Variorum Revised Editions: DENIS A. ZAKYTHINOS Le Despotat grec de Moree: Histoire politique Le Despotat grec de Moree: ...
91 downloads
1577 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
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.
'1v.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~ ... 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/laalAeb3 (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. < 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_ 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 [zwUOS. 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>- 'POY6~ ~ ""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 ~","' 1fv QayyOlv YEVOU, 6QJ.";'~EVot ~ai ~ata to A.buIlOtE.XOV Tf)V O(,,'I0'V EXOVtE!pdW ...... " ....... ~ povAo,.wql edA'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 ......nimlv), 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. 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 (7t"Clt, "CltTa lv 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; 7v 7'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(' 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' 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_inv 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'>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); - 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"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&vI3r 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~,. Av &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«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 Tla 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.: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\ClllaIAaVepc.:rrrllVWV, hEATiov TTjS "a-r0pl1hou, 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-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 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