Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:34:07.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Byzantine ‘Nationalism’ and the Nicaean Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Michael Angold
Michael Angold*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fall of Constantinople on the night of 13 April 1204 to the Venetians and the soldiers of the fourth crusade is taken as the crucial turning point of the history of the later Byzantine Empire. For many the final period of Byzantine history is nothing but the pathetic survival of a state built on the memories of its former greatness. This is in many ways far too gloomy a picture. Constantinople was to be recovered by the Byzantines in 1261; and we should not forget that the last centuries of Byzantium saw a flowering of Byzantine art and scholarship. This achievement naturally directs our attention to the period of exile, when the foundations of this ‘Last Byzantine Renaissance’, as it has been called, were laid. In exile the Byzantine Empire was re-established and the Byzantine heritage preserved, at a time when both appeared to be in danger of being recreated in a Latin image, for a Latin emperor and a Latin patriarch had been established in Constantinople in place of the Byzantine emperor and the Byzantine patriarch. The fall of Constantinople, indeed, produced a feeling of fatalism and despondency among the Byzantines. There was a tendency to accept the Latin conquest. The peasantry of Thrace even took pleasure in the discomfiture of the Byzantine aristocrats and intellectuals of Constantinople. Some Byzantine magnates attempted to organize resistance to the Latin conquest, but even this, at least in the aftermath of the fall of Constantinople, was probably done in the hope of securing a favourable bargaining position with the Latins. One of the great Byzantine magnates of Thrace, the Caesar Theodore Vranas, entered the ranks of the Latin aristocracy. Even Michael Angelos, the founder of what we have come to know as the Despotate of Epiros, was willing to submit for a short while to the authority of the Latin emperor.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 1 , 1975 , pp. 49 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Choniates, Nicetas, Historia (CSHB), p. 785 Google Scholar, ll. 7-17. 49

2. Longnon, J., L’Empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée (Paris, 1949), pp. 64, 134 Google Scholar.

3. Nicol, D. M, The Despotate of Epiros (Oxford, 1957), pp. 28–9 Google Scholar.

4. Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, translated by Joan Hussey (2nd edition, Oxford, 1968), p. 428 Google Scholar and n. 2.

5. Darrouzès, J., ‘Les discours d’Euthyme Tornikès (1200-1205)’, REB, XXVI (1968), 82–3 Google Scholar.

6. Browning, R., Greece—Ancient and Medieval (London, 1966), p. 16 Google Scholar; and in JHS, XCII (1971), 214-15.

7. Runciman, S., The Last Byzantine Renaissance (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 15–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Vacalopoulos, A. E., The Origins of the Greek Nation: the Byzantine Period (1204-1461) (New Brunswick, N.J., 1970)Google Scholar.

9. Mango, C., in JHS, LXXXVIII (1968), 256–8 Google Scholar.

10. Mango, C., ‘Byzantinism and Romantic Hellenism’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXVIII (1965), 30–4 Google Scholar.

11. Irmscher, J., ‘Nikâa als “ Zentrum des griechischen Patriotismus” ‘, Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Européennes, VIII (1970), 33–47; J. Irmscher, ‘Nikaa als “ Mittelpunkt des griechischen Patriotismus” ‘, Byzantinische Forschungen, IV (1972), 114–37 Google Scholar.

12. Irmscher, ibid., 137.

13. Dieten, J. A. Van, Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae (Corpus Fontium HistoriaeByzantinae) (Berlin/New York, 1972), p. 205 Google Scholar, 11. 26-30.

14. Ibid., pp. 127-8, 146-7, p. 175, 11. 24-35; , ed. Sp. Lampros (Athens, 1879-80), I, pp. 354-5; II, pp. 257-61, 276-7, 336-7.

15. Oikonomidès, N., ‘Cinq actes inédits du patriarche Michel Autôreianos’, REB, XXV (1967), 118, 11. 37–46 Google Scholar.

16. Dräseke, J., ‘Theodoras Laskaris’, BZ, III (1894), 512–13 Google Scholar.

17. See Ducellier, A., ‘Mentalité historique et réalités politiques: l’Islam et les Musulmans vus par les Byzantins du XlIIème siècle’, Byzantinische Forschungen, IV (1972), 31–63 Google Scholar.

18. See Beck, H.-G., ‘Sénat und Volk von Konstantinopel’, Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1966, esp. pp. 71–5 Google Scholar.

19. Grumel, V., ‘L’authenticité de la lettre de Jean Vatatzès, empereur de Nicée, au pape Grégoire IX’, Echos d’Orient, XXIX (1930), 452–4 Google Scholar.

20. Nicol, D. M., The Despotate of Epiros, p. 92 Google Scholar.

21. Blemmydae Nicephori, Curriculum Vitae et Carmina, ed. Heisenberg, A. (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 41–2 Google Scholar.

22. Lappa-Zizicas, E., ‘Un Traité inédit de Théodore II Lascaris’, Actes du Vie Congrès international d’Etudes Byzantines, I (Paris, 1950), pp. 119–46 Google Scholar.

23. Svoronos, N., ‘Le serment de fidélité à l’empereur byzantin et sa signification constitutionelle’, ibid., pp. 195–6 Google Scholar.

24. Pachymeris, Georgii, de Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis libri tredecim (CSHB), I, pp. 42–6 Google Scholar, esp. p. 45, 1. 16-p. 46, 1. 6.

25. Ibid., esp. p. 44, ll. 2-4, p. 44, l. 18-p. 45, l. 3.

26. Ibid., p. 50, ll. 2-5, ll. 12-14.

27. Ibid., p. 52, ll. 10-12.

28. See Obolensky, D., The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe, 500-1453 (London, 1971), pp. 308–13 Google Scholar; Obolensky, D., ‘Nationalism in Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, ser. v, XXII (1972), 1–16 Google Scholar.

29. Pachymeres II, pp. 400-2; Heisenberg, A., ‘Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige’, BZ, XIV (1905), 193–235 Google Scholar.

30. Obolensky, , The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp. 240—3 Google Scholar.

31. Angold, M.J., ‘The Problem of the Unity of the Byzantine World after 1804: the Empire of Nicaea and Cyprus’, II (Levkosia, 1972), pp. 1–6 Google Scholar.

32. Stiernon, L., ‘Les origines du despotat d’Epire (suite)’, Actes du Xlle Congrès d’Etudes Byzantines. Ochride 1961, II (Belgrade, 1964), pp. 197–202 Google Scholar.

33. Nicol, D. M., ‘Ecclesiastical Relations between the Despotate of Epiros and the Kingdom of Nicaea in the years 1215 to 1230’, B, XXII (1952), 207–28 Google Scholar; Loenertz, R.-J., ‘Lettre de Geroges Bardanès, métropolite de Corcyre, au patriarche oecuménique Germain II, 1226-1227 c.’ EEBS, XXXIII (1964), 87–118 Google Scholar.

34. Hoeck, J. M. and Loenertz, R.-J., Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto, Abt von Casóle: Beitrãge zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen Beziehungen unter Innozenz III. und Friederich II (Studia Patristica et Byzantina, II) (Ettal, 1965), pp. 158–9 Google Scholar.

35. Blemmydes, , p. 36, 11. 16-19, p. 62, 11. 11-21. Cf. Blemmydae, Nicephori, Epistulae, Appendix III of Theodori Ducae Lascaris Epistolae, ed. Festa, N. (Florence, 1898), pp. 320–4 Google Scholar.

36. Blemmydes, pp. 41-5, 88-9. Cf. Acropolites, I, pp. 106-7.

37. Blemmydes, pp. 45-7.

38. Ibid., pp. 47-8, p. 89, ll. 9-13.

39. Miklosich, F. and Millier, J., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (Vienna., 1860-90), IV, p. 203 Google Scholar, ll. 19-22.

40. Acropolites, I, p. 108, 11. 2-4.

41. Ibid., pp. 76-7.

42. E.g. Dmitrievskij, A., (Kiev, 1895), I, pt 1, p. 790 Google Scholar, 11. 25–6: .

43. Acropolites, I, p. 167, ll. 20-3; Pachymeres, I, p. 137, ll. 10-15.

44. Acropolites, I, p. 166, ll. 5-7.

45. Theodore Laskaris, p. 165, ll. 23-4, p. 176, ll. 52-3.

46. See Hunger, H., ‘Von Wissenschaft und Kunst der frühen Palaiologenzeit’,JOBG, VIII (1959), 128 Google Scholar.

47. Nicole, J., ‘Bref inédit de Germain II, patriarche de Constantinople (Année 1230), avec une recension nouvelle du chrysobulle de l’empereur Jean DucasVatacès’, REG, VII (1894), 77 Google Scholar, l. 12.

48. See Browning, R., inJHS, XCII (1971), 214 Google Scholar; Beck, H.-G., ‘Reichsidee und nationale Politile im spatbyzantinischen Staat’, BZ, LUI (1960), 92 Google Scholar. An example from the period of exile shows how ‘Hellene’ was used to emphasize the differences between Byzantine and Latin. Nikephoros Blemmydes (p. 4, 1. 17) refers to north-western Asia Minor which was still under Latin rule when he visited it, as not yet being under ‘the sceptre of the Hellenes’.

49. Theodore Laskaris, pp. 8-10.

50. Ibid., pp. 174-5.

51. Miklosich and Mullier, op. cit., IV, pp. 235-6.

52. Theodore Lascaris, p. 281, 11. 73-4.

53. Nicetas Choniates, pp. 796-7, p. 814, 11. 16-19.

54. Dõlger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostr’ômischen Reiches, III (Munich-Berlin, 1932), no. 1817 Google Scholar.

55. Gregoras, I, pp. 43-4.

56. Theodore Lascaris, pp. 58-9.

57. Lameere, W., La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance de Grégoire de Chypre, patriarche de Constantinople (1283-138c) (Brussels/Rome, 1937), p. 181 Google Scholar, 11. 15-23.

58. See Toynbee, A., Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World (Oxford, 1973), pp.73–4 Google Scholar.

59. See Angold, M.J., A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261) (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar.

60. Pachymeres, I, pp. 153-7.

61. See Mango, C., ‘Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder’, DOP, XXII (1963), 69 Google Scholar.

62. See Masai, F., Pléthon et le platonisme de Mistra (Paris, 1956), pp. 66–101 Google Scholar, esp. pp. 87-8; Barker, E., Social and Political Thought in Byixmtium (Oxford, 1957), pp. 196–219 Google Scholar.

63. See H.-G. Beck in BZ, LIII (1960), 86-94.