Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire

by Judith Herrin

  To the Byzantines the friars seemed unlike other westerners. They were imbued with Christian ideals such as poverty and humility, and unlike the crusading clergy they did not take part in fighting. Byzantine disapproval of armed western clergy had stoked anti-Latin feeling after 1204 and also reinvigorated orthodox opposition. But the educated friars seemed anxious to engage with Greek theology, rather than condemn it outright, and many debates conducted at Nicaea set the stage for later attempts at church union. Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV supported exploratory talks, though they refused to authorize another universal council. And Emperors John III and Theodore II both played major roles in directing and presiding over the negotiations. In his letter to Pope Alexander IV (1254–61), Patriarch Arsenios of Nicaea (1254–60, later Patriarch of Constantinople, 1261–65), emphasized the utterly crucial role of the emperor: no question concerning a possible reunion of the churches could be raised without his participation. The danger of this position, which was strengthened by the Nicaean experience, was that the emperor would usurp patriarchal functions and thus overturn the delicate balance between civil and ecclesiastical powers.

  After the Latin occupation of 1204, Byzantium was never the same and anti-western sentiment expanded, intensifying memories of the sack. On the other side, the embattled Latin Empire of Constantinople never had sufficient manpower to create a flourishing society. Like other western enclaves in the Near East, it made constant appeals to the West for armed knights to assist in its defence. The Venetians sustained its trade, Franciscan and Dominican friars converted Byzantine churches to western use, and the dynasty established by Baldwin of Flanders made judicious marriages with other powers in attempts to increase its strength. Christian rivalry of course also reduced the possibility of a reunion of the churches. Orthodox loyalty resisted all western attempts to secure ‘the submission of the church of Constantinople to the church of Rome’, and this refusal then became the stumbling block to further crusading cooperation against the Turks. This complex relationship was in its infancy in the summer of 1261, when the naval commander of Nicaea had the good fortune to learn that the entire Venetian fleet had gone on campaign in the Black Sea, leaving Constantinople undefended. He immediately took possession of the capital in the name of Michael Palaiologos, protector of the boy emperor John IV Laskaris, who became the first Greek ruler to re-occupy the heart of Byzantium.

  26

  Rebels and Patrons

  Among us [the poor], the tillers of the soil, the builders of houses and merchant ships and the craftsmen are drawn… and who comes from among you?… Gamblers, voluptuaries, people bringing public calamities with their greediness, disrupters of civic order, spreading poverty.

  Alexios Makrembolites, Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor, first half of the fourteenth century

  Behind the façade of unchanging hierarchy, cultivated by the ceremonies of the imperial court, there was considerable flexibility, social mobility and innovation in Byzantium, as we have seen. Both before and after 1204, ‘good birth’ was naturally recognized as a qualification for the elite category of rulers – both civil and clerical – and educated administrators. Similarly, those in charge assumed that people born into families of low status, who were settled on the land in agricultural labour or in urban trading activities, should continue in those positions. Education and the army provided avenues of upward mobility, and marrying into an established family was also a common method of social advancement. Conversely, the emperor’s power to confiscate property and exile opponents created some dramatic downward movement. But among underprivileged members of Byzantine society, higher status, however urgently desired, usually remained out of reach.

  The imperial notion of taxis (order), however, could not imagine any change in rule by the elite. At the first sign of popular unrest, contemporary authors denounced the mob and its ambitions, using terms such as demokratia (rule by the people) and ochlokratia (mob rule). In Constantinople, crowds might be organized by the Blues and Greens, but they could also take to the streets spontaneously to protest against unpopular policies. In 1203, when he fled from the city, Alexios III Angelos is reported to have said that the people were ‘intent on turmoil’, and ‘infected with instability’. They were also the first to welcome Byzantine forces back to the city in July 1261. The Latin emperor, Baldwin II, and the Latin patriarch immediately left for the West, together with the Franciscan and Dominican monks.

  Byzantine rule was restored to Constantinople. One month later, Michael VIII Palaiologos, who had usurped power, walked into the city of Constantine behind an icon of the Virgin on 15 August, the feast of her Dormition (or Assumption), which was already famous in the life of the empire, and gave thanks in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia for the liberation of Constantinople from Latin rule. He had never seen the Queen City, which had been neglected by the Latins. Michael and his wife, Theodora, were crowned for the second time in Hagia Sophia by the restored Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos, and the emperor commissioned a new mosaic of Christ flanked by the Virgin and the Baptist for the church’s gallery. Following imperial tradition, he put up his own honorary column at the church of the Holy Apostles. Churches used by Latin priests were restored to the orthodox rite and the city walls were strengthened by new fortifications. The Venetian merchants were punished for their role in 1204 by exile from the city, and the Genoese, re-established in their own quarter in Pera, took over control of international trade.

  After this triumphant return, Michael had the legitimate emperor, John IV Laskaris, blinded and thus made incapable of ruling, though he lived on for forty years. The usurper, like Basil I, founded his rule in violence, but established the Palaiologan dynasty, which, like the Macedonian, lasted for nearly two hundred years. Despite civil wars in the 1320s and 1340s, a Palaiologos occupied the Byzantine throne until the Ottoman conquest of the city in 1453. Most patronized the arts and erected new churches, monasteries and castles. Many were scholars; Manuel II wrote numerous treatises, including a Dialogue on religion between a Greek and a Turk, and another on the benefits of marriage; and all encouraged the remarkable flowering of Byzantine art and culture which is the hallmark of the late empire.

  Although Michael VIII Palaiologos re-established Byzantine rule in Constantinople in 1261, the rival empires of Epiros and Trebizond had no intention of submitting to him. He could claim authority only over the western provinces of Thrace, Macedonia, parts of the Morea (the Peloponnese), and the territory of the empire of Nicaea (western Asia Minor). His chief asset was control of the sea passage linking the Aegean with the Black Sea, which permitted Byzantium to tax merchandise moving in either direction, whence the modern name ‘Empire of the Straits’. This greatly reduced empire could not withstand the new threat of the Ottoman Turks, who added yet another divisive factor to the already fragmented Byzantium. There was no chance of a full imperial recovery after 1204.

  While many Turkish groups were still pastoral peoples, from about 1282 the tribe led by Osman/Othman (which became known as Ottomans) took over the campaign against Byzantium in the tradition of holy war. By overcoming underlying tribal rivalry, Osman managed to persuade the leaders of small emirates to join him in attacking the Byzantine province of Bithynia. Several major Byzantine landowners in the region who felt no loyalty to Michael VIII also went over to Osman on condition that they could continue to control their properties. Other Christian mercenaries served with Turks in units commanded by their own leaders, wearing their Byzantine uniforms and armed in the Greek style. With these additional forces, Osman was able to attack the strongly fortified ancient cities of Nicaea, Nikomedeia and Prousa. In 1302 a major victory in Bithynia opened the region to Turkish settlement, and just before Osman’s death, in 1326, his son Orhan captured Prousa after a prolonged siege.

  Orhan made it his capital, calling it Bursa, and continued to threaten the remaining Byzantine regions of western Asia Minor. Nicaea capitulated in March 1331 and Nikomedeia six years later. Orhan tr
ansferred his father’s remains to a grand new mausoleum (turbe) attached to the church of St Elias, now transformed into a mosque. Many later emirs and sultans constructed mosques and funerary structures in Bursa. Turkish administration of the conquered territory usually followed Byzantine practice, often using the same Christian officials to record land ownership, property rights and taxes due. With this strategic control over the eastern approaches to Byzantium, Orhan forced the empire to rely even more on its European hinterland. But not all his relations with Byzantium were hostile. He cooperated with Andronikos III (1328–41) in the emperor’s efforts to regain Phokaia (near Smyrna), which had become the centre of alum production under the Zaccaria family from Genoa. Alum is the substance which fixes colours and is vital to all dyeing processes, as well as in leatherwork and painting, and the alum mines had become highly profitable. Later, Orhan made an alliance with John VI Kantakouzenos and married his daughter Theodora. This was only one of several political marriages that united Turks and Byzantines. But during the civil war that broke out in 1341, the Turks and other neighbours of Byzantium were quick to intervene.

  When Andronikos III died in June 1341, his eldest son John was only nine years old. No clear provision had been made for a regency. The widowed empress, Anna of Savoy, was determined to protect her son’s rightful inheritance, and was initially supported by John Kantakouzenos, her husband’s closest adviser, who assumed the role of regent. But Patriarch John Kalekas also claimed the right to direct the regency, setting up a rivalry which Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks were quick to exploit. While Kantakouzenos left the capital in July 1341 to defend the empire, Kalekas plotted against him and persuaded the empress of his treacherous intentions. The property of the Kantakouzenos family in Constantinople was attacked and Anna ordered the disbanding of the army. In his bid to control the young emperor, Kalekas was supported by the Grand Duke Alexios Apokaukos, head of the fleet and eparch of Constantinople.

  In response, Kantakouzenos proclaimed himself emperor at Didymoteichon (Thrace) in October 1341, opening a civil war characterized by traditional aristocratic in-fighting. In Constantinople, Patriarch Kalekas excommunicated the ‘pretender’ (John VI Kantakouzenos) and crowned John V Palaiologos as emperor. The news of Kantakouzenos’ challenge to the ruling Palaiologan dynasty generated increased unrest, as people took sides for or against the rival emperors. But in a relatively new development an anti-aristocratic wave of violence swept through Adrianople, led by Branos, a labourer, who encouraged people to attack the properties of the rich. Since the Kantakouzenoi were extremely wealthy, there may well have been a good deal of pent-up ill feeling against them and the poor saw an opportunity to take revenge. In an entirely calculating fashion, Grand Duke Apokaukos supported them and appointed his son Manuel as governor of Adrianople. Apokaukos himself had only risen to a position of influence through the patronage of Kantakouzenos, who encouraged his ambitions and allowed him to amass considerable wealth. (Incidentally, some of this wealth he spent on commissioning manuscripts: a famous copy of Hippocrates, now in Paris (graecus 2144), displays his portrait as the donor. Apokaukos also supported medical practice, and the distinguished doctor and court physician John Aktouarios dedicated his work The Method of Medicine to him.)

  At this time, Thessalonike was a major port and an important centre of fourteenth-century learning and culture, represented by local scholars and painters, such as the anonymous artist who decorated the church of St Nikolaos Orphanos. The declaration by Kantakouzenos provoked an anti-aristocratic reaction within the city. Calling themselves Zealots (literally, ‘enthusiasts’, ‘zealous’ for their cause), they expelled the governor and set up a council of twelve archons to rule the city. In seizing political power they drew on a well-organized guild of seamen, who exercised influence in the port, itself a city within the city. Their rebellion appears to have won some support from those of moderate means (the mesoi, a recognized stratum of middle-ranking home-owners and proprietors, including Jewish merchants). For the next seven years, the Zealots effectively ruled the city and gained support in other centres. Since they officially declared for John V Palaiologos, Apokaukos again sought to win control over the city by appointing another of his sons as governor, but this seems to have had little effect on the Zealot council of twelve.

  Who were these unexpectedly successful rebels? The names of several leaders are recorded: Andreas Palaiologos, leader of the seamen’s guild; Alexios Metochites; Michael Palaiologos, who also served as archon until he was murdered on the orders of Apokaukos; and perhaps the most radical, George Kokalas, whose family was well represented in the area. Although Andreas and Michael share the name of the imperial family, they were not from its ruling circle; the relationship between Alexios Metochites and other members of that family is not known. Not many Zealots seem to have risen from the lowest levels of society, but they claimed to represent the poor against the depredations of the rich. Probably they succeeded because Thessalonike was a great port with a large number of sailors who protected their livelihood in some sort of guild. Certainly, they were able to form a militia led by Andreas Palaiologos to defeat the pro-Kantakouzenos faction.

  While the administrative arrangements put in place by the rebels remain obscure, it is evident that they managed the defence of the city against foreign enemies as well as supporters of Kantakouzenos. In 1343, when Umur, the Ottoman Emir of Aydin, sent 6,000 additional troops to reinforce a siege of the city, they held out defiantly. Two years later, the murders of Michael Palaiologos in Thessalonike and then of Grand Duke Apokaukos in Constantinople prompted the Kantakouzenos faction to try to throw out the Zealot council. But the Zealots retaliated by murdering Apokaukos’ son and all the pro-Kantakouzenos allies. Their bloodshed was condemned but no one could doubt their hold on the city. Indeed, when Gregory Palamas was appointed Metropolitan of Thessalonike in 1347, the Zealots prevented him from entering. It is not clear if they were opposed to the hesychast traditions of spiritual worship and mystical contemplation that he supported, or simply refused to accept any cleric chosen by Constantinople, but they effectively kept him out and retained control for two more years.

  Since most of the sources describing the Zealots are written by their opponents, it is difficult to work out what they stood for. Among historians of the period, Nikephoros Gregoras condemns the rebel government as ochlokratia– mob rule was truly dreadful to traditional Byzantines. Another account is provided by Demetrios Kydones, a native of Thessalonike, who wrote a monody for those killed in the 1345 uprising. This oration bemoans the ‘world turned upside down’ created by the Zealots, where slaves, peasants and villagers attacked their betters. He naturally takes the part of those aristocrats who suffered most, though he mentions that even the radical Zealot Kokalas was unable to save his son-in-law from being killed by the crowd. Similar concerns occur in letters written by Thomas Magistros, longtime resident of Thessalonike, addressed to friends in Constantinople. As a scholar and teacher of conservative views, Thomas was disturbed by the disorder of the Zealots, identified as good-for-nothing people, worth no more than three obols (pennies). He condemned their lack of respect for decent house-owners, people who invest in landed property and who maintain ancestral graves.

  In contrast to these predictable complaints, Alexios Makrembolites wrote a Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor which presents a number of issues that may well have motivated the Zealots. In this fascinating text, the speaker for the Poor accuses the Rich of numerous inappropriate attitudes and evil actions, particularly greediness, selfish exploitation of nature’s benefits, insatiable determination to seize and hoard as much as possible, and a preference for corporeal rather than spiritual values. In reply, the Rich tries to justify his superior situation and accuses the Poor of being at the origin of ‘theft, drunkenness, laxity, slander, envy and murder’. The Poor comments:

  The means of acquiring money are obvious to any intelligent man: some become rich through knowledge, or through trade, ot
hers through abstinence, still others through rapine, many through domination, or inheritance or similar paths. Opposite reasons lead others to poverty.

  But he is even more irritated by a series of humiliating social measures, including refusal to sit at the same table or to speak to the poor in normal discourse, or to permit the rich and poor to marry, a strategy which the Poor believes would cause poverty to disappear. Through sharing the abundance of the rich, ‘the mixing of opposites… produces, astonishingly enough, the salutary mean’. The extremes of difference are listed: elaborate food and good wines, fine clothing, elegant accommodation, good medical advice, front-row seats at assemblies, as opposed to bad bread and soured wine, one shabby cloak ‘full of filth and pestering lice’, and inadequate protection against the weather. ‘Conspicuous consumption’ at rich funerals (with splendid graves, psalms and chants, eulogies, candle-bearers, wailing relatives and mourning women) is contrasted with the humble burial ‘which contributes to a more splendid resurrection’. The Poor taunts the Rich, claiming that even Jews and Muslims look after their kin better than wealthy Christians, who fail to imitate Christ and deserve to be deprived of the rewards of the future life.

  Makrembolites was by no means a rebel. Like other fourteenth-century writers, he belonged to a group of literati – scholars who wrote speeches to be delivered at the imperial court and earned a living in the civil administration. But his interpretation of fourteenth-century developments, particularly the success of the Turks, made him more of a realist than others. He interpreted the collapse of the dome of Hagia Sophia in 1346 as a sign of the end of the world (although it was patched up again) and blamed the Byzantines for their sinful greed and immoral behaviour.