SOCIAL & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY BYZANTIUM AS DESCRIBED BY NICEPHOROS GREGORAS & JOHN CANTAKUZENOS

A Thesis by

ANASTASIO I. MOURATIDES

Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial 1\ù.film.ent of the requirement s for the Degree of Master of Arts.

DEPAR'IMENT OF HISTORY McGILL UNIVERSITY August, 1960. SOCIAL & ECONOEIC CONDITIONS IN THE FOURTEEN'rH CENTURY BYZANTIUM AS DESCRIBED BY

NICEPHOROS GREGOP~ & JOHN CANTAKUZENOS

CONTENTS

Foreword: ...... (i) Introduction: ...... (iii) CHAPTER: !,: Ethnographie Aspects of the Population ••• 1

CHAPTER: II: Rural and Urban Society .•.....•..•••••.•• 11 a) Poptù.a.tion ...... 13 b) Peasantcy ...... · · ... · · · · · · • 23 c) Land lv!agnates (Lay and Ecc1esiastical) 32

CHAPTER: III: Trade and Towns .•.•..••••.....•••••.••.•• 36

CHAP'.l]ili: IV: Financial and !~netary Criais ..•.••...••• 48 CHAPTER: y: The Social-Revolutionary :Hovement of the Zealot s ......

CHAPTER: VI: Religious Controversies in the Fourteenth Centucy ...... •. so a) Union of Churches •••...... •.••...•••• S2 b) The Arsenites ...... 90 c) The Hesychastic Movement ••••.•..•.••• lOO

CHAPTER: VII: Constitutional Deve1opments •.•....•....•• 114

CHAPTER: VIII: Criticism of Gregoras• and Gantakuzenos 1 Histories ...... 121 Conclusion ...... 136 Bibliograpey . . . . • ...... 144 Foreword

This study is based almost exclusively on the historical works of Nicephoros Gregoras and John Cantakuzenos and to a lesser extent on

Pachymeres' "De 1-lichaele Pal.aeologo" and 11De Andronico Pal.aeologo". George Pachymeres' writings are important for the early period of the reign of Andronicos II, and especially that of l•ti.chael VIn. The

"Roman History11 of Gregoras stands on a higher leve!. It covers the years following the conquest of Constantinople up to his death in

1359/60. Broadly speaking, the work is reliable, but with the narration of the Hesychastic controversy the histor,y loses its objecti­ vity and degenerates into a tendentious account. Cantakuzenos1 history begins with the accession of Andronicos III and ends with the abdication of the author. Cantakuzenos attempts to present the events in a faveur­ able light, although the facts and the information presented are reliable. Retired in a cloister from the vices and passions of the world, Cantakuzenos presents not a confession but an apology of the life of an ambitious states.man. His motives and those of his friends are alw~s pure and beyond reproach; their ends always legitimate; their conspiratorial ways and the violence they infl.ict on the :Empire are celebrated as the effect of virtue. His interpretations are misleading.

To clarif.y certain facts a liberal use of direct quotations in the footnotes was not only unavoidable, but desirable. The translations in the thesis leave much to be desired but in case there was an approved one expertly done by competent translators, that one was preferred.

(i) In the spelling of Greek names it is difficult to achieve consistency. The writer is compelled to take a stand against the rendering of Greek names through Latinization. Thus a direct trans­ literation has been chosen, except where the fonns were too strongly entrenched. The compromise may give cause for disagreement, but all writers observe P.J. Proudhon's motto: 11 C1 est mon opinion et je la partage • 11

(ii) Introduction

fuperor Michael VIII Palaiolo go s entered into a rich

inheritance. Byzantium at the time of his usurpation was a

prosperous and powerful :Empire with a flourishing agriculture, large

cities, expanding commerce and cultural efflorescence. He accepted

the idea of a united :Empire and made his influence felt all over

Europe. By the end of his reign he had incorporated into the nevly

re-established State most of the Despotats and the other independant

political entities which had been carved out of the pre-1204 Empire,

'While most of the Franki sh princi palitie s in continental Greece

acknowledged his authority by being his vassale.

Michael 1 s imperialistic policies had certain unavoidable consequences in the sphere of interna! and external politice. The desire to expel the Latins and liberate all the fonner territories of the Empire necessitated religious conceesi.ons to the Papacy wbich, of course, alienated the masses and stirred up political, social, and religious passions. Although revolutions and poli tical unreet among the population were common in Byzantium, the popular diecontent, as a result of high taxes, of the ever-present m.onetary and financial crises, and of the graduai impoverisl:ment, was refiected in the recurrent uprisings and in the tendency towards demande for self-rule and secession from the Empire. Rel igious movements, which in ef.fect refiect the extent of the class warfare in Byzantine society, bec ame endemie. The population became a force in the political field of fourteenth century

Byzantium.

(iii) In the field of intemal politics, Michael Palaiologos' complete disregard of the rights of the small landholders--peasants, soldiers--the grants to the ecclesiastical institutions, and the policy of favouring the Italians in matters affecting commerce and trade under.mined the solvency of the Empire. The mercantilistic policies of the Nicaean Emperors had been ignored and forgotten. At the time of his death, the Empire had taken the first step towards disintegration. Andronicos II, his son and heir, although he cannet be considered as a weak Emperor, followed a passive role in all matters. The pattern of skilful ruling which had been inaugurated by the Nicaean Emperors and had continued even under Michael VIII, was completely disrupted in the reign of Andronicos II. The cloud on the horizon was the newly emerged Osmanli power. The campaigns of Michael had strained the resources of Byzantium. to the utmost; and, though these campaigns compared to those of the previous years may look trifling, debts were mounting, the financia.l am monetary system was in chaos am the

Treasury empty. The religious problem, the discontent of the masses, class warfare, the Turkish and Latin danger with all its implications, military, financial, and politica.l, were the unenviable legacy of Andronicos II. No attempts were made to settle any of these problems, with the exception of course of the religious question; and, even that was not a solution for the Union of the Churches had been repudiated by the Pope and the Arsenite movement had ceased to be of importance after the death of Patriarch Arsenics.

(iv) No reforma had been attempted by Andronicos II. Instead a number of measures had been improvised to ameliorate the financial, coimD.ercial and milltary crises. The polltical decentrallzation and disintegration which was evident in Michael' s reign, became the main characteri stic of the new reign. Acute popular unre st, class struggle between upper and lower classes, civil wars between imperial pretenders, financial ruin as a result of the political anarchy, decline of free peasantry, reigned in the first half of the fourteenth century. At the dethronement of John Cantakuzenos, the question of how to save the

&pire from its doom remained unsolved.

(v) C H A P T E R : I

ETHNOGRAPHie ASPECTS OF THE POPULATION

The population of Byzantium in the fourteenth centu.ry was as heterogeneous as in the sixth or terrth t::entury when the Empire ruled over a vastly e.xtended territory. Zakythinos in his book 11 Le Despotat 1 Grec" , discussing the population of Byzantine Peloponnese, enumerates seven major nationalities, i.e. Lacedemonians, Italians, Peloponnesians,

Slavs, lllyrians, Egyptians and Jews, as well as sorne other minority groups which had already settled in the area in the fourteenth century.

The heterogeneous nature of the population was not a characteristic only of the Morea; the same held true for the whole Byzantine territory.

Byzantium being a non-nat~onal state had always ruled over various peoples at ail times of its histozy. In the beginning when its authori.ty e.xtended over most of the lands surrounding the l-1editerranean Sea, as far as the

Danube and the Italian Alps in the north, and Egypt and the Middle East in the south and south east, a great variety of people were included in the

Byzantine population whose common bond was not nationality but religion,

Christianity. As the authority of the Empire began with the passing of centuries to concentrate in the area of Macedonia, Thrace, continental

Greece and the Aegean Islands, as well as areas of western Asia Minor, other minority groups distinctly separate from the original ones became

1. Vol. II, p. 1. Although the reference is for the population of the Morea in the very beginning of the fifteenth century, the same groups can be found settled alrea.dy in Impe rial lands even before the fourteenth century.

- 1- -2-

the new inhabitants of the Empire.

One of the oldest minority groups was the Jewish colonies.

Although no reference of Jewish settlements can be found in the

histories of Gregoras am Cantakuzenos, it ~uld be an error to

ass\.Dlle that those colonies had ceased to exist in the fourteenth

century. The letters of Patriarch Athanasios I, and especially his

1 ett er "II ept' ~wv - e~eox~ovwv ' 'I oubatwv' "tva e~eÀ, ' ewcrtv ex ' ~~ç - IlOÀewç" addressed to the Emperor An:ironicos II throws clear light

on the question of Jewi.sh colonies. In his letter, Athanasios

reproached the Emperor for his tolerance with regard to the enemies of

the true faith namely Jews, Annenians and Turks who were allowed to

erect their houses of worship among the Christians. He reprimanded

the Emperor for allowing the Jews to erect their 8eox~6vov cruvaywy~v 2 in the midst of the true believers.

From Athanasios' letter one can deduce the fact that the

Jews had organized settlements in the Empire. Whether the settlements

were large or not is not clear but they must have been of importance

for in another passage of the same letter Athanasios denounced a

certain Kokalas for being an instrument in the acquisition of great power 3 by the Jews. The Jews can be found in the biggest cities engaged in trade

2. The letters of Patriarch Athanasios have not yet been published but have been studied by a number of scholars. N. Banescu: "Le Patriarche Athanase Ier et Andronic II Paléologue". Academia Romana, Bukharest Sectiunea Istorica, XX:Ill (1942-43), PP• 8-9.

J. Ibid., P• 9o -.3- 4 and commerce. Obviously, they had settled in a.ll the large cities where commerce was the main industry. 5 The Lacones or Tsakones formed anot her minority group 6 residing in the Morea lands. They were of unknown origin and kept their semi-independent statua up to the end of the Empire. They 7 excelled as seamen and probably as 11 pirates11 • Pachymeres calle them 8 , ~ao'tÀtXOUÇ Xa~a 8ttÀao'o'aV ÔOUÀêU~ctÇ while Gregoras o'~pa~ov 9 8aÀtt~~tOV • Sathas, basing his conclusions on Gregoras• and

Pac~eres 1 descriptions, associated the Tsakones with the ancient u 10 Mardutes.

Jews are mentioned as inhabiting Thessaloniki in the Acts of the Apo stles, 17: 5; Also in Corinthians; A, Andre ades: " 0 l t El3 patot- EV:~ ~ft!... Buc...av~tvw Y' .. xpa~Et' " , " Epya, Athena, - 19.38, vol.!, p. 614. He refers to Jewish minorities in the Peloponnesos. He mentions that when the Normans sacked Corinth their colony was nearly destroyed. Benjamin de Trudela mentions a Jewish colony in Spart a. It seems that they were engaged as weavers of fine cloth. 1 See: Ch. Diehl: "Etudes byzantines11 , Paris, 1905, p. 247.

5. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 5, p. 9$. PacQy.meres, vol. I, Bk. III, 9, pp. 186-190.

6. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 5, p. 98.

7. N. Sathas: "Monument a Historia.e Hellenicae11 , Paris, MDCCCLXXXIII, (1BB3), vol. I, p. lxxi.

B. Pachy.meres, vol. II, Bk. VI, p. 503. 9. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 5, p. 98.

10. Op.~.' p. lxxi. -4- 11 The lllyrians or Albanians were another important group

residing in the imperial lands of western Macedonia, Thessaly and

al.so in various parts of Peloponnese. They were newcomers to the

Byzantine larrls, settling at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of 12 the fourteenth centur,y. Their attacks against Byzantium had been

intensified during the reign of Andronicos Ill an::l the result was a 13 Byzantino-Turkish expedition against them. In the reign of

Cantakuzenos they were mentioned as already occupying lands in Thessaly 14 and were descri.bed as ind.eperrlent, &~mrb,eu't'o t.

The occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders resulted in the formation of a strong minority which played an important role in the

11. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 9, p. 116; Ibid., Bk. V, 6, p. 146; Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 53, p. 318; Ibid., vol. I, Bk. I, 55, p. 280.

12. Stavro Skendi (ed.): 11 Albania11 , New York, 1956, p. 4• In 1281 the campaigns of Charles of Anjou against Constantinople gave an impetus to the Albanian southem expansion.

13. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. XI, 6, p. 545; Zakythinos: "Le Despotat Gr~c 11 , vol. II, p. JO.

14. Cf11ta]cuzenos1 ~ol. I, Bk. ~I, 25, p . 450: "ot n:ept 8 e,;'t'aÀ.tav OtXO\HHV aU't'OVOLLOt VOII.abeç". Ibi~., vol. I, Bk. 2S n. 474: Il \ , , , ~ e r '\ , , n,, , , .., o." 't'a opetva 't'flÇ · ê't''t'a/\.taç Vê!!9lJ.êVOt .M.Bavot aBaO'tÀ.êU't'0\ 11 Ib~d., vo. II, Bk. III, 12, p. Sl; ~., vol. Il, Bk. I!I, p. 15: ~ , e '\, , , , , ot xa,;a '"'ê't''t'a/\.tav ~ovot ve~o~evot .M.~avot". -5- 15 existence of the Empire: The Gasmules or Vasmules (f'aO'jJ.OÙÀ.o 1 ~ BaO'jJ.OÜf...o 1) • According to Gregoras, they combined the best

characteristics of both Greeks and Latins and. excelled as seamen in the 16 Imperial navy. Being of an undisciplined nature their role in the 17 interna! affairs of the state was rot praiseworthy. Their loyalty was not always to the affairs of the Empire. In many instances they 18 sided with the Latins.

The Wallachians or Vlaches or Blachi are another group which had settled in Thracian and Macedonian lands since the eleventh centur,r.

Their stronghold in the fourteenth century became Thessaly, Epiros and parts of Macedonia, an area which by that century was known as Great 19 Vlachia.

The last two racial eleiœnts in the Elnpire were the Slavic and the Turldc. The Empire, having an international character, had its share of more tribes than the above-mentioned tribal groups. In the mercantile centres of the Empire could be found citizens of nearly al.l

15. The word is derived from the combination gas (ga~on) and mulus or from bast (illegitimate) and mul.us. Zakythinos, ~.cit., vol. II, p. )8. They were the offspring of Greek father and Latin mother or sometimes of Greek mother and Latin father. 16. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. I, 5, p. 98; Pacqymeres, vol. I, Bk. II, P• 158. 17. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XIV, p. 736. 18. Ibid. 19. The areas of Epiros and western Macedonia were most probably settled by people belonging to 11 pure11 Wallachian tribes while those inhabiti:ng Thessal.y were of a mixed group. Cantakuzenos (vol. I, Bk. II, 28, P! 474) mentions besides the Vlachs others such as Albanians, "Mno~"io 1, Maf...axacr1o1 xat Me crapi,;at "· I n the civil war between Andronicos II and Andronicos III the Vlachs sided with Andronicos III (~., vol. I, Bk. I, 30, PP• 146-49). -6-

20 21 22 23 Italian cities, i.e. Genoese , Venetians , Pisans , Amalfians

Another foreign element which was as old as the Empire was the A:nnenian.

Undoubtedly, they had kept their racial identity, belonging to a differ-

ent religious group, and had not been hellenized as happened with other 24. foreign elements. Eustathios referred to them in his writings

The Slavic element was concentrated in the northern provinces--

Macedonia., Epiros and probably Thrace ani norlhern Thessa~. The Slavs

who had penetrated the Empire since the seventh century had formed a

number of settlements even as far as the Peloponnesos but they ha.d long

been absorbed by the hellenic element of the surrounding area. A number

of German historians invented the theor,y that the Slav population was

so great that by the ninth century the whole of continental Greece had

been slavonized and only the islanders retained their Greek characteristics.

There is no need to elaborate on their theories for historians have 25 already proved their fallacy. vfuether the Slavs have changed the

20. R. Janin: "Constantinople Byzantine", Paris, 1950, pp. 240-42.

21. Ibid., PP• 237-38. Ibid •• pp. 239-40. Ibid,, PP• 236-37. o. Tafrali: "Thessalonique au quatorzi~me si~cle", Paris, 1913, p. }$. Banescu, çœ_. cit., p. B.

25. Falmeri\Y'er' s theory of "slavonized" Greece is utterly erroneous. He has misinterpreted his main sources or interpreted them according to his preconceived ideas. C. Paparigopoulos: "The Slavs in Morea", Athena, 1843; c. Amantos: "EH D.6:~ot eîç "t~V cEt..t..aôa" Byzmtinische Neugriechische Jahrbtlcher, XVII tl944), pp. 2i0-221; P. Charanis: 11 Nicephoros I, the Saviour of Greece from the Slavs (800 A.D.) 11 , Byzantina-Metabyzantina, I (1946)l. PP• 75-92; 1 A. Vasiliev: 11 History of the Byzantine Empire , PP• 176-79; Zakythinos, ~.cit., vol. il, PP• 20-25. -7-

ra.cial structure of the population or not is a problem that has to be

solved not by the historian but by the anthropologist. It needs to

be stated that if not in the ninth centur,y at least in the fourteenth

century the racial structure of liJ.acedonia had been changed radically.

After the wholesale slaughter and enslavement of the population as a

result of the civil wars among the pretenders to the Imperial Throne,

new inhabitants occupied the vacated lands, and these undoubtedly were

of Slavic origin, as the area under consideration became part of the 26 mighty Dusan &!pire.

The last ones to appea.r on the scene were the Turldc tribal

groups. The first Turkic settlements in the Empire are rather obscure.

Anna. Comnena reported the settlement of these peoples in the Vardar 27 28 region. She is not elaborating on their origin but Codinos Curopalates

explains that the Vardariotes were 11 Persians11 (as the Turks were then

known). Gregoras on the other hand mentioned that John Vatatzes allowed the Cumans after they had invaded the Empire to settle as soldier-

fanners in Macedonia, Thrace, Phrygia am in the Meander Valley in Asia 29 Minor thus curbing their dangerous activities.

26. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 18, p. 120.

27. 11 Alexias11 , (Lipsiae), I, 165-24; 168-B. 28. 11De officiisaulae Constantinopolitanae", p • .38; "····Co\ Bapùaptw't"al) ilfpaaç Xa't"& Y'VOÇ 5v't"aÇ••••"• 29. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 5, p. 37; Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. I, lB, p. 13. Ph. Koukoule writes that in the last centuries of the Empire, Mohametans and others, irrespective of their religious beliefs, were accepted as godfathers to orthodox children. From this one may deduce that members of Turkic tribal groups had already been per.manently settled among the orthodox population and they had been Tafrali stated that the first Turkic settlement in the Vardar 30 area dated back to the ninth century. There is no doubt that the se Turkic settlers must have been either prisoners of war or inhabitants of asiatic provinces. Another assumption is that they belonged to Turkic groups which invaded the Empire from the Danube area. It is also known that the Vardariotes existed in the fourteenth century and even as late as the nineteenth century but one cannot accept the supposition that the fourteenth century Vardariotes were the same as those of the ninth centur.y. After nearly three centuries of Byzantine rule and constant influence by the hellenic element these groups could never have retained their language mud1 lœsthe dress. Tho se mentioned as Vardariotes by the fourteenth centuey writers must be the descendants of the Cumans. Being 31 excellent soldiers they were recruited as palace guards.

(Footnote 29 continued from previous page.)

so completely integrated in the social life of the people that they were already allowed to participate even in the religious affaire of the commu.nity. Although Koukoule bases his conclusions on Symeon the Thessalonician1 s writings, it is not explicit whether the rule was advocated by Symeon as a natural re~t of an already established practice or simply as an anticipation of a situation which might have arisen in }he conquered Asiatic provinces. "Bu,av-rt'VW'V B~OG xaf 11 llot..t't'IO'J.LOÇ , vol. IV, p. 54.

30. ~-~-, p. 43·

31. Pachymeres, vol. I, Bk. IV, p. 321. -9-

The fa.ct tha.t the Turks did reside in the Empire as organized groups can be ascertained from Patriarch Athanasios 1 letters to the

Emperor Andronicos il. The Pa.triarch reproached the Emperor for granting permission to the Turks to build their mosque in the capital 32 and preach their "detestable doctrine". The same accusation is laid against Cantakuzenos by Gregoras. Apparently the right of worship had been confinned by Emperor Cantakuzenos. Gregoras reported in his

11 History11 that the Turks in Constantinople were disturbing the religious services by chanting or preaching their doctrines outside St. Sophia 33 church.

As far as the nationalities of the Empire are concerned the

"Histories" of Cantakuzenos and Gregoras are incomplete. Both writers are concerned with the political events, internal am external, of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Thus under their plan the move- ments of minor.ity groups were insignificant inasmuch as they did not affect the political events of the period. No mention is made of old established groups, like the Jews, the Ar.menians and others; the reason for their omission may be found in the fact that these groups had been wholly integrated in the life of the Empire, as far as the economie life of the state was concerned, though this was not true of their politica.l or their religious life. We learn of other minority groups only through their participation in the political life of the Empire--

32. Banescu, 2E..• cit., p. 9.

33. Gregoras, vol. III, Bk. XXXV, 25, 26, p. 269. -10..

the Albanians are mentioned only after their upri sings on the death

of Andronicos III, or the Vlachs in their support of the civil war.

The existence of non-orthodox or heretic minorities can be ascertained

from other sources, mostly ecclesiastical literature. No one could

expect from the two historians, Gregoras and Cantakuzenos, a detailed

enumeration of all the tribal groups that had settled in the lands

of the Empire. As far as the fourteenth century is concerned, the

newly settled groups are fully described with the exception of the

Turks whose presence in the Empire as an organized group could be

deduced from various speeches and letters origi.nating from ecclesi-

astical leaders. Cantakuzenos does mention a certain tribal group 34 that was allowed to settled in the Thracian lands (Tourkopouloi)

but their numbers were not significant enough (not more than one

thousand members) for the church leaders to attack the Imperial

policies of allowing them to erect their houses of worship. Thue we may conclude that there were other settled Turkish groups about which

there is no direct reference in their histories.

34. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 85, p. 650. -il- C H A P T E R II

RURAL AND URBAN SOCIETY

Byzantium, like any other medieval Empire, was an agricultural ~ate. Agriculture provided social cohesion, stability, and contributed the largest share to the national wealth. The farmers and peasants were responsible for the greatest share of the 1 Empire 1 s revenues. Therefore the majority of the population belonged to the rural society.

The size of the population at the beginning of the fourteenth century cannat be determined with certainty. A number 2 of towns were still known as 1..n:yaf....ou'JtoÀ. 1S (Thessaloniki, Constantinople and others). Between the reign of Andronicos II and the end of the reign of John Cantakuzenos, the population was de- creasing. Loss of territory, wars, incessant raids, pillage and indiscriminate slaughter, were the main reasons. A number of visitors to the capital at the end of the fourteenth century reported that the so-called large cities scarce~ had enough population to rnerit 3 that description. The reason for the decay and the depopulation of urban and rural centres must be sought in the regression of the urban

11 1. Can~akuzenos, vol. I, Bk. I,28J p. 137: ••• ot yewpyo~ ~~ wv J..LttÀ.\O''t'a o\ cp6po1 'J'(pa't"t'OV't'a ••• " 2. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 4, p. 26.

3. Ch. Diehl: "Un voyageur espagnol à. Constantinople au XVe siècle11 , Mélanges Gustave Glotz (Paris, 1932), vol. I, p. 320. A. Vasiliev: 11 Pero Tafur. A Spanish traveler of the fifteenth centu:ry and his visit to Constantinople, Trebizond ani Italy", Byzantion, vol. VII (1932), P• 113.

·------!12- economy. The decline o:f Constantinople and Thessalonild was due to the predominance of the Italian merchants.

In the middle o:f the :first half of the fourteenth century the rural areas were deserted by the inhabitants and the population of a number of cities (Thessaloniki, Constantinople, Andrianoupolis and probably Berroia) was augmented by the pereecuted peasants and fanners. The drift towards Constantinople and the other urban centres was due to the political instability of the times. -13-

a) Population

The population was not a homogeneous group. It was composed of many nationalities and races, The Greek was the predominant element

while the next most numerous was the Slav, Annenian, Turkic, Western,

Sernitic. All nationalities were represented in the mosaic structure of 4 the Empire. As regards the political rights, the urban and the rural 5 population were divided into:

1. Free Citizens. 2. Paroikoi or Douloparoikoi.

J, Slaves.

1. Free Citizens: There were three groups of free citizens: 6 i. The Landed aristocracy or powerful ( buva't'o 0 7 ii. The Bourgeois or middle class (~oupyécrto t or J.LÉO'o t)

iii. The Poor ( 1tÉVfl't'Eç, 1t't'wxo0 i. The lanied aristocracy comprised all the rich land- owners who were the administrators of the Empire, church dignitaries

4. See chapter: "Ethnographie aspects of the population11 •

5, Pachymeres, vol. II, Bk, I, 5, p. 412. They were known as l.tcr.,;txo{ and âyp6J.LE'VO t •

6, The designation 11 powerful11 appears for the fi rst time in the terrth century with the Novells of Romanos Lekapenos where the population is classified according to wealth and profession. First on the list were the powerf ul and wealthy, then there was the rest of the popu­ lation, the poor or the low ones and finally the soldiers. P. Kalligas: "Me À É't'a t x at A6yo t 11 , p. 253 7. This classification was legally established only in the fourteenth century. As the soldier-fanners disappeared and their class as a distinct social division ceased to exist as such their members were absorbed in either the middle class or sank to the status of the poor class. -14•

and mernbers of the educated class.

The landed ari stocracy was not always the dominant element

in Byzantine society. Until the tenth centur.y, the free peasants, the

owners of small pieces of land, played a very important role in counter-

balancing the aristocracy in power over the Empire. In the course of

the tenth and eleventh centuries with the ascent to power of weak

emperors and the weakening of the position of the military party, the

landed aristocracy began to absorb steadily and continuously the land

of the small peasants with the result that the balance of power in the

cornmunity shifted to their advantage. Nearly all the emperors enacted legislation to curtail the power ani annexing tendencies of the nobility but all this tremendous volume of legislation in favour of the small holders, although it was never repealed, remained to the end of the 8 Empire a dead letter.

8. The struggle for survival between the larrled aristocracy, the free peasants am the socially-minded emperors has been fully studied by many historians. Sorne of the studies on the sub~ect are: E. Bach: 11 Les Lois agraires byzantines du Xe siècle', Classica et Mediaevalia, V (194.2), pp. 70-91. G. Testaud: 11 Des rapports des puissants et des petits propriétaires ruraux dans l'empire byzantin au Xe siècle", Bordeaux, 1898. F. D6lger: "Die Frage des Grundeigentums in Byzanz", Bulletin of International Conmittee of Historical Sciences, (1933) • A. Andreades: "Floraison et décadence de la petite proprieté dans l'empire b:r:zantin11 , l-1élanges offerts à Ernest Mebaum, vol. I, pp. 261-66 (Paris, 1935). G. Ostrogorsky: "Agrarian conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages", The Cambridge Economie Histo:ry, vol. I, pp.20h-210. Idem: 11 Pour l'histoire de la féodalité Byzantine", Bruxlles, 1954. Idem: "Quelques problèmes d'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine", Bruxelles, 1956. -15-

With the advent of the Palaiologi the prestige of the

nobility was increased beyond imagination. Theirs was the only class

on which the entire Empire depended. They were the legislators, ad-

ministrators, military leaders, even the emperors, for the other classes sank into oblivion and the chasm between upper class and lower widened and became unbridgeable. Although the division of classes was clearly

and definitely drawn one should not imagine that a member of the lower classes oould not penetrate the circle of the elite upper class. There were examples of people of low birth who managed to penetrate the upper crust of society. Yet, the people who had managed to climb the social 9 ladder were considered as outsiders, intruders in a rigid social order.

Wealth was the only criterion of success and its loss meant not only loss of social prestige but also loss of political power.

Apparently the upper class was sub-divided into two groups: the powerful and the most powerful. The officials of the imperial bureaucratie system were recruited from the powerful ones, while the most powerful filled positions as members of the senate, the imperial 10 government; in short, they were the policy makers.

The most powerful were not always in faveur of the impei·ia.l status quo, not always loyal to the Empire; they were opportunists, interested only in preserving their wealth from destruction and ready

9. John Vatatzes, official of Thessaloniki. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XIV, 1, p. 741.

10. Tafrali, ~· cit., p. 22. -16..

to support friend or foe alike as long as their position remained 11 unchanged. The nobility, according to Gregoras, was divided between

o1d and new. The new ones were the members of the bourgeois class 12 or even law c1ass who acquired wealth due to social upheavals.

11 ' , ., 13 The old nobility is called by Cantakuzenos EUTI.a'];p\ôat 11 arrl 11 apt.O"'];Ot11 • Because of their education, their interest in sciences and in 1etters 14 they fonned the intellectual elite, the 11 '];6 Ëxxp \'];OV 11 • Their

political influence, direct or indirect, on the internal affairs of the Empire, was supreme. Their domination of the masses was pennanent.

They had an absolute monopoly of the po1itical decisions of their area. In Andrianoupoli Cantakuzenos reported that they ordered the public flagellation of sane members of the poor c1ass when these opposed them 15 in their politica1 decisions. The extent of their wealth was un- 16 imaginable. Cantakuzenos, for instance, being a member of the most powerful c1ass, was in a position to support the imperial armies, as 17 well as pay for all the ether state e.xpenses out of his personal incarne.

11. Cantakuzenos, vol. I II, Bk. IV, 4, p. 51. 12. Ibid., Bk. XII, 12, p. 614. 13. Ibid., Bk. III, 50, p. 299. 14. Gregora s~ vol. II, Bk. XIII, 10, p. 675. Cantakuzenos, Vol. II, Bk. III, 38, p. 2.-'3· 15. I bid., Bk. III, 28, p. 176.

16. ~., P• 177 •

17. Ibid., vol. II, Bk. III, B, p. 58 Since the tenth century and especially in the fourteenth

century the immense wealth and position of the landed aristocracy and

their unwillingness to ameliorate the desperate social conditions of

the masses forced them into a complete isolation from the rest of the -

population. Their uncooperative attitude towards the solution of

social problems, their belief in their divine rights, divided Byzantine

society into two camps permanently at war and ready to extenninate

each other with any means available. This situation became more evident

in the fourteenth century and es_l.l3 ci ally during the civil wars, but it

is not the out come of the bitter politi cal questions or even the religious

discords which had shaken the foundations of the society, but rather of lS long standing feuds between the upper and lower classes.

The number of the most powerful was not great. Probably in

the whole Empire there were not more than one or two hundred familias.

Gregoras mentions sorne sixty families in the area of Thessaloniki, the

Angeli, Palaiologi, ].1elisseni in Thessaly and a few othe rs.

ii. The role of the middle class is not fully and clearly des-

cribed by ei ther Gregoras or Cantakuzenos. Other fourteenth cent ury

writers (e.g., VJ.agistros:"llept lloÀt't'etaç ") give more information

about their social status. As a rule, the majority of the writers prefer

18. Gregoras, Vol. II, Bk. XII, 12, p. 61.3: " •••• Kai ~v toeiv etç , o~o_ ~otp~~' aXt ae',ev,'t'o ' '1:'wv - v'P w~atwy ' yevoç,anav, ' u K~'t'~ ~aaav no 1.~ Kat X~pa;•, EtÇ ;e J~ aUV€'1:'9V Kat '1:'0 aaUVE'1:'0V• EtÇ '1:'€ '1:'0 n~OU'1:'W Kat OO~n ÔtamepOV 1 1 J ., 1 T 1 J il - T 1 Kat '1:'0 evôeeç• etc '1:'€: '1:'0 natôetaç euyevouç '1:'pocpt~ov , , , ~ y .- t , " Kat '1:'0 naa~ç natvetaç naV'1:'e~wç unepoptov •••• the simpler division of society into only two classes: the landed

aristocracy and the poor. One can assume that the dividing line

between wealthy and middle class or middle class and poor class was

not distinctly drawn. Its members were probably wealthy enough to be

excluded from the poor classes and poor enough to be also excluded

from the wealthy classes. From what Cantakuzenos mentions we can

assume that they were the dispossessed peasants who settled in the

cities and engaged in trade or other independant occupations. They

were the craftsmen, marchants, poor clergy and others. Ln their

political outlook they were opportunists, but at the same time victims

of the 11 class warfare11 which raged between the lower ard tœ upper

classes. Apparently the Zealot revolution was instigated by the middle 19 class which represented the democratie element. As legitimists they rejected Cantakuzenos 1 advances and supported the Palaiologi cause but in the Zealot uprising they were accused of being supporters of 20 Cantakuzenos and were persecuted. Being a new class without political influence and residing in the cities, their influence on the politics of Byzantium, as one might expect, was insignificant. The Byzantine social structure, like any other medieval society, was based on t he existence of two groups, the lardowners ani the peasants. The appearance of a third group which might have had a balancing ef f ect on the society was nullified, for the new group never developed any deep roots i n the social structure. They were not united in their policies.

19. Vasi1iev, ~· cit., p. 683. 20. Cantakuzenos, Vol. I I , Bk. I II, 30, Pp. 184-90. Sathas, 2E• cit., vol. IV, p. xx.v • -19- iii. At the bottom of the social scale were the masses, the 21 populace, the poor who fonned the b~!-LOG. One should distinguish

between the poor and the paupers who were living at the exp en se of sorne state or religious institution. The poor did have incarnes but

were always on the verge of starvation. They were the class lacking 22 culture. Tafrali included in the poor class, dockworkers, seamen, 2.3 small proprietors and peasants. 24 The poo r class may be di vided into two groups: the poor

and the ochlos, the mob. The difference between the poor and the

ochlos is only qualitative. The ochlos was composed of all those

anarchical elements ready to follow any leader or espouse any cause

21. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 29, pp. 180-81; Bk. IV, 35, vol. III, P• 255. 22. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XII, 12, p. 61.3.

23. Tafrali, .22. ci t. , p. 32 •

24. In the documents of the Lavra and Patmos monasteries (fourteenth cent ury) there is a distinction between 'Jt'twxo·t ~at ~a'ttt'Jt'tWXO t. A document ,of Patmos monastery (Lemnos island) lists the names of the 'Jt'tWXOtpeasants together with t heir possessions and the amount of taxes the,y were p~ing. For example, Eustratios Paganos, his wife and his children owned one vineyard, one field, one bouse and were paying 1! nomismata for taxes. Another peasant (poor peasant) possessed two bouses, twelve sheep, one field and a vineyard and was p~ing the same amount of taxes. Therefore, in the Palaiologi period a paroikos peasant was classified as poor when he owned no land. Miklosich & MUller, ~· cit. vol. V, p. 11 (1259). Fr. D8lger: 11 Die Frage des Grunae~ums in Byzanz", Bulletin of the I nternational Committee of Historical Sciences, V, 1, p. 1.3. so· long as it guaranteed the looting of the wealth of the nobility.

The poor did have a profession or trade, but the ochlos was an amorphous maas without principles or ideals.

Gregoras and Cantakuzenos fail to describe the condition of the masses. Indeed, no one denies the fact that their histories are full of general remarks about the continuous sufferings of the people at the hands of friends and foes alike; but the info:nnation about their political statua is lacking. Both writers belong to the intellectual class, to the upper class, and as such they fail to perceive the sufferinge of the people. One might say, they accepted it as fore-ordained. Both were brought up in the traditions of Byzantine aristocracy, and probably this is the reason they faU to comprehend the real causes behind the popular uprising in Thessaloniki and

Andrianoupoli. The poor cla.ss was the only section of the society with which nei ther the state nor the church was in sympathy. They were only used as a tool to further the interests of one or the other political clique but the moment the task was accomplished they were forgotten.

2. Paroikoi: The existence of paroikoi or douloparoikoi is not explicit in the writings of Gregoras and Cantakuzenos. Other sources 25 such as church or state documents do verify their existence.

25. Ibid. The majority of the Byzantine peasantry belonged to the paroikoi class. It is a fallacy to believe that the institution of free peasantry had dieappeared in the fourteenth century. -21- Slaves: Slavery was not as important as it was in the early

da ys of the Empire. In the tenth or eleventh cent ury all slaves

had been liber~ted and settled on the land as paroikoi. But even

as late as the fourteenth century certain traces of slavery can be

found. The two historians are silent on the problem of slaver,y.

It was an unwritten law among belligerent Christians never to enslave

their Christian prisoners. The exchange of Christian prisoners was

a common practice among Byzantines, Bulgars and Serbs, but the

enslavement of pagan captives was a widespread practice. Cantakuzenos mentions that the slaves of Thessaloniki were of Turkic origin and 26 were imported from Alexandria arrl the shores of the Black Sea.

Gregoras wrote that the Byzantines fighting the attacks of the Genoese and Venetians due to the lack of soldiers within

Constantinople anned their slaves for the purpose of repulsing the 27 attacks , however their national.ity and the status of their masters

(Footnote 25 continued from previous page.)

The paroikoi were not like the slaves who had no rights. They were burdened with certain obligations but at the same time enjoyed a number of privileges. Broadly speaking, in the middle of the fourteenth century there was not much difference between free peasants and paroikoi. In fact the paroikoi enjoyed the protection of a landowner ( 11 powerfulfr) while the free peasants were to cope with the avaricious tax collectors all by themselves. The paroikoi of the monasteri.es and churcœ s were in a pri. vileged position for they were exempted from a number of taxes which burdened ether paroikoi (Kalligas, 2E• sii•, p. 265). In a number of documents of this period there is a slight distinction between paroikoi and douloparoikoi. The church unfree peasants are known as paroikoi or paroikoi ateleis, while the rest were known as douloparoikoi (Z. von Lingenthal: 11 Geschichte des griechish-rBmischen Rechts", Jrd ed. Berlin, 1892, p. 12).

11 26. Vol. I, Bk. II, 32, p. 497. w.Heyd: 11 Histoire du commerce , W·557-62.

27. Vol. II, Bk. XVII, 3, PP• 850-51. -22-

remain a secret.

Strange as it might sound, it was the church that advocated

the J:erpetuation of the institution of slavery. Religi.ous writers

and many church documents refer to " âyt6bouÀ.o t ", i.e. sacred 2B slaves.

All Byzantine inhabitants with the exception of slaves

were free citizens. We do not find in Byzantium the serfs of

western Europe where they were tied to the land with no rights and

obligations. In principle, all citizens had the right to apply to

the Emperor' s courts for justice. In the case of paroikoi, whether

church or otherwise, they could not be separated from their familles

or evicted from the lani when the larxl was sold.

2B. Sathas: "Documents inédits relatifs à 1 1 histoire de la Grèce au moyen âge", vol. IV, p. xxi. These sacred slaves could be founi in mona.steries which had a serni-independent status. -23-

b) Peasant ry

Questions as to the stan:ia.rd of living and mental climate

of the peasantr.y, their relations with the large estate-owner, and the imperial officiels, the degree of effective independance or

douloparoikia, as distinct from legal independance which they enjoyed, are easily asked but not answered with Gregoras and Cantakuzenos as the only source material.

The basis of the Byzantine rural society was the free village community composed of free-peasants. Each free village fonmed 29 a fiscal unit for taxation purposes. Thus all peasants were

collectively responsible to the Treasur.y for taxes. The epibole and allelengyon were enacted for the purpose of insuri.ng the Treasury their collection, keeping the land under cultivation, forcing the peasants to remain on the land and at the same time guaranteeing the existence of free peasant-soldier society. Thus, nearly ever.y major Emperor from Romanos Lekapenos, excluding John Tsimiskes, enacted legislation for the protection of peasant am soldie r holdings. It should be stated that the struggle against the acquisition of large land holdings, was directed not only against the 1~ land-magnates but 30 the ecclesiastical as welle With the abolition of the allelengyon in the reign of Romanos Argyros and the victory of the civil

29. The far.mers and peasants were responsible for the greatest share of state revenues. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. I, 28, P• 137 •

30. Michael Attaliotes: 11 History11 , PP• 60-62. -24- aristocracy in the eleventh and twelveth centuries, the attempts to safeguard the interests of the small landowners virtually ceased.

The protimesis novells of the Macedonian dyn~sty had never been abrogated but in the fourteenth centur,y Armenopoulos stated that .31 they fell into disuse. By the middle of the fourteenth centur.y, the land-magnates had absorbed virtually all the holdings of free­ .32 peasants ani douloparoikia became the main feature of the Empire.

There was a tendency among the free peasants in the thirteenth and .3.3 fourteenth centuries to place themselves,as paroikoi, under the protection of large estate owners as a result of the crushing taxes.

There is general agreement that the Zealot Revolt owed much of its impetus to men who were striving to free the peasantr.y from the burdens of taxation, arrl the encroaclmlent of the aristocracy.

There had been real poverty in the countr.yside and a great number of peasants had be en living near to the margi.n of subsistance. In 1271 a certain Michael Hartinos was fo:rced to sell his only vineyard to the monastery of Nea Petra because the universal shortage of grain had reduced him into destitution and threatened him and his family with 34 starvation. In 1272 another peasant sold his land for the same

Il .31. Alexandre Diomedes: 11 Bu~av.,;t va~ MeÀ.~.,;a t , Athena, 194.3, vol. I, PP• 68-69.

.32 • Th. Uspensky: "Z~.,;t')JI.a 1tp6ç p.eÀ.~.,;t')v 't'~Ç ~O'w.,;ep tx~ç le1.,;op iaç .,;oÜ Bu~av.,;tvoü xpa't'ouç•, ~eÀ.'t'tov 't't')Ç 'IO'.,;optXt')Ç xa\ 'Ee vo~oytxt')ç'\ - CE .,;atpetaç,' Athens, 1BB5, p. 5.3B. Niklosich & MUller, çœ_. cit., vol. IV • The volume includes a number of acts of sale that indicate that free peasantry still existed in the fourteenth century. Rouillard, "La vie rural dans 1 'Empire Byzantine", pp. 152-170. Miklosich & M\lller, 212.• cit., vol. IV, p. 400. 35 reason. The list is inexhaustible - and that in the seventies

of the thirteenth century when Byzantium was still considered a

powerful Empire ;..i.th a stable governm.ent l In the forties of the fourteenth century when the entire Empire became the victim of

marauding armies, imperial rebellions, the lot of the peasants

worsened. Cantakuzenos does not faU to note that beth aides in the

war committed excesses - burnt cities, slaughtered peasants, destroyed

crops and animals. In his descriptions he is biased, for the

destruction committed by his own armies is justified by the indirect

remark that they were necessary for the liberation of the Empire fran the yoke of the imperial regents. The douloparoikoi or paroikoi

were burdened with heavy labour services, rents, payments to the 36 State, the lord and the church. Yet, the impression conveyed by sorne modem Marxist writers of a population of agricultural slaves

ruthlessly exploited al.ike by church and state, by landlords and

prosperous aristocracy, is erroneous. Poverty in the fourteenth century - excluding the years of intemal and extemal troubles - was not an endemie disease. It needed a sequence of such natural disasters as

flood, drought, seme relaxation of human effort to encourage it. Few of the peasants could be equated with the Western serfs. In principle

they all had certain privileges, but what is important is that they were treated as free individuals. No peasant (i.e. paroikos) could be evicted from his land when the land was sold or separated from

3 5 • Ibid. , vol. IV, p. 400 •

36. Uspensky, ~· cit., p. 543. his family. The exploiting role of the church has been over-

emphasized. No justice is rendered if the Christian framework in which the peasants spent their lives is left out of all account. The landlord did seek and succeed in increasing his land and wealth at the expense of the free peasants, but his religious beliefs forbade him to ignore the miser,y of the less fortunate.

There were many examples of lords distributing their wealth to the poor. }ilaey public institutions had been built for paupers by outstanding members of the aristocrac.y. It is not to be supposed that nothing but aristocratie "charity-1 1 stood between the peasant and oppression or injustice. The extent of encroachment or abuse of peasants' rights differed from place to place and from time to time.

The early Byzantine village was campo sed of free peasants equally responsible to the Imperial fisc for the collection of taxes.

In the ninth arrl tenth centuries the free village was ccmpromised by the expansion of large estates and its gradual disappearance was completed in the Palaiologi dynasty. Free peasante did exist in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries but their ntmJ.ber was small, thus 37 they were the exception to the general rule of douloparoikia. The economie and social cohesion of the village after the fall of Constantinople had changed rapidly. The village was inhabited by

37. D8lger; 2:12• cit., p. 10. Charanis: "On the Social Structure of the Byzantine Empire", P• 126. -27-

people of different social and economie backgrounds. There were the

free peasants, paroikoi, the soldiers who together with their own

property owned pronoia estates; there were the members of the upper 38 class, and finally state paroikoi. An important element among the

free population of the Byzantine village was the enrolled soldiers.

They were given land in exchange for military service, and without

exception they were free peasants. Although the importance of the

peasant soldiers in the Palaiologi dynasty was not as significant as

it was in the Macedonian period, they did play a role in the military

campaigns of the period. They can be described as the Byzantine

reserve anny. As a rule starting with the reign of Michael Palaiologos,

the ar.my drew its recruits from three sources: the mercenaries, mostly of Turkic or Gennanic origin, the levies from the villages and estates and finally the soldier-peasants. The individual recruit could 39 free himself from service by a money payment. The disappearance

of free-peasant holdings was followed by the extinction of soldier- holdings. In the reign of the Nicaean Emperors soldier-holdings witnessed a revival but at the same time the emphasis was laid on the institution of pronoia. Pronoia or oikonomia, as it was sometimes

called, was a grant to an individual for a specifie time, usually his lifetime in return for services rendered or ta be rendered. The institution was used by the Comneni as a means of eliminating the

38. Miklosich & MUller, 2e• ~., vol. IV, PP• 38, 249, 253, 249. Lingent hal, 11 Jus. Graec

39. Miklosich & lvftlller, vol. rf, P• 38. power of the militar,y aristocracy. All pronoia holders were

required to furnish soldiers--foot or light armed--or hands for the 40 fleet. The pronoia-holders were numerous ani belonged to all 41 nationalities and social classes. The Byzantine pronoia was

distinct from the western fief, although in its economie aspects

it contained certain similarities to the fief. "The fief and the 42 pronoia represent two different worlds11 • Heredity never entered into the institution unless it was explicitly stated so. In the

later years and especially in the reign of Ydchael VIII "they were 43 invested with im:mortality'. Thus a fourteenth century pronoia-

, '\ , , helder could bequeath xa.,;a {\oyov yov tXO't;fl't;OÇ land invested

, '\ , , xa'ta f\Oyov 'J[povo taç Although pronoiai became hereditary in the

last century of the Empire they never ceased to be service-estates.

What is the outstanding characteristic of pronoiazation is the fact

that imperial juridical jurisdiction over the land never ceased, even

when they were granted as pronoias. The peasants had recourse to

imperial justice and the pyramid-like hierarchy of the western

feudalism was completely foreign to the Byzantine pronoia system.

In the days of the Comneni Emperors a pronoiar was a member

of the aristocracy and there was a Clear distinction between pronoia

estates ani military estates; but with the revival of the military

40. ~., vol. IV, pp. 21, 3, 251; vol. V, p. 13; vol. VI, P• 20. 41. M. Mladenovitch: 11 Zur Frage der Pronoia", p. 125.

42. ~., p . 131.

43. Pac~r:meres, vol. I, Bk . II, P• 97. -29- e states in the thirteenth century, no distinction i s drawn between military grants and pronoia grants. In the works of thirteenth century writers the terminology becomes confused. All grants are referred to as pronoiai. Thus the 10,000 Cumans who were settled by Vatatzes on imperial lands in Macedonia, Thrace and Asia 44 Minor were referred to as pronoia-holders. However, strictly speaking, a pronoia-holder served not as a plain soldier but as an officer. No one could seriously imagine that the 10,000 CUDlans were only officers and not soldiers. Undoubtedly they received enough land for their personal needs, not as a pronoia grant but as a milltary 45 grant.

As was mentioned before, in addition to the pronoia estates, there were the military estates, or soldier-fanDer estates, whose owers were known as akritai. The institution first appeared in the eighth or ninth century. Although it declined it still in the thirteenth century played a prominent role in the defence of the

:&npire and in the social structure of the peaeants communities. As a rule, the akritai enjoyed a certain amount of independence from the central governnent and fonned their own social class, a kind of peasant aristocracy. They were settled along the frontiers and 46 were pro sperous , but the usurpation of Michael VIII put an end to their special status and their position deteriorated. Mi.lltary

44. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 5, p. 37.

45. Charanis, 22• cit., p. 132.

46. Vasillev, 2-E• cit., p. 577. lands or akritai lands existed as late as in the Cantakuzenos era, but they were the relies of the past. The civil wars forced sorne to abandon their holdings while others, by absorbing the land of the fleeing peasants, augmented their holdings and promoted themselves to the status of minor land-magnates. As a geœral rule all akritai were exempted from taxes and contributions and rnilitary service was their only obligation. After the capital was trans- ferred to Constantinople no support was given to them by the govern- ment. In addition, Hichael Palaiologos confiscated the greater part of their land as a result of his financial reforms. This measure left the Empire defenceless for it undermined the economie 47 prosperity of the akritai.

The position of the peasants, after the abolition of the 4S protective legislation of the Hacedonian Em.perors, was worsened.

The paroikoi with the slow pronoiazation of the agricultural system were le ft to the mercy of local powerful laniowners, although in theory they enjoyed rights conferred on them by law and tradition. The

Byzantine peasant class was burdened with heavy t axes. It is a known fact that in the Morea lands, the taxe s were so heavy that a mass exodus of the peasants from the Byzantine lams to the Venetian 49 possessions took place. New taxes were imposed on the already impoverished peasants. Andronicos II introduced the

47. Pachymeres, vol. I, Bk. I, p. 5, 18. 4S. Ostrogorsky: "The Peasants Pre-emption Right", Journal of Roman Studies, vol. XXXVII (1947), pts. I & II.

49. A. Bon: "Le Peloponnèse Byzantine jusqu 1 en 1 20411 , Paris, 1951, p. 172. N. Choniates, vol. II, i. -31-

.levied on ali lands which did not exceed six measures of wheat and

four measures of barley. Moreover, the requisitions of the anny,

corves or special obligations to the imperial functionaries, the

demande of the mercenary annies, all contributed towards the decline

of the once free peasantry. While the peasant-holdings were being

wiped out, the land magnates bad two principal objecta in view: to

extend the area of land, and to enlarge and improve the flocks and

herds. It seems that there existed a certain specialization among

the large estates. There were those who kept cattle while others

were specializing in products of the soil. Gregoras mentions an

unbelievable number of domesticated animals seized by the imperial

govemment after Cantakuzenos1 defection. The same is true for a

number of other large estate owners. One may detect from the various

documents that the monasteries were specializing mostly in products of

the soil.

Although there are general descriptions in Gregoras and

Cantakuzenos about the poverty of the peasantry, these descriptions pertain to certain areas and times. It seems that besides all hard­

ships and sufferings the Byzantine peasantry still possessed vitality and dete~ation for when the hostilities ceased they could prosper, as it happened in Peloponnesos. -32- c) Land Magpates (Lay and Ecclesiastical) The decline of free peasant and milita:cy holdings forced the concentration of land in the hands of the lay aristocracy and the ecclesiastical institutions--cloisters and churches. Since the tenth centu:cy the novella of the socially-mind.ed &perore, in their struggle to safeguard the possessions of the peasants and guarantee the existence of free peasantry as a stabilizing factor in Byzantine society, were directed against the absorption of land by 50 the aristocracy and ecclesiastical hierarchy and institutions alike. Previously ecclesiastical institutions acquired the land through purchase, litigations and other legal or illegal methode. In the fourteenth century with the breakdown of the internal administrative machine the spiritual role of the ecclesia was the most effective factor in the augmentation of the ecclesiastical holdings. A certain Maria Tzarchalina gave to the monastery of Vazalon her entire land for the salvation of her soul, that of her husband, and those of her parents, adding that if her five sons who were in captivity returned they were to have their share, but if not, their shares were to go to the 51 monastery. Expiation of sins was not the most favoured way of acquiring land b.Y the monasteries. Monasticisn had a special meaning in the life of the Byzantine. It embodied the spirit of true

50. Attaliotes, pp. 60-62.

11 51. Uspensky & V. Benechevich: 11 Actes de Vazèlon , Leningrad, 1927, p. 17. Orthodoxy, a faith which was nurtured by the teachings of the

Apostles and the Church Fathers. All the great church leaders and saints, including the teachings of Orthodoxy, emphasized that good deeds and renunciation of wordly goods were prerequisites for the

salvation of the soul. Therefore the Byzantines regarded the donation of their properties to mona.stic institutions as a step towards the ultimate salvation. The fact that tlù.s theme had been over-exploited

by the monks is of no consequence. Moreover, ever,y Emperor considered the donation of land to monasteries or their exemption from taxes as politically expedient.

The founding of monasteries by the lay nobility did not have an exclusively spiritual character. One can detect a certain concession to the exploitation of the peasants. All the lay aristocracy with the numerous astates acquired their land and possessions, at least in the majority of the cases, through illegal methods, thus the giving aw

Lascarides, Cantakuzenoi, Assanides, Philanthropenoi, Synadenoi and many others were exclusively land owners. In the case of

John Cantakuzenos, his wealth, although a little exaggerated was 52 immense. These familias, known as the 11 archontes11 , shared the

52. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. II, p. 184-85. -34- administrative duties of the Empire with the lesser nobility, 53 the "powerf~" and the 11 best". Though the landed nobility provided the State with its administrators, they tended, as a rule, towards self-autonorny. Imperial rule over their regions was scarcely felt.

The pronoia of protonobelissimos l-Iannaras included the town of 54 Tirnova with all its dependencies; Michael Gabrielopoulos, at the end of the thizteenth century ruled his possessions as a semi- 55 independant ruler; John Cantakuzenos mentioned two 11 powerful11 of Acarnania (1336): Nicolas Vasilitzis and Cabasilas who ruled in the 56 fortified towns of Arta and Rogoi. He also mentioned Kalothetos, 57 11 11 a most distinguished powerful of Chios5~1329) am Pergamenos in Tenedos who ruled as independant rulers. In the distant dependencies of the Empire the tendency towards self-rule and absolute independance was nurtured by the abnormal political conditions ani the influence of western ideas. The Byzantine aristocracy had always tended towards autonorny, but while in the earliest years the central government

53. Zakythinos: "Crise monétaire et crise économique a Byzance", p. 57.

54. Miklosich & MMller, ~· cit., vol. IV, PP• 419-20.

55. ~., vol. V, PP• 260-61. 56. vol. I, Bk. II, 33, P• 502 ff.

57. Ibid., Bk. II, 10, p. 371.

58. Ibid., vol. III, Bk. IV, 38, P• 276. -35 ... was powerful am able to deal with all abnormal political and social situations, in the Palaiologi era the lack of social and territorial cohesion and the radical changes in the political mentality of the administrative class made acceptable the tendency towards complete separation from the Empire. C H A P T E R III

TRADE AND TOWNS

A medieval nation of farmers and graziers w:>uld normally be

an exporter of raw materials and an importer of manufactured goods, and,

with few exceptions, this is the traditional picture of the fourteenth

century Byzantine economy. When the fourteenth century opened agriculture

was the basic industry of the Empire.

In the medieval sense of the ward the pre-fourteenth century

Empire was a highly industrialized nation. Its industrial success was

partly due to its geographical position arrl partly due to the backwardness

of the Latin West. Owing to the internal and external political up-

heavals, the Empire lost control of its tracte. Every Emperor following

an eleventh century tradition accorded to Venetians, Genoese and other

Latin traders immunities from all customs duties. The ports were still

bus,y but the entire imperial trade passed to foreign traders. Gregoras

wrote: 11 The Latins have taken possession not only of the wealth of the

Byzantines, and almost all the revenues from the sea, but also of a1l 1 the resources that replenish the sovereign' s treasury.11 Francisco

Balducci Pegolotti, a Florentine marchant and author of 11 La pratica della

mercatura della decima e delle altre gravezze11 stated that not all Italian

marchants enjoyed exemption from customs duties• For instance, only the

Venetians ard Genoese enjoyed absolute exemption from customs duties; the

Pisans paid in Constantinople and Pera 2% ad valorem on imports and

1. Ibid., vol. II, p. 480. -37- 2 exporte. The Florentines, Sicilians and others were subjected to the same regulations. The most important "market place" was that at Pera, although the same products were sold in that of Constantinople.

Pegplotti enumerated a number of diverse products bought and sold - epices, aromatic products of India and Persia, etc. The "markets• were not specialized; however, Constantinople was still famous :for its oriental luxury products and wa.s rivaled only by Alexandria.

The relations between the Italian trading colonies and the imperial authorities were not amicable. With the opening ot the

:fourteenth century, all con:flicts in Italy between the various Latin states involved Byzantium in a struggle :for survival against the 3 Italians. In order to check the Venetians, customs exEmptions were 4 awarded to the Genoese , handing over to thEm the area o:f Galata :for their colony, other sites in Asia Minor, and at Gaffa, .and complete monopoly o:f all trades in those areas. All those numerous privileges asphyxi.ated the imperial trade and Paceymeres admitted that "the 5 Genoese closed all maritime trade routes to the Romans". In the thirties of the :fourteenth centur;y the Italians enjoyed not only imperial privileges with regard to trade and commerce but controlled key positions in the eastern Mediterranean - Phocaea, Ghios, Lesbos,

Aenos, Gaffa, Naxos, Andros, Paros, Tinos, Zantorini, Crete, and a number

2. P. 41. 3. Diehl: "Byzantium", p. 194.

4. Bratianu, .2.E• cit., p. 158.

5. Vol. II, Bk. II, P• 242. -38-

of other important islands and towns--where no Greek ship approached 6 without their express permission.

The trading and commercial policies of the Ernpire in the fourteenth century are not clear. Although Gregoras and Cantakuzenos

describe the devastati ng effects of the Latin trading influence, many questions of a purely commercial nature will not be answered with tho se hi storians as primar

events that grew out of the trading policies or t he effects of those policies on the welfare of the State, but questions as to the nature of merchandise bought and sold, its origin, the nationalities of the traders, the volume of trade and many othe r s will find no ' answer from Gregoras and Cantakuzenos. Genoese and Venetian state documents or the reports of the agents of those republics are explicit and to the point. From all the available sources i t is apparent that the imperial administration was willing to part with the tracte of all articles, with ohly one exception: the corn tr~de.

6. Heyd, 2E• ~., vol . I, p. 486. Gregoras, vo. I, Bk.

Cantakuzenos, vol. I 1 Bk. The forced economie ~solation of the Byzantines led to con- tinuous f riction \VÏ t h the Latins and to actual war. In Cantakuzenos' reign war ~ith the Latins over the tracte question was endemie. In so far as economie considerations were i n his mind at all, Cantakuzenos must have hoped that victory over the Latins would serve to liberate the Byzantine trade from I t ali an dominance. If such were his hopes they were doomed to dis­ appointment; fo r a comb ination of mis fortunes l ed to the victory of the Latins and the disrupt .ion of trade for long peri ods. -39-

In all the commercial treaties the corn clause was incorporated and it was emphasized that the quantity of corn exported or the tax levied on it was a matter of imperial discretion. Whether the imperial administration was in a position to impose its will is debatable. Corn supply was a matter that concerned not only the central government but the leading ecclesiastics as well. Patriarch Athanasios' .correspondance shows his strong pre-occupation with the problems of corn. Pachyrneres suspects that his preoccupation stemmed out of the tendency of the rich to 7 monopolize corn and capitalize on the sufferings of the masses.

The provisioning of Constantinople was an extremely serious matter. Previously, the capital depended on its Asiatic provinces and the rich valleys of Northern Greece but as the Empire dimihished and lost all its provinces with the exception of Thrace and Macedonia, which 8 had been totally destroyed by the barbarie inroads, the provisioning of the capital fell into the hands of the Genoese who controlled the main corn export source--Gaffa. Hunger was always present and the civil wars, with one or the other of the pretenders to the imperial throne striving at the conquest of the capital, had made starvation an ever

11 present problem. Athanasios wrote: •••• before on the streets one beggar asked for one thing and another for something else; today, all, 9 without exception, ask for corn ••••• 11

7. Pachyrneres, vol. I, Bk. VI, pp. 460-61.

8. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 13, p. 85.

11 9. Guilland: "Athanase , p. 138. Pachymeres, vol. II, p. 494. The economie dependency of Byzantium upon the wealthy maritime republics of Italy was completed under the Palaiologi and although commerce and trade were flouri shing, the Emperors had no control over the economie life of the Empire.

Before the Palaiologi the urban centres were as significant as the rural districts. As the restored &pire, under the .Palaiologi, was small, constantly being reduced by the inability to defend itself against the countless enemies, and while the state machinery fell into decay and disorganization, the urban centres declined and were 10 abandoned. The decline of the urban districts was a characteristic of the Byzantine lands. Frankish Morea, suffering under the effects of feudal wars, internal and external political anarchy had become "~xu8wv 11 êpf)!J.O't'Épa". Few important cities can be found in the ünpire in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Constantinople, the capital and the

11Queen of cities11 , affords a melancholy example of an once noble city which in this century had fallP.n on P.vil days. Aboulfeda r~arked that in the 12 city there were sown fields and gardene and many destroyed houses.

Another foreign traveller wrot.e that most of the great palaces, monasteries 13 and churches were in ruin. Thessaloniki, described as "large city",

10. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 3, PP• 28-29.

11. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 13, p. 85.

12. "Gèographie d 1 Aboulfèda11 , translation J. T. Reinaud, II (i), PP• 315·16. 13. Vasiliev, 2E• cit., p. 678. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 5, p. 88. -41-

111Ust have been an exception. The population of the city, some 40,000

inhabitante, was augmented from the influx of the surrounding districts.

The population was leaving the rural areas and was concentrating in

a few cities which, owing to their defenses, could provide security from

hostile attacks.

The Byzantine urban life had witnessed another decline.

From the seventh to eighth centuries the urban life declined. The improve- ment of the political conditions caused in the eighth to ninth centuries an increase in cities and urban centres. Besides the already existing centres, although under decline, the writers of this period mention many others of importance. The Frankish conquest of the Byzantine

:Empire and its division into principalities gave a tranendous impetus to the developnent of urban life. The main reason for developnent of the new towns is not an increased economie activity but military warfare.

Thus, their foundation is prompted by feudal warfare.

In the Nicaean Fmpire the developnent of urban centres was based both on milltary and economie expediency. All Byzantine town a were fortresses. They were constructed in such a way as to defend the inhabitante and at the same time provide the necessary prerequisites for economie ac ti'Yi ty. They were govemed by a governor appointed by the

Crown or by the thane governor. The town was divided into two sections: the upper part constituted the Acropolie, and the lower part the main town. Of all the Byzantine towns that of Servia in Macedonia, as described 14 by Cantakuzenos, is the most characteristic. The political and

14. Vol. III, Bk. IV, 19, PP• 130-31. -42-

social disturbances limited the economie life of the town and as a result the growth and expansion of population was limited as weil.

Without exception, all towns, including Constantinople itself, suffered badly from the Black Death and the transfer of trade into the Latin bands. The decline and destruction of cities, together with the ruination of peasantry, resulted in the formation of a floating population. The displacement am.ong the urban and rural population was caused by the continuous wars but above all by the scarcity of labour.

The fact that there was scarcity of labour is substantiated by the requests of monasteries for penn.ission to settle new tenants on their 15 estates. Furthennore, the imperial authorities limited the number 16 of tenants for each monastery. There was an increasing demand for 17 tenants (i.e. paroikoi).

The sources are not explicit about the origi.n of this floating population. It was composed of the "foreigners", the people of the devastated areas, liberated prisoners of war, prisoners of war, and "slaves" bought from the pirates. The density of the population and the racial division of the Byzantine town is of secondary interest compared to the social differentiation. In reality a Byzantine to'Wl'l

(fourteenth century), with the exception of very few, were large villages inhabited by people engaged in agricultural activities and living in a closed ecollODiy. What is astonishing is the fact that in Byzantine urban centres can be observed a regression as far as the economy is concemed.

15. 16. 17. Miklosi.ch & Muller, 2E• cit., vol. IV, p. 248. Actes of Chilandar, p. 70ff. -43-

In Western Europe, in the early centuries of the Middle Ages, there

was an attempt to transfonn the urban centres from a closed to an open

economy. Byzantium experienced the reverse. Open econom.y necessitated

a labour force, a labour class, which was non-existent in the Byzantine

urban centres.

The population was divided into three social classes: the

aristocracy, the middle class and the low class or peasant class.

In the early days the economy of the urban centres was well

regulated and controlled, and this well-balanced society was reflected in the organization of the gilds.

The hi sto ry of the imperial gilda affords by far the most impressive example of state incompetency. Broadly speaking, the Byzantine gilda were associations of traders who were primarily retailers, although the wholesalers' associations were numerous as well. The prlvileges

granted to foreign marchants disrupted the well-planned economy of the state, and the breakdown of the internal administrative machine resulted 18 in the decay of the gilde and all the ether trade associations. The gilde prospered up to the end of the twelfth century, but the Nicaean

Empire reinstituted the gild. organization although the intricate system of for.mer days could not be re-enacted.

The programme of the Nicaean Empire was strongly mercantilistic and physiocratie. John Vatatzes encouraged the native industry and prohibited the importing of all luxury articles, chiefly the product of Italians and Moslems; at the same time the makers of ar.ms were

18. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 6, p. 43. -44- 19 protected and encouraged by the State. Behind this policy was the 20 desire to make the Empire a self-sufficient state. This policy must have been reversed by Nichael Palaiologos for it is known that he had

~nported arms from various sources, mostly from the Italians. In the treaty of Nymphaeum, the Byzantines acquired the right to import arms and horses from Genoa.

The gilds which had been the main feature of the urban society virtually disappeared. Gregoras and Cantakuzenos are silent on this matter, but the letters of Patriarch Athanasios indicate that they had 21 ceased to e.xist. The Patriarch suggested that the Emperor should appoint a conunittee to supervise everything that pertained to the pr·ovisioning of the capital. Andronicos II paid heed to his request and a committee was set up to determine who were the bakers in Constantinople, how many they were, and in what condition were the ships supplying the city.

Thus at the end of the thirteenth century nothing was known of the

Constantinople bakers. It seems that the regulations in the Book of 22 Prefect had been completely forgotten. And what is true of the bakers might be true for ail other trades. The only indication of gild organiZc!tion to be found in Gregor as and Cant akuzenos is tha t of the sailors. The su~b~stion is that the gild was set up by the mariners themselves but in all probability it was the continuation of an older gild which with the disintegration of the imperial âuthority acquired

19?-0~· 21. Guilland, ~· ~., pp. 121-40. Banescu, 2E.• cit., p. 35ff. 22• .n.Boak: 11 Book of the Prefect", pp. 616-17 r -45- 23 autonomy and political importance.

Social and constitutional development s in the larger or in

the smaller towns followed broadly the same lines as those in Thessaloniki

or Constantinople. Relations between local popular assemblies and

imperial administration are hard to trace. Nith the exception of a few

references in Cantakuzenos and Gregoras and ether writers of the same

period, the sources are incomplete, but it is sufficiently clear that

in towns the governing body>composed of the wealthier classes, exercised fairly close control over the activities of the town.

The governor of the town was an imperial appointee known as 24 25 dux or epitropos, dioeketes. The epitropos was usually in charge of a

large town which was nonnally the capital of the theme. In theocy the

governors were imperial representatives charged with matters pertaining

to defence, justice and finance. The fourteenth century theme or town

administrators were unscrupulous, exploiting the poor and the unprotected,

conspiring with the aristocraqy for the abolition of old privileges, con-

fiscating the property of the opponents of the ruling class and wit h very 26 few exemptions notoriously corrupt. 27 Large towns were governed according to 1LOÀ.t't't"bG 'VbJ.LOG•

Some of the privileges accorded to towns were old rights based on custom.

It is difficult to specif~,r wha.t were those rights and privileges; preswnably

they included the acknowledgement t hat the inhabitants were, first, freemen

23. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 94, pp.575-??.

24. Sathas, ~· ~., vol. IV7 p. xi. 25. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. VIII, p. 354. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. I,l3,p.65. 26. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XIV, 11, p. 741. 27. It corresponds to the municipal law. -46-

and were to be treated as such, second, the administration of the

town should be based on the already recognized custom law supplemented

by the imperial law, and, third, popular assemblies already in existence

should not be abolished. 28 The Byzantine town was govemed by two bodies: the syncleto s

and the popular assembly. The syncletos was composed of elected members

of the aristocracy and the popular assemblies were canposed of members of

the representatives of the masses.

The entire Byzantine administrative system was based on class distinction. No one can imagine that the people' s representative bad the interests of the masses at heart--they were members of the nobility elected to represent the populace. Even the Zealot revolution which is considered as a democratie and popular attempt at social equality was nothing more than a revolution instigated by the "left-wing" aristocracy to neutralize the influence of the "right-wing'' nobility in town politics. The people were the instrument in the political games of the upper class. The Zealot republic did remain to the end a pure aristocratie institution slightly tinted with democratie ideas. After the abdication of John Cantakuzenos and the rapid disintegration of the Empire a successful compromise seems to have been accomplished between provincial towns and central government. All the remaining "large" towns were granted to imperial princes or to members of the nobility who were politically reliable, to govem as independant or semi-independent rulers.

The tendency of the towns towards self-rule meant the disintegration of the

28. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. I, 31, P• 149. Empire, and at the same time the disintegration of the Empire meant the eventual disappearance of the towns. -48-

CHAPTER: IV

FINANCIAL AND MONETARY CRISIS

In Byzantium, unlike any other medieval state, well-planned financial and monetary policies were of the utmost importance. Its importance as a universal state, ruling over East and West, necessitated ample revenues. Broadly speaking, the imperial revenues were the proceeds of:

1. Local Taxes

2. State Monopolies

3. Sale of Offices alli Revenues from Crown Properties 4. Confiscations

5. 11 Miscella.neous11 (mostly tributes from foreign nations)

In the fourteenth centur,r the importance of the first group had greatly decreased while tha.t of confiscations and 11 miscellaneous11 had been on the increase. In the period of the civil wars both the legal imperial gover.nment and John Cantakuzenos' rebel administration confiscated the properties and wealth of their opponents, for it was the only 1 remaining lucrative source of revenue. The chronic condition of poverty of the Empire forced maey a foreigner to contribute for the upkeep of its monuments, churches and monasteri.es. A Russian prince, as is reported by Gregoras, had contributed a sum of money for the restoration of 2 St. Sophia. In the last group of revenues should be included the tributes

1. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IX, 6, PP• 425-26.

2. ~., vol. III, Bk. XXVIII, 33-35, PP• 199-200. -49- 3 paid to the Emperor by his Western vassa.ls. The revenues from the

sale of offices was an important item on the Palaiologian State budget.

Theodore Metochites was accused, after the abdication of Andronicos II,

of having amassed a tremendous fortune from the sale of various imperial

offices. The accusation wa.s superfluous for every official - including

Synadenos, Cantakuzenos and others - acquired their posta by paying a

considerable sum. of money to the imperial treasury. The revenues

from crown properties are unimportant in the fourteenth century. Before

the losa of Asia Minor the Crown owned large tracts of land, and, as 4 Pachymeres reported, the 11 stables" ( ~euyf1À.a't'ê i a ) near the frontier

fortresses were c:rown property. Undoubtedly the most important of a.ll

the imperial revenues was the proceeds from state monopolies. The monopoly of salt (bflJ.L~O'tat aÀ.a~) must have been the only remaining

one of importance. The name of Alexios Apokaukos, the parakoimomenos

of Queen Anne of Savoia, was closely connected with the monopoly of 5 salt. The Byzantine taxes varied in number accoroing to imperial

dynasties and political upheavals. After the fall of Constantinople

(1204) a number of taxes were imposed mostly on the peasant class.

Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 12, p. 82. Pachymeres vol. I, Bk. I, p. 69; Miklosich & MUller, vol. 6, P• 211 (12l2); vol. 4, P• 20 (1235), 24 (1251), 30 (1284), 142, 146; G. Rouillard: 11 Les actes de Lavra a 1 1 epogue des Paleologues11 , Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi bizantini, vol. I, Rome, 1939, p. 306.

Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. I, 23, pp. 117-18; vol. II, Bk. III, 14, P• 89. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. VIII, 4, p. 301. -5o-

Gregoras repozted the tax refonns of Andronicos II (1320) after the

Catalan departure and the increased Turkish danger. Demetrios Kydones,

in his correspondance, mentioned that the situation created by the

"barbarians'' was of such magnitude that it was necessary to tax even 6 the poor in arder to survive the excessive demands of the eneJey". The taxes doubled in the reign of Andronicos II. The annual income of the

Empire under Andronicos, wrote Gregoras, amounted to about one million pieces of gold, a considerably reduced income compared to that of the previous centuries if one takes into consideration the reduced value of the qyperpyron. In another passage Gregoras indicated that nearly the entire customs revenues had passed to the Genoese colony of Pera.

The arumal customs revenues of the Empire in 1348 did not amount to more than 30,000 hyperpyra, while those of the Genoese Colony (Pera) to some 7 200,000. John Cantakuzenos substantiated the claim of Gregoras by reporting that the ~O'ItiK~ 1tp~O'oôoç in 132S amounted to some -51-

8 it 9 12,000 hyperpyra while in 1355/did not exceed the 10,000 mark.

Obviously the amount was the proceeds of the fish tax 1tp~O'oôoç

aÀ. t €U"ttX~Ç which, according to Gregoras, amounted to some 10,000 10 hyperpyra annually. It is di ffi cult to draw a clear picture of the

finances of the Empire for the infonnation prov:i.ded by Gregoras and

Cantakuzenos is contradictor.y. Both writers have reported that the

revenues of the Empire were insufficient for the support of the State,

its annies and its administrative machine. At the same time it is

reported that in 1340 when Apokaukos was appointed chief of the

imperial fieet the imperial government put at his disposal sorne 100,000 11 hyperpyra. In 1322 Andronicos II granted to his grandson 12 Anironicos TII the annual income of 36,000 hyperpyra.; In 1328 with

the abdication of Anironicos II, Andronicos III granted him an annual

pension of 24,000 hyperpyra which, according to the sources, was to , , 13 be provided from the local proceeds "tO'JttXT} '1tpoO'oôoç • The pensions

granted to the nobility and the amounts collected do not correspond. One

can only presume that the Empire had other sources about which the

8. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. II, 1, p. 311.

9. ~., vol. III, Bk. rl, 42, p. 312. 10. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IX, 7, p. 428. 11. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. II, 38, p. 540.

12. Ibid., vol. I, Bk. I, 34, p. 167.

13. Ibid., vol. I, Bk. II, 1, P• 311. -52-

writers of this period are silent. Another supposition is that the

amounts granted were imaginary calculations which did not correspond to

the actual state revenues. Gregoras am Cantakuzenos attributed the

financial disintegration of the Empire to two different causes.

Gregoras believed that first the civil wars and second the greediness

of Queen Arme arrl Apokaukos contributed to the financial ruin of 14 Byzantium. John Cantakuzenos on the other hand attri.buted the ruination of the State to the internal arrl external political situation:

the destruction of the countryside during the ci vil wars, the attacks

of the surroundin.g enemy and the loss of the islands and other fertile 15 areas to the enemy • The causes of the financial decline were not only the external or internal upheavals. The main causes should be sought

in the decay of ind ustry, trade and commerce; in the granting of

preferential privileges to the Italian traders; in the abandonment of

the navy and in the belief that the Empire could rely on the power of the

"A' , ' 7 - Gregoras, vol. II, !ik• XV, 111 P• 789: rna t ~ f!CTCJV 'ffJÇ ~otaU~fJÇ xa~a~ogaç ~e xat xaxooatrr.ovtaç npw~~ rr.ev TJ - ' ,, ~ ' 'r ~·~., ~~v Ej..L~!2A t~v cr~ar;ewv ~opa ~~ ,(a} 9'uyxu~rt ç, tl ~q.cr~~ j..LEV ~ ~wv ov~wv f]V XPfJH-a~txwv etcroowv ava~pon~, prrcr~n s..' .S. - ' " ' u , , , '1 T r u, q ~fJÇ oux ou

15. Cantakuzenos .. vol. TII, Bk. r:J, 5, p. 33: "· ••• xat al npocrooot ( , ~ r , ' - , e, -~ , - , ats.. xotvate, E~E~tnov,, , ~fJÇ XWP.ac.,,. xa anat,:, uno , ~ou noÀ.enou_r, utE,~ apj..LEVf]Ç, xat VfJCJwv xat fJTIEtpw~tôwv noÀ.ewv ~wv uev -~ ' , , ' , , ' ;·· , UTIO ~WV- TIO~Ej.l.tWV Xa~E~Oj.l.EVWV, ~WV- ETitÀ.OtTIWV OE Et~ ecrxa~~V ' ' , - "r ' , , - , ,~ '1 anoptav ex ~E ~wv e~w ev e~oôwv xat ~wv evoov cr~acrewv ~xov~wv". -53-

Latin maritime republics; in the dispersion of the population. The

power of the central t;overnment did not extend beyond the walls of

Constantinople. Although feudal.ism was never established in Byzantium, 16 the slow pronoiazation of the society led to separatist movements which

the imperial goverrnnent was not in a position to control. The division of

classes and the exploitation of the peasant s by imperial officials and 17 nobility al.ike, the immunities of the eccl.esiastical institutions , all these contributed towards the disintegration of the Empire. The interna! anarchy during ard after the civil wars is reflected in the financial 1.8 crises.

The financial reforma of the Palaiologi ,-ere of a temporar.y nature. New taxes, confiscations, depreciation of the coinage, and other legal or illegal measures could provide a momentary respite.

16. Zakythinos, ~· ~., p. 86 ff.

17. A. Ferradou: "Des biens des monastères à Byzance", Bordeaux, 1896, P• 215 ff. là. Cantakuzenos,, vol. , I, Bk. I,, 19, , P• 93: ,"••••'t'OUÇ , 't'ê .vâp , noa't''t'OV't'aç 't'ouç o~uo~touç ~opouç ane~'t'ep~crav 't'WV ov't'wv ~ , '1- , , , , 9 , ot, nporr't'uxov't'eç,,,, , , '\ ...et ~n., nou, ~at , , au't'ot , nooatrr\:. - onevotr- ~a't'- rxpu~av,ev acr~a~Et ~~t ~U't'0~ oe ~of....f....a ;au't'OtÇ ~ c p~~Ot~aav~o, ano~'t'ep9crav't'eç pacrt~Ea wç o~ 9 ev a~~P~i-LêVOt napa 't'WV npo~TIXOV't'WV 11 • Gre{loras, vol. I, Bk. VIII, 6, P• 319: 11 , .. , y t - •• , - , ~~} npw't'a,~ev 't'~~ç anav;ax~ ne~tt~v;aç 't'~ç,8p~~~ç u :~ ~vaç,xat ~o~o oroui au;ouç 1-LEY av~o~v,~~}~OV't'o, a uê ETiê~EpOV't'O parrt~t~a XP~~a't'a ~uv ouoevt ~orr~y éta­ Àax6v't'EÇ ~ve ~~av't'o "· ~., Bk. IX, 2, p. 397; Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. II, 33, P• 503; Ibid., Bk. I, 33, P• 164; I bid., 34, P• 167. ~üklosich & MUller, 2e• cit., vol. I, p. 457;--­ Joshua Starr: 11 The Jews in the Byzantine Empire", Athens, 1939, P• 11. -54-

The opportunist and adventurous financial policies of the

Palaiologi were completely opposite to the well-planned financial 19 system of the Lascarid Emperors. The far-sighted fiscal policies of the Lascarides bequeathed to the usurper Michael VIII a rich treasury, but Michael 1 s global designs and his attempt to reconstruct the pre-1204 Empire, necessitated unlimited resources. As the same time the mercantilistic policies of the Lascarides were abandoned, the

Italian marchants were favoured ani the new sources of State income led to the well-known catastrophic consequences. \ihile Hichael 1 s policy was the strengthening of the mill tary organization of the Empire at the expanse of peasants and landholders, that of Andronicos II was the maintenance of peace by tribute, dependance on mercenary arrnies and on 20 the Italian maritime power. The demanda of the mercenary armies left the Treasury em.pty, unable to me et the usua.l State expanses. The loss of the Asiatic provinces and the advance of the Turks forced the population to evacuate their areas and resettle in the European territories of the Empire. The consequence of this influx of population forced the priee of corn above the nonnal level and near starvation ensued. The imposition of new taxation by Andronicos II agg1~vated the alreaQy abnozmal situation. The new taxes were not a matter of monetary contributions but one of kind on wheat ani barley (crt't'OXp t9ov ) • On the produce of a certain land c\lltivated by a pair of oxen (~Euyt't'tôoç;)

19. Pacqymeres, vol. II, Bk. I, pp. 6B-71. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 6, p. 43· 20. Ibid., vol. I, Bk. VIII, 6, p. 317. Pachymeres, vol. II, Bk. III, r;:-209. -55-

21 there was levied six modioi for wheat and four for barley. As was

expected the imposition of cYt't'ÔXp t9ov did not al.leviate the needs

of the Treasury, and as a result a 1/lOth of al.l pronoiai were seized.

This rneasure together with the previous seizures aggravated the con- 22 ditions of the small landholders. Andronicos III was a realist in

financial matters. He tried to soften the burdens of taxation of Thrace 23 and Macedonia, two provinces which had been devastated by the enemy.

The financi.al policies in the time of the civil war were compli-

cated and without planning. Queen Anne resorted to the confiscation of 24 25 the Church' s treasures , and to the sale of the Crown jewels. All

these measures were negative in nature for they did not solve any press-

ing financial problem. Cantakuzenos, on the other hand, attempted certain

pennanent solutions. His reforms covered not only ways of acquiring means

but full scale re-orga.nization of the civil service. Judges, tax col-

1ectors and other agents of the fisc were replaced by honest ones. For

it was not only a matter of collecting a certain amount from the peasants

but delivering the same to the Treasury. Thus blind justice and public

21. Ibid., vol. II, Bk. VI, PP• 492-93.

22. Ibid., Bk. III, p. 209.

23. Ibid., Bk. IV, PP• 291-98 24. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XV, 1, p. 748.

25. Miklosich & Mlll.ler, 21?.• ~., vol. III, PP• 124-25, 149. -56- 26 order were the two prerequisites for a state financial policy. Even

John Cantakuzenos attempted a temporary solution of the financial problems

by the confiscation of the treasures of ecclesiastical institutions within 27 Constantinople. Besides these temporar,y solutions Cantakuzenos after

his victory over the regents attempted to place the financial policy of the

Empire on a permanent basis for the external political situation demanded

a steady flow of national revenues. Therefore, he called the Estates

General, representing all social classes and professions and demanded direct contributions to the Treasu:cy. His speech which is reported in 28 his "Roman Histoq' elucidates the necessity of a conunon contribution 29 (

"Parliament11 it was proved that only 50,000 hyperpyra had been collected

26. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, s, p. 62.

27. Gregoras, vol. III, Bk. XXVIII, 2-5, p. 179.

2S. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 5, pp. 3 4-3S •

29. ~., Bk. IV, 6, P• 40. 30. Ibid., PP• 40-42.

31. ~., Bk. IV, 11, p. 72. -57- 32 and were exclusively used for the nav.y. The unsuccessful resUlts

of the compulso:ry contributions forced the government to introduce a 33 novelty in the system of taxation. The novelty of the system was

based on the difference of the assessment between direct and indirect

taxes. Thus, in the case of wine, the State was entitled to one gold piece 34 system for every fifty measures. The new/affected not so much the producers

as the marchants, and above all the corn dealers, for the taxes were not

confined only to wine or other luxury articles, but covered the entire

list of imports and exporta. The measure was one of social justice for

the merchant s who were enriching themselves at tœ expense of the population

were called upon to carry the burden of the new taxation.

The entire financial policy of Cantakuzenos was designed with one

purpose in sight, nam ely the rebuilding of the navy and the event ual mastery of the corn trade which had fallen in the hands of the Genoese 35 who threatened incessantly the provisioning of the capital. The efforts

of Cantakuzenos failed, for the administrative system of the Fm.pire was beyond reform. In addition, the class warfare disrupted the cohesion of the State; a certain public apathy had set in: the nobility con-

sidered the State as a stepping stone to success while the masses re- garded it as a tool of the aristocracy for the suppression of their

32. Ibid., Bk. IV, 12, P• 80. 33· Gregoras, vol. III, B.k. XVIII, 1, p. 870. 34. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 12, p. 80. 35. Bratianu, ~· cit., p. 166. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XIII, 13, PP• 686-87J Cantakuzenos, vol. III, B.k. ri, 12, p. 81. Zakythinos, Qll.• cit., p. 96. -58-

rights. More ani more the &pire was being identified with the nobility

and its class interests. Thus, under tho se circumstances it is not

surprising to read in the writings of tœ fifteenth centurJ historians

that only a handful of Byzantines and a few Latins fought to save

Constantinople and the Empire from it s already decided fate.

The basis of the Byzantine moneta.ry system was the gold

hyperpyron and was introduced by Constantine the Great in the fourth

centu:ry. In the begirming it was known as solidus aureus but since the thirteenth century the hyperpyron designation was the one in current use. 36 The Constantine monetary reforma with slight modifications lasted for 37 nearly SOO years. Its stable value gave it an international reputation,

and throughout the centuries remained the only acceptable medium in com- 3S merci al and trade negotiations. The Fmperors of the Macedonian dynasty-- 39 Basil II and Constantine VIII--began a slight debasement of the hyperpyron.

The first step towards planned debasement was undertaken ~ Emperor 40 Alexios I Com.nenos owing to the pressing financial needs of the State.

The result was that the international reputation of the hyperpyron was shaken forever and in the negotiations with foreign States and merchants a clause was inserted that the recognized medium of exchange should be

36. The basis of the Constantine m.onetary system was the solidus which was of pure gold content and represented 1/72 of the Rôman pound. It was equivalent to about 24cts of gold. G. Schlumberger: "Mélanges d'Archéologie byza.ntine11 , first series, Paris, 1895, p. 25

11 37. A • And read es: \ I O''tO pt ' a 't!)G... \ E""rv"!)V t X!)ç;- u!)!J.OO'1\ 't aç; OJt XOVO!J, 't aç; " Athens, 1925, P• 405. 3S. -Ibid. 39. G. Cedrenos: "Historiarum compendium", Bonn, 1S3S, II, P• 369.

40. Zonaras: 11History11 , Bonn, 1851, XVIII, p. 22. -59- 41 the pre-Alexies I nomismata ( 1-UXafJ~a,;a). Nicetas Choniates reported

that the :Elnperor issued a second kind of nomisma, presumably with lower 42 content of gold, in his dealings with the Crusaders. Moreover the

Emperors demanded that taxes should be paid not in their debased coinage 43 but in that of their predecessors, an alloy of high gold content.

Debasements between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries were not 44 rare , but they were kept under control. Under the Palaiologi debase-

ment had become a refined form of art. It had reached auch magnitude that Gemistos suggested the entire abolition of the monetary s.ystem and 45 its replacement by barter.

The sources of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are not ex- plicit in their description of the practices of the Emperors in debasing the coinage. Study of the coins of this period and a number of references

in Pachymeres, Gregoras and Cantakuzenos as well as a few indirect remarks in official documents provide the only available infonnation. As regards the Nicaean practices, Pachymeres wrote:

''the coinage is debased to meet the necessities of the time. Previously in the reign of John Ducas (1222-1254) the nomisma contained

41. Anna Comnena, ~· ~., XIII, 12, PP• 219-20.

42. ~., P• 89.

43· Andreades, ~· cit., pp. 406-7. M. Ducas: "Historia byzantina", Bonn, 1834 ~roffiT, p.cxiii

44. Zakythinos, ~· ~., p. 7. Plethon Gemistos: "De ~bus Peloponnesiacis Orationes duae" Ellissen.._..A (ed.) ~,. Analekten der mttel-und neu­ gr~echiscben Litteratur, ~v,2 (l8bv), chptr. 21. 45. Bratianu, 2E.• ~., p. 239. Andreades, ,2E• cit., PP• 493-94· -60

2/3rds of pure gold, an alloy which was preserved until the end of the reign of Theodora I Lascaris (1254-125S). Bu~ later on, under ~lichael Palaiologos, owing to the capture of Constantinople ani the obligations to the Italians, he replaced the old engrav­ ing with that of the wall of Constantinople and debased it by one carat, thus the new coinage did not contain more than fifteen carats of fine gold (i.e. 15cts of gold and 9 alloy). After his death the nomisma. con­ tained 14 carats of fine gold and 10 alloy but now the contents of gold and alloy are the same ••••• 11 46 On very r are occasions the Empire was in a position to drain the gold of 47 foreigners am increase the contents of the nomisma.

In 1335 Pegolotti mentioned that the nyperpyron contained eleven carats of fine gold and thirteen of alloy (i.e. llcts gold, 6 silver and 4S 7 copper).

The wholesale debasement of the nyperpyron had serious reper- eussions abroad. A Franciscan missionary reported that the merchants 49 fingered the hyperpyron and even smelled it to find out if it were copper. Another traveller, Ibn Batoutah, who visited Constantinople at the time of Andronicos II1 s reign, wrote that the princess' (the natural daughter of the Emperor and wife of the Khan of the Kiptchak Mongols) gift of 300 50 dinars (hyperpyra) was not good yfor the money was not of pure gold.

Nicephoros Gregoras reported in his 11 Roma.il History" a little anecdote

46. Pachymeres, Vol. II, Bk. VI, PP• 493-494· 47· Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. II, 6, pp. 42-43· 4$. Pegolotti, 2E.• 2.!!.•, P• 40. 49. Zakythinos, 2E.· ~·, pp. 106-7. 50. ''Vo;ïa,ges dr Ibn Batoutah", vol. II, p. 444· -61-

about the monetary conditions in Constantinople. Gregoras was imprisoned

in the monastery of Chora for his uncompromising attitude with regard

to the hesychastic controversy. No one was allowed to visit him but one

nigh:t he was surprised to find a person entering his cell. It was an old

friend, Agathangelos, the eldest son of Callistratos. For twenty odd years

Agathangelos travelled all over the Mediterranean lams--Syria, Palestine,

Cyprus, Egypt. He was neither a sailor nor a merchant. He was following

11 11 knowledge • Having arrived at Constantinople he visited his old friend

and teacher, Gregoras, and provided him with the latest information about

the outside world. Among other things he reported that "on his return

to Constantinople he possessed only 10 pieces of gold (nomismata). In

order to meet daily expenses the ten nomisrnata were exchanged for smaller denominations." The next day when he went to the market he discovered that the money he had acquired through exchange has so much devaluated that it was not "worth more than eight nomismata"--a 2ofo devaluation in a single 51 day. The centuries old reputation of the Byzantine coinage (hyperpyron) in the Mediterranean had ceased to be of importance and i ts place was taken by the florin and later on by the Venetian ducat. Thus the hyperpyron was per.manently displaced from the oriental markets and even from com- 52 merci al dealings wi thin the Empire itself. The permanent rnonetary

51. Vol. III, Bk. XXV, 27, p. 52 52. L. Perit & B. Korablev: "Actes de Chilandar", Vremnnik, vol. 17 (1910), • Il , , , , Cl' , P.·, 180· •. J qc t 'tJJ.LT)J..La}"t une pm.> pwv eVEVT)~OV'fa,, anep xg. t , ~Àa~9J.LEV ap, ÔJ.Lwv ota ôouxa'twv ~EVE'ttxwv t~'twV'twV ouyytaç EVEVT)XOV'ta '. A document of the monastery Lavra, issued by tlle imperial authorities in Thessaloniki (1321), stipulated that the taxes should be paid in Venetian ducats. G. Rouillard: "Les Actes de Lavra", p. 303. -62- and political crises coupled with medieval superstition created a situation where people were interpreting the unfavourable conditions 53 as a sign that the end of the Empire was near.

The devaluation of the hyperpyron is closely connected with the unstable political conditions and the loss of trade and natural resources, but especially with the unfavourable balance of trade and the military disintegration. Thus in the days of the commercial predominance of Byzantium the imported gold exceeded the exported one. Moreover, whenever the military strength of the State disintegrated the Empire suffered not only from the uncontrolled barbarian inroads but al.so financially for it was necessary to appease the barbarie tribes by the payment of tribute. Byzantium was an autocratie state, and as in any other autocratie entity, the Emperor was the supreme ruler with no other supreme political body to curtail his activities. As with any medieval

Emperor the entire monetar.y and financial policies depended on the needs of the moment and not on a well-planned and far-sighted policy. Thus in 935 we read that the Peloponnesian soldiers contributed sorne hundred pounds 54 of gold for the purpose of avoiding military service. As long as there was wealth in the Empire the number of people willing to purchase their milita~ obligations was great. In the reign of Constantine Monomachos

53.

54. Andreades, 22• ~., p. 472. -63-

an entire province was allowed to dispense with military obligations 55 through payment. This practice reached its peak in the reign of Ducas

when nearly everyone was in a position to dispense with military service.

In this way the Treasury was enriched by the new ntax•, but the consequences

were clear. The national army of fanners and citizens was eclipsed and

its place was taken by mercenaries. Together with the disastrous military

policy, the taxation policy should be considered as contributing to the

monetary criais of the fourteenth century. It is true that many donated

their estates to ecclesiastical institutions out of strong faith but many 56 estates were seized by the monks. Moreover, the crushing taxes foreed many a peasant to donate his land to either religious institutions or

powerful landowners and received it back with a number of obligations.

The Palaiologi resorted to the malpractices of their prede-

cessors and the resulta had been the ruination of the Empire, facts which

have already been discussed in this paper. Concentration of wealth in the

bands of very few and wide spread poverty were the most noticeable charac- teristics of this period. There was auch poverty and dearth of gold and

silver that in the coronation of John Cantakuzenos the goblets were no 57 longer of gold but had been replaced by lead and earthware. The

process of disintegration which had started with the reign of the civil

aristocracy went on for som.e time, but Byzantium· displayed an extraordinary tenacity. The social and economie history of Byzantium. is nothing but the history of an unavoidable decline.

55. Ibid., 2.E• cit., p. 472. 56. Eustathiosz "Works", Migne, vol. CXXXV, col. 826; Andreades, .2E•cit., p. 562. 57. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XY, li, p. 788. Under F.mperor John Cantakuzenos the imperial table was allotted 1/lOth of what it used to have. Ibid., vol. II, Bk. XVI, 3, p. 811. -64- c H A P T E R V

THE SOCIAL-REVOLUTIONARY MOVE}I.iENT OF THE ZEALOTS

The establishment of the dynasty of the Palaiologi on the

imperial throne signified a victor,y for the ~zantine landed nobility.

The victor.y of the secular and ecclesiastical land magnates meant the

\veakening of the State for they were granted jurisdiction over their

properties and exemption from taxation. At the sam.e time their favoured

position in society estranged the masses and the social division which

had always been in existence was accentuated and was to have serious

repercussions in later years. Under these circumstances it is not surpris­ ing that the fourteenth century became the abode of the Zealot social- revolutionar,y movement.

The histo:ry of this astonishing movement reveals the magnitude and diversity of the social grievances which urrierlay it. Desire to be free of the disabilities of douloparoikia, was widespread, manifesting itself in the destruction of large astates. In Thessaloniki and Andrianoupoli, however, the rebels were aiming not only at abolition of the Church' s or upper classes1 rights but also for municipal independance. The situation in Thessaloniki was further éomplicated by the townsmen's intervention in the episcopal election. In all the areas affected by the revoluti on, the rising was made the occasion for settling old grudges between imperial,

1 capital and provincial towns, between 11 autocracy11 and 11democracyf • The urban riots arose from a movement of the poorer elements in the town against the rich estate owners, the moneyed class, who composed the rul- ing aristocracy. Hatred of foreigners and violent nationalism were -65-

were widespread, partly because of commercial jealousies, partly as a

result of the centuries' old influence of the Church and Greek culture.

Another import.ant aspect was the special position of certain

cities, especially Thessaloniki. Since the early d~s of its foundation,

Thessaloniki enjoyed a position that was completely different from the

rest of the imperial towns. It was governed according to old traditions

and nearly all imperial administrators paid heed to the old administrative

ways. After the twelfth century, wi.th the loss of trade a.rrl comnerce,

the old towns eventually lost their special privileges and were governed

like any other provincial urban centres. Therefore, the reason for the

rising must be attributed, at least partly, to the desire of obtaining

imperial charters reconfirming municipal autonomy. The lower classes,

the dispossessed elements who played a considerable part in the revolt, 1 11 had their own grievances: heavy taxation, compulsolY labour, agareiai11 •

As to the 11 communism11 of the Zealots, this was both less original

and lesa significant than the agitated 11 historians11 and ecclesiastical

leaders supposed. The egalitarian doctrines of the Zealots were the

result of theological preaching; the people were accustomed to hear from both monks and clergy am to see deP'icted on the walls of the churches ,

representations of the fate awaiting the rich, the oppressors, at the

Judgement Day. They had been taught to revere poverty, although, of course, the lesson of poverty applied to laymen and not to ecclesiastics, they knew that rich men enter hardly into the Kingdom of Heaven. It cannot have been difficult for the leaders of the Zealot uprising to persuade

1. Ostrogorsky, 2E.· _m., p. 428. G. Ostr~Jgorsky:"Agrari~ Conditio?s in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages", The Cambndge Econorruc History, vol. I (1941), PP• 194-223. -6&-.

the masses thus educated that the inequalities of wealth and status

were contrary to the Divine Will, a violation of the arder of

creation. The Zealots were not anti-clerical or anti-Christian. They favoured a peoples' Church, an anti-aristocratic Church and a clergy recruited from the masses so that the,y could inspire confidence in

the populace. Although some of the prelates were not admitted into the rebels' cities except on condition that they re-administer the 2 sacraments, those were the exception rather than the rule. It was almost inevitable that the ecclesiastical, or the aristocratie party should exaggerate the subversive nature of the rebels' designs on religion and social institutions, and be deaf to

the Christian piety which is unmistakable in their political or religious reforma. The real causes of the revolution are not clearly discernible. Diehl believed that the unbridgeable social cleavage · 3 was responsible for the revolution. Tafrali considered as the main

cause of the uprising the oppressed condition of the lower classes-- 4 peasants, sailors, dock-hands and agricultural labourera. Vasiliev's thesis is that in the political divisions, the struggle between John

Cantakuzenos and John V Pal.aiologos, should be found the cause of the

2. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 93, p. 571 • .3. "Byzance. Grandeur et décadence", Paris, 1920, p. 20. Diehl: "Byzantine Ci vilization", Cambridge 1-ledieval History, vol. IIJ, P• 760. 11 11 4· QR. ~, p. 255, 259-272. Charan:i.s: Internal Strife in Byzantium , Byzantion, XV (1940-41), p. 221. -67- 5 uprising. The root of the social uprising lies not solely in the politico-religious events nor solely in the deplorable economie corrlitions of the fourteenth century but also in the influence of 6 the Western ideas of democratie government and in the revival of classical. culture. Thessaloniki had always been the abode of many scholars, Eustathios, Magistros and others, and the centre of the 7 classical tradition of ancient Greece. The Zealot uprising did not differ from the stasis of an ancient Greek city-state. Together with the influence of classicism, the Western deiOOcratic ideas can c1early be seen in the revolution. In 1339, three years before the date of the Thessaloniki stasis, the Genoese middle c1ass had s expelled the aristocracy and fo:nned a 11democratic11 regime.

Thessaloniki, being the most important commercial centre of the Empire, and having contracta with Westerners and hence with their po1itical system, was undoubted1y inf1uenced by the new system of goverimlent.

5. .QE• EJ:_., P• 684. 6. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 26, p. 197.

7. Undoubtedly the political ideas of the intellectual class must have influenced the leaders of the popular uprising. Magistros wrote:, ... 11 ~ ETIE\'t;a, 'ee , Uj.LE\CJ- eat ,.,XP.fJV - wçc , ou' ''e/\.\ O\ ,, xa\,' ..,u/\.a~,, ~a , 't;WV , 'rt:OÀ.EWV , 11:pay11.a~a,r-, , OU~E , éoj.LVaCJta, Xat 1\.tj.LEVEÇ, , xat Sea1;oa xat CJ~oat xat 11eye oc otxo~Oj.Lf]j.La't;wV xat , !J'"' ,, , 'Y ... , xat...t...oç, af...À. av~~eç ~au~a ~ta 11:av~wv ~povouv~eç xat CJ~~ov~eç 1;& ytyVOj.L EVa ". Unpublished Manuscript as quoted by Tafrali, ~· ~' p. 257.

B. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. XI, 7, p. 548. -68-

The Zealots, as a political party, included all 9 the lower classes, the n:~VT]'t'EG • As the party of the poor,

the social Zealots, as distinct from the religious Zealots, were opposed to the Cantakuzenian party, supported as it was by the 10 11 wealtcy classes. Thus, indirectly, they appear as legitimists, while at the same time they were opposed to the religious party of the hesychasts, because the hesychasts were supporting Cantakuzenos, which, of course, implied support of the existing social order.

9. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 38 p. 234. Philotheos in his "The Li fe of St. Savas" wrote, that.1 not all rnembers of the Zealots were natives of Thessaloniki. It seems that the Zealots made no distinction between Thessalonicians and foreigners. A large proportion of the Zealots were 11 barbarians11 and from the islands of the Aegean Sea. Neither Gregoras nor Cantakuzenos verify this. Obviousl.y they did not distinguish between "barbarian" and native proletariat, although they do differentiate between native born arrl non-Byzantine ari.stocracy. Since the tendency in Byzantium was to classify the Latins in the questionable world of the barbarians, therefore, the thesis that the revolution was influenced by the Genoese social revolution of 1339 is feasible. ""'~ou , n:o~~ou'\ '\ - xat , ~up1e~wôouç , av, epW1t:ou, , xat, ~ou~wv , oux, ù~eôan:wv, &À.À.' ~n:~À.uôwv ~tvwv ~ag~âpwv Éx ~e ~wv ~~~-e~Épwv , - , - 1 '\ S , P, , , , 'Ir e~xa~twv xat ~wv xux~w EV v~~wv n: avayx~ç ~uyaôwv a6~6e t ~EVEÀ.96v~wv ", P•l94. 10. It should be emphasized that the revolution started not as a spontaneous uprising of the masses against the deplorable eco­ nomie situation. In Andrianoupoli where the first signs of popular unrest are detected, the city populace expelled the ruling aristocracy, seized their properties but only after the governing nobility had ordered a public flagellation of the leaders of the democratie party (Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 28, p. 176). Thus the cause of the revolution is not economie but social, the curtailing of the ~oples' civil rights (~., p. 177). 11. The inhabitants of Thessaloniki had previously supported the cause of Andronicos III. Therefore, by opposing the rebellion of Cantakuzenos they were supporting the policies of Andronicos III and his imperial son John V. -69-

Their opposition to the religious party was twofold: first, church

control of wealth, beth landed and monetar.y, conflicted with their

social programme of land distribution, and, second, the alliance of the church interests with the political ambitions of Cantakuzenos meant the defence ani continuation of the old social order. The Zealots were an organized party with a political

leader and a programme; they had the backing of the sailors' gilds 12 and divided power wlth the local Byzantine government. 13 According to Gre go ras the Zealots were an ~e po t OJ.r.a.

Il Their regime did not resemble any known fonn of politeia. It was not aristocratie, after the manner of the constitution which Lycourgos induced the Spartans of old to establish; nor was it democratie like the original constitution of Athens or the re­ formed constitution which Cleisthenes introduced when he increased the four tribes to ten. Neither was it a more modern and mixed type, composed of two or more constitutions, such as the island of Cyprus once followed, or such as the people of ancient Rome is said to have established when it rose in revolt against the patriclan order. It was a system of ochlokratia of a strange character, buffeted and tossed by the movement of chance. The bolder spirits, combin­ ing in a self-elected group based on their own arbitrar.y discretion, trod men of all ages underfoot; they became the demagogues of the city-mob and swey-ed it at their will: they confiscated the property of the rich and lived in luxury themselves, laying it down as a rule that no obedience should be paid to any external authori­ ty, and that their own will and pleasure should be the law and standard to be followed by all ethers. 11 14 In an earlier passage the same writer noted that,

u when the city was divided between rich and poor, a third faction, of a vulgar and promiscuous character, was

12. E. Barker: "Social arrl Political Thougbt in Byzantium", Oxford, 1957, p. 1S6. 13. vol. II, Bk. XVI, 1, PP• 795-96. 14. Ibid. -70-

added to these two groups, a faction which knew nothing of justice or injustice but was easily used as a tool by those who so desired. This sort of people did not know how to serve the cause of autonomia nor how to obey the laws laid down by the men of old, men who spent their lives among books, and who drew from them the power of bringing harmony into political affairs. On the contrar.y, they de­ stroyed the houses of the well-to-do down to their ver,y foundations, and they used th& sword, ruthlessly and with no reason, in their uncontrollable passion in fighting their miserable victime. They veiled. their aima of malice urrler fine sounding na.mes am incited men's .appetites by the hope of eas,y gains. The,y emptied the eup of civil bloodshed in the open ~r~t. "~ The spirit of independence was mistaken by the aristocratie- minded intelligensia as ochlokratia. Only Gregoras was interested in the move1œnt, in its causes and policies. The others, including

Cant8.kuzenos, D. Kydonis and N. Cabasilas, dismissed it as another periodical civil disturbance which so often plagued Byzantium. From

Gregoras' description we may deduce the fact that the rising of the

Zealots was not a purely political or purely religious affair. The movement comprised two distinct groups allied together only for the purpose of political dominance. First, the re were the politi cal

11 opportunists11 or 11 autonomists". After the fall of Constantinople there appeared in the Empire a strong tendency towards autono~, self-independance. The centralized administration was considered as a hindrance rather than as a beneficial rule. Nearly every province of the Empire or large city showed clear signa towards autonomy.

15. Ibid., Bk. XIII, 10, P• 674. -71-

The reasons for this tendency were political and to a lesser degree 16 religious. This group came under the influence of Western political ideas, and especially those of the Italia.n city-state. Whether the

Western political system as it was developed by the Italian states or the Frankish principalities, with their feudal. laws of succession, was influential. in shaping the ideas of the 11 opportunists" is a matter of speculation. In the secom group one could include the dispossessed peasants, the hard taxed groups of society, the small proprietors, low clergy, ail those who did not belong to the wealthy, intellectual or higher ecclesiastical classes. This group should not be identified with the paupers or the mob. This group did possess property, but their income was so small as to be insignificant. The political ideology of both groups coincided: they favoured nationalism, municipal administration as it was prescribed by the traditions of old, minimum imperial interference, ani self-rule; both came under the influence of the ideas of the emergi.ng na.tionalism. To these two groups must be added a third one which had no political or social ideology: the low masses, the ll.Uilpenproletariat. That group camprised the anarchical elements which can still be found in oriental states, ready to espouse any political or religious cause, hoping for gains out of the disrupted

16. By 11 political11 is meant pressure from within and without. Civil wars, from the beginning of the fourteenth century onwards, had as a consequence the division of the Empire, if not on the Western lines, at least on modified Byzantine linas, into semi- autonomous or autonamous regions completely detached from the authority of the central administration. The religious discorda accentuated the tendency towards autonomy. The religious dissenters were ready to ally themselves with any despot or independant orthodox ruler for the creation of a separate political entity. The mild despot of Thessaly harboured all the anti-Unionists and worked towards the political destruction of the Empire. -72- political situation. This group was responsible for the extremea of murder and pillage that took place in Thessal.oniki and

Constantinople.

The Zealots were not anarchists fighting against ecclesiastical and political domination. Nor were they, as described by the historians of that period, an unruly crowd substituting their own selves for the nobles and enriching themselves at the expense of others. They had a high conception of patriotism; they wanted to check the devas- tations of the marauding armies by building thei.r own army, a national army. These objectives could only be accomplished with money but since the wealth was concentrated in the hands of the nobility and church that wealth had to be confïscated.

The assertions that the Zealots' aim was the abolition of all laws of old, and that they executed the laws according to the caprice of the moment, and that they knew nothing of justice or injustice, are false. The issues were involved.

The Zealots have left no record of their aima and objectives. vlhat is known of them is derived first, from a pamphlet written by 17 Nicolas Cabasila.s who quoted extensi vely from their writings for the purpose of refuting them, ani, second, from a munber of commenta

"A' , - , - , ' , - 17. OY01 TIEpt ~WV TiaeaVO~WÇ ~OtÇ apxou~t ETit ~OtÇ \c;potç ~oÀ.~w~~vwv • P. Charanis: "The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire11 , Dumbarton Oâks Papers, IV (194B), pp.ll2-13. Sathas, 212.• cit., vol. IV, p. xxvi, note 1. Tafrali, 2.2• cit., p. 26lff. -73...

on their political progréÙnme in Gregoras1 and Cantakuzenos' writings.

First, in matters of internal administration they did co-

operate with the imperial authori.ties. They did oppose Cantakuzenos

but recognized the authority of the regents in Constantinople, accepted

John V as anperor and assented to the appointment of the governor of

Thessaloniki as co-archon. Nicolas Cabasilas in his refutation did not insist that all laws were abolished, but the main accusation against them was centered around the confiscation of the property of the well-to-do.

Second, their refonns were important and necessary. Their political reforms concerned the election of archontes. Before the revolution the magistrates had to be of a certain age, preferably of older age. But the revolution abolished this law and thus younger 18 men became elligible for election.

Cabasilas in his discourse accused the Zealots · of being novnpo \ , perverse. There is no doubt that he is exaggerating. The charges against them were made by the representatives of the ariste- cratic party and the hesychasts. Since the Zealots1 writings have not been preserved there is no criterion upon which to judge them. The

Zealots being opponents of the Hes.ychastic movement forbade Gregorios

Palamas to enter Thessaloniki--he had been appointed archbishop of the city. Philotheos and Cabasilas are critical of the movement, the

18. Philotheos, ~· ~., p. 195.

19. Tafrali, ~· ~., p. 261 -74-

fonner on religious and the latter on political grounds. There

is no denying that the Zealots must have cooun:itted countless ex­

cesses~ In every revolution there are the idealists and the oppor­

tunists. Undoubtedly the leaders of the stasis must have been

fired by noble sentiments to improve the conditions of their fellow­

men, but revolutions need the support of the arnorphous mass to

carry out their programme. In previous centuries, Byzantium had

its share of public disturbances ani 11 revolutionary11 movement s where

the mob dictated it s wishes to the imperial administration, but those uprisings were in the embryo stage and had always been crushed by the ruling nobility. The Zealot victory in Thessaloniki was a painful realization on the part of the aristocracy that the well­ planned society was surrounded by hostile elements ready ta under­ mine its foundations,

It is interesting to note in the histories of Gregoras and

Cantakuzenos that the conception of State wi th it s well-planned laws and the separation of classes was no longer safe from assaults from within. The previous official conception of the Empire as the trustee of the inheritance of the past, of the idea of the oikumene with its Greek monopoly in culture, was not popular with the masses or for that matter with the aristocracy as well. Neither the masses nor the nobility were interested in preserving the unity of the

Empire. They reverted to the ideas of the Greek city-states.

Independant 11 city-states11 were their aim. The State was an alien institution which had to be tolerated if not undermined. It is -75-

etrange that revolutions succeed only in the fourteenth century.

The explanation may be found partly in the deplorable economie con-

ditions but the main reason lies in the fact that the ruling class

ceased to believe in the "utility" of the State. Even the members of

the Royal family were not convinced of the necessity of the liinpire.

While the proletariat was united in its attacks, the ruling class

could not present a united front. The nobles of Cantakuzenos'

party were involved in a civil war against the nobles supporting the

legitimate ruler. The division in the ranks of the nobility gave the

opportunity to the masses for revolt, and, of course, their eventu&l

victory. Social revolutions succeed only if the ruling aristocracy

ceases to have a genuine interest in the affaire of its class, provided

there is no outside help.

The political progranme of the Zealots covered:

1. Confiscation of the properties of the well-to-do and the Church (including monasteries).

2. Direct contributions.

3. Laws affecting religion. The confiscation was necessitated by the desire to set up a national army for the defence of the city against the Serb and the 20 Cantakuzenos' annies. Cabasilas declared that the confiscation was not for military purposes but for the personal use of the Zealots, for

20. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, 38, pp. 234-35. -76- 21 enriching themselves.

All archontes on their nomination were obliged to contribute 22 a certain sum of money to the city Treasury. The Zealots' legislation affecting the ecclesiastical ad- ministrati on .found no sympatby with the upper strata of the society. 23 Cantakuzenos accused them of being irreligious.

21. Cabasilas, as quoted by Tafrali, ~· ~ p. 263, note 3: "The monasteries have fields and houses and villages, ani also acres of land and other such fonns of property, which ought to be left to the use and enjoyment of the monks to whom they were given by the original owners. They (i.e. the Zealots) deprive them of their property, and take it in part for their own use arrl in part for tne use of others. What they take is generally money, wheat, barley, wine, and other fonns of produce; but sometimes it inclu:ies tenant-farmers, villages, and the land itself •••••• Now the laws say clearly that he who acquires (any property) by a deed of conveyance should keep possession of what he acquires; and to make such a deed null and void is to go against the law" • 22. Ibid., P• 264: "E't't 't'oÙç ~fXOV't'aç ct).Lt0'9{ note:Ïcr8at ~ XE~EUOV't'WV' , 't'WV- VOJ.LWV,, aU't'OtÇ- OUX, EO''t'tV,, or OU, ôô' ,, l..,," , , , o, t ouç e~t 't' 11~ apx~v,~~e:t; xat,no~f...a J.LEV npo, XE1.~9JOV}aÇ 0w~a,.no~~a CE J.LE't'a 't'~V XEtpO't'OV\aV nap exe:tvwv au't'otç". 23. Vol. II, Bk. III, 93, pp. 570-71. Probably the charge is based on certain extremes such as the demand from their followers for a re-christening (ibid., p. 57l). Behind this idea one can detect the deep sp~n the social stratum of Byzantium. The hate against the ecclesiastical hierarchy could not have been based only on the privileged economie position of the Church. The Church was strongiy connected with the official conception of imperial theology. The imperial church of Chalcedone was a powerful hierarchical church. Questions of power and priority never did play an important role in the great arguments of strong archbisho:ps and patriarchs about the dogma and i ts final wording. The hierarchs did not create the dogmatic development, but they used it to consolidate their power, to push the unbound enthusiasm of pneumatic circles, especially of the monks, into the background and to form a tool for their church policy with the fonnulae of Orthodoxy. The spiritual needs of the masses had been completely overlooked. The official church -77-

The critics of the Zealots contradict themselves. Cabasilas

in his pamphlet, as is quoted by Tafrall, men+.ioned that some of the

funds confiscated from t.he church13s and monasterif!s were for repaira 24 to the exist.ing religious institutions.

The excuse of the Zealots for carrying out. those radical

policies can be expressed under three headings:

1. Tho se in charge of the goverrnnent can admini ster the affairs of the governed as they think fit.

2. The right to use confiscated property for the need which it can serve and absence of injustice when confiscation is compulsorily enforced.

,3. The existence of custom. The laws themselves are in agreement with their view (i.e., the Zealots1 ) that 25 cities should follow custom instead and in lieu of law.

The Zealots1 arguments were solid. The excuse they gave

was that it is incumbent on those who were charged with the business

(Footnote 23 continued from previous page.)

was never interested in the masses; in the minds of the people the Church was not better than the other privileged classes of Byzantine society. The masses had to be used, to be kept under control, so that the State could survive. The reaction against the official church can be seen in the s a 1 o i, the fools for Church1 s sake. These fools with their renunciation of the high culture of the Byzantine church and that of the sanctioned forma of monkdom, were opponents of the rationallstic state churchdom, of the rigid fo:nns of hierarchie life and of customary mini stry. Hans-Georg Beek, 212• cit., pp. 115-146.

24. Tafrali, 22• E,ll., p. 264, note 2.

25. The Zealots1 arguments are quoted by Cabasilas in his pamphlet. Barker, 2E• cit., p. 188. -78-

of, the community to conduct all such business with an eye to the 26 common interest.

11 What is there wrong if we (i.e., the Zealots) take some of the great wealth that belongs to monasteries and use it to support the poor, help the clergy and decorate the churches? This will do no hann to monasteries: what is left to them is sufficient for their needs; and there is nothing in it that departs from the intention of those who originally gave the endowment, for they looked to no other end than the worship of God and the support of 27 the poor. "

The accusations of Cantakuzeno s, Gregoras and Cabasilas

are based on political grounds and personal dislikes. No one accused the Zealots of defending the city of Thessaloniki, of improving the

position of the poor. Their criticisn is based on the confiscation of the wealth of a certain minority group within the &pire, on the enactment of popular legislation which ignored entirely thP. well-established rights of that minority. 'T'he Zealots were not an irreligious group guidP-d and supported by the anarchical elements of the city gilde; they were a well organized group which set up a republic. Neither were the laws ignored. On the contrary, they were respected and implemented. In defence of the Zealots one is obliged to quete from the writings of the same Cabasilas, the bitter enemy of the revolutionary republic. Cabasilas represented the

26, 27. Cabasilas as translated by Barker, 5ϥ cit., pp. 188-89. -19-

the Zealots and in his discourse before the Court began wi th an eulo gy of The ssaloniki ( after the Zealot s seized power): 11 Thi s republic", he said, "is the basie of equality and justice and its 28 11 laws a.re better than those of the Republic of Platon • This proves that the Zealot republic was not the revolutionary commune which

Gregoras described in his History.

The republic lasted for only seven years. In 1350

Cantakuzenos obtained possession of the city. Their alliance with the Serbs alienated the masses and the nobility won the upper hand.

The leaders of the popular party were arrested and imprisoned.

A ri.sing of auch dimensions presupposes some preparation.

Unrest among the servile and the discontented classes was of long- standing. Cantakuzenos 1 civil war and the inroads of the enemy only precipitated the rebellion. It remains doubtful whether a general revolt would have resulted had not the Empire been suffering from deep-seated political malaise. The ri.sing itself had no per- ceptible effect on the conditions of the peasantry or townanen.

Much of its importance lay in its revelation of the extent to which the governm.ent and the Church had lost the confidence of the people.

28. Sa.thas, .2.E• E:_h, vol. IV, p. xxvi. CHAPTER: VI

RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURI

A new epoch in the history of the eastern Church opened inauspiciously when the coup d'etat of the anti-Lascarid nobles placed

Michael Pal.aiologos on the Imperial throne, and the fall of the Latin

Empire led to the transfer of the Imperial seat to Constantinople.

Patriarch Arsenics, conmitted by the late Emperor Theodore II Lascaris to a policy of legitimacy (protector and guardian of the child 1 Emperor John IV Lascaris ), after the liberation of Constantinople, found himsel.f confronted with the aims and policies of Michael

Palaiologos which were very dissimilar to his own • .

Michael Pal.aiologos, harrassed incessantly by the demands of his expansionist policies, and desperately in need of guarantees from the Popes that no Western State should attempt the restoration of the !allen Latin Empire, found himself facing the perennial. problem of the Union of the Byzantine and Catholic Churches. Thus the two main problems confronting the Eastern Church in the fourteenth century were, on the one hand, the ethical question of legitimacy as it was interpreted by the clergy and the opponenl:.s of the Palaiologi and which was eventual.ly transformed into an expression of public -81-

discontent, and, on the other, the union of the Churches. In the

forties of the fourteenth century a revival in nzy-stico-spiritualism

gave rise to bitter and violent quarrels which split the Church

into two opposing camps. Palamism or hesychasism, as the movement

was then known, was not a new arrival on the scene of religious

discorda. Its roots can be traced back, on the one hard, to the

feud of Patriarch Arsenics and his followers--the Arsenites--and,

on the ether, to Emperor Michael who by usurping the imperial

throne and disregarding the solemnity of his oaths violated the

ethical aide of legitimacy. Usurpation had always been the

standard mode of succession in Byzantine times, but while in the

previous centuries the Church was subservient to the wishes of the

Emperor, since the thirteenth century, and one might venture to

suggest, since the weakening of the Byzantine rule in the Asiatic

provinces and their absorption by barbarie tribes, the Church

acquired a new and important role, a politico-religious one. This

ro1e provided the needed leadership to the occupied territories

and its population, thus the Church became a force in the political

arena that evecy Emperor had to take into consideration. In a way 2 the Church substituted am supp1enented the central administration.

2. E. Barker: "Social and Po1itical Thoughts in Byzantium11 , Oxford, 1957, P• 194-96 (Re. Letter of the Patriarch Antonios to Vasili I on the unity of the Empire and the Church). -82- a) Union of Churches

Since 1054, the date of the schism, a number of attempts were made by the Byzantine Emperors and the Popes for unification.

Both sides were uncompromising in their views and the attempts at re1igious rapprochement failed. It was only a po1icy of expediency.

On the part of the Byzantines the union was sought as a means of averting foreign invasions, while the Popes 1ooked upon the union as the only way to extend their po1itical and religious domination over 3 the entire provinces of the once mighty Roman Empire.

3. Alexios I Comnenos was the first Emperor to attempt Union of Churches atter the schism of 1054· His desire for union was prompted by the devastating attacks of Patzinaks and Cumans. See: W. Ho1tzmarm: "Die Unionsverhanll~en zwischen Kaiser Alexios I and Papst Urban II im Jahre 1009 Byzantiîlische Zeitschrift 28 (1928), 38ff. In ll41 John II approached Pope Innocent II but under his 1onging for the world supremacy of one Christian Church one can detect his aspiration for the politi cal. domination of East and West. The attempt fail.ed for there was no real basie for ecclesiastical union. There was a wide suspicion of the Greeks in the West and an uncontrollable hate of the Latins in the East. Ni cet as Choniates expressed the Byzantine attitude when he wrote: "The accursed Latins ••• lust after our possessions and would like to destroy our race ••• between them am us there is a wide gulf of hatred, our outlooks are campletely different and our paths go in opposite directions11 (391-2). (" .• ~'ITêt Xat 'ITaoaoEt:(J't.l ~€V aV'l:'tXpU<;; , - , A , ~ 'Y 1 v ~ - ~~~a 'l:'OtGX~'l:'aEa'l:'o~g'1:'9tç a'l:'tyot ç etxa~1'1:'at ~v , 1 ~etç EAaxo~ev otxetv xat a'.IToxap'ITeueO' 8at, xat oucepw~eç v - ' ~ - ' e~ OV'l:'ê~ ~WV 'ITap •t~IV aya WV XaXOVVWII.QVOUO'tV- U€1, , 'ITêpt , ,t, , , ... '~ r; , , ~o ~~e~eoov yevoç,xat xaxwv etcrt 'l:'Ex~oveç ota 'ITaV'l:'oç~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , c , - XaV ~tAEtV Tit\a'l:''l:'WV'l:'at, 'l:'OV XatOOV U'ITOOUO~EVOt, ll.tCJ'OUO'tV t ~ e ~ ~ ., ~ ~ , , ï, t , WG EX ta''l:'Ot• XaV o À.oyoc aU~OtG EU'ITpO~~vopo<;; Xat UTiêp Ill'~ t , :1 ·'· , t ~ "f , , • ) , , , EAatovv 5"oewv , a~om~'l:'t., anaAuvn~at,, 1 aÀ.À.a, ~oktoeç, etcrt xatv ou'l:'w<;; au'l:'ot, xat ~axatP.aç a~cptcr~ou(()u "t'O't.Lw~epot. ou'l:'w , c ... , ' - ., " , ,. , ~ea'ov !J~wv xat au~wv xacrua étawopaç ecr~~ptx'l:'at ~eytcr~ov, , , ' !; ' ~ , , , xat, ~atç, yvw~atç, acruvacpEtG, , e~~Ev, , xat e xa~a , otane'l:'pov,ï,, a~~~;~xa~ey~,Ev xat O'~~acrt ~~ van~o~~ a,xa} ;~v au'!:'~~ 'ITOAAaXtÇ ê\A~XEt~êV 0\X~O'tV.o 8 EV Xat aU'l:'O\ utj;aUXEVOUV~EÇ -83-

Since Papacy had always considered itself as the legitimate heir to the defunct Roman Empire, unification of the entire world under a

Papal leadership was the natural outcome of auch policy. Under auch circumstances no union could ever take place.

(Footnote 3 continued from previous page.)

, À~, , , - , t , t , Ja ~0 ~a~ Xat,~O ~OU crx~~a~OÇ U~êp~~~VWÇ UROX~tVO~êVOt o~Sto~, wç ~~~pvav ~t~oucrt,~~petv xat_~eptepya~ecrS~t , ~o "-etov ~ou ~Souç ~~wv xat unoxa~aêatvov xa"at ota ~o • ' , .S.. - , ., ' , r, ' ~ou cpoov~~a~oc ~E~P.tov. • 1 ~etc oe ~o exetvwv unepornpu ' ~ y ., ' 'T , ' y T' T xat ;9 x~~~~povA~at,cre~vov x~t ~~v xo~urav,o~a ~}Va Xccpa~~v avw u~o~~e~o~evot ~etvoucrav, en au~~ç ~~v ~OOE~av ~tSt~eea.coÀwV~êÇ ~ç oeu"Po~;; ouva~.t Xptcr~oü J;;; - , , .. , , ~· :1 • , ~ou ~a~etv e~avw oéewv xat crxopntwv E~oucrtav ~paAeuov~eç11 Kat' ~o ' ~~oev ' 'ev~eu .. ev ~a eetv -- v~ Kat' ~otx~cr' - eat ~apexov~eç" ) • Under the cloak of a universal united Church can be seen the Byzantine struggl.e for universal rule.

The increasing secularization of the crusading spirit gave· to the Popes an outlet for their political and religious domination of the Byzarrt.ine Empire. Th us the crusade became an instrument of conquest to be used against the Christian East (See: H. Gregoire: The Question of the Division of the Fourth Crusade", Byzantion, 15 (1940-41), P• 152 ff.) The ecclesiastical subordination of the Greeks to the Papacy was achieved after the conquest of Constantinople, though it was not en agreed church union. Union through the force of arms emphasized Byzantine awareness of their own cultural and religious way of life. The repercussions of union through conquest clearly mani­ fested themselves in the fourteenth century when the populace acquired power in the political arena..

Under John Vatatzes the Byzantines again negotiated for Union with the Church of Rome. Again, as previously, it was a political move. The Byzantines demanded the surrender of the Latin Empire as preliminary to negotiations. Innocent IV could not fail to perceive that co-operation with the powerful Nicaean Empire promised a richer reward than the support of the Latin Empire. As the Byzantine Emperor was prepared to sacrifice his Church for Constantinople, so too the Pope was prepared to abandon the Latin Empire for Church Union. (See: Norden: "Papsttum und Byzanz11 , p. 359; Ostrogorsky: 11 Histor,y of the Byzantine Empire11 , p. 392. -84-

In Michael Palaiologos' reign the question of union was once more brought into focus. It was only a way to thwart the efforts of Charles of Anjou to re-establish the fallen Latin Elnpire. Michael reopened negotiations for union, arter having modified the expansionist 4 policies of the previous Emperors. The union was negotiated in 1274 in Lyons. The negotiations resulted in the recognition, on the part 5 of the Byzantine Empire, of the formula of filioque, azyme , the supremac.y of the Pope in church organizational and dogmatic matters and in the participation of a crusade for the liberation of the Holy

Land; the Pope did agree to divert the aggressive designs of Charles of Anjou so that the Byzantine Emperor need not fear attack from the 6 West.

(Footnote 3 continued from previous page.)

As the Nicaean Empire increased in area and strength this obviated the need for papal support in the struggle for Constantinople. Under Theodora II Lascaris, the union attempts failed because the Emperor wanted to set up himself as an umpire in ecclesiastical questions, thus subordinating the Catholic Church to his imperial will.

4· The Union of 1.27 4 was negotiated and ratified not so much out of Yùchael1 s genuine desire for ecclesiastical unification, as out of the threats of Pope Gregory X. The Emperor had no choice but. to submit to the papal will.

5. See: Norden: 2E· cit., pp. 520-650.

6. G. Zananiri: 11 Histoire de 1' église Byzantine", Paris, 1954, PP• 230-35. -85-

The Union had always been unpopular among the Orthodox masses and the lower clergy, especially the monks, but in the late thirteerrt.h century any question of Union which accepted the tenns of

Papacy and forced them upon the masses and the clergy was bound to be abhorred. The population could not forget that lesa than a generation ago the Popes were attempting to force Catholicism on them through the mnerous Franld.sh principalities and states tha.t sprang out of the 7 Byzantine Empire.

Michael Palaiologos, after the ratification of the Union, uniertook to carry out the tenns of the agreement to the consternation of the monks and the lower classes. Coercive methods, imprisorment, torture, confiscation of property and exile convinced many a churchman that reconciliation with Rome was political.ly necessary. According to s Gregoras, John Veccos 11 a wise man, master of eloquence and science" arter a long imprisoœent became an ardent supporter of the Union.

Although the repressive methode adopted by the imperial administration which affected the social position and the property of the opponents of the union, could convince high church officials like John Veccos and other l~en, the masses and the monks, especially the Athonite monks, who had alw~s rEillained the advocates of the ideas of a true and inflexible Orthodo:xy, could not be so easily persuaded to accept Union

7. The policy of the Papacy ani of the temporal Frankish rulers was complete subordination of the Greek eccl.esiastical hierarchy to the Holy See. In addition, the haughty attitude of the Cardinale estranged many a Greek high ecclesiastical official. Heisenberg A.: "Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums", vol. I, PP• 48-52; PP• 7-S; vol. II, PP• 5-lOJ PP• 20-40; vol. Ill, PP• 20..25. s. v, 2, 5, p. 128. -86-

with Papacy. In an anti-Uni.on council held in ThessaJ.y the Union was 9 condemned.

Although Vasiliev writes that Michael Palaiologos believed

in the union and considered himself bound to it, it seems that it fits 10 into the pattern of Michael's foreign policy. It was another move

to consolidate his power and secure the indepeiXlence of Byzantium

against renewed attacks of Western preterxiers. It coul.d not be denied

that by advocating and pressing for union he estranged the population

and the clergy, but it woul.d have be en easie r to a vert internal

revolution by means of intimidation, torture and other repressive

methods than to avert attacks by powerful Western aggressors, if one

takes into consideration that during his reign the Empire was fighting

wars on all frontiers.

It was evident from the beginning that neither the Pope nor

the Byzantines considered the Union of lasting nature. No previous

union had lasted longer than it was politically expedient. The Union

togetœr with the 11 cloak am dagger'' diplomacy of Michael Palaiologos

thwarted the aggressive plans of Charles of Anjou and the imminent

G. Rouillard: 11 La politique de Michel VIII Paléologue à 1' égard des monastères," Etudes byzantines, I (1944), PP• 73-84. Also, V. Grumel: "En Orient apr~s le Ile concile de Lyon," Échos d'OriEnt, XXIV (1925), p. 321, p. 322.

10. The ratification of the union by Michael did not provide Byzantium with the expected peace am security. It is true that Charles of Anjou bad been restrained from inva.ding and ravaging the Byzantine possessions but on the other band the leaders of the Greek principalities disassociated tœmselves from any union policy and were moved to launch attacks against Michael Palaiologos. John of Thessaly proclaimed himself the leader of the Orthodox Greeks and ali the discontended elements from Byzantium gathered at his court. The Bulgarian court. was turned into a nest of anti-imperial intrigue. -87-

invasion from the West and provided Byzantium wi th a few years of respite until the imperial government could coneolidate its power and 11 deal with the barbarie invasions of the north and the east. In lesa than a decade after the ratification, Pope Martin IV, a pawn in the 12 hands of Charles of Anjou, repudiated it. The union is of importance in the social history of fourteenth century Byzantium because for the first time the population participates in a purely religious controversy. There is no denying that previously there had been attempts on the part of the Byzantine Emperors to impose on the Church dogmatic interpretations or alien dogmas (e.g. iconoclastie 13 controversy ) or even union with Fapacy, but those, while they were serious, at least from the point of view of the religious leaders,

11. Michael in his speech, as reported by Gregoras, (vol. I, Bk. V, 2, pp. 126-27), did ma.ke it clear that the tmion was a political move to protect the defences of the Empire.

12. The uncompromising attitude of the Greek population and clergy wa.s not the main reason for the failure of the union. The reason should be sougbt in the resistance of the Western European rulers towards any rapprochement between Eastern temporal and Western spiritual leaders. In the spiritua.l submission of Byzantium, and its eventual political submission, the western political rulers saw an increase in the temporal power of the pope.

13. The iconoclastie controversy ex.amined superficially, may seem an imposition of oriental.-inspired ideas over the Orthodox church. In Léo III1 s programme the political and social implications are ove.rshadowed by the [email protected] innovations. The real reason behind the controversy wa.s the strengthening of the al'II\Y, the weakening of the economie power of the monasteries, the purification of society, and the raising of the ethical stan:la.rds which had fal.len so low by the eighth century. Paparigopoulos K.: 11 Histoire de la civilisation hellenique11 , Paris, 1878, pp. 188-91. Also, 11 Faparigopoulos K.: 11 History of the Greek People ' vol. rn, Athens, 1871-77. -88-

affected only the Emperor, his administration and the ecclesiastical 14 officials, while the population as a whole rem.ained neutral. In the

union of 1274 the masses, either through their awakened political

consciousness or through the instigation of the monks, became the

deciding factor in the acceptance or rejection of a politico-religious

matter. The population became a power that no Emperor could seriously

dismiss as uni.mportant. Although the repressive œthods of the imperial

administration could neutralize any popular attempt at revolution those were not sufficient to pacify the enraged populace. And for the first time the Empire was divided into opposing camps: those favouring the union, and those rejecting the idea of aQY religious compromise with the West.

One may, at least indirectly, deduce that the division followed the social lines: the masses, the monks ani the lower clergy on the one side, am the aristocracy on the other. Gregoras did re- port that the coercive measures affected all segments of the population, for the opponents of the union could be found in all social classes.

However, one should not forget that Gregoras although he was writing

14. The neutrality of the population should not be exaggerated. There was opposition from the population especially from the common people, women and the enormous number of monks. The enlightened element of society, the anny and the majority of the high clergy supported the iconoclastie movernent. The fail.ure of the iconoclastie refo:nns should be attributed not so much to the re­ action of the masses, as to the attitude of the monks who by losing their privileged position in society were demoted to the statua of the masses, with countless obligation ani no rigpts. N. Iorga: "Sur les origines de 1 1 iconoclasme", Bulletin de la section historique de l'Academie roumaine, XII (1924), pp. 147-48· -89- a kind of social, political, religious and economie histor;y of the hundred and fifty years following the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusa.ders, reflects the thinking and sympathies of the aristocra­ cy, and, therefore, the sufferings or persecutions of the members of the elite class wuld receive a disproportionate emphasi.s compared to those of the masses.

The social unrest after the ratification of the union did not reflect so much the religious conscioueness of the people, as their desperate economie plight. The union provided for the populace the opportunity to air their grievances agai.nst the government. In the late thirteenth century the people were ready to espouse any religi.ous, semi-religious, or even a purely political cause to vent their dis­ content against increased taxation and social instability. The Zealot revolutionary movement and the He sychastic controversy prove weil this point. -90- b) The Arsenites

Since the beginning of the Palaiologan dynasty in the second half of the thirteenth century the Empire was agitated by religious

and political problems in which the entire population, irrespective of

social class or status, was involved. Immediately after the liberation of Constantinople the first major religious problem confronting the

secular and temporal authorities was whether the deposition and exile 15 . of Patriarch Arsenios , who a.fter the blinding of John IV Lascaris 16 excommunicated and outlawed Michael Palaiologos , wa.s legal and whether

15. Arsenios was deposed for condoni.ng the church behaviour of the Turkish S\lltan Azatine. The official charges were obviously not true but were needed only as an excuse to eliminate the Patriarch fran the scene whose presence was undoubtedly an obsttcle to Michael' s plans. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, p. 94s 11 T)V ~ '\ '\ 8 .. , ~ c '\ , 'AY , - c , 1\.a/\.T) e10'a xa,;T)yop1a,o"tt o O'OU/\."tav ~a"t1VT)~ 'tT)~ tepaç ,;ef..ou~~VT)ç~ôo~ot..oy!a~ n~t..t..&xt~ O'u~nae~v xat ~~t~et ;~ na,;ptapxu- , . evôov - ~ou, vaou., xat., ,;ot" x,;~1.. - ,;e ~a0'1À.et.. xat ,;otç apxte~euO'tV eyvwO'~evov ~v,o,;t ~tO'"ttavwv ,;e t\n~pVE yoVEWV U\oç Xat ,;t'1 8e 1,1.1 xaf aU"tOC "tê~EÀ.EO'~ÉVOÇ ~ .,_ 7 ._- t_ T , J y J ' ,.. ~an~tO'~a"tt T)V· •••••••• O'OUÀ"tav xat apxTJyoç eyeyovet ,;wv Toupxwv, ~6,;e ~év ~v xpun,;w ôta"tT)~wv ,;a ,;~ç euO'e~efaç xatetw"tepa,, •• ·;··· ;~u~a- x~'e' anee '11:1\.a'\ 'tif- ~g"tptapx~ , , ,;~xavovJa 2XU pa xa"t~/\.uov o 1. ~;a}:o~:evo t ~ no?'e~} a_" "tUYi:avov,;a -,;If, <1x9n'f -,;1') ~ x aSa t p ~O'ewç J x a} anT)yo ~ e ç ~ ~e, -,;q,. _a~q> t j)ot..o v xat ,;o aq>aveç, xaxet8ev e~exuf..tov etç ~o ~T) ov".

16. G)egoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 4, P• 93: "· .xat 'ItÉ~lJlaç 6:CfoPt9'~w ~ev, ~év ~aO'tf..ea , , xa8uno~at..f..et- , ~xxt..nO'taO'~txw,, , ,'\ ' "tTJV, ôe, e " "!;OU"tOU ~VT)~T)V EV ~atÇ ~VifÔtatÇ OUX EXW/\.UêV avaq>epêO' at •

Ibid., Bk. IV, 1, p. 7S: " ••• Mtva~t.. "tov Tiaf..atof..ovov r-- ~ '\, , , -t'TI , , ' avT)yo~euouO't ~aO't/\.Ea •••••• axT)xowç o a"tptapx~ç ApO'evtoç

,••••• aq>optO'~w, ,, xa8uno~af..etv, , , ~nexeipT)O'e, 'Itpw"tovIl "tov ~É avT)yopeu~evov · xat "touç avayopeuO'aV"teç •••• -91-

his successor Joseph was the real heir to the Patriarchal throne. The

church was divided into two parties and in the non-dogmatic matter the

people participated as an organized group obstinately opposing the

Emperor and the new leaders of the church. The followers of Arsenics

came to be known as Arseni.tes.

A careful examination and stucty of the question of legitimacy--

ecclesiastical legitimacy--as it is expressed in the case of Patriarch

Arsenics will reveal that the Arseni.tes were not a group that sprang

out of the public indignation at the deposition and exile of the strict

and narrow-minded monk, Arsenics. Their roots were spread deep in the

structure of B.yzantine ecclesia and politeia. It became apparent in

the twelfth century that there were two parties struggling for the

domination of the church administration: the zealots and the politicians , ~ 17 (~fJ"-w'rca, no)\t't'tXOtJ. The zealots advocated moral austerity and 18 ab solute exclusion of the State from ecclesiastical questions, while

17. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. VI, 1, 7, p. 165. Pachymeres, IV, 12, p. 280. The 11 politicians11 can be compared to the modern French "opportuniste". See: A.A. Vasiliev: 11History of the Byzantine Empire", P• 659.

18. The zealots had a number of predecessors who fought imperial interference in ecclesiastical affaire. The most famous of all was Theodore Studites who in the ninth century was an outspoken en~ of imperial interference in church dogmatic and organiza­ tional matters. The zealots lacked sophistication and above all education. They were hostile to educated clergy arrl in their political and ecclesiastical struggles they were supported by the monks. In their moments of triumph they opened to the monks the way to power. The zealots were the party of the common men and reflected the centuries old chasm existing in Byzantine society between the upper and lower classes, between the highly educated elite and the masses. This existing chasm can be clearly seen in -92-

the politicians were concerned with the counterbalancing of state and 19 church.

The politico-religious programme of the zeal.ots found wide

support with the masses. The popularity of the zealots among the

population was due not to the latter1 s adherence to the ideas of

strict and inflexible Orthodoxy but to the fact that they provided the

only dissenting voice in an autocratie Empire where the Emperor1 s w:i.sh

(Footnote 18 continued from previous page.)

the language. The attic language of the "philosopher'', or what he understood by that, was something artificial. The living Greek was the language of the people which had been ignored by the educated class and the imperial officialdom. Thus, there were two languages in Byzantium: that of the classicists and the everyday language. These tendencies existed as early as the seventh or eighth centuries. The fozms of old were preserved not for sentimental reasons but for being simple and flexible. The people, the representatives of this language, did not see in the philosopher a model worth i.mitating. For them, the educated class was a figure full of empty book wisdom. The chasm increased considerably in the late thirt.eenth and fourt.eenth centuries with the graduai. impoverishment of the State ani the political aware­ ness of the masses. See: Hans-George Beek: "Theodoros Metochites. Die Krise des b zantinischen Weltbildes im 1 • Jahrhundert11 , M\hlchen, 1952, pp. 133-l ·• The same detached position of the educated class is reflected in Gregoras 1 "Histo~", vol. I, Bk. VIII, 12, P• 360; Ibid.J Bk. IV\,8, p.l0'7: ' •• O'ocptaç ô' tEÀ.À.f}vtx~ç '1tav't'a'1taO't~J.Lê't'OXoç wv". On the other hand, Gregoras due to his intellectu&l detachment, has only caustic and bitter remarks to make when a zealot was elevated to the Patriarchal. throne. See: Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. VI, 7, 4, p. 193. "~cp" o~ , , 1 w -- - , xat 't'a '1tpa~a't'a eôo~e 't'ote 't'wv J.LOvaxwv xaxo't'po'1totç , y' , 1 , • . , , ,, , 1 , , ex ~aÀ.f)Ç xat xf...uôwvoç etç ëUôtav e~nt...u 9evat xat a'1to XêtJ.LWVoç- etç, ,eap ••• tt

19. Their programme was based on the theory of 11 economy'1, i. e., the church shoul.d accommodate itself to circurnstances. See: Vasiliev, 2E.• cit., p. 660. -93- was divinely inspired law. The zealots were the only ones to sy.mpathize with the public discontent, espouse the people's cause and provide organized leadership in opposing the imperial authority.

The politicians, on the other hand, represented the idea of status quo, and were willing to sacrifice the irxlependence of the church to the ideas of a strong and uni. fied State. In the two parties was refiected the division of the Byzantine social structure. The non- conformists represented the masses, the monks, the lower clergy, the oppressed elements in the society, the uneducated, those lacking the refinement of the Greek paideia, all those who could not tolerate the snobbery of the intellectuals, the aristocratie cl.ass. The politicians , however, embraced in their ranks the int.elligensia, all those who vied not for the supremacy of a cl.oister type orthodoxy, strict and unimagina.tive in its interpretations, but for the supremacy of the human mind. Undoubtedly with the politicians1 views the upper classes were in accord, for their programme wa.s not radical but rather conservative while the zealots by relying on the extreme elements, such as the uneducated monks ani the mob, threatened to disrupt the cohesion of Byzantine society.

By the end of the thirteenth centu:cy all social and religious upheavals were interpreted in the light of the politico-religious programme of those two parties. The struggle was of auch bitter nature that Pachymeres is forced to admit that familles were divided, rather 20 opposed to son, and mother to daughter.

20. Pachymeres: vol. I, Bk. IV, 28, P• 314. -94-

With the deposition and exile of Arsenios, the Zealots or 21 Arsenites (both ter.ms denote the extreme elements in society ) were transfonned from a purely religious party into a politico-religious party where political issues occupied a major role in the programme. They became staunch supporters of the cause of the Lascaris family; they represented legitima.cy--political ani religious. The idea.s of the Arsenites found many followers from among those who refused to recognize the new Patriarch Joseph while Arsenios was still living.

Repressive measures followed and the Arsenites or Zealots were forced into exile. The outcome of the struggle was the schism that split Byzantine society. Deposition or even exile of a Patriarch was often practiced in the Byzantine Empire, but the people remained out side the controversy. The difference between a thirteenth century deposition, or even a fourteenth century for that matter, and that of previous centuries, lies in the fact tha.t in the previous ones no politics were invol ved. It was purely a matter affecting the Emperor and the ecclesia.. In the deposition of Arsenios and the organized resistance of the monks, the Church had gained a strength never before :funagined. It should be emphasized that most of the supporters of Arsenios were the oppressed elements of society and those who lost their powerful and privileged position with the dethronement of John IV Lascaris, thus favouring legitimacy. In a wa.y, under the cloak of Arsenios• exile there were

21. The Arsenites are distinguished from the Zealots only by their position in regard to the Patriarch Arsenios. -95-

two oppositional groups: the extreme elements in the orthodox

hierarcny, e. g. the monks, who as a result of their strict ideas

advocated statua quo in the church, ani the political e.xtremists and

the dispossesed elements who favoured statua quo in order to regain

their previous privileged position in society. Thus the religious

status quo merged with the political one, formed a united front against

Emperor Michael Palaiologos. To these two groups should be added the masses who espoused the cause of the Arsenites or Zealots on account of their own persona! discontent with the administration. Although religion wa.s deeply rooted in the conscience of the population, at least phenomenally, they would have remained complet ely detached if prosperity and wealth had abounded in the Empire. Michael' s continu- ous wars and global diplomacy required more revenues than the newl.y liberated Empire could provide. Crushing taxes arrl slow impoverish- ment of the people forced the masses into the camp of the extremists, be they religious or political. Thus three different groups fighting 22 for thei.r own cause joined the banner of resistance against Michael.

22. J. E. Troizkyft the Russian Church historian described the situati

.The fact that the death of Patriarch Arsenios did not put an end to their activities is evidence that the dethronement of the Patriarch 23 provided a timely excuse for an expression of public discontent. The ratification of the union of Lyons gave new life to the Arsenite movement. The sources are rather hazy as far as the

Arsenites are concerned. Whether the opposition to the union was led by the Arsenites or not is a matter of speculation. Gregoras mentioned that people were persecuted for their dislike of the union policies of the Emperor, but it is not clear whether they were treated harshly for adhering to the programme of the Arsenites or simply for

(Footnote 22 continued from previous page.)

to these conditions and to the power responsible for them, that is the imperial power. This force seldom ventured openly to provoke political puniShment, but it often seriously affected the government ••••• because ••••• the secret activity was very difficult to trace ••••• and ••••• it had great affect on the social organization. The people miserable, dispossessed and ignorant, and therefore credulous and superstitious, constantly persecuted by both external anemies and state officials, burdened with exorbitant taxes, and crushed under the pressure of the privileged classes ani foreign merchant monopolies - the people were very easily influenced by the insinuations coming from the out-of-the-way places ••••• This was more true because the force, formed from the people and subject to the conditions under which they lived, had the secret of playing upon their feelings at the decisive moment ••••• This force in its opposition to the government used different Slogans, but its opposition was particularly dangerous to the head of the state, when upon its banner was exhibited the magic word 110rthodo.xy11 • Quoted by Vasiliev, 2E• m•, PP• 661-62. I. Sykutres came to the same conclusion in his article "IIEp i 't'6 O'XÏO'J.La 'twv 'Ap

23. _illg_. -97--

24 their dislike of the union.

The death of Michael put an end to the cruel persecutions

of his administration. His successor, Andronicos n, adopted a new

approach to ecclesiastical problems which differed radically fran

that of his father. Circumstances deman:ied a complete re-orientation •

It was meaningless to insist on the idea of unity when the Papacy had long before his reign repudiated it. Another extremely important -98-

problem with which he was confronted was the internal. unity of the

nation. Michael's coercive measures found no sympathy with the new

Emperor. In arder to pacify the extremists John Veccos was canpelled

to relinquish the Patriarchal. See, and. the office of the sumpreme orthodox spiritual leader was bestowed on Joseph who had been dethroned 25 for refusing to adhere to the Union of Lyons. In addition, envoya were sent to all parts of the Empire carcying decrees which announced the repudiation of the Union, the settlement of the church disorders, free retum for all those who had been exiled for their zeal in church 26 affaira and an amnesty to all those who had been imprisoned. The general amnesty ani the repudiation of the Union was not more than an acknowledgment on the part of the Imperial administration that persecutions and terror could not enforce a policy which found no

26 • ~;i-4 . • , p. 160. -99- sympathy with the populace and the majority of the clergy. Besides the Union was a political move and not a genuine desire for settling outstanding ecclesiastical problems. -lOO- c) The Hegychastic Movement

The religious disturbances of the late thirt.eenth and early fourteenth centuries were movements auch that they menaced the stability and the fourrlations of the Church but ceased to exist the moment the real cause of discontent was removed from the scene. They were of local character, in the sense that the dogmas of Orthodo~ were not affected nor did they draw into the conf.lict the entire orthodox population and hierarchy of Christendom. The advent of the Hesychastic movement opened a new epoch in the history of Ort.hodo:xy. The move­ ment derived its name fran 11 those who live in quiet" ( ~O'UXaO''t'aO and it wa.s ba.sed on the idea. of unity with God through Jey'Btical contemplation, silence ( ~O'ux(a).

The origin of the movement can be traced back to the mwstics 27 of the eleventh centur.y, and especially to Symeon the New Theologian.

Even in the early days of Christianity, in the fourth or fifth century, there were monks who abandoned civilization and all communication with their fellow men, for the sole purpose of attaining unity with God 28 through mystical contemplation. The Hesychastic movement found its spokesman in the person of Gregory of Sinai who visited Byzantium in the

27. I. Hausherr: 11 Vie de Symeon le nouveau Théologien", Rome, 192S.

28. J. Bois: "Les Hésychastes avant le XIVe si~cle 11 , 'Echos d 1 Orient V (1901), p. 2. It was a oommon practice among the cenobite monks to attain spiritual purification through hesychia. The fourteenth century hesychia was complicated by the fact that complex theological questions regarding the Divine Light am the Holy Spirit entered into the picture. Th. Hadjistauvrou: "At '1tep( 't'WV (HO'uxaO''t'WV 't'~ç tô' ~Xa't'OV't'ae't'~p{ôoç xa1 't'DG 5t5aO'xaX\aç au't'wv ~ptàeG", 8eO'daKovtx~, 1905. -101... middle of the first ha.lf of the fourteenth century and preached his 29 ascetic and mystical ideas. The pre-fourteenth centur,y hesychasts were spiritual mystics, while the fourteenth century movement, although it appeared as a religions reaction against the vanity of the earthly living, was characterized by political controversies in which the religions issues were of secondar.y nature. The reasons for its success should be sought in the political passions of the period, in the receptive popular mentality due to the !allure of all other moral and ethical values, in the teachings of the Church which with the changing political situation accentuates the importance of divine punishment and in the influence of the previous oppositional groups: the Arsenites or

Zealots and the Politicians.

The continuous wars, civil war, raids by eastern and western anemies, pestilence, starvation and the visitations of unthinkable other evils brought about a ebange in the teachings of the Church. The Church ha.d always emphasized tha.t wars and natural calamities were nothing but visitations of the Divine Will to either punish or reward the faithful.

Before there had alw~s been a strong ar.my, and a capable administration to defend the well-being of the inhabita.nts; but in the fourteenth centur,y the a~ nearly disappeared and the inhabitants were left to their own fate. The Church emphasized more and more the theor.y of God 1 s will

29. He laid emphasizes on the human mind. He argued that the re were two kinds of mind ( voÜG): 11theoretic mind11 and "practical mind" ~OÜG 9ewp~~tx6ç, voüç ~pax~tx6ç). The voÜG 9ewp~~tXOG with God 1 s help purifies the soul while the voÜG ~pax~tXbG urù.tes the soul, through contemplation, to God. "IIept DO't>Xtas", Migne, CL, col. 1313. -102-

to punish the faithful for their sins, the teachings became fatalistic

and slowly the masses began to seek for themselves spiritual unity with

God. Moreover, the Church1 s high officials were inclined towards

temporal matters, participated in political controversies and acted as if they were representatives more of the devil than of God. Bishops were residing in the capital while their dioceses were left to the mercy of the local clergy. Patriarche lacked paideia. Even the monks,

probably with the exception of those of Athos, were wandering a1l over the Empire a.i.mlessly. Un:ler those circwnstances the Hesychastic move- ment came as a reaction against the corrupt practices of the Church 30 administration. What favoured the success of the movement and the eventual incorporation of its dogmas in Orthodoxy was the unstable political condition. The first phase of the movement was characterized by purely religious controversies. The controversy was sparked by Barlaam, a monk 31 from Calabria , who, arriving in Constantinople, openly ridiculed and 32 attacked the methode of the monks, the Hesychasts. In a council

30. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. VI, 5, pp. 183-S4; Bk. VIII, 3, p. 292; ;t:bid., P• 360. 31. Calabria had been the centre of Byzantine culture in Italy. He was highly educated; and follower of the Aristotelian philosop~ with which Catholicism had been in accord. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. XI, 10, pp. 55 5-56. Cant akuzenos wrote that bis knowledge covered ancient Greek philosopny and methematics (vol. I, Bk. II, 39, PP• 543-46). Although he was weil versed in all sciences, his knowledge of Orthodox theology was limited. Cantakuzenos: "Contra Barlaarum et Acin

presided over by Andronicos III and with Gregoras as the main defender 33 of the Hesychasts , Barlaam. was forced to acknowledge his error and

express his repentance for hie unorthodox views. The second phase 34 began when Barlaam left for Thessaloniki. In this phase the movement

was transfonned into a contest between westem and eastem philosophical

views between Aristotelian and Platonic philoaophical systems.

The decision of the council was not enough to satisfy the 35 extremiste and paci.ty the fermentation of the spirits. Tafrali reports

that in Thessaloniki, for instance, the city was divided into two

hostile camps. On the one hand, there were the admirera of Barlaam, who

favoured and encouraged the renaissance of Greek philoeophy and culture,

and, on the other hand, the supporters of the monks, who adhered to the

strict orthodox rules and who derived their main support fran the state.

The defeat of Barlaam only meant the aggravation of an already serious

situation. The educated class, striving for the revival of Greek culture, were not easily convinced of the arguments of the Hesychasts or of the impartiality of the decision.

In the third phase, political expediencies played a major role

33. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. XI, 10, pp. 555-56.

34. Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. II, 39, p. 545. In Thessalonild Barlaam .tounded his own school, and taught logic, Aristotelian dialectics and Platonic philosophy", (~., p. 543). His te&ehings had success among the educated classes. His success was probably due to the .tact that he was teaching a new approach which was radically opposed to the official church-st.ate philosophy.

35. "Thessalonique•, P• 185. -104-

'whi.le the religious issues remained in the background. In the .t.i.rst two phases and even until the open revolt of Cantakuzenos, political and church leaders were avoiding a definite solution to the problem of

Barlumi.te philosophical and theologi.cal teachings. Although the leaders of the church and state condEmlled Barla.am.' s theories, they hesita.ted to provide a clear-cut decision. Even Palamas, the leader of the Hesychasts had been imprisoned. It seEms that the movement (i.e. hesychastic), as a religious innovation wa.s considered as one of those periodic theological unorthodo.xies that the church was confronted with si.nce its foundation.

Although it wa.s not altogether unorthodox enougb to condemn it or orthodox enough to approve it, the hesychastic movement was tolerated with the hope that eventually it would affect only the cloister popllation and not involve the entire nation in a struggle in which the religious issues were insignificant.

After the death of Andronicos Ill and the civil wa.r between

Cantakuzenos and the· regents of Constantinople, the hesychastic party became the backbone of Cantakuzenos1 revolt. The alliance of Cantakuzenos and hesychasian wa.s prompted by pure politics. Hesycha.si.Sil had an unquestionable influence over the l.ower clergy, the monks, over people who were bound to be influenced by mystico-spiritual practices, over the uneducated masses who were the main force behind any social uprising.

In the fourteenth centur.r the masses, after their awakened political consciousness, became the only instrument on which depended the su.ccess or failure of a political or religious prograume. Thus the hesychastic party could swing the population in favour of Cantakuzenos. It should be Emphasized that the politics of the first half of the fourteenth century -105- and especially of the period of the civil wars, are nothing but demagogie attempts on the part of one or tœ other parties to gain control of the nasses. The army was not the deciding factor in the political arena. Apokaukos by stirring up political passions among the mob, neutralized any attempt on the part of the followers of

Cantakuzenos to seize power in Constantinople. Cantakuzenos employed the same techniques in the cities of Thrace and Macedonia. The masses accepted the hesychastic teachings and Cantakuzenos not because they had any clear notion of the issues involved but by doing so they believed that their financial position would be improved. ,For

Cantakuzenos it did not matter whether the Light of Tabor could be seen with or without cozporeal eyes so long as the support or neutrality of the monks should enable him to seize the imperial th rone. What mattered was not religion but politics. The reward. of the monks was the 36 incorporation of the hesychastic doctrines into Orthodoxy.

The official recognition of hesychasism did not put an end to the hesychastic dispute. Even after the death of Gregoras, its main

36. In 1347 (Mi.klosich and Mill.ler: 11 Acta11 , vol. I, p. 245) in an ecclesiastical synod convoked in the church of St. Sophia (Cantakuzenos, vol. I, Bk. II, 40, p. 556) under the auspices of Patriarch John N Kalekas, the teachings of the Barlaamites were partly recognized. The protestations of the monks were of no avail for the opposition was already in power. Cantakuzenos and Gregoras provide no information on this point but the unpublished orations of Palamas are explicit (Tafrali, 2P.• c_!~., p. 194). The issues were further complicated by the investigations of the jurist Constantine Hannenopoulos who declared that both dogmas (Barlaamite and Palamite) were distortions of the truth and removed from the teachings of the church fathers. He was accused by Acindynos ( successor of Barla.am) of attempting to create a third the sis entirely unorthodox. Paul Kallegas: "Me À. É,;ca x a~ A6yo 1. " , p. 510. -1"06-

'Opponent, his successors carried on the struggle which had spread to 37 the entire Orthodox world.

Whether "Palamisn11 or hesychasisn was a new heresy or Palamas

a heretic attempting to undennine the foundation of the established

church, or a pawn in the hands of the civil administration are questions

that will probably never be solved. In Gregoras 1 history, Palamas is

a sinner, an idolater, a disgrace to Orthodo.xy. But others, especially

his supporters and followers see in him a saint who achieved inner

spiritual purification. Palamian should not be looked upon as another of the periodical ecclesiastical disturbances eo common in medieval times, but as a movement. that embodies the first seeds of the struggle

for the liberation of the human mind. It was a struggle between the

revival of the classical spirit, the freeing of the human mind from church dogœatic interference, and the strict and uncompromising attitude of monaeticisn. The victory of Palamian meant the triumph of monastici an, of controlled and unfree thinking; i t meant the death of the revival of hellenisn. One may aak why did Cantakuzenos and his party support the hesychasts at the expanse of such leamed men as Gregoras, Barlaam and

Acindynos? The answer is that at the time of Cantakuzenos the hesychastic movement ceased to be a purely religious controversy and developed into a rather political movement. The opponents of the hesychasts

37. Gregpras, vol. III, Bk. XXV, 4, 5, PP• 23-25. -107-

in Thessalonild were favouring autonontV, 11 equal.ity11 for the masses,

control of the weal.th of the aristocracy, new laws of justice which

meant the introduction into Byzantine society of extremely radical

innovations. The hesychasts, at least indirectly, were favouring a

sort of statua quo. Cantakuzenos a wealthy member of the aristocracy,

a rebel fighting against the legitims.te Emperor, needed the support of

the clergy, especially the support of the Athos monks to sanctify his

cause. In fact he begged the monks not to take sides in the struggle 38 against the imperial authorities. If the movement had remained a

theological controversy undoubtedly it would have been ignored by the

civil administration. But once politi cal implications entered into the

picture, disregard was an impossibility.

On the one ham there was the popular party favouring equality,

social legislation for the help of the masses, seizure of the church

properties, democratie government, revlval of classicism and, on the other, , the aristocratie party, in favour of the already e.xisting social

conditions, aristocratie rule, large estates and di vision of classes.

No one can seriously accuse the monks and the Church of not being in

favour of improving the social conditions of the masses but by the

fourteenth centuey the ecclesiastical policy had come under the influence

of fatalism; eveeything is interpreted in the light, of sin and punish- ment. People cannot escape their fate, for thei.r sins are such that if

38. Gregoras, vol. I, Bk. IV, 24, PP• 173-74• not raids then pestilence or ether divine visitations will ensure .39 punishment. Besides, the popular party was in faveur of 40 distributing church la ms to tho se who had none. The Church being

in possession of most of the land could not support such radical policies.

On the ether hand, the aristocracy was always a source of wealth to the Church through lani gifts, money ani repaira to e:xisting monasteries

and churches. In principle the Church was not against any culture and learning. It favoured, instead of the revival of classicism, the growth of orthodox learning anà all kin::ls of literary manifestations as long as they were interpreted in the light of pure and strict

.39. Banescu op. cit., p. 7. The Patriarch writes: "• • • • eêp ,h,OJ.LE'V ., a" x at, 1eO''Ite: ,t paJ.Le:'V. • • • • lt •

11 11 40. Cantakuzenos, vol. II, Bk. III, .38, pp. 2.34-.35. Palamas Homelie , Migne, CLI, col. 12. Both writers together with Cabasilas insinuate that the Zealots (popular party) confiscated landed property to enrich themselves and not assist the dispossessed 11 p~a~an t s. , E'tO't ' ~o~ç - cppoy~tf;TJptot~' ayp~t' ' ~tv~ç xat ' n~e: ~otau~at otxtat, , xat O'uvotxtat, xat, , 8 pa J-yf)ç xat , ' acpopJ.Lat XPTJJ.La~wv• ~ou~wv beov eme:tvat ~ouç "Ovaxouç ''\1 t·, t ,T 1 't; t ano~aue:tv, otç e:vboO'av ot XPTJO'ane:vot ~nv apxTJv• ot , J 7 1 , c .. r , , i) '\ , be -aéatpouJ.LeVot,,... ~a , J.LE'V, e:au~otç, ~a, be: at...~otç, , nape~oucrt , XPTJO' gt• J.La~t~;~ J.LE'V ~pyupt~'V x~t nupou~ ~at XP} aç, xat otvov, xat , a~~ouc.,. ~wv vwpwv/jo,,, ~oxouç• , e:vto~e: be: xat e:wpyouç xat O'U'Votxtaç xat au~a ~a ~wpta •••••• , , - e ~ ' A' , , - , to napa ~wv bta T)XW'V ~a~ov~a xe:x~T)O' at xat ~au~a 'VO"-Ot ~owO't;A - xat ' ~o' bta8' T)Xaç À.ue:tv,' ~au~ov' ' 'e:O'~t ~~- xa~a ' r ~wv VOJ.LW'V xwpeiv ••••• ". "T\ be:tv6v, e~ ~wv âvaxe:tnÉvwv - , - , ~, , r; ~OtÇ q>P.O'V~tO'~T)OtOtÇ 'It:OÀ.ÀW'V O'V~W'V À.a O'V~e:c, ê'VtaÇ 'Itê'VT)~aÇ , e ~,~. ~ - ' , y , , J.LE~ pe: 1 oJ.L~v, te:~e:uO't,be,xopf)yf)goJ.Le:v, ~e:wf be: xoO'ijTJO'OJ.Le:v; Jau~~ be: ou!e: ~À.~~oç 1xe:1vot~ otO'~t,,~v a~oÀ.e:tp8e:y~w~ aoxouv~w'V ~n xpe:trr xat ~~ Y'VWJ.Lfi ~W'V ava8e:ue:vwv e:~ apxTJÇ !J , , , ,, , ' , , , JI Cl , , e - oube:v anabov• e:O'xonouv e: oube:v e:~e:pov, D 8e:ov e:pane:uO'at 1 xat' ne:VT)~aç ' 8 pe:~at'• • •••• T'a XPTJJ.La~a' J.LEV ' oux' "av avaÀ.w8e:te:v' .. R''\ ~ê~~tO'V. 'H - , ' , , ~0, - - " , '\ J.LEtÇ... , be: OUbê'V, napa O'XTJJ.LUIl 'It:OtOUJ.LE'V, O'It:WÇ av et T) ~uO' t~e:~e:O'~e:pov XPWJ.LE'VO t. • • • • Unpublished manuscripts quoted by Tafrali, ~· ~., p. 26.3, 266. -109-

Orthoào.xy. Caught in the midst of the political. tunnoil of the times, its support went to the aristocratie party and in retum its dogmas 41 were recognized as an unquestionable part of Orthodo.xy. Under these circumstances the bigotted monks, the large estate owners, the rich and powerful triumphed over the have-nots, the poor and the dispossessed. After the reactionar,y forces won the struggle, it is not surprising to read that in the later years writers and philosophera, like George Plethon, were condemned by the Church and the ir books burnt. The revi val of hellenic culture, the renaissance of letters and science could thr.ive only in the West. The two main sources for the religious contrmrersies of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries are the "Roman Histo:cy" of Gregoras ani Cantakuzenos. Both writers are not only narrators of events that took place in their lifetime but both had participated in them: Gregoras as an uncompromising opponent of the hesychastic party, Cantakuzenos as its willing supporter. The major part of their histories cover events in which they themselves were the protagonists. Thus the question arises, are their histories reliable as far as the hes,rchastic movement, or the other controversies, are concerned?

Gre go ras began his hi story from 1204, the fall of Constantinople. The first 90 or lOO years are compilations of facts and biases borrowed from other w7iters and particularly from Pachymeres. Therefore, persona! biases and political or re1igious passions are kept

41. Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk. IV, 23, pp. 169-?0. J. Drlseke: "Kantakuzenos' Urteil \\ber Gregoras11 , Byzantinische Zeit- schrift X (1901), p. 108 ff. -llo-

under control. He simply reported what Pac~eres had already written

in his history.

The advent of the hesychastic movement put an end to the

reliability and objectivity of Gregoras 1 history. No one could expect

a staunch supporter of the religious status quo and a bitter eneiey" of

the Palamites or Hesychasts, to report the views of his opponents

without personal biases. Besides, historians of the Middle Ages are

not known for their detached narration. What differentiates Gregoras

from any other biased historian is the fact that his criticism of

Palamas is based on the person of the founder of the movement rather

than on his teachings. Gregoras' attitude could better be understood

if one takes into consideration his education, his upbringing am his

statua in the Byzantine society. Gregoras belonged to the elite of the

mind, the class of the highzy educated Byzantines, versed in astronomy,

philosophy, mathematics am in all the other pursuits that distinguished

the members of the aristocracy. He was a court philosopher, friand

of Emperors am Imperial officials; he belonged to the class that because of wealth or education had alienated themselves from the masses.

As such, he favoured the time-honoured practices of the Church and al\V

radical innovation in the Church, be it of organizational or of dogmatic nature, was frowned upon if not met with hostllity. On the other hand,

hesychasticism drew its main support from the monks, the lower clergy, the uneducated masses. Monasticism had been a highl.y respected institution but it was oonsidered as a sort of social security where the masses could end their lives in peace and respect and the elite in -111- eecurity from Imperial persecution or turn of fate. Thus, the respect of monasticisn was based on its neutral side. As long as it remained a purely religious institution for the salvation of the soul, it was tolerated and accepted. But the moment it deviated from the religious into the political sphere, the clash between cloister inspired ideas and aristocratie views was unavoidable. The clash was based not on the question whether the Light of Tabor could be seen with corporeal eyes or not, but on the attempts of the monks to control the election of the

Patria.rch, and the elimination of married clergy from high ecclesi­ astical offices. Thus the biases of Gregoras were founded on his dislike of having the uneducated monks expound philosophical and theological ideas. Repeatedly, and almost without failure, he ridiculed the monks and their representatives for their lack of education, for their lack of philoeophical training.

There is no doubt that the monks, at least the majority of than and their representatives, could read and write, but they were illiterate as far as the Greek paideia was concerned. Therefore,

Gregoras1 "History" is not objective but it is valuab1e, for one is able to comprehend the views of the opponents of the Hesychasts.

Cantakuzenos, however, is more reliable. He is reliable for the fact that his political or religious passions do not overshadow his thinking. He reported the hesychastic struggle as it occurred, but there are many hazy points in his narration. Wby did he favour the

Hesychasts, those uncultured and bigotted monks, at the expense of auch learned men, as Gregoras, Acindynos or even Barlaam? Was it a political move or simply a blind faith in the monks 1 teachings? Although he is -112-

silent on these points, the explanation is clear. The alienation of

the educating class was not a catastrophe but the alienation of the monks am through them of the masses meant the end of his reign.

Although in the previous centuries the masses were neutral observera in

the political struggles and the ecclesiastical. controversies, in the

fourteenth century they provide the only support on which a reigning Emperor could depend.

Both historians attempt to justify their actions: Gregoras his anti-Palamite stand, Cantakuzenos his diplomatie support of the

Hesychasts. What seems apparent from Cantakuzenos1 writings is the fact that indirectly one can visualize the relations of State and Church.

Previously the Church made the concessions to the State while, after the civil wars and the breakdown of State administration, the State makes concessions to the Church. The third council of the Bishops of Thrace and Constantinople for the incorporation of the hesychastic doctrines into Orthodoxy, which was not a representative council and was atten:led only by those who had not the vaguest idea about the issues involved, 42 was a State concession to the Church.

42. Gregoras, vol. II, Bk. XVIII, 3, pp. 883-84. To settle once and for all the sterile quarrels between the two religious factions Cantakuzenos convoked the third ecclesiastical council at the Palace of Blachernae on May 27, 1351L presided over by the Emperor himself and the Patriarch Kallestos (JlWl., 8, p. 905; Cantakuzenos, vol. III, Bk~ IV, 23, p. 166). The anti-Palamites were represented by Gregoras, a number of high church officials and intellectuals (! bid., p. 169; Gregoras, vol. I, p. lxx, p. lxxvii; vol. II, Bk. XVIII, 3, p. 892). The absence of a1l archbishops and the . highest ecclesiastical dignitar.ies of Macedonia may seem etrange, but one must remember that Macedonia had alwey-s been hostile to Palamas and therefore the Ma.cedonian bishops could not be trusted to support Palamas' thesis. Besides, Thrace had been the strong­ hold of 11 Cantakuzenism11 • -ll3-

The se two historians, as far as the religi.ous controversies are concerned, draw a biased picture. Therefore for the full under­ standing of the issues involved, the study of the writings of al.l the participants in the ecclesiastical disputes is not orù.y unavoidable but desirable. No one can draw a clearer picture of the Hesychastic movement by omitting the writings of Palamas, Cabasilas, Acindynos,

Barlaam, Cantakuzenos (other than his history) and all the others who participated in the controversy that set in as a reaction against the failure of ali moral ani spiritual values. -114-

C H A P T E R VII

CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOP1fENI'S

At the time Michael VIII Palaiologos reconquered

Constantinople, the Empire was exposed to grave dangers. Internally

and externally the unity of the State was compromised. The social

and religious conflicts and the awakening of national consciousness

among the conquered tribes forced a reappraisal of the constitutional

policies. Seme twenty nationalities were struggling for political

supremacy in a cosmopolitan world where anarchy and disorganization

reigned and all known political systems were in power: "democratie ochlocracy11 in Thessalonild., extrema pronoiazation in Morea arxl 1 Trebizond, and theocratie absolutism in ~bunt Athos. The defeat of

1204 divided the Empire into different political units: the Despotat

of Epiros and the Despotat of Thessaly in continental Gree ce; the

Empire of Trebizond and the Empire of Nicaea in Asia Miner. The new political entities were strong rivals for the imperial inheritance.

Externally, nations like the Serbs and the Bulgars, beth politically and culturally urxler the Byzantine sphere of influence since the time of their settling in the Balkan peninsula, showed a rema.:rkable tendency after the twelfth cent ury for emancipation and fonnation of strong political units. The universal am oecumenic claims of the State were meaningless after 1260. Even after the re-establishment of the Empire

1. Ch. Diehl: "L'empire Byzantin sous les Paléologues", Etudes Byzantines, p. 231. -115- in Constantinople political unity did not materlalize. Epiros and

Thessaly, Trebizond, the islands and the Morea continued their separate political existence. Intemally, the usurpation of Michael VIII, the religious controversies over the union of the Churches, the Arsenite and Hesychastic disputes, the influence of western democratie ideas, the re-emergence of classicism, and the dynastie struggles, strengthened the political division of the Empire. The political division of the Empire was introduced in the time of the reign of .Andronicos II, although it was an offshoot of alien western conceptions. It was Irene (Yolanda) of Montferrat, the second wife of the Emperor, who insisted on the division of the Empire among her sons in accordance with the western feudal conceptions. The idea was rejected by the Emperor for it was seen as a triumph of the 2 western over the Romano-Byzantine conception of the State. Nicephoros

Gregoras expressed fully the sentiments of the Byzantines when he wrote:

11 ••• incredible as it may seem i t was her wish that the sons of the Emperor should not rule as sovereign in accordance with the old Roman custom, but ••• after the Latin fashion. Thus each •• , was to administer a particular part which was to be his own persona! possession and that these portions were to be subject to the law of private property as though they were inherited from their parents and could be passed on to their children and their children' s children. 11 The Empress, 11 he added, 11 was of Latin origin and she took this new custom from the Latins and attempted to introduce it among the Romans.n3

2. Gregoras: vol. I, Bk. VII, 5, P• 233. G. Phrantzes: p. 27: - 11·! ~, A '\ ' , , 7 , , , o ue ~aatA€U~ abuva~OV €\Vat €À.€Y€ ~~V ~ovapxtaV Pw~a{wv nof...uapx\aç not~aat". 3· Vol. I, Bk. VII, 5, P• 233. -116-

The po1itical system was a very 1oose federation. The

provinces and towns were linked to the imperial government only

through the person of the governor who, as a general rule, was a

member of the Imperial House. But even this nominal link ceased

to be of importance for the provinces and distant regions came under

the power of the local powerful landowners. In theory strong

centralization was still the main characteristic of the Byzantine 4 political system, but in effect regional autonomy was in existence.

The ensuing dynastie wars forced a reappraisal of the political system. It was Andronicos n who assented to the division of the

Empire between himself am his grandson Andronicos III. Andronicos III was to rule independently over the western provinces--Thrace and

certain districts of J..iacedonia--while the Emperor retained the eastem

regions including the capital itself. For purposes of unity foreign

affairs were the domain of the older Emperor, although the principle was soon abandoned an:i each Emperor pursued his own foreign policy.

In the second dynastie war between the two Andronici, Thessaloniki and its surrounding area attempted to secede from the Empire, and from a separate political unit, as a republic. The attempt failed because it was premature.

As the territocy of the Empire diminished, the idea of the division of the State became a pressing need. Among the last Emperors,

4. Decentralization is refiected in the division of imperial power. In the Palaiologm era the co-Emperor acquired an unprecedented importance. The co-Emperor acquired titular equality with the senior Emperor. He undertakes most of the f unctions of the Emperor. He is regent and he is even called upon to make a number of important decisions. He is known as Basileus or Autocrator -117- the di vision of the State be came an uncontrollab1e urge. Cantakuzenos created the independant Despotat of Morea and gave it to his younger 5 son Manuel. Mathew, his elder son, was awarded territor,y in Thrace.

The political partitioning of the Empire had a twofold purpose: first, to neutralize anY direct attempt at civil war by the restless and dis• contented princes, and, second, to strengthen the position of the

Emperor. The new despotats fonned a sort of imperial family federation. Cantakuzenos 1 innovations were preserved and extended by his successors.

Together with the adoption of the western type of State administrative decentralization, the influence of the city populace on the political institutions was tremendously increased. The rise in power of the city inhabita.nts should be attributed to the struggle between municipal and imperial authorities and to the victory of the town government over the decayed system of central imperial government.

The role of the populace in the political life of the Empire had always been significant. The deme organization which in the early days of the Empire had welded the masses into political parties was crushed 6 by the early Emperors , but the aroused political consciousness of the masses had remained W1touched. Submerged under the prosperous and

(Footnote 4 continued from previous page.) (Codinos, p. 86). The influence of the Latin west is clearly seen in this development.

5. Zakythinos: "Le Despetat Grèc 11 , vol. II, P• 71 ff. Also: Gregoras: vol. III, p. 280; Cantakuzenos: vol. II, Bk. III, p. 85. 6. Charanis: 11 0n the Social Structure", p. 147. -118-

glorious days of the .tviacedonian dynasty, it emcrged once again in

the eleventh centur.y, and it was that power that expelled the

usurper Michael V and reinstated the last Macedonian Emperor. 11 The

Populace" wrote Psellos in describing the overthrow of Michael

11 was already in control and violently excited at the idea that it was 7 going to seize the power from him who ha.d. usurped it". Since the

eleventh century, the populace is the deciding factor in questions of

legitimacy or usurpation. The Arsenite movernent and the union of the

Churches, were questions in which the masses clearly demonstrated their 8 political force. Whether the awakened political power of the masses

was a genuine political development or simply the outcome of the

efforts of new discontented elements is difficult to prove.

Nonetheless, it remains true that the opening years of _the eleventh

and twelfth centuries had afforded striking demonstration of the

connection of the political power of the populace and the dependance

of the Emperor on them through the calling of a ki nd of Parliament, an

EstatesGeneral, composed of the senate, the clergy and the trading

elements, commercial and irrlustrial, of Constantinople. In 1197

Alexies III called an assembly of the senate, the clergy, and the mercha.z)ts in order to consider a new taxation to meet the demanda of 9 Henry VI. Undoubtedly, the assembly shoul.d have been a passive one

7. Michael Psellos: 11 Chronographia11 , p. 102.

8. Pachymeres: vol. I, Bk. II, pp. 97-98.

9. Nicetas Choniates; p. 631. -119-

for no opposition is recorded. The Estates General was not an

established institution. Only in cases of weak administration did

the need arise for the convocation of the Estates General.

Cantakuzenos after nearly 150 years, called a similar assembly in an

effort to ameliorate the finances of the Empire. Every element of

the society was represented--soldiers, traders, artisans, clergy and 10 sorne from the lower classes. The assembly of 1347 stands out in sharp contrast to the one of 1197. The Estates General contested the right of the Emperor to demand increased donations and taxation.

It was not a body with a national representation and patriotic

consciousness. The representatives were manbers of hostile social

classes and did not act as a unit. They did not share the Emperor1 s optimism in the success of his financial. policies. They were united only in the fact that the assembly was a body representative of the middle-class taxpayers and traders. The Estates General disclaimed any responsibility to the State. The State, the Empire,was regarded as an al.ien institution to be tolerated and at the same time undermined at any given opportun:ity. The universal aoo oecumenical claims of the

Empire had no sympatey with the population. And that was characteristic not orù.y of the Constantinople inhabitants but of the entire Byzantine

11 nation". That attitude is reflected in the efforts of the population to disrupt the administrative system of the Empire. All classes, am in

10. Cantakuzenos: vol. III, Bk. IV, 5, pp. 33-35. -12()... particular the higher and the ecclesiastical classes, in their pursuit of their class interests and in the perpetual class warfare dealt the death blow to the internal administrative system of the State. The theme organization and the elaborate provincial and central administration were mere names. The old offices lost their function and became empty titles. Even the titles of À.oyo9t't'f}G - , , 11 y ev tKou and J-Ltyaç À.oyo9 t't'f}Ç which had existed in the twenties of the fourteenth century were at the eni of the san1e century unknown 12 tenns. Byzantium was on the verge of co1lapse.

11. Gregoras: vol. I, Bk. VII, 11, p. 27lJ Bk. VIII, 5, p. 303.

12. Codinos: 34, 36; Even that of the City Eparch became an empty title. ~., 35, 39. -121-

G H A P T E R VIII

CRITICISM OF GREGORAS' AND CANTAKUZENOS' HISTORIES

There is no period more involved and more full of contrast s than that of the Palaiologi. The entire Byzantine society was in a

state of fennentation. One might have expected that this social unrest would have put an end to all intellectual activities. On the contrary, there was a renaissance whose expression is evident in every aspect of

arti stic endeavour. Lite rature, painting and architecture showed a

remarkable revival. Hostiry was represented in the works of Nicephoros

Gregoras and John Cantakuzenos.

The two historians do not merit the violent criticiaa of their cri tics for their role in the religi.ous controversies and in the interna! affaire of the Empire in the fourteenth century, nor the eulogies of their admirera. Both have written a history for the purpose of defending their ideologies, their views, or for refuting the arguments of their opponents.

Nicephoros Gregoras 1 "Roman History" reveals "byzantine aware­ ness of the continuity of the Roman tradition". The work covers the years from the fall of Constantinople in 1204 to a little over the middle of the fourteenth century (1359). It is divided into 37 books; the period from

1204 to 1320 is compressed into seven books, while the period in which he was politic ally active i s covered by the ranaining thirty book s. The entire struggle for survival and the "suicide attempts" of Byzantium are clearly refiected in his work. Cantakuzenos' history covers the period from the attempts of Andronicos III to dethrone his grandfather Andronicos II and install himself as :Emperor. It is divided into four parts, or books, and -122- inc1udes al1 the events between 1320 and 1360, a number of years after his dethronement •

Any student of medieval documents arxi especially of historical works is faced with a number of unavoidab1e questions. The same applies to the works of Gregoras and Cantakuzenos. Are their historical works reliable, that is, do they describe the events of their times as they happened or do they simply narrate events the way they would have liked them to happen? Are they objective? Impartial and accurate? In the case of the two historians a more vital question arises: since these two writers are the only source of study for the first half of the fourteenth centur,y, excluding those of the various monasteries, and since they are directly involved in the internal affairs of Byzantium, do the,y lose sense of reality and truth? Phenomenal objectivity and impartiality are not a question with Gregoras or Cantakuzenos. One demands more from them, the truth. Although bat h upfailingly claim that they are servants of Truth, the modern reader of their works has certain reservations and afterthoughts. Gregoras writes in one passage t hat History is the medicine for the coming generations, and therefore cannat be an;ything but impartial and objective. In the. introduction of his work the same Gregoras writes that Truth is to history as an eye to a living being. Cantakuzenos, following in the footsteps of Gregoras, hastens to add that Truth is absolutely necessary in reporting historical events. Thus we are confronted with the writers 1 admission that their work is nothing but the faithful narration of events as they saw them. -125-

For purposes of criticisn the "Roman History'1 of Gregoras

can be divided into three parts. The first part, covering a period well

over a century, is based almost entirely on the work of Pachymeres. It

gives an impartial picture of the reign of the Nicaean Emperors and of

the social religious and economie problems with which they had to deal.

Personal biases are kept to a minimum. In so far as the Latin world or

the Latin Empire of Constantinople are concerned, one detects in his

remarks and descriptions the customar,y Byzantine attitude of classi~Jing

the Latins in the detestable world of the barbarians. This i s under­

standable for even as late as the fourteenth century, the Byzantines

were under the impact of the crushing defeat of 1204. The second part,

includes the events of fourteenth century and especially the turbulent

reign of the two Andronici. In this part impartiality and objectivity

withdraw into the background. Gregoras wrote his histor,r to refute

Pachymeres' criticism of Andronicos II1 s reign. Thus no one could expect

him to adopt the same rules of objecti vity as he did for the first part

of his work. Andronicos II with all his faults and shortcomings was still

for Gregoras a great ruler who struggled to continue the work of his father

Michael VIII in spite of the adverse political conditions and the menace of the foes of the Empire. The third part, covering the Hesychastic con­ trovery and the reign of Cantakuzenos is not reliable. His criticisra is clouded by political passions and personal biases. He is not aey more the philosopher who is governed by the power of his reason. He loses

control of reality and is unable to perceive the causes behind every event.

He is transformed into a demagow,e attempting to stir up the masses -124- against those who were radical enough to renovate the centuries' old traditions of the Church. He becomes cri.tical of Cantakuzenos, not ao much because he usurped the Crown but because he legalized hesychasiem, his arch enemy.

Cantakuzenos, on the other hand, seems more objective. His impartiality or objectivity is only phenomenal and not real. In

Cantakuzenos1 book, Andronicos II is described as an old, narrow-minded

Dltperor, a tyrant who is unable to comprehend the demanda of his grandson

Andronicos III and is ready to dishonour treaties or oaths so long as they could help him retain the imperial authority. The antics of

Andronicos III are omitted and instead the rebellion of the young prince is deecribed as an effort to safeguard his imperial ri.ghts. A comparison with Gregoras shows that the senior Emperor, although a little incompetent in compari.son with his rather Michael, was still a force in the political scene of the l:tlnpire. The evils of the second decade of the fourteenth century, the civil wars which demoralized the entire population and brought about a rapid disintegration of the admini- strative system, were whol.l.y the result of the rebellion of Andronicos III.

Cantakuzenos draws a clear picture of the events only of his reign, excluding the Hesychastic controversy. Cantakuzenos is not a historian.

He presents not a confession but an apology of an ambitious stateanan.

The actions of every rebel who follows his cause are celebrated as the products of reason and virtue. The social evils which were the outcane of his civil war and that of his friends are omitted or si.mply stated in such a way as to completely obscure their significance. The sufferings -125-

of the population due to the civil disturbances are misi.nterpreted.

The difference between Gregoras' and Cantakuzenos' histories

lies in the fact that the tonner has written a political history of the

thirteenth and fourteenth centuries with the emphasi.s on the religious

questions while the latter recorded the social, economie and polltical

conditions of his reign and those of the reign of Andronicos III. In

Gre go ras all politic al, social and even economie problems so vital for

the preservation of the Empire are seen as secondary to the religious

controversies. All events are clothed in a theological gar.ment.

Cantakuzenos, as a statesnan and politician, considere all religious matters secondar.y to those affecting the international position of the

Elnpi.re.

Neither Gregoras nor Cantakuzenos can be blamed for being

partisan and lacking objectivity. Their assertion that they are serving

Truth is nothing but a fourteenth century claim. Both have written

their historical works in a cloister when the passions of the day were

still fresh in their memory and their opponent s were trium.phant.

As far as details are concemed, their historical works should not be studied by themselves. Gregoras supplements Cantakuzenos and vice versa. Yet, there are questions that only a combination of state and church documents and the writings of other authors of the eame

period could solve. For instance, no infonnation is given about the racial origin of the population of the fourteenth century Byzantium.

A number of references can be found in both writers that certain groups df foreigners were allowed to settle in the capital or other parts of the E:npire, but whether their number was large or snall, or whether they were integrated in the hellenic elanent of the population is not revealed. Most of the references to foreign elements pertain to Westemers who were allowed to settle in certain districts, or to the descendants of the inhabitants of the de.funct Latin &pire.

Barbarie tribal nam.es can be round among the races composing the population but whether these tribes led an independant existence or whether they were subject to the laws of the State is not clear from the information they provide. Most important of all, no information is volunteered about the penetration of the Turks into the Empire as settlers. Both Gregoras and Cantakuzenos are silent about the Turkic settlements in Byzantium. Undoubtedly, there had been a number of settlers for there are references in Patriarch Athanasios' letters to the erection of Turkish mosquee in Constantinople. No mosquee could have been erected if there were no settlers. There is also the possibility that Athanasios referred to the settlement of the Cumans who were of Turidc origin; but one should remember that the Byzantines usually ret'erred to the new settlers not by their tribal t'amily name but simply by their own tribal name. Therefore, the Patriarch Athanasios refere to the Turld.c tBettlements composed of Osnanli Turks. Tribes like the Albanians, who in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries settled in continental Gree ce, and their role in the politi cal life of the

E:npire are clearly described by both writers. Cantakuzenos in that respect pro'Vides his readers wi.th more details. He was interested not -127-

in their settlements or their role as such, but in their attitude

towards the Empire. He informa us that the Albanians had autonomous rule. Thus one can deduce the fact that the non-hellenized groups

settling in Byzantium led an independant political life, as long as

they complied with their taxation obligations to the State. In another part of his work, Cantakuzenos adds that a certain old tribal settle­ ment, that of the Tsakones in Peloponnesos, was politically independant and free. Whether that refers to their social statua is difficult to prove. It is a known fact that free-peasantry still existed in the middle of the fourteenth century in mountainous regions or in areas which were unprofitable for the aristocrac,y to acquire. Thus one may conclude that the institution of free peasantry still existed in the remote areas of Peloponnesos. That proves also that the hellenizing process of Byzantium extended only in the valleys and ta the areas near the towns not ta the mountainous regions. Gr egoras does mention the names of a number of tribes but his interest in them ceases the moment he has noted their role in the internal civil disturbances. Of all the foreign elements residing in the Empire, both are critical of the

Gasmules, the descendants of Greeks and Latins. One detecta a certain bitterness in their commenta and their descriptions. Was it the pride of two emminent Byzantines seeing the descendants of their fellow

Byzantines disregarding the heritage of their birth and participating in the affaira of the hated Latins. Whether this i s true or not, they are the only ones who are singled out from the host of tribes or settlers f or their bitter commenta. -128-

In the field of religious controversies both writers provide

the reader with vital information needed to understand the extent and the

depth of the religious passions. The religious controversies provide

Gregoras with material for nearly half of his historical wo:rk. In the

introduction of Book XXXVI, Gregoras tries to justify his loss of interest in the political world and his pre-occupation with the religious problems of the day. · He states that his intention at the beginning wae to cover the

political field but the religious controversies were so strong that they upset the routine of peacetul everyday life. He considere it as a

persona! tribute to the memory of a1l the martyrs who fell in the name of Orthodoxy to report the struggle of Orthodox faith against the renovation of Latin inspi.red dogmas; and, as a champion of Orthodo:xy, he feels it necessary to defend himself and his conduct in the eyes of the Empire. Posterity and self-defence thus become the only reason for devoting all his books from XVIII to the end narrating the He sychastic discorde. Gregoras is pre-occupied with details of dogaa and questions of a metapnysical nature while the real causes of the He5,rchastic controversy or the Zealot non-confonniem remain obscure. In reporting the Arsenite controversy he ie in a position to perceive what was bebind the struggle of the people against the policies of the &l.peror. The

same applies for the Union question. No doubt, he is able to perceive the causes of the struggle for he based his infonaation on Pach,meres' book. Even then he does not present a clear picture of the situation.

The Arsenites or the anti-unionists were not religious fanatice interested - -129- eolely in the affaire of the civil and religious authorities. Behind the scenes there were the politically discontented element which took every opportunity to embarrass the government. Pactcymeres, in that respect, is more explicit. He reported that the civil disturbances and even the religious disturbances were the result of the secret opposition existing in Byzantine society. Gregoras does make a remarie to that effect, but it is an indirect remarie. He is not interested in the political implications of the religious controversies.

In order to support his religi.ous ideological orthodo.xy, he quotes extens:i.vely from documents or from any available religious source. The effect is tiresome. There is no question that the Hesychastic discord was not a purely religious matter. It had serious political and social implications. But all these are lost in the partisan treatment of the entire controversy. The stru.ggle or Hesychasts and pro-Barlaamites was not so much over the idea of the Light of Tabor but over the influence of classicisa on Byzantine culture. One can detect in the controversy an attempt of the Greek mind to free itself from the influence of the oriental 'WOrld, which was represented by the monks and the extreme nationali stic elements of the Orthodox hierarchy'. All the se are 1o st to

Gregoras. The entire discussion in nearly ten books is centred around the orthodox or heretical views of the opposition. Another point which

Gregoras could not perceive was that in the middle of the fourteenth century Byzantium with its loss of prestige and power was transformed into a spiritually isolated state, envious of its culture and heritage; -130..

not the Greek-Roman heritage of the past which was Romanized and

adopted by the hated West, but of the Greek Christian civilization

which was the raison d'être of Byzantine existence. Thus the eventual

adoption of the Hesychastic dogrnatic interpretation as part of the

Orthodox faith was only a consequence of the cultural isolation of

Byzantiurn. Gregoras is critical of the Hesychastic movement for being

the work of uncultured and reactionary rnonks. Over and over again

he points out that the leaders of the movernent were uneducated and were lacking the refinements of Greek culture - they were the masses. Therefore, his criticism is not based so much on reason as on his distaste for ev"erything removed from the elite world of the intelligensia.

Cantakuzenos, on the other hand, in questions of religious nature, proves that he is a diplomat and a skilful politician. He simply reports religious events and his part in them. His comrnents are lirnited in criticising t he role of Barlaam arrl his f ol lowers. The re are many questions which r emain unanswered, although he was the only person that could have provided posterity with the right answers. It is clear f rom wh at he writes, that his willingness to support the Hesychasts wa s not based on the belief that their views were orthodox mr that he acknowledged their theories of the Light of Tabor. The rel igious views of the monks and the masses were irrelevant f or Cantakuzenos. He was interested in usurping the imperial Crown. Thus the al l iance of extreme monasti cism and Cantakuzenism was poli tic ally expedient. Tha t is the rea son why he alienated the intelligensia, people like Akindynos, Gregoras and et her s f or the support of t he semi - educated and narrow-minded monks. -13-1-

In his book he refuses to talee Bides, although superficially his sympathies lie with the Hesychasts.

Only the combination of Gregoras' and Cant&kuzenos1 histories can give a clear picture of the religious controversies of the fourteenth century. Where questions of religion are concerned,

Cantakuzenos practices moderation because he was not as deeply involved as Gregoras. Cantakuzenos participa.ted in the controversy only ae a judge ready to render justice as he saw fit, but Gregoras was stri.ving towards a metaphysical truth not as a Byzantine politician but as an enlightened Greek Christian on whom the heritage of the past weighed heavily. Cantakuzenos does not elaborate on the religious questions because probably as a politician and Emperor he was pre~occupied with the relations of the &pire with the outside world. Religious problems are of local interest. No one can seri.ously accuse him of being detached from any controversy affecting the intemal relations of the Church hierarchy, but the extent of his interest was limited to relations of Church and

State as long as the State had the upper hand in the controversies.

In the trea'bnent of the religious discorde both wri.ters, there­ fore, are biased and avoid facing the real issues. Gregoras was not in a position to comprehend the finer issues that lay behind the Arsenite, the Union and, especially, the Hesychastic movements while Cantakuzenoe avoided, at least, in his book, enlightening his readers of what lay behind his move to legalize and sanctify the controversial theories of the monks. Gregoras, and to a lesser extent Cantakuzenos, do not perceive that the religious movements came about as a reaction against the practices of the ruling class. Bath fail to understand that

the desire of the monks to revert to the ideas and practices of the

primitive church were not a backward move but a move towards the purification of society; it was the supreme triumph of the oriental

half of ThJzantine civilization over the other half; the disillusioned

and demoralized world of the Greek culture. It was the assertion of Byzantine individuality over the burden of the inheri.tance of t he

past.

In the treatment of the Zealot revolutionar,y movement both writers are unable to perceive the causes ths.t were responsible for the

rvdical changes in Byzantine society. The movement and the efforts of the Zealots to democratize the internal administrative system of the

State are described as ochlocracy. The programme of the Zealots, their ideologies, their impact on society find only a sketchy description or no description at all. No one can grasp the Zealot revolution by

relying on Gregoras or Cantakuzenos. The ir enti re treatment of the question of the social revolutionary movement of the Zealots is

unsatisfactory. Gregoras' and Cantakuzenos1 entire criticism of the

Zealots is centered around the problem of land seizur e ani land distribution. Gregoras amits any r eference to the composition of the

Zealot movement, its leaders, its social programme, its attitude towards the masses, and bases his criticism on their relations with the

State ani the intelligensia. There is no ment i on in any of the above writers th at the greater part of the followers arrl supporters of the -133-

Zealot movenent were 11 foreigners", people from the islands and from

other conquered provinces of the Empire. i'Jhether the Zealot movement was the work of outsiders (non-Thessalonicians) and non-Byzantines,

is difficult to prove or disprove. Both \œiters point out the effect

that the revolution had on the aristocracy and the intelligensia, but the notion that the revolution came about as a reaction against the

intemal malaise is foreign to them. Both writers base their

criticism of the Zealots on political grounds rather than on reason. The financial,monetary and fiscal reforma or the attempts

at these of the fourteenth century Emperors are fully described by the two historians. The internal policies of the Nicaean Emperors and those of the two Andronici are objectively reported by Gregoras al though Cantakuzenos is rn re explicit in matters pertaining to the taxation legislation of Andronicos III. Cantakuzenos gives an accurate picture of the intemal conditions of the Empire during his reign and provides us with ali the pertinent information regarding his attempts to place the financial system of the State on a stable basis. Gregoras in that respect is inaccurate. The social, political or economie reforma of John Cantakuzenos find a sketcny description because his entire interest is focused on the religious controversies of the Hesychasts.

Here and there vital information of historical interest is mixed with his bitter attacks against Palamas ani his supporters, the Hesychasts.

Th us Gregoras is the only one to report tha t John V for a moment had decided to divorce his wife Helen, Cantakuzenos1 daughter, and marry the sister-in-law of Tsar Dushan of Serbia. He is the only one to refer to the progress of the Turks in Asia ~ünor; the siege of Philadelphia; -134- the capture of Nicaea and Nicomedia. He fai1s ta me ntion the expedition of ~t. Louis of France, a1though he states in his introduction that he is writing a universa1 history. The efforts of

Cantakuzenos for rapprochement with the Sultan of Egypt in which the

Byzantine Emperor succeeded in acquiring a number of concessions from the Sultan are not mentioned. Cantakuzenos avoids any reference to events which zna.y blemish his or Andronicos III' reputation. Events in which he participated arrl whose outcome was detrimental to the population are omitted or simply stated in such a way as to completely obscure their significance.

The period between 1345 and 1359 is wnp1y treated by

Cantakuzenos for he was the protagonist while Gregoras was imprisoned in the monastery of Chora. This may be considered as the main reason for the inaccuracies of the latter.

As far as the social status of t he population is concerned, neither worl<: is complete arrl satisfactory. Neither is explicit in his comment s. It is lmown that in the fourteenth cent ury the population was divi ded into free people and paroikoi. The majority of the population belonged to the second group because the slow pronoiazation and the disregard for the peasants' rights eliminated the c1ass of free fanners. Both are silent on the conditions or even the exist ence of paroikoi. Undoubtedly, paroikia was taken for granted and the dis­ appearance of free peasantry was nothing so unusual as to pre-occupy the writers. Only state and church documents mention their existence. -135-

The existence of pronoia lands is not even hinted at by Gregoras, however, Cantakuzenos does mention the fact that pronoia lards and pronoia laniowners did exist in the reign of And.ronicos III. Even that is mentioned only as a passing remark describing the conditions in '.i.'hessaly. Both are not explicit about the institution of slavery.

Church documents mention the existence of 11 sacred slaves", the property of the monasteries ani sacred institutions. Whether these church slaves were paroikoi or common slaves is difficult to establish.

Only Gregoras mentions that slavery did exist in Constantinople in the middle of the fourteenth cent ury.

The two historians with all their faults, omissions and inaccuracies remain the only primary source for the study of the fourteenth century con:ii tions in l:3yzantium. Only the combination of the two works can give a clear picture of the internal social, economie, religious and political problems facing the weak ani disintegrated

Empire. -136'-

CONCLUSION The social and economie histor.y of fourteenth century Byzantium is an important chapter in the general histo.ry of the Empire. The State in the fourteenth century became the contending ground for all the great conflicts: monasticis.m versus classicism, Romano-Byzantine concepts versus

Western feudal ideas, liberalism versus autoc~cy, penia versus ploutos,

Orthodoxy versus Catholiciem.

Political and social demoralization were the most outstanding characteristics of this period. The political dissolution was not the result of the increased barbarian strength. It corresponded to a general decay of the institutions of the State which set in at the end of the twelfth century and in particular during the reign of the Angeli. Constant financial crises, excessive taxation, recurrence of piracy, grand scale of pronoia estates, immunities to monasteries, all these were the result of the weakening of the power of the central administration. Many historians, even among the fourteenth and fifteenth century

Byzantines, have searched for the causes of the political and social disintegration. The reason lies deep in the failure of the human element.

Byzantium was defeated because both the ruling aristocracy and the masses, the Emperor and the Church, accepted their defeat as preordained by God, as a spiritual catharsis.

Christianity had been an oriental religion highly tinted with the ideas of predestination, of reward and punishment. In the first few centuries of it s establishment as an official church, it had kept a balance between oriental mysticism and classical quest for truth. After the ~137- iconoclastic controversy the extreme oriental mysticisn with its oriental apathy is clearly discernible in the teachings of the ecclesiastice and the attitude of the massee. The entire defence policy of the State was based on the invincible assistance of the Supreme Being, while the nation was incapable of acting for its safety. On the other hand, the claim that the Emperor was an epifaneia of God and a soter savious had ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. Reality did shake the foundation of the idea of the missionary oikumenicity of the Empire as was personified by the person of the

'Fmperor. In the fourteenth century, Byzantium was a snall stat.e that fought for its existence; the Emperor had lost the splendour of his divinity for the revolutions and civil disturbances had destroyed the faith of the masses in that institution.

National and religious unity had long disappeared. Orthodoxy was divided; the religious discorde influenced the political life of the

State and divided the entire strata of society. The party of Mount Athos monks--the Zealots and the Arsenites--scomed any learning, favoured a return to the ideas of the primitive Church, struggled for the autonomy of the Church and the subjugation of the State to the ecclesiastical organ­ ization, participated in questions of political nature, excommunicated and anathematized lay and religi.ous dignitaries with absolute disregard of all social consequences and the dangers that threatened the encircled

Empire. Under the religious discorde one could distinguish the un­ controllable passions of old pé>litical parties. The enlightened intelli­ gensia never forgot that the pillars of the Empire were the Church and the

Orthodox dogma and that at the same time the State was a political entity with historical interests and international obligations. The monks' party -l.38-

disregarded the political aspects of the State and strove for the

dominance of the religi.ous over the political. The clash between the

political and ecclesiastical parties was not strictly over religious

questions. The cause of the conflict was the struggle between Greek

philosophy, which aimed at the liberation of the hum.an mind in its quest

for truth, and Mount Athos monasticisn, which concentrated on sterile discussions of mystical contemplation. The church1 s dislike for higher learning and classical philosophy was connected with the belief that

Christianity and classician were incompatible. The fourteenth century

Byzantine mind had been clouded by centuries' old association with the oriental world.

The civil wars and complete disregard for the imperial institutions culminated in peri.odic but violent outbursts of class warfare.

Class struggle was evident throughout Byzantine history. The exploitation of the peaeants by the ar.istocracy was not a new concept resulting from the poli tical anarchy of the previous decades. Even at the time of St.

John Chrysostomos exploitation and suffer.ing of the masses prevailed, but there had been mcia.lly-m.inded l!m.perore who attEmpt,ed to ameliorate the

social conditions of the inhabitants not so much out of christian piety but out of personal responsi.bility to the State.

The increased pronoiazation, the disi.ntegra.tion of the administrative system, the tendency of the towne and remote regions towards autonomy, culminated in the formation of republican movements which reached their apogee by the founding of the Zealot republic of Thessaloniki. The republican ideology set in partly as a reaction against the political and social evils of the period and partly as a consequence of the influence ~f the Latin world over the ailing Byzantine civilization. Although it

was not strictly democratie, in the sense that all citizens irrespective

of social statue or wealth were politically equa.l, it attempted to protect

and improve the conditions of the common man, and to renovate the internal

administrative system. This astonishing and e.xt.remely radical movement for

the Byzantine of that period, revealed clearly and for the first time the

magnitude and diversity of the social grieva.nces which underlay the

Byzantine society. The movement failed not because it contained any

inherent dieabilities, but because the members of the imperial government

and the intelligensia were nurtured in the too-strongl.y-entrenched social

traditions of the past. The movement' s social. programme was too radical

for the mentality of the fourteenth century Byzantine. It violated the traditions of the past as well as the unalienable rights of the nobility •

It should not be imagined that the ruling and the well-to-do classes were untouched by the misery of the population. Numerous public institutions for

the poor and the unprotected bear 'Witness to the piety of the wealthy, but that expression of piety can be described as one way of compromising

spiritual with temporal obligations.

It is true that the enemy attacks greatly reduced the power of the

State; but no State can be conquered from w.i. thout if the ground has not been

prepared from within. The social and religious anarcby and the lack of

patriotic spirit which prevailed in that period prepared the way for the eventual disintegration. The spirit of public sacrifice and patriotic ideals bad long been dead and buried. It was replaced by an extreme egoian born out of persona! and class interests. The national pride in belonging to a univereal lhpire, being heir to the Hellenic and Roman cultures,and founder -l4o-

of the Christian civilization, had become meaningless. The entire educated class, probably with few exceptions, was questiontng the oikumenic role of the Empire. The masses had never been considered as part of the spiritual elite of the State. As for the population, it had remained an alien and hostile element in the midst of the inflexible and unreal world of the nobility. The popular literature bears witness to that effect.

The founding of the military estates was the causa efficiens of the developnent of the peasant land estates. Vast lands,the property of the Crown,were distributed to those who were willing to undertake the defences of the Empire. The same rule applied to those who were to settle on the lands as free peasants. Nearly all the barbarian settlers or freed slaves or even peasants from ether areas of the Empire took the opportunity of resettling in the eastern provinces. The measure had twofold purpose: first, it provided a permanent farmer-soldiers army ready for any emergency and, second, it guaranteed permanent revenues ta the imperial

Treasury. Legally, of. course, the free peasants' properties did not dis­ appear with the accession of the Palaiologi to the imperial throne.

Al though the institution of free peasantry was still in effe ct, the remnants of free peasants could be found only in r~note mountainous regions, and in areas where the villages were governed by their elderS'. The change from free peasantry into douloparoikia came after the Macedonian dynasty.

The introduction of pronoia was the most radical innovation. Although under the new system the goverrnnent reserved for itself its previous rights of justice over the inhabitants residing on pronoia lands . The s,ystem by the fourteenth century became hereditary and the prerogatives and rights -141- of the central administration were transferred to the pronoiar--only in practice and not in theory. Pronoia lands were not like the western fief. Feudalism. was an allen concept in Byzantium.. The well-known pyramid-like structure of western feudalisn is absent from Byzantine pronoia.

The inability and wealmess of the L:npire to deal with any internal or external problem was the cause for its rapid demoralization and decay. Those inherent disabilities were responsible in the main for the attitude of the population, irrespective of social class, towards the

State. More and more the idea of partition and regional autonomy became a reality. Although partition was considered by the fourteenth century writers like Gregoras as an offshoot of western constitutional concepts, the idea was eventually adopted as the only way of governing the last remnants of the once powerful Empire. In the last years of the reign of Andronicos II division of the Empire was transfomed into a political reality. Nearly aU the &perore w.ith the exception of Andronicos III ventured to partition the l:4npire as the only way of avoiding civil war.

The state was considered as an institution that bad to be tolerated, as long as it did not impose taxation and ether unpopular measures. In the convocation of the last Estates General the representatives of the various social classes and trade interests refused. to consider the demanda · of the Crown for increased taxation for the purpose of combating the Latin commercial and economie encirclem.ent. Under those circumstances it is not surprising to read in fourteenth or fifteenth centuries writers that only a handful of Byzantines were willing to defend the Empire.

The reciprocity had ceased to exist. -142-

The monetary and economie phenomena, with their repercussions on

the social structure, and the reaction of the masses were in all the periods

of Byzantine histo~J an index of the prosperity or decay of the political

system of the State. The fluctuations in the monetar,y stability and

the periodic but steady devaluations were, to use the phrase of Marc Block,

11 quelque chose comme un sismographe, qui, non content de signaler les tremblements de terre, parfois les provoquerait". For centuries the

imperial hyperpyron had been the prindpal instrument in corrmercial

transactions. The historical works of the period show the struggle and

slow agony of the death of hyperpyron. These also bear witness to the

slow but steady ascendancy over Byzantium of former dependent territories.

In the field of fiscal and financial policies the situation was

not better than that of the monetarJ policies. The fourteenth century administrations are notorious for t heir lack of any coherent financial

policy. All the fiscal policies are based on the expediency of the

moment. Even Cantakuzenos who attempted general reforms could not

provide a per.manent and stable fiscal and financial policy. The

global diplom~c.v and the ~\ venturous policies of the Palaiologi contributed

to the deterioration of internal conditions.

As far as the two historians are concerned, their work is biased

and partial. But with all their faults and inaccuracies remain the only

pr:imary source for the study of fourteenth century Byzantium.

The disintegration of Byzantium resulted not so much out of the increased strength of its foes, as out of its inability to adapt its economie,

social, religious and constitutional theories to the changing times.

The State was not progressive, but stagnarffi . Probably its desire for progress was neutralized by the burden of its classical heritage: Greek and Roman culture, on the one hand, and oriental civi.lization, on the other. It was the centre, the battleground of two worlds struggling for supremacy.

The feeling of responsibility towards the classical inheritance, although it was no longer real was ver,y great with the Byzantines: the impression of the lleauty and har.mo~r that prevailed in that inheritance was so overpowering that they adhered to it inspite of changing times and inner convictions. The beginning of the end started when their suppressed individuality,which had been sacrificed to the inheritance of the past, rebelled and asserted itself over the alien culture of the Greco-Roman world. The national catharsis was achieved only with the fallof

Constantinople. -144-

·B I B L I 0 G R A P H Y

Aboulféda: "Géographie d' Aboulféda", Trans. from Arabie by Reinaud, J.T., Vol. II, Paris, 1848. Acropolltes, G.: "Opera", Leipzig, 190.3.

Amanto s, C.: " 01 D..~o t et ç 't"~'\1 'EÀ.À.&ôa ", B~antini sche Neugr1ec sche Jâhrb cher, XVII (1944).

Andreades, A.: "De la monnaie et de la puissance d'achat des metaux trécieux dans l'empire Byzantin•, Byzantion, Vol. 1, 1924), PP• 75-115.

ldEIIl "Floraison et décadence de la petite lroprieté dan~ l'empire Byzantin•, Mélanges offerts Ernest Mebauœ, Vol. I, Paris, 19.35.

Idem 11 \ IO',;opta' ,;gÎ - tt:"'..cA.A.D'Vtxnç; '1. - ~nl.LoO'taçA ' o'txovoJ,Ltaç; ' ft 'Ae~vat, 1 8.

Idem no\ "Eêpaiot E\1 't"~ Bu~a'\l't"t\1~ Kpa't"Et", WEpya, Vol. 1, Athena, 19.38.

Attallotes, M.: "Historia", Bonn, 185.3.

Bach, E.: "Les !Dis agraires byzantines de Xe siècle", Classica et Mediaevalia, Vol. V, (1942), pp. 70-91.

Bane scu, N.: "Le patriarche Athanase Ier et Andronic II Paléologue", Bulletin de la section historique de 1 1 Académie roumaine, Vol. XXIII, (1924), PP• 1-.30. Barker, E.: "Social and Political Thougl!t in Byzantium", Oxford, 1957. Beek, H.G.: "Theodoros Metochites. Die Krise des byzantinischen Weltbildes im 14. Jahrhundert", M'flnchen, 1952. Bees, N.A.: "Le \Xa xat Bu a\l't"t\1& r a a,;a ME't"EW ou", Bu av,;q;, 2, A T}Vat, 1911-1912.

Boak, A.E.R.: "Book of the Prefect", New York, 19.35.

Bois, J.: "Gre ire le Sinaite et l'Hé chasne à XIVe siecle", 1Echos d'Orient, Vol. V, -145-

Bois, J.: "Les Hésychastes avant le llVe siècle", 1Echos d'Orient V (1901).

Boiseonade: "Anecdota Graeca•, Vol. I-V, Paris, 1829.

Bon, A.: "Le PéloJX?nn~se byzantin jusqu'en 1204", Paris, 1951.

Bratianu, G.I.: "Actes des notaires gènois de Péera et de Caffa de la fin du XIIIe si'cle", Bucharest, 1927.

Idem "Le monoJX?le du Blè a Byzance", Byzantion, Vol. IX, (1934), pp. 643-662.

IdEm 11Recheru-hes sur le co!llllerce génois dans la mer Noire au XIIIe si'cle", Paris, 1929.

Idem "L'hy-per~re byzantin et la monnaie d'or des republiques italiennes•, Mélanges, Ch. Diehl, Vol. I, 1930.

Cammelli, G.: 11Démétrius Cy

IdEm "Demetrii Cy

Cantakuzenos, J.: ""lO''toptwv êtêf...~a b'", Vols. I-III, Bonn, 1828-32.

Idem "Contra Barlaarum et Acindynum. 11 , Migne, CUV,

Cedrenos, G.: "Hietoriarum compendium", Bonn, 1838.

Charanis, P.:

Idem "The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine l!apire11 , Dum.barton Oaks Papers, Vol. IV (1948), pp.51-119. Idem ----~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~" ,

Idem

Chryso stom.o s, J.: "Epistolae11 , Ed. Migne, J.P. (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 60).

Codinos 11 De officiis aulae Constantinopolitanae11 , Bonn, Curopalates: 1839. Choniates, N.: "Historia", Bonn, 1835.

Co mn ena, A. : "The Alexi.as", (ll.psiae), Vol. I, 1845.

Constantine scu, "Réforme sociale ou réforme fiscale?", Bulletin de la N.A.: section historique de 1 1 Académie roumaine, Vol. XI (1924), pp. 1-59. Idem ''La communauté de village byzantine et ses rapports avec le petit 'traité fiscal' byzantin", Bulletin dA la Sect.ion historique de l'Académie roumaine, Vol. XIII (1927), Bukharest, pp. 160-174.

Diehl, Ch.: siècle",

Idem "De quelques croyances byzantines sur la fin de Constantinople", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Vol. 30, (1929-30).

Idan "Byzantine Civilization", Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. IV.

Idan "Byzance. Grandeur et décadence", Paris, 1920. English Edition: "Byzantium: Greatness and Decline", N.J.,l957.

Idem "'Etudes Byzantines", Paris, 1905.

Diomedes, A.: "But:av't'tvat Me>-.É't'at", TÔ~ot 1-2, ~Ae~vat, 1942.

11 D8lger1 Fr. : Die Frage des Grundeigentums in Byzanz", Bulletin of International Committee of Historical Sciences (1933).

11 Drlseke 1 J.: Kantakuzenos' Urteil ftber Gregoras", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Vol. X (1901), pp. 106-127.

Idem 11 Zu Johannes Kantakuzenos11 , Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Vol. IX (1900), pp. 72-84.

Idan ''Kaiser I. Kantakuzenos Geschichtswerk", Neue Jahrbtlcher fUr das Klassische Altertum, Vol. 17 (1914), pp.489-506.

Ducas, M.: "Historia byzantina", Bonn, 1834 (Wroth).

Eustathios of 11 De Thessalonica a Latini.s capta", Bonn, 1842. Thessalonild.:

Idem "Works", Migne, Vol. CXXXV, col. 826. -147-

Fallmerayer, J.P.: "Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea wilhrend des Mittelalters11 , Stuttgard, 1830-36.

11 Ferradou, A.: "Des biens des monastères à Byzance , Bordeaux, 1896.

Gregoire, H.: "The Question of the Division of the Fourth Crusade11 , Byzantion, 15 (1940-41).

Gregoras, N.: n Pw!+a"ixik tcr'top{aç; À.6xot xb'", Vols. !-III, Bonn, 1828-32.

Guilland, R.:

11 Idem "Correspondance de Nicéphore Grégoras , Paris, 1927.

Idem "Essai sur Nicéphore Grégoras. L1honme et l'Oeuvre", Paris, 1926.

Gregory of Sinai: "TI e:p 't .s.TJ<1UXtaç; ' " , Migne, CL, col. 1313.

Grumel, V.: ~ Orient après le Ile concile de ~n 11 , 'Echos d 10rient, XXIV (1925).

Hausherr, I.: "Vie de Symeon le nouveau Théologien11 , Rome, 1928

Heisenberg, A.: "Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums", Vols. !-III, Mftnchen, 1923.

11 Heyd, w.: "Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen âge , Leipzig, 1923. Holtzmann, w.: "Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Alexios I. und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 10~ 11 , Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXVII (1928), PP• 38- 7.

Hussey, J. M.: 11The Byzantine F.npire in the Eleventh Centuq: Some Different Interpretations", Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, ser. 4, XXXII (1950), pp. 71-85.

11 Idem "Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire , London, 1937. -148-

Iorga, N.: "Sur les origines de 1 1 iconoclasme", Bulletin de la section historique de l'Académie roumaine, lll (1924).

Idem "Byzance après Byzance", Bukharest, 1935.

Idem "Histoire de la vie byzantine. Empire et civilization", Vols. I-III, Bukharest, 1934.

Ivanka, E.: "Hesychaemus und Palamianus•, Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft, vol. II (1952).

Janin, R.: "Constantinople E1zantine. Développement urbain et 11 répertoire topographigue , Paris, 1950.

Idem ~icée. •Etude historique et topographique", 1Echos d 1 0rient, XXIV (1925), pp. 482-90.

Jugie, M.: "Démétrius C donées et la théolo ie au XIVe et XVe si cle11 , 'Echos d 10rient,

11 Idem "La controverse palamite: 1341-1368 , 1 Echos d'Orient xxx (1931).

1 Kalligas, P.:

Idem

Koukoule, Ph. : "Bu(aV't;t vwv B\oç; x a Î lloÀ. t't;tc11.LOG", 'A9~va t, 1948

Krumbacher, K.: 11Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur••, (2nd ed. ), München, 1897.

Kurtz, E.: 1'N. Gregoras11 , Byzantinischen Zeitschrift, XXIV (1924).

Lindsay, J.: •.Byzantium. into Europe", Iomon, 1952.

Macri, c. M.: "L'Or anization de l'économie urbaine dans B zance sous la dynastie de Macédoine, 8 7-1057", Paris, 1925.

11 Mavrogordato, J.: 11Digenes .Akrites , Oxford, 1956.

Miklo sich, F. & "Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi", Vols. l-VI, Müller, J.: Vienna, 1860-90.

Mladenovic, M.: "Zur Frage der Pronoia und des Feudalisnus im 11 byzantinischen Reiche , stidost-Forschungen, vol. XV (1956), pp. 123-40. -149-

Moncada, F. de 1 : "Expediciôn de los Catalanes y Aragoneses contra Turcos y Griegos", Madrid, 1924.

Montreuil, J.A.B.: "Histoire du droit romain", Vols. I-III, Paris, 1866.

Norden, W.:

Ostrogorsky, G.: 11 A rarian Conditions in the zantine :&n ire in the Middle Ages", The ambridge Economie History, ol. I (1941), pp. 194-223.

Idem "History of the Byzantine &pire", Rttgers University, N. J. 1 1954.

Idem "The Peasants1 Pre-emttion Risht", Journal of Roman studies, vol. XXXVII 1947), pts. I-II.

Idem 11Quelgues problèmes d'histoire de la paysannerie 11 byzantine 1 Bruxelles1 19 56.

11 Idem "Pour l'histoire de la fèodalitè byzantine , Bruxelles, 1954.

Pachymeres, G.: 11De Michaele Palaeologo11 & "De Andronico Palaeologo 11 Bonn, 1835.

Palamas, G.: "Homelie", Migne, CLI, col. 12.

Palmier!, P. A.t 11A propositô dell1economia agricola dell' imperio 11 Bizantino 1 Rivista Storico-Critica delle Scienze Teologiche, Vol. II, (1906) 1 Rome.

11 Papamichael, G.: t 0 a~ t o ~ f'§~yé ~ t 0 G IlaÀ.abLaç;, âlf t E:'J! t O'X 01!0 ç; 9e:O'O'a ovtxnç , AXe:~avbpta, 19 •

Paparigopoulos, K.: "Histoire de la civilisation hellénigue", Paris, 1878.

Idem 11Historr of the Greek People", Athens, 1871-77.

11 Idem "The Slave in Morea 1 Athens, 1843. Parisot, V.: "Cantacuzène, honme d'état et historien", Paris, 1845.

Pegollotti, F .B.: 11La. ratica della mercatura. Della decima e delle altre gravezze", vans, A. ambridge, Mass., 1936. -150-

11 Perit, L. & "Actes de Chilandar , Vremnnik, vol. 17 (1910). Korablev, B.:

11 Pbilotheos: "Vie de s. Sabbas11 , Papadopoulo s-Kerameus: n Analecta , Petrograd, üi97.

Phrantzes, G.: 11Chronicon11 , Bonn, 18.38.

Plethon, G.: "De Rebus Pelo · nnesiacis Orationes duae", Ellissen, A. (ed. , Analekten der mittel-und neugriechischen Litteratur, IV, 2 (1860).

Psellos, M.: "Chronographia 11 ~ Ed. Sathas, C•. (Bibliotheca Graeca Medii Aevi, IV.) Paris, 1874. Ed. and trans. into French by Renauld, E. 2 Vols. Paris, 1926-28.

Risal, R.: 11La ville convoitée: Salonique", Paris, 1918.

Rouillard, G.: "La vie rurale dans 11empire byzantin", Paris, 195.3.

Idem "La politigue de Michel VIII Paléologue à 1 1 é,ard des monastlres•, 'Etudes byzantines, Vol. I (1944 , PP• 7.3-84.

Idem "Les actes de Lavra a 1 1epogue des Paléologues", Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi bizantini, Vol. I, Rome, 19.39. Idem & Collomp, P.: 11 Actes de Lavra11 , Paris, 19.37. Salaville, s. : "Deux documents inedits sur les dissensions religieuses zantines entre 12 et 1011 , Revue des études byzantines, Vol. V 1947 •

11 Sathas, N.: ~onumenta Historiae Hellenicae , Paris 188.3, Vols I-III.

Idem "Documents inédits relatifs à l'histoire de la Gr~ce au moyen ige", 9 Vols., Paris, 1880-90.

Schlumberger, G.: ~élanges d'Archéologie byzantine", first series, Paris, 1895.

Skendi, s. (Ed.): 11 Albania11 , N. Y. 1956.

11 Starr, J.: "The J ews in the Byzantine E'cnpire , Athena, 19.39.

Sykutres, I.: "nep~ ~6 cr~icr}a ~wv 'Apcrevt~wv", 'EÀ~~vtKct, TbJ.l.OÇ 2 (1 29 • -151-

Tafrali, o. a "Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle", Paris, 191.3. Tafur, Peroa

Te staud, G.a UDes rapports des puissants et des petits propriétaires ruraux dans 11 empire byzantin au Xe si~clen, Bordeaux, 1898.

Uspensky; Th., & "The Acts of Vazelon. Materials for the Histor:y of Benesevitch, V.: Peasant and Monastecy Landownership in Byzantium from the Thirteenth Centurz to the Fi.fteenth", Leningrad, 1927. Uspensky, Th.:

Vasiliev, A.A.: "Historz of the Byzantine F.mpire", Oxford, 1952.

IdEm

Idem "Pero Tafur1 a Spanish Traveler of the Fitteenth Century and his visit to Constantinople, Trebizond and Italy", Byzantion, VII (19.32), pp. 75-122.

Wroth, W.a "Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the British Museum", Vols. I-II, London, 1908.

Zacharill von "Jus Graeco-Romanum", Leipzig, 1856-1884, Vols. I-VIII. Li.ngenthal, K.E.:

Idem "Geschichte des griechish-rtlmischen Recht s", .3rd ed. Berlin, 1892.

Zakythinos, D.: "Le Despotat grec de Morée", Vols. I-II, Paris, 19.32.

Idem "Crise monetaire et crise économique à Byzance du XIIe au XVe si~cle•, Athena, 1948.

Idem

'Aé~va\, 1945.

Zananiri, G.: "Histoire de 1 1 église Byzantine", Paris, 1954.

Zonaras: "Annales", Bonn, 1851.