ORIGINS OF NATIONAL

CONSCIOUSNESS

Various T IJCOTic$

3

The question of determining the origins of Creek national consciousness arose as a corollary of the nineteenth-century controversy surrounding the racial derivation of the modern Creeks. Obviously. Creek historians have been principally concerned with the matter, and it is with their views that we may convenient ly begin an analysis of tlle problem.

The first tentative hypothe.<;es were advanced by Zambe.lios, who con­sidered that the origins of this Greek feeling of a national consciousness could clearly be traced back to the Byzantine period. This particular scholar's approach is distinguished more by an a priori belief in that which he sets out to prove than by concrete evidence. Nevertheless, he points to the continued existence of language and folk songs as sufficient indication of the early awareness of a Greek cultural identity.1 Pupar­rhegopoulos later expressed the same view, though with greater clarity and precision. Recognizing the essential continuity of the Greek language and the existence of a popu lar literary heritage, he believed that the origins of modem Hellenism would have to be sought amid the anarchy and confusion which accompanied the Fourth Cnlsade (1204). He saw too that there was a marked revival of communal institutions during the later Byzantine period (brought aboUI chiefly by tbe progressive deteriO­ration of centml authority) and that a spirit of popular resistance to th e Latin conquerors was in the air. All these factors indicate that modem nationalism derives from the medieval GreeksY

Althougb yet aoother historian, Salhas, attempted to embellish Papar­rhcgopoulos' theory, the latter's version is generally accepted by most

28 OruCINS OF THE CREEK NATION

modem Greek historians.' Two of these in particular, Amantos aDd Voyat­zides, have supplemented a primary interest in the history of the Byzan­tine Empire with studies on modern Greek history and arc therefore well qualified to trace the relationship between the two eras. Amantos, in his History of the 8yumU"e Empire, thinks of the year 1204 as the terminal point of the Byzantine Empirc, ~ while Voyatzidis suggests that the Palaeologian period ( 1261- 1453) does not constitute the end of By­zantine Hellenism but the beginnings of Nt!o-Hellcnism. New polilical forces, he says, arose in the Eastern Homan Empire and prcsaged the establishment of a new Hellenic s tatc. ~ Which of these interpretations comes closest to the truth is, however, a question tllnt need not concern us here, since both authorities are in fu ll agreement that many of the forms of the politico l and cultural expression of modern Greece arc essen ­tially derivative of Byzantine Hellenism. In this sense, the year 1204 marks a watershed in the history of modem Creece and the civilized world,

PolitiCtJl Decclliraliw.tio Fl ufter Fourth Crll$ode

The Byz •• nline Empire was laid low by the Crusaders from the West, but its structure had already been undermined by a combination of nlinous taxation, rapacious taxgathcring, and the consequent decrease in the amount of land owned by peasants.n The dislocation of agricu ltural life brought misery and conFusion , amI the rapidity with which the Empire collapsed brought on a ll acute mora l crisis for the Greek population: the choice between submission and Joss of freedom, or resistance lind loss o( property.

Certain cities, stich as Thessalonica, submitted meekly in order to pre· serve a nominal independence: II promise from the conquerors th at local institutions would be respected,T ~"' nny nobles offered no resistance in the expectation that their privileges and property would remain intact; It others chose to flee the enemy with the aim of finding secure hiding plnces from which resistance could be organ ized. Nevertheless the com· parative ease with which the conquerors were able to impose their will. particularly upon the nobili ty, aroused the patriotic ire of at l ea.~ t one contemporary observer, Nicetas Choniatcs: "Th ey fe lt neither degrada­tion nor dishonor in bowing their heads to the invader. They felt not" a single pang of shame in disdain ing to fight-i f only for their children's sake. Not then, nor later, were they aroused by tlloughts of freedom." Indeed, his resentment was so impass ioned that he a(.'Cused some-in par­ticu lar, the descendants of old military families-of intriguing actively for the destruction of their country: "worthless men, comlpt a Dd Hcen-

ORICINS 0'" NATIONAL CONSCIOOS!'.'ESS 29

tious, who were consumed by an ambition to destro}' their country" solely in order to adva nce their Own interests. ( Even at that time, Choniatcs seems to have had the vision or a unified nation.) In the general tunnoil, nobles ensconced themselves in castles and surrounded themselves with all the pomp and panoply or sovereign princes. This practice was most pronounced throughout the Peloponnese, where pe tty nobles vied ('"on­stantly with one another for the perquisites and appendages of princely power.' Their factious spirit was not 6nally curbed until the Turkish conquest of the Peloponnese.

The situation of constant antagonism and actua l anned conRict between Greek and Latin states naluraUy made it aU the easier for these petty principalities to assert their sovereignty, and this political fragmentation of the Empire in turn facilitated Turkish domination. The Fourth Crusade brought about political chaos and physica l min at precisely the time when the Empire was in mOst need of polit ical unity. Whole com muni­ties were uprooted. Some were displaced, on ly to re-establish themselves somewhere else. Others completely disappeared. Some cent ers of popu­lation were swollen by the addition of refugees. Others were depopu­lated.'Q

Some indication of the extent of the dislocation of the population mlly be gleaned from events in Nicaea, where large numbers from Constanti­nople took refuge, and in Ioannina. The city of loannina was fortiGed by Michael r Comnenus Ducns (1206-1215) , fowlder of the Despotate of Epirus. Many Creeks sought the security of its wa lls and, until they fo uod new homes, there received the solicitous attentions of its nller, this new "Noah." II Probably no fewer than half of the refugees from Constantino­ple found their way to Epirus; others ca me from the Pcloponnese through Aetolia.' : This mountainous and isolated region of westem Greece served not only as an impregnable fortress aga inst the Latin invaders but also as a focal pOint of active resistance, as much in the thirteenth cen tury as in the Second World War. This new infusion of Creek refugees, sharing with all the inhabitant's of the region the experience of res istance to a common enemy, constituted yet another factor in the assimilation of im· migrant Slavs.

The importance of the Crusades and of the Fourth Crusade in particu­lar is thererore not that they provided a eonnecting link between the two principal segments of European civilization. Bather, they set up an inter­action between East and \-Vest, which thereafter characterized all relations between the two and resulted ultimately in the emergence of a new Creek nation. After 1204-even after the recaptu re of Constantinople by Michael YIn Palaeologus in 126l- the Byzantine Empire wus never more

30 ORlcms OF THE CREEK NATION

than a simulacrum of its former self, because of the persistence of cen· tripetai inRuences. In its plnce appeared a series of separate Creek states, Nicaea, Trcbizond. Epirus, Macedonia, and Inter, the Peioponnese.

Individual rulers derived such authority as they possessed from alli­ances with the local nobility. Yet, for precisely the reason that the tradi­tions of Hellenism were most shl rdy among the peasants, the process of political decentralization tended to revivify the sense of HelJenism in the everyday lives of the people. The shifting of the loci of power, that is, tended to magnify and clarify what might otherwise have remained dif­fuse. Roman traditions withered in the cou rts of the new sovereign statesj Creek traditions throve in proportion. At the same time, in the islands and mainland areas which lay under Latin domination, the vitality of Greek inteUectual life continued to encourage a spirit of resistance.

k we shall presently see, resistance to a success ion of conquerors, Bul· garian, Serbian, and Turkish, as well as Latin, greatly heightened the Creek national consciousness. Indeed, the unrelenting struggle for survi­val, sustained by the knowledge of an illustrious past, constituted the principal ingredient of Greek nationalism. The writings of all of the im­portant historians of this period-Nicetas Choniatcs and Nicephorus Creg­oras, for example-bristle with allusions to antiquity, proclaim the nobil­ity of struggle, and always exalt the name Hellene. Choniates implored God "'to keep ou r people intact." He strove to inculcate in Creeks an awareness of the glorious nature of their struggle, even to the extent of referring to their defeat only with the most obvious reluctance: "How is it possible for history to recount the great deeds of barbarians when history itself is the greatest achievement of the Creeks?" II

Greek nationalism therefore began to assume a more de6nite form dur­ing the period of Latin conquest. It was manifest in the deeds and aspira­tions of the people. It was even eviden t to some extent in the life of the Orthodox Church, especially in the period of Turkish domination. To be sure, the nationalist awakening was counteracted to some extent, after the twelfth century. by the persistence of a sense of Roman citizenship within the decrepit framework of the restored Byzantine Empire. But this became more and more tenuous and artificial because it no longer corre­sponded to reality. For example, the Byzantine armies which had offered such ineffectual resistance to the Crusaders H had been composed mainly of foreign mercenariesi but now, ill the struggle with the Latin invaders, at least in the beginning. their character was completely transformed. Greek soldiers increas ingly filled out the ranks, and it was the example and inspiration of their ancient forebears which sus tained their martial ardor.

National resistance to the Latin conq uerors was especially fierce in the

OruGtNS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 31

Despotate of Epirus ( comprising Epirus, Acarnania , Aetolin, and parts of Thessaly ), the Empire of Nicaea, the Peloponnese, and Crete. [n each, we see n microcosm of the larger stnlggle. From each, we may therefore offer graphic illustrations of the importance of Olis period in the historical evolution of the new Hellenism.

Rivalry between Epims and Nicaea

Apart from the several conBicts behveen Creek and Latin states, the ri­valry between two important Creek states, Epirus and Nicaea , was a crucial fnctor in Ule development of Hellenism. Unfortunately, litlle is known about the political pursuits of Ule "Grand Comneni" of Trebizond and their contribution to the growth of Hellenism. Although Trebizond bccame thc center of an intellectual movement renowned for its scientific achievements,U the political inSuence of the "Grand Camneni" in the Greek world was dissipated in a series of futile struggles with the em­perors of Nicnea. U

The historiography of Epirus is regrettably deficient. Most of our knowl­edge of this state is derived from Nicaean historians, who naturally tended to interpret events from their own point of viewY Apart from these, virtually the only known records are the writings of a single monk, Isaac Mcsopotamites. Nevertheless, a careful sifting of both sources enables us to reconstruct a fairly accurate picture of the political situation in Epirus. The aims and ambitions of the rulers of that state seem especiaUy c1ear­cut.

Beginning with Theodore Comncnus Ducas (1215-1230), who had lived for a long time in the royal court of Nicaea, n contest developed between Epirus and Nicaea for hegemony over the fonner territories of the Byzantine Empire. Rulers competed for the right to be regarded as the legitimate successors of the Emperor in Constantinople and for the titles and honors which stemmed therefrom." At first, the controversy crystallized around the status of the Church in Epirlls. Political circum­stances had already confe rred Il kind of de facto independence upon the Epirotic Church, and Theodore saw that his own political authority could be enhanced by maintain ing this separation from the Church in Nicaea .l ~

He therefore appointed or encouraged the election of local prelates with­out reference to the hierarchy of the Church, thereby promoting further estrangement behveen the hvo states. Since the Oecumenical Patriarchate supported the principle of ecclesiastical unity and thus, indirectly, the primacy of the Empire of Nicaea, Theodore also found himself in open conflict with the central organi7.ation of the Church.tO

The head of the Epirotic Church was the Metropolitan of Naupactus, John Apocaucus (11 55--1233), one of the most prominent figures of his

32 ORiCINS OF THE GREEK NATION

time, Apocaucus had received a sound classical education in Constantino­ple and was particularly inHuenced by the philosopher-historian Michael Psellus. H e was also, like his con temporary, Archbishop ~\Ili chae l CJlonintes of Athens, an rtrdent admirer of the ancient Creek world generally, Indeed. his role in Naupactus was entirely analogous to that of his friend and coUeague in Athens. After 1219, Apocaucus became an eager sup­porter of and apologist for the f\l ler of Epims. His letters to his patron arc paeans of praise for Theodore's audacious military exploits. They record Theodore's conquests of Neopatras, Prosa kon, Platamon , and, SoaIIy, Tbessnlonica ( l224 ). There, Theodore brought to an end the rule of the MontfclTat family; and there, in the spring of 1224, he was anointed emperor by Archbishop Demetrius Chomatianus of Achris (Ochrida ). This event- dramatized Theodore's emergence as a redoubtable rival of the emperors of Nicaea,n and Apocaucus thought thnt nothing cou ld be more fitting than that Theodore assume the imperial mantle in the Grea t City.'2 In a letter to Patriarch Germanus of Nicaen he extolled the virtues of his emperor : "Here, in the "Vest this man has looked un­tiringly to the in terests of his people. We already know rum to be a giFt from God, a savior of the Christians of Epirus. He has reconquered many towns, bringing back those citizens who had fled and reuniting those who had been separated from one another. The religious in churches and monasteries can again perform their proper duties as shepherds of the people and custodians of the Church. All rejoice as before in shep­herding tbe people, and the sheep listen to them und gather together in an ever increasing flock-thanks on ly to our emperor." n

John Apocaucus and two other Church hierarchs who owed their posi­tions mainly to his influence, Demetrius Choma tianus, Archbishop of Achris, and George Vardanis, Metropolitall of Co rfu, fanned a bril1iant intellectu al coterie in the Despotate of Epirus. All were acutely conscious of being Greek. iU Apocauclls, particu larly, made constant use of the term HeJlas when referring to the sou thern regions of Greece.n Vardanis 2~ was an Athenian and had studied under Michael Choniates. As a young man he found L.'ltin n ile insufferable and subsequen tly left ror Epirus with a letter of recommendation from his mentor. "No longer," it said, "could he bear living among us here. We have been humiliated, and our country has become a barbarous land of impious people." 2~ Later, while a dencon in the bishopric of Crevena, Vardan is declined to accept the episcopal see of Vonitsa ~8 despite the fact-at least accord ing to Apocaucus­that Vonitsa lay in the midst of a Creek-speaking population and was exclusively Greek.%I He preferred the more chaI1cnging apostolate in Gre­vena among a people who were predominantly uncivilized and spoke a foreign lan!:,ruage.

OlllCL .... S OF NATIONAL CONSCiOUSNESS 33

Learned men such as these served as the standard-bearers of Creek civilization in the remote areas inhabited by foreign settlers.ao In the cities, SUd l as Artn, their role was not only a clerical one. Bishops and nobles frequently sat in conclave I I to discuss and direct the affairs of the City.

As the conquests of Theodore Comnelllls Oueas extended to Macedonia and Thrnce, it appeared thot he would be the first to enter Constantinople and thus triumph over the emperors of Nicaea in their struggle for su­premacy. However, his political ambitions were suddenly cut short by his defeat at Klokotnitsa in April 1230 at the hands of the Bulgarians. Still, Epirus retained its intellectual lire and cu ltural orientation towards all­cient Greece.lI2 Some time later the poet Ennonial.. .. us was commissioned by his patron, John Dueas Orsini (1323-1355 ), to paraphrase the Iliad in modern Creek verse. His trochees wcre not the work of a competent craftsman,1! but at least they rellected the interest in the Homeric epics thot was current at this time. This literary movement was probably stimu­lated by Eustathius' commentaries on Homer in his PlIrckvo/ai and seems to have ga thered momentum at the end of the twelfth century.

By the end of the thirteenth century, mounting Creek resistance to alien intruders was also evident in those parts of Thessaly which had become detached from the Dcspotate of Epirus. The secular and ecclesiastic •• 1 lords of PhanariOIl combined to extract from their overlord, Michael CabrieJopoulos, a promise that Albanians would be prevented from set .. tIing in their district. Greek nobles feared the conSC<luenccs of clandestine inmtration by foreigners. Their petition also contained the specific en .. treaty, quoted previously, that Latin soldiers be e.xcluded from the castle garrison of the "Lord of Thessaly:' The Creek petitioners demanded that they should themselves gn rrison the castle, that they should be entitled to certain tax exemptions, and that they should have the right to trial by nil their peers in the event of being charged with breach of discipline­demands of a sort that could be made only because of the power and infiuence which they alread}' Wielded. In addition . it was further vouch­safed to them thnt they might take possession of the monastery of Ler­kousias and the "Megale Porta , together with all lands appertain ing to it," U According to the Gabrielopoulos document. their influence aIso ex­tended to the exercise of civil jurisdiction in particular locaHties. All rights wcre jealously guarded. It was therefore nn accretion of many vested in­terests which accounted fo r the (.'ommon front which many Creek nobles. of high and low rank alike, prescnted to foreign intruders.

The defeat of Theodore Comnenus Ducas at Klokotnitsn removed the only fonnidnble rival to the emperors of Nicaea in their struggle to regain the capital of the Empire, Although themselves refugees from the Latin

34 ORICINS OF' THE CREEK NATION

usurpers, the policy of reconquest remained uppermost in the minds of the rulers of Nicaea. The fo unders of the Nicaean empire, Constantine Lascaris (1204-1205) U and his brother Theodore were capable, indeed intrepid, leaders of the Creeks of northweslem Asia ~·linor. Theodore ( 1204-12.2.2)-"a generous man, and one who moved with the celerity of an eagle in flight" ' G-was especially unrelenting in his efforts to imbue his people with a spirit of militant resistance. Although the inhabitants of this region were generally peaceable in outlook and neophytes in the art of war," they gradually became a fearless and efficient fighting force." It was there "in the Bithynian camp," as Sath ns so accurately observed, that the By7..nntines were truly transformed into Creeks.·· After 1204, H ellenism's center of gravity shifted to the Empire of Nicaea.

Theodore I Lascaris was forced b)' the circumstances of his time to appeal for assistance directly to the people and to indi vid ual nobles. Towns and villages had complet"ely severed aU ties with Latin-dominated ConsL'lntinopie, were separate and self-contained communities, and had revived their own loca l institutions, which had fallen into decay during periods of imperial control. This situation required the rulers of Nicaea to descend into the market place to plead their higher cause. The people could only be aroused against the conquerors by a process of cajoling, haranguing, and shaming; by being engaged in a hundred different bar­gnins with the nobles of a hundred d ifferent places; by being convinced of the suffering and humilintion which would attend passive submission . Evidence, unnoticed until now, that Theodore I frequently convoked assemblies of the peop le and represen tatives of cra fts' guilds (ta laode syslemata)·o from various districts, conferred and ate with nobles in private. and generally apprised all of the need fo r concerted military action,u would seem to suggest that the efforts of the Nicaean emperors were not a ll unavailing. r..·lany nobles, including those who were refugees from Constantinople, were won over by receiving gmnts of land for life. This policy of making grants in Ilrorloia over both public and ecclesi­asticallands was continued by Theodore's heir, John 111 Ducas Vatatzes. The condition of free farmers on these estates, however, grew steadily worse with the passing of the years, until it became indistinguishable from serfdom.42

The nature of Theodore's appeal, and especially his manner of ap­proach, had the effect of blurring social distinctions ancl awakeni ng in all, peasant and noble alike, a sense of persona l concern about the dis­memberment of the Empire. His pUI1)ose, like that of his counterpart in Epirus. Theodore ComnenliS Ducas, was to inflame and direct the spirit of national resistance to foreign oppression. His efforts met with the un­stinted approbation of Nicetas Chonintes, who was never slow in fi nding

ORlCI.NS OF NATIONAL CQSSC!OUSNESS 35

classical analogies and who compared Theodore I with Alexander the Great. If zeal alone were the principal touchstone of fame the comparison was apt, for Theodore's ambition was the total expu lsion of the Latin invaders and the liberation of Constantinople. Expulsion of fore ign in­vaders was the goal of the Greek raias throughout the period of Turkish occupation until, by the beginn ing of the nineteen th ccnhlry, it had be­come known, quite simply, as the "Grea l Idea." "These ancient, natal lands, where our homes have always been, seem as Paradise to us; and our Creat City, which is the pride of all the earth and so much coveted by all the nabons, seems veri ly the city of Almighty God." H

Theodore 1 also fought valiantly aga inst the Seljuk Turks, who exerted continual pressure upon the Creeks of western Asia Minor. It was a strug­gle which, to the people of Nicaea, bore every resemblance to that of Digenis and the Akritai aga inst the invaders. In the popular mind, Tlleo­dare seemed to embody the spirit of Digenis Akritas. It is therefore entirely conceivable that contemporary events brought about the revival of the written tradition of the Digetlis Akrrtas and that it came to be cherished at least as much by the people of Nicaea as by people in later PaJaeologian times.44 It is even probable that the form of the epic may have undergone conscious literary renewal at this time and that the extant versions of it were in fact derived from those which appeared in the Empire of Nicaea." If such is the case, we may presume that the oral traditions and songs of the Akritic Cycle were also popular and wide­spread.

In sum, the light of Hellenism apparently gave off a bright glow in the Empire of Nicaea. Its increasing brilliance attracted an ever increasing stream of refugees from Constantinople-scholars, monks, and ordinary people. Among them were the historians George Akropolites and Nicetas Choniates; Demetrios Karykes. the "Supreme Philosopher"; Monasteriotes who later became Archbishop of Ephesus; Theodoros Hexapterygos, tutor of Nicephorus Blemmydcs; Blemmydes who, in his role as tencher of the children of noble families, exerted a profound influence upon the intel­lectual life of Nicaea, and, in addition to his poems, autobiography, and correspondence, left behind manuals on logic and physics anel also wrote proli6caUy in the fields of theology, geography, medicine, and rhetoric.Oft

John III Ducas Vatatzes (1222.-1254 ), the son-in-law and successor of Theodore 1. was no less assiduous than his predecessor in seeking to eX1Jcl the invaders. He fought Vigorously against Turk and Bulgarian, as well as against Latin, and successfully freed large segments of the Empire.·' His sphere of operations also reached into the far~HlIng Creek islands. In 1230 the two noble Cretan fam ilies of Melissinoi and Skordylai rebelled against their Venetian overlords. Emissaries from the rebellious Creeks

36 OlUGINS OF THE CREEK NATION

appeared at the court of John III and promised to merge their island with the Empire of Nicaea in return for assistance. John H I immediately dis­patched thirty-three galleys to Crete, which d isembarked a military de­tachment under the leadership of the Grand Duke Auxentius. However, the combined Creek fo rces met with only limited success. After two yea rs of fighting, Rethymnon , r.,·!y!opotamos, and Ka inourgion (Castel Nuovo) were occupied , hut Creek fortunes were eventually confounded by the shh)wreck of thirty of their galleys, the res istance of the Venetian castle of Boniface, and the d ip lomatic astuteness of the dukes Bartolomeo and Angelo Cradenigo. The rebeUion finally sputtered out in 123B.d

Venice, to be sure, was never as ensily defeated as the other Latin powers. She possessed virtually unquestioned superiority at sea. impor~ taut outposts throughout the Aegean and the entire eastern Med iterra­nean. and almost un limited Il nancial resources. Nevertheless, the Vcne~ tians, like the Turks and Germans after them, were never able to break the stubborn and implacable will to resist for which the Cretans became renowned. Unfortunately. since our knowledge of Crete in this period is necessariJy derivcd from Venetinn sources, the details of Cretan resistance and the precise nature of the Cretan connection with the Empire of Nicaea are largely hidden from us.

Within the context of the formalion of the new H ellenism, mention should be made of the oracles and prophecies in circu lation concerning the Lascarids and John IU Ductls Vatatzes in ptlr ticuJar" o Although these prophecies were sl1bsttlntially the stl mc as those which had widespread popular currency around 1200,"" after that date they were related more and more to the splendid deeds of the Lasctlrids. Greeks who lived under the Latin occupation looked to them as sources of courage and inspira­tion, thereby rolltributing to a cult of the Lascarids which bordered on hero worship. After his death, John ITJ was rapidly canonized. at least in the popular imagination.AI Later, if for no other reason than that Vatatzes had donated considerable tracts of land to the Church, that canonization was officiaJ ly con.firmed.~~

Politic(ll (llJ(l Tnteliectual Developments ill NiceJea

If Greek nationalism was horn under foreign occupation, it was nourished by the increasing consciousness of past greatness which appeared simul­taneously in the Empire of Nicnea. The poli tical and intellectual leaders of the Greek p(."Op1e looked upon classical civilization as an ideal expres­sion of their national individuality and therefore identified themselves ever more closely with it. The past seemed alJ the more brilliant and dis~ tinguished in view of the chaos and di.~ llnity which surrounded them; a past which afforded n paradigm of achievement and courage; a past which

ORIGINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 37

thus could inspire the Greeks to overthrow thei r oppressors. However, the crucial role that reverence for the past played in the fonnation of Neo-HeUenism does not seem to have been fully grasped, even by Nicaea's principal historians, Anthony Meliarakis and Alice Gardner.

The revival, after 1204, of the name Hellene together with its vari­ous derivatives,n its widespread adoption in place of Romaioi, was naturally stimulated by a heightened awareness of cultural differences in the presence of alien conquerors. A marked fascinat ion for the word can be traced in the writings and ut terances of emperOrs and scholars, al­though its general use in everyday life was still inhibited because of re­ligious distaste for its pagan overtones. In a letter to Pope Gregory lX between 1231 and 1237, John 111 Ducas Vatat-zes was clearly conscious of being Greek in spite of the apparent obligations of his imperial ti tle, ''John Ducas, by the Crace of Jesus Christ, Faithful King and Emperor of the Romans." He proudly acknowledged the Pope's admission that "wisdom reigns supreme among the Greeks .. , Wisdom, and the good which Hows from it, first flowered among the Greeks, whence it spread to all others who cared anything for its acq uisition and its practice." Vatatzes bristled at the Popc's oversight in fai ling to mention that the Roman imperirHIt had been bequea thed to the Greeks from the time of Constantine the Creat : "for who in all the world gainsays the fact that the Greeks are the only heirs and successors of Constantine? , . , The pro­genitors of Our House, the Comneni and the Ducases-to say nothing of the many other rulers-were all of Hellenic stock, and it is they who have reigned ill Constantinople for hund reds of years." Vatatzcs believed that the Roman Empire had truly become a Creek empire from the time of Constantine the Great. To him, the official des ignation of the Byzantine Emperors, "King and Emperor of the Romans," had been retained solely out of the respect due to trad ition and to the name of Constantine,

Thus, Vatatzes' claims to the territories held by the Frankish usurpers were based upon the rights of lega l succession anel historical continuity, "Although We have been driven forcibly from Our lands, We preserve Our rightfu l authority in them, which, under God, is inalienable and irrevocable." His refusal to accept the sovereign pretensions of John de Brienne ( 1231-1237 ), the Frankish Emperor of Consta ntinople, was un­equivocal. "Moreover," he remarked with more than a trace of sarcasm, "we are at a loss to comprehend where on sea or earth the dominion and jurisdiction of the said Emperor could possibly lie," He then announced his intention to resist the conquerors: "We shaD never stop fighting or resisting the usurpers in Constantinople, for if We did not fight them with aU Our might We should be sinning against Nature, Our Fatherland, the graves and sacred temples of Our Forefathers." His letter to Pope Gregory

S8 ORIGINS OF' THE CREEK NATION

concluded with the threat that Greek arms were not to be despised: "We have cavalry and n whole host of soldiery whose valor and fine martial qualities have already been tested against the Crusaders and have not been found wanting." at

A consciousness of Greek nationality is similarly proclaimed by Va­tatzes' successor, Theodore II Lascaris (1254-1258) and the latter's tutor, Nicholas Blemmydcs. B1emmydes referred to the Empire of Nicaea as an "Hellenic Dominion." n Theodore [J called it simply "an Hellenic coun­try" or HeUas.~8 It included within its borders parts of present-day Yugo­slavia, the whole of southern Albania, Creek Macedonia, and Thrace. and a great part of southern Bulgaria.5 ! Theodore U was familiar with the ethnic composition of the Balkans and knew each national group by name. As in the case of the various invasions, the antagonism between the Creeks and the nationalities of the region sharpened the national consciousness of ench. The feeling was naturally most intense in the ranks of the oppos­ing armies. The relations between the Creek and Bulgarian soldiers were particularly acrimonious. When Theodore II wrote to inform his tutor of his victories over Michael of Bulgaria, whose armies were pillaging eastern Rumelia (now part of southern Bulgaria ) and Macedonia, he spoke excit­edly of the "remarka ble feats of Creek arms and exemplary Creek bravery which could only elicit your deepest admiration." Since Theodore 11 was constantly in the midst of his sold iers, he can hardly have faUed to infuse in them at least a modicum of his passion for Bellas. It is possible to fonn some idea of the depth of }tis Creekness from certain literary and philo­soph ical fragments which are still extant. These are Significant, not merely for the fervor they express, but for the way in which they reBect the essen­tial character of Greek nationalism. rn one place, he speaks of his delight in using the language of ancient Greece and says he prefers it to the ecclesiastical language of the period, which, because of its innumerable biblical express ions he has not been able to master. He looks upon the classical language as "more dear to him than life itself." U He also admires the ancient monuments of Pergamon, which he considers to be "replete with the genius of the Greeks-very images of Wisdom itself." The city of Pergamon, "which so reflects the glory of our ancestors, is for that rea­son a constant reproach to us as their descendants." ~ G To Theodore 11 it seemed that the people of his empire should feel forever humble in the presence of such artistic greatness.

n le Nicaean interesl in the physical heritage of the past extended to a preoccupation with archaeology not equalled until the Renaissance. It was also paralleled by a dedication to "all the arts and sciences." In spite of the extemal menace which the emperors of Nicaea faced at aU t imes, they found time to collect manuscripts, establish libraries,.o and generally

ORIGINS OF NAT IONAL OONSCIOUSNFSS 39

encourage intellectual and artistic pmsuits.G1 Theodore II himself re­ceived an extensive education in literature, theology, and philosophy, and dreamed of making his capital the center of Greek learning. He praised its accomplishments lavishly and believed, in fact, that it bad surpassed ancient Athens because classical learning and Christian theol­ogy had been brought into harmony with each other. ''This glorious city of the Nicaeans prides itself precisely on this point. It has doubly en­riched philosophy by reconci ling objective wisdom, which is the funda­mental achievement of ancient Greece, with the knowledge of God, which transcends it. Although there are many schools of philosophy here. they are all concerned with one or the other of these two sources of truth. Thus, they philosophize in the manner of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates, combining ancient philosophy with theology in a novel fashion, though, having been nurtured on the divine words of Scripture, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers, the premises with which they begi.n are the divine doctrines of Christ." n Nor was the inRuence of Nicaea confined to urban centers alone: "Its learning was diffused far and wide, and even peasants were educated in its ideals."

Thus, from an intellectual as well as from a political and military point of view, Nicaea not only shone as a symbol of cultural unity but served as a rallying point of active re..~istance to the Frankish conquerors. "Many cities have acquired power, many have gained renown, many have mag­

. nined the glory of tlleir people; but you, Nicnea, surpass them all. You alone remain to shore up the mighty n oman Empire, which has been shattered by the annies of so many different nations." 03 In yet another encomium, Theodore II Lascaris extolled the brilliance of philosophical thought which was to Nicaea "what music is to Corin th, weaving to Thessaly, and tan ning to Philadelphia ... &4 If this analogy seems to descend to a proletarian level in sharp contrast to his cllstomary grandiloquence, this was perhaps because Theodore II had reason to suspect the dedica­tion to philosophy of many of his countrymen. In a letter to his teacher Blemmydes, he bewailed the indifference many young people seemed to show towards philosophy, despising it as a foreign science, although no fOrm of know ledge was more e.....sentially Greek. Theodore II certainly had this in mind when he predicted that philosophy would depart from Creece and find refuge among the "'barbarians" of the West, wbere it would eventually make them famous. Those who denigrate philosophy, he said, or who would alienate it from its proper home will only bring disaster and barbarity to the inhabitants of Greece. "Those who were once proud of their philosophical inheritance would then become the laughing stock of the entire world." 86

Theodore II Lascaris regarded these symptoms with uneasiness. He

40 ORIC1NS OF THE CREEK NATION

knew from discuss ions with a nllmber of the Western 'barbarians" that they were becoming adept in every aspect of phiiosophy.Gt It was incon­ceivable fo r reasons of national prestige that they should be allowed to challenge, let alone excel, the Creeks. Thus, on one occasion when he worsted Berthold von Hohenburg, emissary of the Gennan Emperor Konrad IV Hohenstaufen, in n philosophical debate, he considered this no less than a national triumph, "a victory of the C reeks over the Ital­ians." G; Instances such as this demonstrate the project ion of naHonal feel­ing among the Lasctlrids and the scholars of Nicaea.

Theodore n Lascaris, by the qua li ty of his administrative and military reorgani7.3tion,e8 had almost created a viable C reek empire. [n the task of administration he had relied exclusively upon men of ability, many of whom were not of noble birth. Indeed, he delibera tely tried to lim it the power and infl uence of the nobili ty and thus to lessen class d ivisions. This undivided attention to the welfare of all his people eventually p ro­voked the opposition of the nobili ty, as Pachymeres 8D has most convinc­ingly poin ted out. Yet, though many of his efforts were rendered va in by his early death, Theodore 1I Lascaris remains a fi gure of fundamental importance for C reek history through his love of C reek civili l'.a tion, his strength of charncter, and h is impressive in tellectual powers. More impor­ta nt historically, given his fa ith in the destiny of the Greek nation, which was symbolized by fl steadfast ambition both to reconquer Constan tinople and to reunite all Creeks under the imperial scepter, he may be regarded as the true originator of the "Creat Idea." He was the first Greek em­peror to be pictured with the doub le-beaded eagle of the Byzantine Empire, which, in the opinion of Voyatzidis, represented a projection of imperial claims towards the Creek lands of both Europe and Asia. The double-headed eagle thereafter became the emblem of the Byzantine state. Later, d uring the Turkish occupation , the eagle became the cher­ished motif of the Creek raias, signifying the national aspiration of all Creeks to be free from foreign dom ination-or for the "Creat Jdea." 1 0

rr many of the actual reforms of the Lascarids soon disappeared , the "Creat Idea" certainl y inspired the Pa laeologian usurper, Michael VIII (1259-1282). This, in itself, was an indication of its power and pervasive­ness, even at so early a time. However, the work of internal reorganiza­tion tha t had so distingu ished the reign or Theodore received fl setback. The nobility enjoyed a resurgence of power, and this was accompan ied by progressive deterioration and demora lization of the army and the civil .service. When, in 126J, Michael VIU captured Constantinople, which then became the capital of the new Byzantine Empire, his ephemeral triumph, far rrom arresting the deterioration, even contributed to it. H is subsequent successes in Mistra, Monemvasia. and Maina (1262) H cer-

ORIGINS OP N .... nONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 41

Ininly established important bridgeheads from which the Latin invader was rlnally driven out of the Peloponncse. but, on the other hand. through his lack of concern with the Turkish menace io Asia Minor, the Creek foothold in this vitally important region was graduolly pried loose. Michael VIIT threatened not only to complete the reconquest of the Pe1oponnese but also to occupy Crete. Here, the Creek inhabitants still offered resistance to the Venetians. Venetian apprehension in the face of what seemed to be an impending invasion led the Doge Ranieri Zeno to implore Pope Urban IV in a letter dated 8 September 1264 to or­ganize a new crusade against the Creeks. The Venetians were naturally concerned over the fate of their colonies, especially Crete, WitJl its vital strategic position, and wanted desperately to secure their rami6cd eco­nomic interests throughout the eastern ~"editcrranean. For this reason, they also addressed similar appeals to the rulers of other countries.n

For the time being. however. lhe recapture of Constantinople led to a revival of hope among all Creeks under foreign domination. Tn Crete, ror example, the Venetians experienced considerable difficulty in re­newing alliances with those local elements which, for reasons of profit or securi ty, had seen rlt to acknowledge fealty to Venice. The prospect of restoring the Byzantine Empire prompted the Orthodox clergy to re­emphasize its attachment to Emperor and Patriarch. Many of the clergy preached sermons which were distinctly nationalistic in tone. They stressed the legality of Michael Vill's succession to the throne and ex­horted all those still under foreign rule to redoubl e their efforts agai nst the conqllerors and thereby hastcn the fu lfi llment of imperial reunifi(:a­tion. From 1264 to l299, Crete was convu lsed by revolutions led by George Chortatzes and Alexius Kallerges.u This protracted stmggle must have greatly stimulated feelings of fraternal compassion among all Creeks.

However, Venetian detennination to thwart the ambitions of Michael VITI, together with the reappearance of the Turkish menace on his Hank, was sufficient to induce him to open negotiations with Venice. [n two agreements of 1268 and 1277 he seems not only to have abandoned his plans for Crete, but also for the Messenian strongholds of Modon (lo.·lethone) and Caron (Korone). This utterly discouraged even the most resolu te of the Creek fighters, and Cretan resistance effectively col­lapsed. Chortatzcs and many of his fol.lowers sought refuge in tbe im­perial court at Constantinople.H It is not known how large this stream of refugees was or how long it lasted. Most of them, including Chortatzes himself, settled in the eastern marches of the Empire towards the end of the thirteenth century. AndroniClIs II Palaeologlls ( 1282-1328 ) rewarded them with "'salaries to be fixed annua lly." 1~ There they joined the figh t against the Turks.

42 OIUCINS Of' THE CREEK NAnON

Venetian power therefore remaint.>d fi rmly entrenched in Crete and throughout the eastern Med iterranean. Yet a subtle change in relations between the new Byzantine Empire and Venice occurred at this time. A number of Venetians who were especially well acquainted witb the political situation in the Empire saw that the two states cou ld mutually benefi t from a uni ted front against the Turks. They believed that any diplomatic overtures made with the aim of effecting such an alliance with the Byzantine Empire would be warmly received. Marino Sanudo Tarsella (1270?-l343?) , in his work relating to the Venetian possessions and the projected crusade. also recognized th at any co-opcration between the two states would most likely prove doubly useful to Venice: it would nol only lead 1'0 successful confrontation with the Turks, but would also assist in the pacification of her Greek possessions.fa

Michael VIU Palaeologus and his heirs proved in the end to be power­less to resist the Turkish flood. Quite apa rt from the egregious error of allowing the administrative reorgan ization effected by Theodore Lascaris to fa ll into decay, the removal of the throne from Nicaea to Constanti­nople meant that the center of government was isolated from the nerve­center of Greek civilization. Here, ill the ancient capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the old Roman traditions quickly reasserted themselves and the Orthodox Church resumed its traditionally close association with the imperial polity. Tn these circumstances the growth of an Hellenic out­look, exemplified in, for instance, the use of the national name, H ellene, was temporarily suspended.

However, the national spirit was rekindled in d irect proportion to the extent to which the Empire was forced to contract to the predomi nantly Greek regions of the Empire in Europe and Asia Minor, to B ellas as Theodore II Lascaris had ca lled them. Actual use of the words B ellas and Hellene tended to become more widespread:1 towards the end of the fo urteenth century despite the imperial restoration. For example, although D emetrius Kydones generally used the words Greek and Homan 7~ interchangeably, he once tried to explain the gap between East and West on the assumption that educated people could not really be interested in wha t was bappening in the West, because ';anyone who is not a Creek is a barbarian.'" TP Thus, whatever meaning he attached to the word Roman, it was clear from this context that he at least regarded the Creeks as the indisputable heirs of ancient Greek civilization.

The Westerners had no doubt in their minds who the Creeks were. Tn various official documents, Popes and Western kings invariably used the words Graecia and Graeci, or the latter's then-current French eq uiv­alent, Grieu.'O Nor do they appear to have doubted where these Graeci lived . In the fifteenth century, Thrace was explicitly identified as being

ORICINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 43

part of Greece; U and it is precisely in Thrace, of course (or Eastern Rumelia, as it came to be called ), that overland travellers in Irl.ter cen­turies orst became aware of their arrival in Greece.~~ Even in the thir­teenth century Theodore I J Lascaris wrote: "You will have arrived ill Greece from Europe when first you arrive in Thrace:' 83 11ms, in spite of a certai n imprecision which surrou nded the usc of the word Hellene after the Palaeologian restoration, it is apparent that the inhabi tants of the Byzantine Empi re were Homan in only the most formal sense. If the majority did not fu lly appreciate this fact , the Western Europeans cer­tainly did; so, too, did the writer of the C/rro"iclc oj Morea , a GasIDlllus, when he said : "Long ago, tlrese 'Romans' were ca lled 'Greeks: They were always distinguishable by their extreme arrogancc; indeed , they still are. It was on ly from Rome that they took the name 'Homan.' " s.

This period then, from the thirteenth through the fift eenth centuries, was a seminal one in tile formntion of Hellenic nationalism. It was at this time t.hat the words HelJene and Hellas ca rne into usc in conjunct ion with the word nation. John In Ducas Vatatzcs appears to have been the first to effect this conju nction (see above, page 37) and the word genos also recurs constantly in \'arious texts during the last two centuries of the Byzantine Empire.M It was used with increasing Freq uency du ring the period of Turkish occupation (1453--1821 ) and was especially promi­nent in the writings of scholars towards the end of the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenth. What tbis signified, of course. was that the cu lhl ral Ilnd racia l equation, the essential strength of the nationalist mystique, was cstahljshed by the time of John IH.

Cultural Actioity duril1g the 1 ... atin Period

Although the Greeks were reduced to a condition of political subservience during the period of Latin domination, their nationa l cohesion was never really broken. There were, for example. a variety of cu ltural manifesta­tions. Marino Sanudo Torsello had th is to say of th e underlying impor­tance of religion in Greek life: that the inhahitants of the Despotate of Morea, of Cyprus, Crete, Euboea, Rhodes, and many other islands, being Greek. remained faithful to the Orthodox Church even though they were dominated by the Franks and fell techni ca lly within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Pope; but their hearts and minds were immutably Creek, and whenever they were free to do so they never hesitated to show it.1e Torsello specifically mentioned a number of places tluoughout the Aegean where nationalism was in constant ferment. His information is reliable and corroborates the conclusions of modern literary research­ers, who, by methods of linguistic analogy, have identified the local origins of some of the Greek literature of the period. Both sources under-

44 oruClNS OF THE CREEK NATIQ!'/"

line the pOint that specific fOims of nationalist expression were never stifled, even in those places where the Latin conquest appeared to be most (.'omplete.

The theme of Creek bravery permeates these diverse works. There was, for example, the chivalric novel, The Troian \Var, which was written by an unknown Creek poet , probably about the middle of the thirteenth cen­tury. Based upon Benoit d e Sainte-Maur's romance of th t? same name ( 1180). its purpose in the Creek vers ion was to extol the well-known Homeric heroes who tr iumphed over their ad versaries ,s7 It was a source of direct inspiration for Lhe writer of the Namltive of Achilles and it helped to catalyze national feeling.

T he NarrllUl)c bears no relation to the Iliad. Its author is concemcd solely with lifting the morale of his compatriots by using Achilles as a universa l symbol of Greek bravery. Thus, the hero, "in whom all Creeks take pride," is transplanted to the period of Latin conquest, where he confronts the lm ights of the West with all the courage of his ancicnt counterpart. lndeed , i t is probable that the Norrative was written as R

Creek response to the Chronicle of Morea, whose author, as we have seen, was given to lavish praise of the Latin conquerors. If such is the case, the Narrative was probably written towards tbe end of the thir­teenth century or at the beginning of ule fourteenth century. This, to be sure, is not the conclusion of Hesseling, one of the editors of the Nm"TfI­tive. Although he detects 1m orgllcllil notiollol. assez fort, a strong na­tional pride, he considers rather that it was wcitlen at the beginning of the fifteenth century 80 as n narration of "past grandeur" and only inci­dentally as an anodyne to the feelings of a resentfu l, conquered people. In other words, he overlooks the facl that a conscious evocation of the past was one of the essential springs of Creek national feeling and that both were in variably aroused in circumstances of foreign occupation. It would seem that Sathas came closer to the truth when he said that Achilles personified the Creek des ire for revenge against the Crusaders.tt

The Achilles of the Narrative is demonstrably n medieval hero, a second Digcnis Akritas. The very si milarities in their lives suggest a common inspirational backgrowul. Both possessed heroic qualities wh ich deter­mined their subsequent achievements; both received a classical Creek education; both wore the armor of Byzantine soldiers; both abducted their wives and were pursued by their brothers-in-law, whom they de­feated. The inllucnce of popular legend und poetry in eadl work is plain. AJthough the Narrative has never had the same vogue 1>0 as the Digcllis, it may be considered as the connecting link bctween the Digcnis Akritas and the popular seventeenth-cen tury romance, Erotocritlls. Some of the

ORleINS O~- NATIONAL CONSClOUSN"ESS 45

images and episodes of the ErotocrUus are obviously derived from it, for example the duel of Achilles with the Frankish knight-D!

The appearance of five romantic poems between the th irteenth and fifteenth centuries may also be regarded as possible expressions of the cultural nationalism of this period. Written in a demotic language and fifteen-syllable iambic verse, they are all land marks in the development of modern Creek literature: Callimadllls and Chrysorrhoe (thirteenth cen tury ), V elthandrtlS alld Cllrysallt.U/ ( thirteenth century ), Lyoistroa and Rhodamne (fourteenth century), Florills alld Platzia/fora (end of fourteenth, or beginning of fifteenth century ) and 1mbcrius and Marga­rona (fifteenth cenhITY). The oldest of the five, CaltimacllUs, was written by Andronicus Conmcnus Ducas Palneologus. The authorship of Vellhan­drua and Lyvi.stro8 is unknown. Many incidents in these poems can be traced to the ballads and love songs of troubadours who sang in the courts of the Latin rulers in Greece and the eastern Mediterranean. These songs were learned by the indigenous Creeks and were gradually adapted to the Creek mode. T hey contain , of course, many episodes and all usions which reflect the social and cultural environment of Western Europe; neverthe1ess, they have become an authentic part of the modem Creek literary tradit ion,"

Thus, the period of Latin conquest witnessed not only the reinforce­ment of tbe oral traditions of the Creek people, but also the establish­ment of the demotic language as a formal literary vehicle. Vivid and alive, the language of the people insinuated itself into the courts of the Latin rulers against all their efforts to preserve and to impose their own. The conquerors found it necessary to use Creek, in both its written and spoken forms, in order to regularize their relations with the conquered, There­after, most of the official documents, seals, and proclamations were in modem Creek, as were the inscriptions on aU Venetian coins destined for colonies, In these ways the invaders gradually "succumbed to the ever growing demands of Creek national feeling," IS

279

of Friedrich Pfis ter, "Alexander cler Crosse in der byzantinischcn Litemtur und in neugricchischen Volksbiichem [Alexander the Grea t in Byzantine Lit· erature and in Modem Creek Popular Books]," Probleme der IIcugriccllisclwll LlteratuT. W, Berliner by:afltillisclll! Arbeilc'l. XVI (1960), 112- 130.

39. See Pallis, Alexander tite Creat (38) , p . 32, for the relevant bib!;­Ob'Tnphy.

40. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, .. '0 M. 'AAi;(l\,i)(Io~ £iii "wu; ~tljl'}ou>; r.ui ta; 1[(lgaMo£lS" (Alexander the Creat in ?"-Iylh and Tradition] ," ME E. IU, 66D-664, which contains also the relevant bibliogrnphy. Cf. also George Spyridnkis, "IUf.l6o;l.lJ dO; n'}v p.d,EnI" !liw i)1l].HOOWV n:uQaMOEW\' Y.al/)o;aoullv nElIi -cou MEyaAOU 'AM.!idvl)t>Ou IA Contribution to the Study of the Popular Traditions and Beliefs Concerning Alexnnder the Creal]," ri!?a~ Avt. KE(lUI-lOl'tOllhAOtl (A thens, 1953) , pp. 385-419. where there i~ n supplerncn tnl bibliography.

41. See Andreas Xyngopoulos, .. '0 !\'1. 'AU;av5gG; tv Tn 6~avnvfi dy. y£IOY!?UlJlIf;l [Alexander the Creat in Byz:mlinc Pottery Painting)," EEBI , XI\, (1938), 275-276; and Pallis, Alexander 1116 Creal (38), p. 32.

42. Salhas, La Tradiliarr lre/Uniqlle (36 ), p . 123, on VinSl.lufs ltil!erflrium regis Anglorum Ricardi [Tire IIinerary of Ric/lOrd, King of EnglandJ (Ox· ford, 1687 ), p. 26L

43. Michael Clykas, B(6)'~ y'QO\' txit [C/.ronicie ), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1836 ), p. 599.

44. Kurt Weitzmann, Greek Myl110/ogy in ByZllllline J\ rt (Princeton, 1951), p. 194.

45. See Andreas Xyngopot1to~. " I1 a!?a(rtri(JEt~ h 'tOu 1 1\J{hotoQit fta·CO~ "coli l\t 'A/JO;av5QO\l b tl 6u~nvttvwv &yy£(wv [Representations from the Alex­ander Romance on Byzantine Vases]," AE, 1937, pp. 19Z-202; and " '0 l\'f. 'Aht;av5!?o~" ( 41 ), pp. 267-276. Cf. also Weinmanll, Greek Mytho/og!J (44 ), especially pp. 104, 186-1 88, 194, 197-198.

46. Anastasios Orhmdos, "Niov avciy},vqlOv ni~ uvaJ.1j11!f:W;: tOU 'AiJO;av-5(lou [A New Bas-Helief of the Ascension of Alexander]," EE(I):E n A. II ( 1954-1955), 281-289, where there is an excellent bibliography; and ''['},ul'tta 'tOU 11°"0£10\1 a116o)\' [Sculptures in the Musewn at Thebes) ," 'A(l1.£lm' 'to}\! G\I~(l\" moWv 1-l"llI-lEiwv T~~ 'Ellubo;;, v (1939-1940), 134-136; also with a bibli­ography.

47. See Tomad ukis, " 7HOllV 6ciQS(lgOl at 'A3~vm" (24 ), pp. 88-109. On the relationship between Eustathius and Michael Choniates. see Spyridoll Lambros, Mly'Ury. 'AX0f.ltvUTOlJ to. O'wl;,cS"IEVU [Wllat Refll(lills of Miclracl/\ko­minatos) (Alhens, 1879), I , xvi, xxxvi-xxxvii. xxxviii, 283--306.

48. Lambros, Ml1.a~J. AXOfUWltOU (47), p. xxxviii.

Chapter 3

1. Spyridon Zambelios, .. A(J~laT(J. thlf.lOnXU 'Iii; 'ElJ400;' Ex/')03ivta ~I£TU ~Unl~ taTO(l I i'.~ ~ JIEQl ~1£(Jatw"Li(oii VJ.llvlO]1oii {Popular Songs of Greece, pubUslled with 011 Historic(I/ Sl lldy of Mec/ielJ(11 HellenismJ ( Athens, 1852 ). See especially pp. 462 ff. , and the same author's Bu~uvnva[ f.leJ.E'CUl. n £(IL

280 NO'I:ES-CHAPTER 3

itllYWV tU"lVlXij; Ulvon]'l:olO nita 11' UXQL ~ tK(l"t"onOETllt>t8olO (By.:ontine Studies. Conccnliug fhe Sources of Greek Natiollolity, / ro/ll tile Eiglltll to tile TenOI Century] (A thens, 1857).

2. Constantine Paparrhegopoulos, ' l m:oQlu TOU OJ''lVlXOU f3vo\l~ [H istory of the Greek Nation] (Alhell~, 1932), v. part I , v, 3, 5, 8-9, 15.

3. Constantine Sathas, MEGCltwvlJodl fn6Aloih'p(11 (2:23) (Venice, 1812-1874), vu (1894), x If.

4. Constantine Amantos, ' I O"ToQta '(ou 6\1~avtLvoii X(H:lrOUC; (1:9) (Alhens, 1939) . J, 7-8.

5. lo[umis K. Voyatzidis, .. 'lO"tOQLxu.t [lei.hoL [Historical Studies]," EE<I):EnS, u ( 1932).302. See also lo ... mnis Mamalakis, "n p06/.ilflu'ta Til; VEO£U'IVtxij; lm:o(lla; [Problems of Modero Creek History]," XQOVIXU "TOU Il ElpaflUny.oii l:xoJ.£lou O(.I\"t:1tUmllLlOU Eku(JaAOVi1'.ll;, v (1951). 72 K.

6. For descriptive infonnnlion, see Constantine Dyovouniotis, "At dvi~6<rto ~

1'.aTllX~OEt~ Toii fl'lTQ01(Ohicou 'A-ft'lvWV MtXa1lA 'Ai'.oJ.l tvo'mu [The Unpub­lished Catechisms of Michael Akomimtl'os, Metropoli te of AthellS]," n AA, III

(1928),312-314. 7. Sec Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La COllqIl6/C de COllsluntillOp/c, ed. Ed­

mond Fuml (Paris, 1939), II (1203-1204), 88-89; and Orestc Tafmli, TIles­saialliqllc 611 qllulorz;elllt1 siCela (Paris, 1913), p. 67, whcre the relevant bibli· ography will bc fou nd. The tcndency on the part of Creek cities and countries to hang on to their autonomy was pronounced. However, I am Dot aware of the sources on which Neroulsos based hi~ assertion that the inhabitants of Athens, Mcgal1l, Thebes, Levadia. and Atalante submitted to the Franks in exchange for the retention of their local independence (Tassos Neroutsos. "X(ll(JtL(l.VI1'.Cli. 'A{hjval {Christian Athens]." AlEE, IV (1892-1895) , 53

8, On the question of the voluntary servitude of (.'Crtain nobles, see Sn thas. M&oau,UvLxlj Ih6hlOlh'rl.lj (2:23 ), I , 109-110.

9, Niceta.~ Chonintes, XQOVl1'.ll l)l~Ylj(Jl~ [Historical Narrat ion], ed. Imman­uel Bekker (Donn, 1835), pp. 840--844.

10. See Snthas, JI,[&lJatW"lX~ 616hlo61I1'.11 (2:23), I, 104; Athanasios Papa­dopoulos-Kerameus, "nE(J1 1f\J\'OLXLaf,l.oii tw\' '1(rlavvivwv IlE 'ta. T~V CPQaYXl1'.~V xanixTl10w rii~ KwvlJTnvrtvouJt6},E(O; (Concemillg the Settlement or loannina after the Frallkish Cnpture of Constantinople]," alEE, III (1889) , 454; the de­Scription in Choniates, XQOVI X~ ~L~YI1Clt.; (9), pp. 837 H.; and Spyridon Lam­bros, MlXa.~h 'Axoluvo..wu 'ttl (JO)tOJ.l.EVa (2:47), II (1880),292.

1 L Sec Papadnpoulos-Kernmells, n &Qt If\JVOIy.I(J~toii (10), pp. 451-455. For the correct mime of Michael I. see Lucien St:iemon. lOW Origines du des-potat d'Epire. A propos d\m livre recent," REB, xvu (1959), 91-126, Cf. the communication to the XlI~ Conb'TCs intemntional des ctudes byzantines, Och rida, 1961: "Les Origines du despotat d'Epire--problcmes de titulature et de chronologie," Resllmes dC4 commllnicatlons (Belgrnde-Ochrida, 1961), pp. 100-101.

12. See Donald Nicol, T ile Despot(lte of Epirlls (OxCord, 1957), p. 16. 13. Ch(miatcs, XQOVI"X~ 61~Yl10l~ (9), pp. 767-768. After the fall of Con­

stnntinople (12.£M ), Bishop Theodore of /\ Inni:l wrote his younger brother:

NOTES-CRAPTER 3 281

.. 'E&AW ,lEv 1) n:{t'f9 i~, r!U' cl.1·~Q{ (f0l:['1';l JtU:; .61lO; ·EIJ.4; [Our country has been taken, but to the wise man ally plflce is" Greece)" (PG, CXL, col. 414).

14 . See Louis Halphen, "Le R61c des 'Latins' dans I'histoire intcrieurc de Constantinople a ta fin du xu" sicc1e," Mr!lougc$ Charles Diehl (1930), I .

140-145. 15. See Toannis D. Pnpadopouios, 'T(lllYO(liOll XlOVlll~o\J tou (tCfTQov6polJ

l;nfftoAal [The Letters of Gregorios Chioniades the Astronomer}," E1·:tlI~n e, I ( 1927). 151-203.

LB. See William Miller, Trcbi;:ond, TIle Lasl Greek Empire ( London. 1026 ), pp. IS If.

17. See Nicol. TIl l! Dc.v1'JO lllte 0/ E,Jirus (12). p. x. 18. See Salhas, MtoQl,wVl')(il 6l61,1O{t~il.ll (2:23), VII, 460-461, 46S-iBH. 19. See Mathias Wellnhofcr, JOllUrlllC' A ,JOkouko.f, MeirOlw iil 11m! NfWIlflk.

lOS ill Acto/iell (c. 1155-1223 ) [Joallnis AP(lClJlIClIS, Mclropolitc of Nallpactwy ill Actol/a (ca. 1155-1223) } (Freising, Germ., 1913) , pp. 3 1 fr.

20. ParthenioS" Polakis. ' Jrllu"v1llO 'A1[6i1.uu:A.o:;;. IllltQorrnHnlt; NUU1[fiil.tuu [lot'lrlnis Apocallcus, Mo'ropoiite 0/ NlWpaC'I/S] (Jerusalem. 1923). pp. 5, 21 If., 37 fE. On the oppnsitiun between tho churcll~ of Epirus nnd NicaCa and the attendant controversies, see Wellnhofer's comments in lohmlllc,f Apokullko.~ (19), pp. 46-64, 67-68. Cf. nlso Nicol, TIle Dcspolule of EpiMl.~ (12 ), pp. 76-102.

21. Vnsily Vasilevsky, "Epirolica sacculi XIlr [Affairs of Epirus ill the Thirteenth Century}," Viz. Vrem., IH (1896), 246. 265. See also Wellnhofcr, JolwllllC!J Apokuukos (19). pp. 6-30, and, for Apocaucus' position in the hierarchy of lhe Church of Epirus, pp. 4'1-45. On the actual date of the cap­ture of Thessalonica, see Jeml Longnon, "La Reprise de Salonique par Jc.~

Grees en 1224 [The Recapture of Thessnkmica by the Greeks in 1224J." VI~ Congres internationru des etudes bY.talltines, P.ans, 1948. Aclo.f. 1 (1950 ), 141-146; and B. Sinogowit'Z, "Zur Eroberung Thessalonikes im Herb~t 1224 [On the Conquc.~1 of Thessalonica in the Aut'llmn of 1224]." BZ. XI.V (1952 ), 28.

22. See Nikolaos Tomndakis, "01 I.OYWt tau &o1[o1:d1:oU T~t; 'Hrcdeou [The Intellectuals of the Despotate of Epirus]," EEB~, X.""'II (1957 ), 13. See also Wellnhofcr, l a/lalmes Apokuukos (19), p. 47 j Polakis, ' lwu"I'll';: 'Aaoil.Ct\lxo,;: (20), p. 36.

23. See Polnkis, 'Jwuvvlli 'AruixUlr'(o; (20), p. 66. 24. TomaduJ..is, Ot A6ylOL (22), pp. 24-25. 25. Sec Athanasios Pnpadopoulos-Kerameus, "l:\JVO~lil.(i. YOUIAf.lUt'Cl 'Iwri.VVOIl

tOU 'An:oxuuil.ou IllltQo](Of.t.ou NumtcbtLOU (The Synodic Letters of Joannis Apocaucus. Metropoli te of NaupactusJ," Bu~CtVTilO, I (1909), 10.

26. See Eduard Kurtz, "Georgios Bartiancs, ~'[etropolit vall Kerkyrn [George Vardanis, Mctropolite of CorcyraJ," BZ, xV (1906).603-613. Cf. also Welll1-hofer, Johomlcs Apokolfkos (19), pp. 38-39.

27. See Lambros, MlXU11A 'AY.O~ll\'U1:0\l (2:47), 11 , 350. 28. See Panagiotis Arnvantinos, XQovoyeatpl.Ct r~1O 'Hmil,lou ( 1 :46) ( Athens,

1856-1857), 11, 34-35.

282 NOTES-CIIAPTER 3

29. Vasilevsky, Epirotlca (21), p. 252. Cr. also Wcllnhofer, Jollallnes Apo­kaukos (19), pp. 41-42_

30. See Apocaucus'\etter to Vnrdanis (Vnsilevsky, cpirotica (2 1]. pp. 250-252). c r. Tomadakis. OtMylO( (22), p. 18. and Polakis, ' lwtivv1l; ·Arr{n'.aUiw; (20). p. 29.

31. Pupadopou!os-Kcnuneus, }:uvob(xu i'eU~IIUrm (25), p. 21. 32. TIle monograph announced by Michael Dendins more than forty years

ago, on Michael 11 Comnenus Ducas and his contribuUon to the renascence of the Greek nation (see" 'E1.tv1l 'Ayy€Hvtl 8ouxl1wa, 6aoiAuJ(m l:t~EHa; ~(tL Nwnoi,Ew; [Helene Angelina Ducaina, Queen of Sicily ~lIld Naples]," HX , t [1926],219-2.2.0) has not yet- been published.

33. See Demetrius Mavrophrydi~. ' F.~Aoyl'l ~tvlll.lf;iw\' TIl; VfWTEQW; tlJ.lj­

"L~ij; y;.wauljt; [A Select /oil 0/ the Monuments 0/ /ll e Modern Greek Lan­gill/ge] (Athens, 1866), I , vii-x, 73-182, and Karl Hopf, Grieclttmlontl /m A!ittelaller Imel III der NCII:.eit (1:51) ( Leipzig, 1867- 1868), I , 429.

34. Franz Miklosich and Joseph Muller, Acta et diplomat" gflleca medii (l em sacra et pro/(//I(J ( 1:43) ( Vienna, 1860-L887), v, 260-261.

3.'). Regllruing the brief reign or Constantine Lascaris, see B. Sinogowit7., "Ober das byzanlinische Kaisertmn nach dem IV KreUT.LUge (1204-1205) [Conceming the BY7.antine Empire after tIle fourth Crusade (120·1-1205)]," BZ, XLV (1952), 353-356.

36. See Jean Pappadopoulos, TileodQre 11 I..osctlris. ernpercur de NieCu (Paris, 1908). p . 24, fn.

37. See Villehardouin, La ConqulJ(c (7) . II , 267fT. 38. See Sathas, MFIJOU·.oV LXf) th6).tO{}~loj (2:23), I, 112. 39. Ibid .• VII, xxi. On Nicaea as It focal poillt of Creek studies, see Pappado­

poulos, TModorc (36), pp. 9-14. 40. An expression which would seem to correspond with that used by the

Metropoli tllll of Neopiltras, Euthymios Malakis: ""noo'UVa;im TE xCli, GUOXE\I(t(

[gatherings and assemblies of tIm peopler (Athanasios Papndopou los-Kera­mcus. "EU(hj~Hot; Ma}.{h(Jl~, f-l'l tQollo;.ln)t; Ntwv n (tTQwv [Euthymios Mnlakis, Metropolite of Nea Futfns]," 'EnE"rl](Jl; IT !lQvaolJoii. vn [ L903], 22).

41. Snthas, i\'IElJmw\'L)n'l 616},lOb~xll (2:23). I, 110. 42. Sec HeMme Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, " Ln Politiquc agraire des empereUT5 cle

NieCe," ByuIIIUon, XXVIlI (1958),51--66. 43. Satbas. MEIJIltWV(l'.l'\ 61/)"lOfull!.ll (2.: 23 ), I , 106-107, 110, 112, 113, 115,

122, 129, 131 fE. 44. See Stilpon Kyriakiclis, ForsclulIIgsbericll l ZIIIII Akritos-eI'OS (2:30)

(Munich, 1958), p. 23, abo p. 9; and Nicephoros Gl'egoras. PW~tat~~ lrn:oe1a [ ROI/1U1I His/onj], cd. Ludwig Schopen, I ( BOlin, 1829), 377.

45. See Kyriakidis, ForscllU"gsbcrlcht (230), p. 25. 46. Herbert Hunger. "Von Wissenschaft und Kllllst der rriihen Palaiolo­

genzeit [On Science and Art in Early Palaeologian Times]," JOBG, \'1Ii ( J959), 126-127.

47. Sec Pnppadopoulos, TModorc (36), p. 23.

NOTES-cHAP'TER :3

48. Stephano.~ Xanthoucliclis, ' H httOxQuTia EV KQ~TI1 y.ui ot XUTU t OW 'Ev£'t/lw aylilYf:!; t lilv K(Hrro:w (Venetian Rille ill Crele allff 1I1(! Struggles 01 tile Cretans against tIle Venetians ) ( Athens, 1939), pp. 37-43. Cr. nLID Freddy Thinet, La Rom(lIIie oCtlilian1lc all moyctl age ( Paris, 1959) , pp. 97-99.

49. XQ{ 1'1 GUt OC; u!t6 m Qu ijtchWOEV x' lltLUOEV 't6tcov to }.EyOIIEVOV l:Y.OlltOlllV E;(WV b680v Aumc:u!?(hov Il t 't' U{l~l tV IXOV uxavatv.

["And the bmmblc from ufar spread and pressed upon the p lace cnlled Scutari, having n scarlet rose and Armenian thorn."] In August Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johanne~ BlItalzes der Burmherzige. Eine mittelgriech ischc Legcllde [Emperor Johannes Batatzes the Charitable. A Middle-Creek Legend]," BZ, XIV (1905), 176; sec also Cyril l\Iango, "The Legend of Leo the Wise," Zbornik Rac/ovo (Reel/eil de fravau:c of the Institute of Byzantine Stm lies of Belgrade), LXV ( 1960), 110.6, 66-67.

50. Mango, "The Legend of Leo" (49 ), pp. 71 - 72. 51. Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Bata tzes" (49 ) , p . l BO. 52. See ClyKa t-Li.Ahnveiler, "La Poli tique" (42 ) , p. 66. 53. Only Je;m Pappadopoulos, in various p..1fts of his monograph Theodore

(36). speaks about the cul tivation of C reek studies in Nicaea and Theodore n 's lo" e of antiquity. See Nicetas Choniates, P OO\.Hiixl\ im oQia [Roman His· tory J. ed . Immanuel Bekker ( Bonn, 1835), p . 794: "XUI l\ uQiol1C; (Jurijc; l IU6ij"UI ·.wi 6l' 'EiJ.a6~ ~},{iOnl )Wi XElQwIJaafim 0 '1" lOU n [AOtcCH; [to a ttack Larissa itself and 10 march through Creece and seize the Peloponnese]." C r. p. 860: "tv 'A i<'l i(p, 6 EOTt\' i ) xn3' 'E)'Mlin N nt01tol..t.; [in Actium, which the Greeks call NikopolisJ."' See a lso Spyridon L1mbros, IVhxuit:t 'Axottt vchou "to. (f{j)~6~EVCl (2 :47 ) (Athens, J879) , 1-11, passim.

54. See loannis SakeUion, .. 'Avtxbo'tOl; f tcuJLoJ.Tt TOU U,'/TOXQ(.hO(IO; '.I wav,'ou AO"Ih.u B u"turol\ tcQO;: TO" n: utcav r Ql]YO QlOV, a vE"tlQd n:ioa tv n OTllf~) [An Unpublished Leiter from the Emperor Ioannis Ducas Vatatzes to Pope Gregory, Discovered in PatlnosJ." 'A1hlvutO" , I ( 1872), 369-378 ( wrongly numberccl ) .

55. Pappadopoulos, TModore (36), p . 13. 56. Nicola Festa, T lleoclori Ducae ulscaris epistu /ae CCXVII [217 Letters

of Theodore Ducas Luscarls] ( F lorence, 1898 ) , pp. 165, 176: ·'tln:6Tav at 0 l1aVtEQwTUTO!; 1111't(Wl'to}'ITl]C; l:d(l()EWV £x TijC; EUQWl111t;" £1((1vO.-31\ tcQOIO 'to VJ.11Vtl16v [when the most reverend metropolite of Sardes comes from Europe to Greece}." See his letter to Phocas. the metropolitan of Sardes: '"l:u at rc6T' ltv tx t:ij c; EU(lWml~ uVEA-3U C; d~ -01" 'ElJ.u6u· tcOT' It,, at Y.U~ -01" 8 WXI]V lll.EJ.{)wv 'tov ' EIJ.itOl1"OVTOV lilUJtEQu unc; xui nl" EOW 'Aulu,' xUTII) Il;:; [And when will )'ou come to Greece from Europe, and when, passing through Thrace and crossing the Hellespont. will ),OU look upon Asia on the OPPOSi te side?}"

57. On the extent of T heodore II 's state, see Pappad opoulos, T Mo(/(lfe (36), pp. 56-S7.

284 N~3

58. Festa, TllCor/ori (56), I'p . 58, 62-03, 252-253: "lTI!O~ nlv <(ll/.iruwu xei'.aTllvn'P~O"'E \1 y.uf yij\' Hh:nO(l!1POU. i1tJtIJ'tE. niv 'Ai.E ;u"bQou l'tOrE (lY.\lI.t:uo­~tivllV xai j'Hu~o!1ivll" 1t(lQtl. BUUAYUl'WV OJ,lyoatWV uofhvwv [we came to the land or Philip and Alc.'mndcr lm d looked UpOI1 it, 0 noblest, that which was ravished from very few nnd powerless Oulgarians] ," and p. 268.

59. Ibid., p. J07. For some liternry reflL'Ctions on his leuer to George Acro­politis, see Sophie Antoniadis. "Sur une IcUre de Thl'Otiore n Lascnris." I-Ie ll . contcmp., 1954, pp. 356-361.

60. SalhlLS, MEOUWlVlY.tl 6l(i),IO{h'pol (2:2.'1). \ 11 . 507. 535-536. 61. For details, sec 1)nppadopollios. Thc(}(iorc (36). pp. 85--89. For Theo­

dore U's nvownl, see Festa, 'l' /' l'Ollorl (56) . p. 272. 62.. For extracts from Theodore II's prni.~, see !)app:lc1opoulos, TModore

(36), p. 86. On the question of the rc(:onciliation between cLusical Jeanting and Christian tllcology. S(.'e J-JulI/o:cr, bVon W',sellschufC' (46). pp. 136-138. Theodore's encomium wnli publi.~hed hy Ludwig Bachmann in Tllcod()ri Ducae LoSCliriS illlllerator/$ ill lUlu/em Nil'acae urM, oralio [TI,e Emperor rhcooor(' Duces Ulsctlris' Speech in Praise o/lhe City 0/ Niecee) ( Ilostock, 1847).

63. See Hunger, "Von Wis.senschnft" (46) . p. 137, where the relevant ex-tructs will be found.

64. See Johannes Draseke, "Theodoros Lascnris," BZ. UI ( 1894), 500. 65. Festa, TII(..-OOor/ (56), p. 8. 66. Ibid., pp. 201-21 l, for his letterll to Pope Alcxnnder IV and the car­

dinals Hicardo, Octavia!)o, tint! Peter the CUPIlZ;'.o. 67. Ibid., p. 52. for his letter to his teacher, Blemmydcs. 68. See Pappauopoulos. TlI6otlore (36). pp. 79-89, nnd Festa, TJwooori

(56), p . 58. 69. George Pachymeres, ~\JYYll{J,qm(tl\ IfltoQiuL [ lf istories], ed. Immanuel

Bekker (Bonn, 1835), I , 37--38. Cf. PI'. 24 , 33; nnd Gcorge Acropolit is, Opera, ed. August Heisenberg (Leipzig. 19(3). I . 123-J24; lind Pappadopoulos. Theodore (36). pp. 79, 8L

70. See loannis K. Voyntzidh, .. ' I I l\IfYU}"1 ' Iata [The Creat Idea)." Hell. oonterllp., commemorative volumes, 1453--1953 (Athens, 1953). pp. 307 H.; and his okler shldy ... '11 UI.lXl'l xul ;1 E;iAI~L'; f~; :\I£yJ).ll; ' IbiD; (The Origin and Evolution of the Creal Idea)," H;\IE. 1923, pp. 161-171. In connection with the double-headed eagle. sec Giuseppe Gemla, "L'Aquila bizantina imperi:lle U due teste [The B)'7A'lntinc Impcri:11 Eagle with Two He.'ldsl ," Feli.T RtWCllrIU, J943, fuse. I , pp. 7-36, where the early hihlio~,'Tllphy will also be found_

71. After a while, the liberated part of the Peloponnesc with its capital at Mistm became an importullt center of Greek resistance against the Frankish conquerors lind a bright l>e:tcon or civili 'l.nllon. The Church of Sts. Theodore was built there between .1290 and 1295 (scc Anastasios Orlandos, "I.'i.uvn'j}, b ltgWTQ; XThw{l {w\' 'Ay. efO~Q(I)\' rou l\JUo-t{lcl [ Daniel, the First Founder of the Church of St.~. Theodore of Mistr.ll," EEB!, XII [1936], ,143-448 ). [n 1291- 1292 lhtl Chu rch of St. Demot rios wns built by Nkephoros Mos· chopoulos, Metropolitan of Lncoocmonia (.'Icc Manoussos ManoussaClIs, .. ' H

NOTES-CHAPTER 3 285

X(wvo}.Oy1U T~t; ;:nToQl;:lj t; €lIlY()U{P~t; TOU 'Ay. 6 IUIl]T(lIOll TOU l\1lltHQa [The Dilte of the Dedicatory l11scription of the Church of Saint Demetrios of Mistm]:' 6.XAE, IV, 1 [1959] . 72-79 ). While in Mistra at the cnd of the thir teenth century and the beginnillg of the four teenth century, this latter Church h ier­arch and scholnr, },,'Ietropolitun of Lacooemonia and J'[(loEll{JOt; of Crete, also made artistic copies of ancient Greek and Christian manuscripts or com mis­sioned their copying by others. His annotated codices, which have survived to this day, bear witness to the richness of his own libmry (I\Ianoussacas, "N t% lj<pOQOU MoaX0ltouf.OU bet YPUflflaTU DE Xf.l(}()y(lucpa Tij; lh6}.I0/}~;: 11; "[Oll [The Epigrams of Nicephol'os Moschopoulos in t ile Manuscripts of His Li­brary] ," 'ElJ.1jVIX!:I . xv L1957] , 232---2,16) . In 1310 the Church of Panagia Hodegelria ('AcpEV'tlXOU) was also built (see Ma nolis Chatzidakis, MUOT(!o.; [Athens, 1948], p. IS).

72. Sec Thiriet, La Romonie (48), pp. 145-146, for the relevant bibliogra. phy.

73. Ibid., pp. 152---153. For details, see Stephanos Xanthoudidis, 'H hno­xpuTla h, Kglrrn (48 ), pp. 45-74.

74. Ibid., pp. 134, 149-150, ]52. Of course, Venice relinquished her plans to tc-estab lish the Latin control of the Near East only af ter a long: time (see pp. 155 if.).

75. Sec Pach ymeres, :£uYYl'{l.(pl%ui io"tot>iw (69),11,209; "oil; K(H1H]{tEv 1tgooxwlHloan(ll; (jam}.Ei w; ,.111 %aml)f. Z0f.!€VOut; n'lv Ex TWV ' h n}.Wv Eitl;:QU­TEla" Iwho. going over to the king, from Crete, as if not accepting tllO dominion of the Italians]." Regarding their leader, George Chortatzes, sec pp. 22 1 if.

76. See Karl H opf, Griecht; Il/and illl Mittdalter llI1d ill der Nellzcit (1 :51) (Leipzig. 1867- 1868), I , 464; and Thiriet, La Romonie (48), p. 161. On Sanudo. see the article hy Giovanni B. Picotti , "Salludo, Marin, i1 vecchio," ill Enciclopedio i/CI/iana, xxx ( Rome, 1936) ,801-802.

77. See Steven RUllciman, "Byzantine and Hellene ill the Fourteenth Cen­tury," TOfln;: Kwv01:aVtlVOu 'AQfIEV OJ'[o\·Ji.ou btl "til f~ay'O(HE tl](lll)l T~;: ' E~a-6i6i.ou aiiroii, VI (Thessalonica, 1952) (= NOll .. :EZ. TIavEl't1.oHU110u 0f.ooa­}.ov[;.:ll':;, btlOt ll fl Ol'lX~ fl'tftllQl':;, TOflO; ;'), 29; and Tafrali, T"c.~saIOlliC/lle (7), p. 157. Since hc mcunt Lesbos when he wrote to Manuel. Chrysoloras in 1404, Manuel Calecas used the word Nclll/oS wi th its p resent-day connotation (Haymond Locnertz, Corres/JOndllJlce de MliflUe/ Co/ecIM' [Rome, 19501. p . 300) . CL Kilian Lechner, H ellene l! lind Darbf/rell illl WeltbiM der By:.tmtiller (2 :4 ) (Munich , 1955) , pp. 64---72.

78. Sec Raymond Loenert?:, /Jemetrius Cydones, correspollliance (Vatican City, 1956), 1, 3, 12, 20, 96. 100, ll5; II (1960) . 56. 57, 62, 66 IT. , pll.\'~'jm.

79. Giovallni Mercali, Nolde di Procoro c /Jeme/rio Cirf07w, t\ll/Iwele Caleca e Theodoro Mditelliota cd altri lIppl/llti pt;r La storill dellll leolo~j(l (; della /et/eraillra iJiUl7l!illll del secolo XIV [Notes cOllccmillg Proconls, Deme­lrius Kydollcs, Malluel C(I/ecas, Theo(Lore Melitcl!iota, l/flt! Olher Remarks OIl

the History of Byumtine Theology wul Literature ill the Fourteellth Cellillry] (Vatican City, 1931), p. 365: "01. yap TJfIE1:E()Ol 1tQ6n:pov fl€V .~t;; 1tft/.(lUI; {)1!llQ€OEW; dXOVTO ;Wl ;[(/.vra; av{t(!(.Il1tOU; d; " E!J.llva; ;:(11 6C1.g6ugou;

286 NOTES-cJfAl"TER (3

/)~1.0,(Ol-louvtt~ .0 nne' nmO\!'; nav dv6l]tov 4lov-ro xat O"lI.aU)V, 6vwv 11 60Wv tou,; J.OIn:OU~ oul\n~lii 6E}.·tiOUli ,jYOlJI-lEVOl (Since fonner ly our people held to the ancient division and, separating al l men into Hellenes and barbarians, considered everything beyond Lhemselves senseless and rude, thinking the rest no better thnu donkeys or oxenJ, "

80. See, for example, Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La Conquete (7 ), passim. According to an old traditioll , the word r'QlllX~ was used in !he Creek lan­guage at that time (Vasily Vnsilevsky. "Epirolica sReculi XlU [3;21]," Viz. Vrem ., UI (1896) , p. 252). See also Joseph Bryennios, TO. nCt(,>aA£W'tofIEVCI

(2:22), ed. Thomas Mandaknssis ( Leipzig. 1784), 1Il, 148, and passim. Cf. Panagiotis Christou , At )'[f;(ImEttlal T~)V tavlKWV 6vOj.lO:twv TWV 'EI.111vwv [The Vicissitudes of thc National N(lmc~' of the Greeks] (Thessalonica, 1960), pp. 37-39.

81. Bertrandon de 1a Brocquiere. Voyage d'-Olltrelllcr et rclour de Jerusalem (:II France '1)(1r III voie de terre. pendant Ie cour,~ des annees 1432 et 1433, ed. Pierre Legrand D'Auss)" in M emoire,f de fJn$filut lIolional des sciences et arts; sciences lIIorales ct poliUqucs, , . ( Paris, fructidor an XII ). p. 569: (An­drcnoply) .. la p lus forte de toutes cclles que Ie Turc possMe drills la Grece [the strongest of all those which the Turk possesses in Greecel." See Pero Talur, Travels and Adventures, 1435-1439. IT. Malcolm Letts (New York­London, 1926), p. 128.

82. See Giannis Tozis, .. '0 VJ' '1\'IY.c$I; y.6o~tO; y.o:tU "t6v It..' utiiwu, 5n:w~ -r6\' £l~E\' lvw; ' Ian:avoo; 1tE(ltl\Y'lnl~ [The Creek World in the Fourteenth Cen­tury; How a Spanish Traveler Viewed It]," ASrAS, XXII (1957). p . 150: ",jQ{ta 0.,'\ M£(nll.l6(1ia Xl' 'in:6 l'.£i o"t~ Ba(Jva. ' Eliw d val;\ it1'I{}tv~ 'E.llciaa II went to Mesembria , and from there to Varna. Here is the real Greece]."

83. Festa, Theodori (56), p. 176. This use of Hellos was retained from the time of the church historian, Evagrius, in the sixth century, which circum· stance, as Tozis aUempts to cOlwince us, at least helps to explain the obscure sentence, "ot "AQa6EO; ... 'AyxiaAOV"IE XUL n'\v 'Walla.v n:aoClv [The Arabs ... Anchialos and all of Hellas]" (Tozis, " '0 'EJ..1'lvlz6; (82). p. lSD, n. 2). See a lso Constantine Amrmtos, " n (lQUtl\Q~OELo; do; "tilv f.\ toalwvlxilv yEO)­

y(Ju<piav [Observations on Medieva l Geography/," EEBl:, 1 (1924). 42. Did Theodore's love of Greece lead 10 its revival?

84. Chronicle of Morea, ed. John Schmitt ( London, 1904). verse 794 fr.; and cd. Peter P. Kalonaros (Athens, 1940), verse 794 £I.

85. Sce Nikolaos Tomadakis, '0 'lwoll<P B(JlJEVVlO; -xai 1} KQijtll :.tUTU t6 1400 [Joseph Bryennios and Crete around 1400] (A lhens, 1947), pp. 73-74.

86. Karl Hopf, C/lroniqlles grcco-romanes ( Berlin. 1873), p. 143. See also Michael Dendias, "Sur les rapports enlre Ics Crecs ct les Francs en Orient apres 1204," EEBl:, XXIII (1953), p. 377. This study. as the author says (p. 371), is extracted from the introduction to his unpublished monograph on the Creek despot-ate of Epirus.

87. Sec Mnvrophrydis, 'Ez},Oyll I-'VlJf.ltiW\' (33), I , 183-2I J; and Antoine Cidel, £lIldes sur In litlcmlllre grecqllC mademe (Paris, 1866), pp. 63-64, 197-229.

NOTES-CHA.J>TER 4 287

88. See Dirk Hes.'Icling, L'AcltlfMide byu mlille (Amsterdam, 1919), p. 15. 89. Const:mlille Sathns, "Le Homan d'A(:hi1lc," AAEEG, X1l1 (1879 ); and

Paolo Stomeo, "Achilleide, poema bizantino anonimo,"' Stud; salcntiJli, Leece­Cnlatina, "II ( 1959), 156-157. Stomeo places its origins somewhere l>etween the twelfth ecntury and the beginning of the fifteenth. Sec also Borje Knos, L'His/oire de la IitlCm/ure neogrocq uc (Stockholm-Coteborg-Uppsaln, 1962), pp. 133-137.

90. See Hesseling, L'Acltillcide (88), pp. 9, 11. 91. Paolo Stomeo, Osserr;az.iOlli sull'Acldlieide bizll7lfina ( Leeee-Gnlatina,

1958 ), pp. 5-6. 92. See "'Ionoussos Manoussacas, "Le!; Romans byzantines de chevalerie ct

retnt present des etudes les coneemanl," HEB, x (1952), pp. 70-83; and Emmanuel Krlaras, "Die zeilliche Einreihung des 'Phlorios und Platzia-Phlora' Romans im Hinblick auf den 'Imbcrios und Margarona' Roman IThe Chrono­logical Place of the 'Phlorios and Plalzia-Phlora' Romance in regard to the Imberios and Margaronn Romance] ," XI~ Congres Intemntional des etudes b},z.1nlines, Munich, 1958, Aklcll (Munich, 1960), pp. 269-272. For an op­posing view. see Hugo Schreiner, "Oer oliesl"e Imbcriostext [The Oldesl Im­berios Text}." XI" Congres international des eludes byzantines, Munich, 1958, Ak/en (Munich, 1960 ), pp. 556-562. A more comprehensive analysis of Ole novels and the various problems associated with them \vill be found in Knos. L'llis/oire (S9), I , 104 ff.

93. See Ioannis Romllnos, ' I O'O{H)O(U EQyn [Historical Works] (Corfu , 1959), pp. 173-175, where the relevant bibliogntphy will nlso be found.

e /lap/cr 4

L See Herbert Hungers commcnts in "Von Wissenschaft und Kunst in der friihen Palaiologenzeit" (3 :46), JOBG, VUI (1959). 139-144.

2. Ibid., pp. 145, 147. See Wi!amowitz' comparison: "D.T. ist in der Wnhrheit eher als der crste madcme Tragiker-kritiker zu flihren [D.T. is, indeed, to be considered rather the first modern tragedian-critic]."

3. See Basileios Laourdns, " But nvrtvu Yonl flna6 ul;n\'Ll\'cl tyl'..wfua d o; .o\' "Ay. Al1!-1~t(lLO\' [Byzantine and Post-BY7,antine Encomia of St. Demetrius] ," l\1Ui'.f;t\O\,lKU. IV (1955-1960),84 fr., 142-143.

4. See Pol}'chronis Enepekidcs, "Oer Bricfwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos Kabasilas [The Correspondence of the Mystic Nicholas KavasilnsJ." BZ, XLVI

(1953). 31. 5. See Bnsileios Laourdas, ' H :.!oJ-nom;!.!'1 qllAOAOYI(1 d~ nl\' 9Eooa}.oVLy.11V

xrmi. . 0'" MY.«.ov Ltm()tO\' alii:wn [Classical Philology in Thessalonica in the Fourteenth Century) (Thessalonicn, 1960). 13-15, where there is also a special bibliography.

6. Hunger, "Von Wissenschaft" (3 :46), pp. 148-149, 150-15 1. 7. For the date of his birth, his life, and his education, see Herbert Hunger,

~Theodoros Mctochites als VorliiuFer des Humanismus in Byzan"T. [Theodore Metochitcs n.~ the Forerunner of Humanism in Byzantium] ," BZ, XL\' (1952 ), 4-19. See also Hans-Georg Beck, TIWOOorO$ Mctoc/d/es (Munich, 1952), 1 ff.