Mmmoe:V 190:XI 250 -I

PIatamona: IV 16 Plato: X 124.126 Ploumas IN.: XIII 4 Plularch: X 124 Plytos. John: IV 25 polyeuktos, patriarch:1 51 PreljubOViC, Thomas: XV 17 Pribo: IV 27 Prilep: IV 16 Procopius: XVII 180 Prokopiou, Demetrios: VIII 517 Prosek: IV 9.12.26-7 PselIos. Michael: XV 6-7.19 ps._Kodinos: I 471.:XIV 84-5: XVII 192 pydnoB, Mount: V 171 Rados: IV 6-7 RaguBa: X 130 Rakendytes (ill Joseph) Ralli(s) family: III 1271. Raoul ramlly: III 127-31.135:IV _, Alexios: III 129 _, ConstanUne: III 128-9 _, Isaac: III 129-30 _. John: III 129:XIV 87 _ I John Doukas Angelos:III 130 _, Leon: 111 128-9 _, Oumpertos: III 128 Raoulaina. Eirene Palaiologina: XIII 6 _. Theodon: III 129-30 Raphael. Joannes: XVIl 183 Kaymond of Antioch: III 125 Reading: XVII 201 KenUna: XIII 5 Rhodes: XII 15 Richard 11 of England: XVII 196.198 Richard of Limesia: XVII 193 Rigas Pheraios (Velestinlis): XVI 5-6 Hobert of Caiazzo and AUfa: III 131 Robert of Clari: I 40 Roger, archbishop of Santa Severina: V 186 Rogerios family: III 122-6.135:IV -. Alexios: III 126 -, Andronikos: III 126 -, Constantine: III 124 -, John Dalassenos, Caesar: III 124 -. Leon: III 126 Romsnos I Lakapenos: XIII 2:XV 9

Romanos ,,: XIV 36-7 Rossatas. John: XIII 9 Royer (de RoherliB). Ludovioo: V 186

Rumeli: XVI 6 Russia: VIII 512 Sabas, monk: IX 192 Sabas of Vatopedi: IX 186,190: X 127 Saint Denys. Abbey of: XII 10 SaUsbury: XVII 200 Sampson: IX 19 San Felice. Giordano di: V 186 Santa Mavra, John of: VII 8,14 Saruchan, emirate: IX 191 :XII 13 Selymbria: III 118:IX 191 Serbia. Serbians: IV 26f.:IX 197: X 130:XV 16-17 Serbopoulos, Johannes: XVII 201 Serres: XIII 5 Sarvia. Thessaly: III 133-4:IV 16 Seven Sleepers of Epbeso!: XVII 183 Sgouros, Leo: IV 25 Shkumbi river: IV 24 Side: VIII 515.523 Sigurd. Earl of Gloucester: XVII 185 Sinai, Mount: VIII 514;IX 186 Siponto: V 187 Sipylos. Mount: IX 191 Skoplje: IV 26-7:X 130 Slav. Alexios: III 134 :IV 27-8 Slavs in Greece: XV 9-15 Smllec of Bulgaria: XIV 82 Smyrna: III 118:IV 4.10:VIII 524: XII 14-15 :XVI 5-6 Snagov: VIII 514 Sophronios. Patriarch of Jerusalem: XVII 183 I SoUnos Lauros I : V 182 Spandounes, Theadore: VI 277 Spelaiotissa. monastery: IV 28 Sphrantzain-a, M aria: III 134 Spyridonakis John: IV 9 Stella. Giorgio: VI 274.276 Sthlanltza: IV 14 Stilbes, CODstanUne: 11 155-6 'Stomatos': V 182 Strategopoulos, Alexio!: V 172; XIV 87 -. N.: XIII 4 Strez, Oobt"omlr: IV 26 Stroumitza. Strumica: III 125: IV 9.26 Sully. Hugues de: V 188f. Sybota: V 185.187 Symeon. St.: IV 26 Symeon n, patriarch of Jerusalem: V 155 Symeon. archbishop of ThessaIonlcs: I 48-52:VIII 512.518 Symeon MetaphraBtes: X 124; XIII I I

-11-

-10-

Synadenos. Basil: XIII 3 _, John: V 189:XIV 83 _. Theodore: XIV 85 Synodikon 01 Orthodoxy: X 122 Syrgares: III 118 Syrgiannes Palaiologos: XIV 88 Syrialates: III 118

31-3:V 1701.:IV 82:XV IS-17 Thomas the Slav: XV 5 Th~;C~~8I1I 117,132-3: IV 12,32:

Tlch, Constantine, of Bulgaria: IV 27 TITLES AND OFFICES:

Tagarina, Anna Laskarina: XII 16 Tagaris lamily: XII 9-17 _, George: XII 13-14,IS _, Manuel: XII 10-13,14 -, Paul: XII 9-10,14,IS Tagliaaozzo: V 174 Tanouses: IV 6 Tarchaneiotes family: IV 4:XII 11,16 -, Michael: V 189 Taronas: IV 6 Taronas. Alexios and Theodore :XIII 10 Tartars: III 117 Ta.tikios: III 131 Tenedos: VI 270,272,278-9 Thamar, daughter of Nikephoros of Epiros: V 193-4 Theodora, St. (.!!! Petraliphina) Theodora Cantacuzene, daughter of John VI: VIII 520 Theodore 11 Eirenikos. patriarch: 11 152 Theodore I Laskaris: 1 38-9:111 120, 133:IV 4-5,12:XIII 3 Theodore 11 Laskaris: r 41f .• 50;11I 1I5,129:IV 28:XIV 87 Theodore Komnenos Douka.s of Epiros : 1421. ,50:III 133:IV 5 7-9 IS 18 201 .. 261. :XIV 82 ' , , , Theodore of Tarsus: XVII 181 Theodorokanos, Manuel: XII 15 Theodoros I monk: IX 192 Theodosia, St.: XI 252 Theodosios 11, emperor: XV 9 Theodosios, bishop of Wallachia: VIII 514 Theodoulos, bishop of Didymoteichon: IX 193 TheoIeptoB. bishop of Dldymoteichon: IX 199 Theoleptos, bishop 01 Philadelphia: XII 9 Theophanes, I 49 Theophano, wife of OUo 11: XIV 86 Theophylaktos. archbishop of Ochrida: IV 24:VIII 51S Thessalonica:1 421 •• 50:I1I I1S:IV 4 7,9.111. ,IS,26:V 173:VIII S23:IX' l,87,190:X 121-31:XII14:XIII 3 S 8:XIV 87:XVII 191 ' , ",...&1y:I1I 117,119,133-4:IV 41.,7f ••

Basilissa: 11 135; V 173 Caesar:III 124 Despot: III 130:IV 171. ,26,33:V 172-3: XIII 9:XIV 65 Gambros: XIV 84-5 Grammatikos: III 115 Grand Chartoularios: III 133 Grand Constable: III 119 Grand Domestic: III 130:V 189: VIII 521 Gr;~I~ ~Ogothete: III 130,133-4:XI 249: Hypertatos: III 115 Kastrophylax: XIII 4 Katholikos krites: XIII 6 Kephale: XII 12 Kouropalates: III 117 Logothetes tou genikou: XI 249-50 Mangla.bites: XVII 184 Mega.s droungarios: XIV 85 Megas pa.pias: III 117 Megas stratopedarches: III 130:V 189; XII 10-13 :XIV 65 Megas tzaousios: III 117 Panhypersebastos: IV 24 ;XIV 84 Pansebastos sebastos: III 117 126 12B:IV 26-7:XIII 4:XIV 64' , Para.koimomenos: XIII 7 Pinkernes: XI 253-4 :XII 12 :XIV 6B Prokathemenos: III 126 Protokynegos: III 117 Protonobelissimos: III 115,126: XIII ID Protonotarios: XIII 5 Protosebastos: III 118 Protosebastohypertatos: XIV 84 Protospatharios: XVII 183 Protostrator: IX 197 Protovestiarios : III 129; XIII 5 Sehastohypertatos: XIV 84 Sebastokrator: III 130,132-3:XI 250: XIV 61-2,64 Seba.to.: III 123,12S-7,132:IV 24-S, 26:XIII 4,10 Skouterios: IX 198 Spatharokandidato.: XVII 164 Stratelate.: III 114 VestiarUes: III 126,132 Vest.s: III 114

Tornikes family: XI 250 _, Constantine: Xl 251 ;XIV 87 _. Demetrios: III 133 _, John: XI 251 Tornikina, Helena: XI 251 _, Maria Komnene: XI 250,253-4 Trebizond: XI 252-4 ;XIV 81 Trikkala: IV 7: XIV B2: XV 17 Trlklinios, Demetrios: X 125-6 Trikorpho: V 172 Trnovo: IV 17 Trullo, Council in: III 121 Turks: VI 27B:IX 190-I:XII 9-17: XVI 4 TUrrianos, Nichola.s (de la. Torre) : VII 7-B Tzetzes, John: VII 12 Tzouroulon: III 133 Tzykandyles, Manuel, scribe: VII 13 Umur of Aydin. emir: VIII 524; IX 196 : XIII 13 Urban 11, pope: 11 144 Urban V, pope: XIII 7 Urban VI, pope: 11 165-6:XII 9-16 Uro~, John (see John-Joasaph Uros) Valona (Avlona):V 172,1751.,165, 167 ,I90f, Varangians: III 116;XVII 180,184, 197-92,203 Varangiotissa. monastery: XVII 190 Varangopoulos, Alexios: III 116; XVII 190 Velestino: IV 7 Veil •• : III liS Venice. Venetians: JI 151 ;111 120: IV 6:V 191,193:VIII S12,514: X 130:XI 249:XII 16:XIII 6-9:XVI 4:XVII 179,169,192 Via Egnatia:.V 177,180-1,189

VilIanl. M .tteo: VI 274.278,278 VilIehardouin, Willt.m 01: V 172. 17S,161-2:XVII 191 VUaUs, Orderic: XVII 185 VUerbo: V 17S:XIV 80 Vttrtnttza: IV 20 Vlacha: IV 61.,IS,33:XIV 82: XV 5,IS-16 Vladimir sebastos: IV 28 Vlaznos, ~IV 6 Vodena: V 177 Voleslava: IV 15 Voltaire: XVI 7-9,11 Vonitza: IV 23: V 194 Voulga.reli: IV 31 Voulgaris. Eugenios: XVI 7-9 Vourougos family: IV 6 Vrachori (Agrinion): V 194 Vratonas: IV 6 Wallachia: VIII SI3-14:XVI 4,6. 10 William I the Conqueror: XVII 161,163-5 Willia.m. Lombard lord of Larissa: IV 7 Willibald. bishop of Eichstlidt: XVII IB2 Winchester: XVII 183.200 Wlfricus of Lincoln: XVII 192

Xeropotamou monastery:III 132 Xylokarahes, Mark, archbishop of Bulgaria: XIII 10 Zealots in Thessalonica: X 123. 126-9,131 :XIV 67 Zenos . Demetrios, scribe: VII 7.12 Zosimas family, of loannina.: XVI S

Studies in Byzantine Intellectual History (Variorum reprint; CS 88)

Read more

Gender, Society, and Economic Life in Byzantium (Variorum Reprints)

Read more

Athens in the Middle Ages (Variorum reprints; CS41)

Read more

Studies on Byzantine History of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Variorum reprint CS1)

Read more

Byzantine Studies and Other Essays

Read more

Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (Variorum Reprints)

Read more

Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity (Variorum Collected Studies Series)

Read more

Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine Constantinople

Read more

Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity (Variorum Collected Studies Series)

Read more

History and Geography in Late Antiquity

Read more

Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford University Press Academic Monograph Reprints)

Read more

A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford University Press academic monograph reprints)

Read more

History Of The Byzantine Empire

Read more

The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs)

Read more

History in Ovid (Oxford University Press Academic Monograph Reprints)

Read more

Conversion in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Seeing and Believing (Studies in Comparative History)

Read more

Studies in Medieval History

Read more

Studies in Early Christian Liturgy and Its Context (Variorum Collected Studies: CS593)

Read more

Late, Late in the Evening

Read more

Islamic Reform: Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman Syria (Studies in Middle Eastern History)

Read more

Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography

Read more

Byzantine Art and Archaeology

Read more

Byzantine and Turkish Sardis

Read more

Saints syriaques (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 6)

Read more

Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, Volume 3: Late Roman & Byzantine Period

Read more

Studies in Church History and Patristics

Read more

Studies in Islamic History and Institutions

Read more

Health and Wealth: Studies in History and Policy (Rochester Studies in Medical History, Vol. 6)

Read more

Migration History in World History (Studies in Global Social History)

Read more

Studies in Jewish and Christian History

Read more

Recommend Documents

Studies in Byzantine Intellectual History (Variorum reprint; CS 88)

...

Gender, Society, and Economic Life in Byzantium (Variorum Reprints)

...

Athens in the Middle Ages (Variorum reprints; CS41)

...

Studies on Byzantine History of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Variorum reprint CS1)

...

Byzantine Studies and Other Essays

...

Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (Variorum Reprints)

...

Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity (Variorum Collected Studies Series)

...

Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine Constantinople

Pain Magdallino Studies on the History and Topography of yza ti e Co .sta ti o le Also in the Variorum Collected Stud...

Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity (Variorum Collected Studies Series)

Chıistopher Stead Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity Alius, Athanasius, Augustine Ashgate VARIORUM Aldersh...

History and Geography in Late Antiquity

This page intentionally left blank HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY IN LATE ANTIQUITY The period from the fifth century to the ...