RUTGERS BYZANTINE SERIES

PETER CHARANIS, General Editor

ШШШІШІШШШІРІШШІШІШідШШІШШШШІШШШІШШІШШШ

ORIGINS OF
THE GREEK NATION
The Byzantine Period, 1204-1461

By APOSTÓLOS E. VACALOPOULOS

Translation by Ian Moles, revised by the author

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PRESS

IS New Brunswick, New Jersey
Copyright© 1970
By Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 75-119511
Manufactured in the United States of America
By Quinn ir Boden Company, Inc., Rahway, N.J.
SBN: 8135-0659-X
To the memory of my parents and of
my uncle Eustathios Vacalopoulos
 CONTENTS

Illustrations, including Maps xi

Abbreviations xiii

Note on Sources xv

Foreword by Peter Charanis xxi

Introduction xxv

CHAPTER 1 Byzantine Ethnic Infusions 1

Fallmerayer's Theory 1
The Slavs 2
The Albanians 6
The Vlachs 12
The Franks and Turks 15

CHAPTER 2 The Survival of Greek Civilization 17

From the Roman Conquest to the Tenth Century 17
From the Tenth Century through the Thirteenth 21

CHAPTER 3 Origins of National Consciousness 27

Various Theories 27
Political Decentralization after Fourth Crusade 28
Rivalry between Epirus and Nicaea 31
Political and Intellectual Developments in Nicaea 36
Cultural Activity during the Latin Period 43

CHAPTER 4 The Palaeologian Period 46

Classical Revival in Literature and Art 46
The Cultural Prominence of Thessalonica 49
The Effect of Pronoia on the Peasantry 54
The Hesychast Controversy 57
viii CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5 Turkish Conquest of Asia Minor 61

Effect on Greek Population 61
Nature of Invasion 64
Crypto-Christianity and Greek Apostasy 66

CHAPTER 6 Turkish Invasion of the Balkan Peninsula 69

Piracy in the Aegean and Ionian Seas 69
The Ottoman Landings in Thrace 71
The Extension of Turkish Control 73
Conditions in the Greek World, 1354-1402 78

CHAPTER 7 The Church at Bay 86

The Crisis of Faith 86
Eschatological Teaching after 1204 90
The "New" Martyrs 93
The Church in the Latin Dominions 95
The Question of Union of the Churches 99

CHAPTER 8 The Catalyst of Conquest 104

Hellenism in the Frankish Dominions 104
Hellenism in Epirus and Thessaly 111
Hellenism in Macedonia 116

CHAPTER 9 George Gemistos 126

Prospectus for Reform 126
Gemistos' Influence 132

CHAPTER 10 The Byzantine and Ottoman Empires after Ankara 136

Some General Observations 136
Murad II 144

CHAPTER 11 Impressment of Christians 151

Reorganization of the Janissaries 151
Christian Spahis 152
The Greek Armatoles 157

CHAPTER 12 Turkish Colonization and Economic Reconstruction 161

CHAPTER 13 The Last Protagonists of Neo-Hellenism 169

The Morea under Constantine Palaeologus 169
Bessarion 172
Constantine and the Turkish Peril 178
Constantine as Emperor 180
CONTENTS IX

CHAPTER 14 The Turks at the Gates of Constantinople 187

Preparations for War and the Union Controversy 187
Siege of the City 193
Capture of the City 198
Echoes of the Fall in Legend and Tradition 202

CHAPTER 15 Completion of the Turkish Conquest 206

Structure of Ottoman Empire after 1453 206
Fall of the Despotate of Morea 207
Seizure of the Gattilusi Possessions 216
Overthrow of the Empire of Trebizond ( 1461 ) 221
A Greek Historian Looks to the Restoration of His Nation 231

CHAPTER 16 Greek SchoL·™ in the West 234

Italy as a Greek Refuge 234
Manuel Chrysoloras 237
Gemistos and Bessarion 241
Argyropoulos and Chalcocondyles 245
Greek Scholars outside Italy 250

CHAPTER 17 The Question of National Liberation 256

Notes 265

Index 369

Maps, by Dorothy deFontaine 403

(See also endpapers)
 ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES
1. Castle of Trikkala, 14th-century Byzantine, with later Turkish
repairs. Photo: A. Koulouridas. 9
2. Ascension of Alexander the Great, 12th-century relief, St.
Mark's, Venice. Photo: Fratelli Alinări, No. 20697. 25
3. Church of St. Elias, mid-14th century, Thessalonica, after
restoration. Photo: Lykides Studio. 51
4. St. George the Swift, 14th-century fresco, Church of St.
Nicholas of the Orphans, Thessalonica. Photo: Lykides Studio. 52
5. The Monastery of the Metamorphosis, 14th century, at
Meteora. Photo: Nick Stournaras. 70
6. Janissary, 15th century, drawing by Gentile Bellini, reprinted
by courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Photo:
British Museum. 75
7. Peribleptos Monastery, 14th century, Mistra. Photo: Erika
Cruikshank. 83
8. (a) and ( b ) , Palace of Mistra, 13th or 14th century. Photos:
Author. 84
9. John Ouroš Palaeologus as the Monk Ioasaph, detail of fresco
in the Monastery of the Metamorphosis at Meteora, executed
in 1483. Photo: M. Lascaris, in Byzantion, XXV-XXVI-
XXVII (1955-1957), fase. 1, planche 2. 115
10. Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425), between his father and
eldest son. Pen drawing, Cod. gr. 1783, f. 2, Bibliothèque
Nationale, Paris. Photo: Spyridon Lambros, in Λεύκωμα βυ­
ζαντινών αυτοκρατόρων (Athens, 1930), fig. 86. 117
11. The Walls of the Citadel of Thessalonica, 4th century, with
later repairs. Photo: Lykides Studio. 119
12. Cenotaph of G. Vibius Quartus, n.d., near Philippi. Photo:
Author. 122
13. John VIII Palaeologus (1425-1448), 15th-century bronze
bust, Vatican Museum. Photo: Spyridon Lambros, in Λεύκωμα
βυζαντινών αυτοκρατόρων (Athens, 1930), fig. 87. 140
14. Constantine XI Palaeologus ( 1448-1453 ), detail of a pen and
wash drawing on parchment of the Palaeologian emperors,
xii ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES
15th century, Cod. S. ƒ. 5.5 (Gr. 123), f. 294v, Biblioteca
Estense, Modena. Photo: Author. 182
15. Mohammed II the Conqueror, from a portrait by Gentile
Bellini, National Gallery, London. Photo: Author. 189
16. View of Walls of Constantinople, 5th century. Photo: Cyril
Mango. 195
17. Acrocorinth, with Byzantine and Frankish architecture and
many later additions. Photo: Elisabeth Brownstein. 210
18. Castle of Modon (Methone), Venetian, with minor Turkish
repairs. Photo: Author. 214
19. Manuel Chrysoloras, pen drawing No. 9849, the Louvre,
Paris. Photo: Giuseppe Cammelli, in I Dotti byzantini e le
orìgine dell' umanesimo (Florence, 1941-1954), voi. 1, fron-
tispiece. 238
20. Cardinal Bessarion kneeling before a reliquary of the Holy
Cross, detail from a painting by Gentile Bellini in the Kunst-
historisches Museum, Vienna. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Mu-
seum. 242
21. John Argyropoulos, pen drawing, from the Greek Cod.
Baroccianus 87, f. 35, Photo: Emile Legrand, Bibliographie
hellénique (Paris, 1885), reprinted by Culture et Civilisation
(Brussels, 1963), vol. 1, frontispiece. 246
22. Demetrius Chalcocondyles, from Paolo Giovio's Elogia viro-
rum Uteris illustrium (Basel, 1577). Photo: Giuseppe Cam-
melli, in I Dotti byzantini e le origine delt umanesimo
(Florence, 1941-1954), III, 133. 248

MAPS FOLLOWING INDEX:

Asia Minor in the 14th Century

The Extension of the Ottoman Turks to the Greek Mainland (14th and
15th centuries)
Main Points of Albanian Penetration
Settlements of Turcoman Tribes (Yuruks) in Western Thrace, Macedonia,
and Thessaly (end of 14th, beginning of 15th century)
The Greek Peninsula from 1402 to 1425
The Greek Peninsula and the Islands from 1453 to 1460
Constantinople during the Siege
Expeditions of the Turks against the Empire of Trebizond

ENDPAPERS

The Greek Peninsula and the Islands

^ЈШМ1ММ1М1ШЈШМВМЈШ(М1ММ1МЈЕЛМР1МЈМЈММЈРЕЈ|

ABBREVIATIONS

AAEEG Annuaire de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études

grecques en France
AE 'Αρχαιολογική έφημερίς
ΑΕΑΣ Άρχεΐον εταιρείας αΐτωλοακαρνανικών σπουδών
ΑΠ 'Αρχεΐον Πόντου
ΑΘΓΛΘ Άρχεΐον θρακικού γλωσσικού λαογραφικού θησαυρού
ΑΧ 'Ανδριακά χρονικά

BNJ Byzantinische Neugriechische Jahrbücher

BSA Annual of the British School of Athens
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
Byz.-Sl. Byzantinoslavica
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

ΔΙΕΕ Δελτίον ιστορικής και εθνολογικής εταιρείας

DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
ΔΧΑΕ Δελτίον χριστιανικής αρχαιολογικής εταιρείας

ΕΕΒΣ Έπετηρίς εταιρείας βυζαντινών σπουδών

ΕΕΦΣΠΑ 'Επιστημονική έπετηρίς Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής
Πανεπιστημίου 'Αθηνών
ΕΕΦΣΠΘ 'Επιστημονική έπετηρίς Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής Πανεπι­
στημίου Θεσσαλονίκης
EMA Έπετηρίς Μεσαιωνικού 'Αρχείου

Hell. Contemp. L'Hellénisme contemporain

ΗΜΕ Ήμερολόγιον Μεγάλης Ελλάδος
НХ 'Ηπειρωτικά χρονικά

JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies

JÖBG Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft

KX Κρητικά χρονικά

ΛΑ Λαογραφικόν άρχεΐον
XIV ABBREVIATIONS

MEE Μεγάλη ελληνική εγκυκλοπαίδεια

MOG Mitteilungen zur Osmanischen Geschichte

NE Νέος Έλληνομνήμων
NJKA Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte
und deutsche Literatur

ОСР Orientalia Christiana periodica

Π AA Πρακτικά 'Ακαδημίας 'Αθηνών

PG Patrologia graeca, ed. Jacques Migne

RE Real Encyklopädie Pauly-Wissowa

REB Revue des etudes byzantines
REG Revue des études grecques

SBN Studi bizantini e neoellenici

Viz. Vrem. Vizantiiskii Vremennik

ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

ШМЈМЈШММШШШЈРШММШМЈШММИМШМШМЈ^МЈМЈ

NOTE ON SOURCES

The difficulties which confront any student of the history of the modern
Greek nation are many and various. They begin with the lack of any
systematic introduction to the sources of modern Greek history * as well
as the lack of a study of modern Greek historiography 2 of the sort that
would acquaint the student with the state of historical studies in Greece.
There is no comprehensive bibliography capable of guiding the student
through the forest of hundreds, nay thousands, of published sources and
studies, long or short, significant or insignificant. And that is to say
nothing of the vast range of material, known and unknown, which re­
sides in official archives, or the enormous volume of articles (most of
them, fortunately, small and unimportant) which have been, and are
being, continually published in inaccessible local newspapers and maga­
zines. The whole comprises an incredible bulk of material, which is
especially discouraging for the inexperienced researcher.
The sheer variety of studies and references precludes their classifica-
1. See the brief surveys by M. B. Sakellariou, "Πηγές της νέας ελληνικής
ιστορίας [Sources of Modern Greek History]," Νέα Εστία, xxxix (1946),
26-28, 106-109, 156-161, 234-236, 307-309; and Nikolaos B. Tomadakis,
"Περί αρχείων εν Ελλάδι καί της αρχειακής υπηρεσίας [On the Archives
in Greece and the Archives Service]," ΔΙΕΕ, xi (1956), 1-32 (with the rele­
vant bibliography). Cf. Peter Topping, "The Public Archives of Greece," The
American Archivist, xv (1952), 249-257.
2. Spyridon Lambros wrote an interesting work entitled Αι ίστορικαί
μελέται εν Ελλάδι κατά τόν πρώτον αιώνα της παλιγγενεσίας μετά προει-
σαγωγής περί τών ελληνικών ιστορημάτων επί τουρκοκρατίας [Historical
Studies in Greece during the First Century of "Regeneration," with an Intro­
duction concerning Greek Narratives during the Turkish Rule]. However, the
work has bibliographical deficiencies and remains unpublished. See George
Charitakis, "Σπυρίδωνος Π . Λάμπρου τα μετά θάνατον ευρεθέντα [Spyridon
Lambros' Posthumous Works]," NE, xiv (1917), 208-209, 267-269; Spyri­
don Lambros, " Ή ιστορική σχολή της Επτανήσου [The Historical School of
the Seven Ionian Islands]," NÉ, XII (1915), 319-347 (a good outline); and
M. B. Sakellariou, "Νεοελληνικές ιστορικές σπουδές [Modern Greek Historical
Studies]," Νέα Εστία, хххи (1943), 26-31, 102-106, 158-162, 233-236,
290-295, 359-364, 435-440, 495-498, 548-552, 615-618, 804-813.
XVI NOTE ON SOURCES

tion within a few categories and, consequently, the easy formulation of

judgments on their worth. Not to be overlooked also is the investigator's
quandary when confronted by the work of amateur historians who dis­
regard the canons of historical research, carelessly perpetuate false con­
clusions, embellish their texts with statements which the evidence does
not warrant, and conceal genuine findings in a maze of obliquity.
Nevertheless it is possible, by way of essaying at least a tentative
classification of sources, to offer a few simple and fairly general com­
ments. The most important and reliable material consists, of course, of
the primary sources: all those written muniments (public or private
documents, inscriptions, and the like) which were compiled contem­
poraneously with the historical event, or hard upon it. Since they are
the creations of the historical moment, they have an intimate relation­
ship with the society in which they appear. Of course a great many of
these, both Greek and foreign, have been lost, or destroyed by war and
natural calamities, or by the neglect or ignorance of their owners. But
a great many are still extant in Greek and foreign archives (state,
monastic, in Turkish courts, titles' offices, and so on). The Turkish
archives in particular contain much valuable information, a good deal
of it unexplored, on the history of the Greek nation during the period of
Turkish domination.3
Where the primary sources are incomplete or entirely lacking, we
must have recourse to secondary sources. Of these, undoubtedly the
most trustworthy for their attention to detail are the reports of ambas­
sadors and consuls from West European countries. A great deal of sound
and worthwhile information about the political, and especially the eco­
nomic, situation in the Greek lands under Turkish occupation can be
garnered from these. The Vatican archives, the Spanish archives,4 and
3. For a Turkish historical bibliography, see Türkiye Tarih Yayınları Bibli-
ografyast, 1729-1950 (Ankara, 1952)-the second edition covers 1729-1955
(Istanbul, 1959)—compiled by Enver Koray. An interesting review of his­
torical studies in Turkey since 1923 appears in Anadolu (Revue des études
d'archéologie et d'histoire en Turquie), in the series Turquie médiévale et
moderne, ι (Paris, 1952). There is an important and comprehensive biblio­
graphical survey of Turkish history and civilization in Jean Sauvageťs Intro­
duction to the History of the Muslim East, based on the second edition as
recast by Claude Cahen (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1965), pp. 193-215. The
relevant Greek bibliography, however, is most deficient.
4. Spyridon Lambros, " Ελληνικά Ιστορήματα εν τοις άρχειοις της Ισπα­
νίας [Greek Narratives in the Spanish Archives]," NE, vi (1909), 263-272.
This is an anthology of notes dealing with Greek national history taken from
Isidoro Carini, Gli archivi e le biblioteche di Spagna in rapporto alla storia
d'Italia in generale, e di Sicilia in particolare. Relazione (Palermo, 1884),
NOTE ON SOURCES xvii

the Venetian archives in particular also contain much material that will
be of inestimable value in throwing light on the many dim areas of
Greek history. Greek and foreign historical investigators have long em-
phasized the singular significance for Greek history of the Venetian
archives,5 and have accordingly concentrated on publishing the reports
of Venetian provincial governors (provveditori) and other official per-
sonages. The reports of Venetian plenipotentiaries to the Porte are
equally valuable for the accuracy with which they survey the internal
situation throughout the Ottoman Empire. They are also fine examples
of the accomplished art of Venetian diplomacy. For both these reasons,
foreign historians, long before their Greek counterparts, recognized them
as funds of historical information. Whole series of the reports are pub-
lished in the voluminous collections of Alberi, Fiedler, Barozzi, and
others.
Among other secondary sources are the annals, especially those of the
late Byzantine period, which were written at the same time or shortly
after the events they describe actually occurred; the various narratives
and chronicles by Greeks and by Turks and other foreigners, notably the
2 vols. The first Greek report on that subject is by Ioannis K. Hassiotis,
"Fuentes de la historia griega moderna en archivos y bibliotecas españoles
[Sources on Modern Greek History in Spanish Archives and Libraries],"
Hispania, xxrx (1969), 133-164.
5. See Constantine Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη [Library of the Middle
Ages] (Venice, 1872-1874), in, vi, fn. 1; Constantine Mertzios, Θωμάς
Φλαγγίνης και ό μικρός Έλληνομνήμων [Thomas Flangines and the Minor
"Hellenomnemon" (Greek Remembrances)] (Athens, 1939), pp. 186-187;
Spyridon Lambros, "Κώδικες ελληνικών Ιστορημάτων εν τη κατά τήν Βενε-
τίαν Fondazione Quirini Stampalia [Codices of Greek Narratives of the
Fondazione Quirini Stampalia in Venice]," NE, VIII (1911), 482-488; William
Miller, "Le Rubriche dei Misti del Senato, libri XV-XLIV [Summaries of the
Senate Decrees, Vols. XV-XLIV]," ΔΙΕΕ, VII (1910-1918), 69-119; Spyridon
Theotokis, ΕΙσαγωγή είς τήν ερευναν τών μνημείων της Ιστορίας του Ελλη­
νισμού και Ιδία της Κρήτης εν τω Κρατικφ Άρχειώ του βενετικού κράτους
[An Introduction to Research into Documents of the History of Hellenism,
Especially that of Crete, in Venice's State Archives] (Corfu, 1926), and his
"Κατάλογος χειρογράφων της βιβλιοθήκης του 'Αγ. Μάρκου εν Βενετία
κατ' επιλογήν εκ της VI και V I I Ιταλικής σειράς [Catalogue of Manuscripts
in the Library of St. Mark's in Venice Chosen from the Sixth and Seventh
Italian Series]," Ελληνικά, m (1930), 89-114, 347-380; iv (1932), 173-190,
394-424; ν (1933), 17-38. See also Freddy Thiriet, Les Archives vénitiennes
et leur utilisation pour Vétude de VOrient greco-latin jusqu'à la conquête
turque, in the series Mémoire de VÊcole pratique des Hautes-Études (1949-
1950). I have not myself seen this. I think it is unpublished.
xviii NOTE ON SOURCES

Italians, as well as memoirs, speeches, poems, and so on. A list of Euro-

pean books dealing with the Turks, which were in circulation during
the sixteenth century, may be found in Carl Göllner, Turcica, Die euro­
päischen Türkendrucke der XVI. Jahrhunderts ( Turcica, The European-
Published Works of the XVIth Century on the Turks), I (1501-1550),
Bucharest-Berlin, 1961. The large number of Greek chronicles and
chronological accounts, both published and unpublished, 6 need to be
examined for their consistency with one another and with the various
chronologies (Chronikai ektheseis), as well as with the history of the
Pseudo-Dorotheos7 and the various West European works on Ottoman
and Byzantine history.8 Finally, our knowledge of intellectual develop-
ments during the late Byzantine and Ottoman periods will remain
sketchy until the bibliographers and codifiers of those periods have been
thoroughly investigated. A most useful index to catalogues and collec-
tions of Greek manuscripts is that of Marcel Richard, Repertoire des
bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs (Index of Libraries
and of Catalogues of Greek Manuscripts), Paris, 1958.
Separate mention must be made of the "Brief Chronicles" (Enthy-
meseis) which are usually to be found on the flyleaves at the beginning
or end of the texts of ecclesiastical works—in breviaries or missals, for
6. See Constantine Amantos, "Τρεις άγνωστοι κώδικες του χρονογράφου
[Three Unknown Codices of the Chronicler]," Ελληνικά, ι (1928), 45-70;
Gyula Moravcsik, ""Αγνωστος κώδιξ της εκθέσεως χρονικής [One Unknown
Codex of the Ekthesis Chronicle]," Ελληνικά, и (1929), 119-123; George
Zoras, Χρονικόν περί των Τούρκων σουλτάνων (κατά τον Βαρβερινόν έλληνι-
κόν κώδικα 111) [The Chronicle of the Turkish Sultans (according to the
Greek Barberinus Codex CXI) (Athens, 1958), which has the relevant early
bibliography.
7. After the initial publication of my book in Greek, a study was published
by Elizabeth Zachariadou, "Μία ιταλική πηγή του Ψευδο-Δωροθέου γιά τήν
ιστορία των 'Οθωμανών [One Italian Source of Pseudo-Dorotheos for the His­
tory of the Ottomans]," Πελοποννησιακά, ν (1961), 46-59.
8. See the doctoral thesis by Elizabeth Zachariadou, To χρονικό των Τούρ­
κων σουλτάνων (του Βαρβερινοΰ ελληνικού κώδικα 111) καί το ιταλικό του
πρότυπο [The Chronicle of the Turkish Sultans (the Greek Barberinus Codex
CXI) and Its Italian Model] (Thessalonica, 1960); Chr. G. Pantelidis, "Χει­
ρόγραφος μετάφρασις τού Χρονικού του Δουσινιανοΰ [Handwritten Transla­
tion of the Chronicle of Lusignan]," NE, XIII (1916), 472-475; chapter V
of Nectarios Επιτομής της Ίεροκοσμικής ιστορίας [Epitome of Sacred-
Secular History] (1677); and Manoussos Manoussacas, "'Επιτομή της
'Ιεροκοσμικής Ιστορίας' του Νεκταρίου καί αϊ πηγαί αυτής ['Epitome of the
Sacred-Secular History' by Nectarios and Its Sources]/' KX, ι (1947), 319-
325.
NOTE ON SOURCES XIX

example—and which also appear, though more rarely, in the pages of

ledgers or registers, and sometimes as inscriptions or engravings on
Byzantine and post-Byzantine monuments. These "Brief Chronicles" are
directly connected with the daily lives of the people, commonly record­
ing misfortunes such as invasion, epidemic, earthquake, violent weather,
war, banditry, assassination, drought, and fire. The events described were
generally of such magnitude as to make a profound impression on the
masses, and the "Brief Chronicles" were written while the recollection
of the event was fresh. Thus, they are more precise and reliable than
the annals—indeed, often more so than any other secondary source—
since they were the spontaneous revelations of the popular memory.
Many have been published in various journals, historical and otherwise,
though some are virtually inaccessible to the researcher.9 Unfortunately,
they were not collected until comparatively recent times; then only in a
most unsystematic fashion and not in all the Greek lands.
Another fruitful source of information is the travel descriptions writ­
ten by foreigners who visited Greece or passed through it on the way
to other countries: 10 pilgrims to the Holy Land, collectors of antiquities
or Byzantine manuscripts, merchants, diplomats, artists, scientists, and
others. Sometimes the impressions of their distant and dangerous travels
were set down immediately; most often, they were written up at home
from brief notes taken on the spot. There was usually a good market
for such curiosities in their homelands. Invariably, the narrators spoke
of exciting adventures in strange lands plagued by disease, banditry, and
piracy, where the conquerors attached little importance to the lives of
the conquered. Some of the most interesting pages in these books con­
tain descriptions of the ruins of ancient Greek cities. Of course, the
information is of very uneven quality, depending on the personality,
education, and occupation of the traveller, as well as the length of time
he actually spent in Greek lands.11 Most of the information in any case

9. The most important collections are in NE, vols. 7, 8, and 16. Cf. Spyridon
Lambros, Βραχέα χρονικά [Brief Chronicles], ed. Constantine Amantos, in
Μνημεία της ελληνικής Ιστορίας (Athens, 1932), vol. ι, part I.
10. For information on the routes taken by travellers in the late Byzantine
period, see Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage d'outremer et retour de Jéru­
salem en France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et
1433, éd. Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, in Mémoires de Vlnstitut national des sci­
ences et arts; sciences morales et politiques (Paris, fructidor an XII), v, 460 ff.
11. For an analysis of the works of certain travellers, see Helen Vourazeli,
Ό βίος του ελληνικού λαού κατά τήν τουρκοκρατίαν [The Life of the Greek
People under Turkish Rule (Athens, 1939), part I, Introduction. See also
Eugène Lovinesco, Les Voyageurs français en Grèce au XIXe siècle (1800-
XX NOTE ON SOURCES

refers to Turkish matters and thus provides only incidental enlighten­

ment, if any, on the Greek situation.
Various historical and geographical works designed mainly for teach­
ing purposes offer useful information, particularly on the periods during
which they were written.
The most unique collection of travel books on Greece belongs to the
Gennadius Library in Athens.12 This same library possesses many other
sources, published and unpublished, which are vital to our knowledge
of the history of modern Hellenism. It is also a veritable storehouse of
photos, maps, sketches, tableaus, aquarelles, and the like. The importance
of the Gennadius collection, particularly for nineteenth-century history
and the period of Turkish occupation, is readily perceived from even
the most casual perusal of the pages of the first two catalogues. These
were published by the Library's former curator, Shirley Howard Weber,
as (1) Voyages and Travels in the Ή ear East Made during the XlXth
Century (Princeton, New Jersey, 1952); and (2) Voyages and Travels in
Greece, the Near East and Adjacent Regions Made Previous to the Year
1801 (Princeton, New Jersey, 1953). The second volume contains an
annotated bibliography of travel books (pp. 1-5) and similar works that
appear in anthologies of travel literature (pp. 5-14).
When the written evidence is fragmentary or nonexistent, it is per­
missible of course to resort, though guardedly, to historical traditions,
legends, popular songs, and folklore generally, both those which have
been published and those which are preserved unwritten in the memo­
ries of the people. "The history of the past will never be found wholly
in books," as the French archaeologist, G. Perrot, correctly observed.13
At the same time, it is very frequently the case that the origins of ancient
Greek history and of modern Greek history are clouded by tradition and
legend. The truth is difficult, if not impossible, to find when tradition
not only disguises the real event so as to make it almost unrecognizable
but is itself susceptible of exasperating modification. For this reason,
tradition should be accepted only when backed up by written evidence,
or when it appears to complement and corroborate the written source.
Otherwise, tradition properly belongs to folklore rather than history.
1900) (Paris, 1909). On visitors to Athens, see James Morton Paton, Chapters
on Medieval and Renaissance Visitors to Greek Lands (Princeton-New York,
1951 ), which contains the early bibliography.
12. See Peter Topping, "La Bibliothèque Gennadeion. Son histoire et ses
collections," Hell. Contemp., ix (1955), 121-148.
13. See George Perrot, "Quelques Croyances et superstitions populaires des
grecs modernes. Notes recuillies en Grèce," AAEEG, vin (1874), 373.
ШМ1МЈМ1ШШЈШЈЕЈММШМШШМШМЕМ1ЕЈМ1ММЈШШЈЕЈШЈ

FOREWORD

A work of synthesis, the result of many years of research and reflection,

this book by Apostólos Vacalopoulos has as its general thesis the cultural
continuity of the Greek people. Its more immediate objective, however,
is to analyze the conditions and events which led to the disintegration
and final obliteration of the Byzantine Empire. At the same time it de-
lineates the forces which emerged from the catastrophe to constitute
the basis for the formation of the modern Greek nation. The period
covered has as its chronological limits 1204, when Constantinople fell
to the Western Crusaders, and 1461, when the last Greek independent
political unit was absorbed by the Ottoman Turks. The author, however,
does not confine himself strictly within these limits; he goes beyond
them when some particular subject requires.
The fundamental fact about the Byzantine Empire, whatever the
ethnic origins г of its population may have been, is that its civilization,
with allowance for Roman political antecedents, was Greek. On this
point there can be no argument at all. Greek was so much the general
language of communication that whoever within the Empire did not
speak it was considered strange.2 It was the language of commerce, of
education, of culture in general, and also of the state.
As the language of education and culture, it oriented its speakers
towards the original forms of Greek literature and thought. This is what
gave Byzantine secular literature and the intellectual life of the Empire
in general their dominant cultural role. And if, as is generally believed,
the reading of the ancients did not for a long time strike a vital chord
among the Byzantines, that was not because they did not appreciate
or understand them: "Surely there is no blame," remarked an observer
of Sclerena, the mistress of the Emperor Constantine IX; when asked to
explain, he completed 3 the Homeric verse : "Surely there is no blame on
1. Cf. Peter Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the
Seventh Century," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), pp. 25-44.
2. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963).
3. Michael Psellos, Chronographie, ed. and trans. E. Renauld, I (Paris,
1926), p. 146; English trans, by E. R. A. Sewter, The Chronographia of
Michael Psellos (London, 1953), p. 136.
xxii FOREWORD

Trojans and strong-greaved Achaeans/ if for long time they suffer hard-
ship for a woman like this one." 4 If indeed the reading of the ancients
struck no vital chord it was because the ethos of the Byzantines, an ethos
developed over a long period of time with the hellenistic cultural amal-
gam as its basis, had become quite different from that of the classical
period. The cultural Greekness of the Byzantine Empire was undeniably
different from that of the classical period, but it was a Greekness which,
with some elements drawn from the Orient, particularly Judaism, had
evolved from it.
The Oriental elements, especially Judaism, refer, of course, to religion.
Since Byzantine society was profoundly Christian, there is much in the
culture of Byzantium which derives from the Bible. But the Bible was
read in Greek, and the theology which developed in the effort to inter-
pret it was based on ideas and concepts drawn in the main from Greek
philosophy, and was given expression in Greek. Even hagiography, the
most popular form of literature developed by the medieval Greeks, had
its ancient Greek antecedents. 5 Christianity, as it finally crystallized into
Byzantine Orthodoxy, was—allowance being made for its biblical tradi-
tions—essentially Greek in inspiration. In time the Church, despite the
spread of Orthodoxy into non-Greek lands, came to be looked upon as
a national institution.
Precisely when the Church began to be regarded as such may not be
easy to establish, but by the first quarter of the thirteenth century this
concept had taken hold. It was by then also that the Greekness of the
Empire began to be given articulate expression. Hellenism as a term
was used in late classical antiquity to refer to things characteristically
Greek. But with the triumph of Christianity the term assumed a re-
ligious connotation and was used to refer to any religion essentially
pagan in character. For this reason, the Byzantines, who called them-
selves Romans, as, politically, they were, did not for centuries use it to
refer to any of the features of their civilization. But all this began to
change unmistakably in the course of the first quarter of the thirteenth
century. Pressed by both Western Christianity, which appeared and
was indeed hostile, and an invigorated Islam, which threatened them
with extinction, the Byzantines turned to the ancient Greek past. That
past now struck a vital chord, and terms such as Hellenism, Hellen,
Hellas, were consciously applied by the Byzantines to their country, to
4. Homer, Iliad, III, 156-157; English trans, by Richard Lattimore, The
Iliad of Homer (Chicago, 1951), p. 104.
5. H. A. Musurillo, S.J., ed., The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, 1954).
See pages 236 ff. and 260 ff. for a discussion by the editor of possible connec-
tion of these acts with Christianity.
FOREWOBD xxiii

themselves, to their civilization. This is not to say that they sought to

break completely with their antecedents. "What happened was simply
this, that the consciousness of being 'Roman' gradually faded and was
supplanted by a sense of 'Greekness,' though without any obvious break
with historical tradition or the immediate past." Nevertheless a new
hellenism was born.
The components of this new Hellenism were two: a national church,
basically Greek in character, free from foreign ecclesiastical political
control; and a pride in Greek antiquity, whose literary and philosophical
treasures were eagerly searched for inspiration. In the development of
these components there was opposition, even mutual antagonism, but
in time they joined to produce the modern Greek nation. How they
were formed and the conditions and disasters out of which they evolved
is the tale that Vacalopoulos tells. The tale is fascinating and well told.
Given the fragmentary state of the sources, details in the narrative may
be questioned by some, but on the soundness of its essentials there can
be no argument at all.
There is another tale, however, which Vacalopoulos tells—the tale of
the refugee. "For a good man . . . to leave his city and his rich fields
and go a-begging is of all things the most miserable, wandering with
mother dear and aged father, with little children and wedded wife.
For hateful shall such an one be among all those to whom he shall come
in bondage to want and loathsome penury and doth shame to his lineage
and belie his noble beauty, followed by all evil and dishonor." 6 So wrote
the ancient poet Tyrtaeus in his efforts to encourage the Spartans to
stave off defeat. The role of the Byzantine refugee scholars in Western
Europe is well known. They did not create the Italian Renaissance, but
they enriched it—enriched it considerably by opening up the inexhaus-
tible treasures of Greek literature. A few of these scholars won honor
and respect and position, but even so exile remained bitter. How much
more bitter it must have been for the vast and less fortunate majority.
"It would be a mistake," writes Vacalopoulos, "to assume from the
prominence of some of the more notable Greek scholars and the praise
heaped upon them by both contemporary and later admirers that all
Greek scholars in the West were equally fortunate. Most of them, even
those who found it expedient to acknowledge papal primacy and to
profess the Roman Catholic faith, toiled long and hard as teachers,
copyists, and translators . . . often wandering the streets of cities desti-
tute and poor, each day having to sell more of [their] books." Having
come "a-begging . . . in bondage to want and loathsome penury," they
6. J. M. Edmonds, ed. and trans., Elegy and Iambus, 1 (London, 1946)
(Loeb Classical Library), pp. 68 ff.
xxiv FOREWORD

were loathed by those among whom they came and "followed by all
evil and dishonor." Vacalopoulos does not tell their story as fully as he
does that of the more fortunate. The reason for this is very simple: the
information on the latter is much more plentiful than that on the former.
Vacalopoulos, born in Greece in 1909 and now for many years Pro­
fessor of Greek History at the University of Thessalonica, is one of the
most distinguished of Greek scholars. His numerous works have won
world-wide scholarly recognition. His work on refugees and refugee
problems during the Greek Revolution of 1821 won an award of dis­
tinction from the Academy of Athens, and more recently he was hon­
ored by the same Academy for his contribution to historical knowledge.
The book is presented as a translation of the Greek original published
in 1961 in Thessalonica under the title Ιστορία του νέου Ελληνισμού.
In actual fact, however, it is a new book. It is new not only because
of the numerous revisions effected by the author, but also because it
has been appreciably reorganized. We are happy that we have been
able to publish it as a volume in the Rutgers Byzantine Series.
Peter Charanis
General Editor, Rutgers Byzantine Series
Ш^јМРРРЈ^1МРЈШМШ(ШШМР1ШШ^Р1МРМЈМ1ШЈМЈ^Ј

INTRODUCTION

It is a fact that there is a paucity of knowledge about the history of

Neo-Hellenism, especially the beginnings and the period of Turkish
domination, because the investigators have been so few. Although the
material available is vast and various, very little systematic groundwork
has been done. A lot of time, patience, and effort are required to study
the Greek sources so far published, Byzantine or post-Byzantine, as well
as the rich mine of material in other languages, and to evaluate the in­
formation in them. There is also a vast store of unpublished material
which must be collected and published before the requisite monographs
and specialized studies on particular subjects and periods can be written.
Only then will our historical knowledge become reasonably accurate
and complete.
Whatever the difficulties, they must not be allowed to forestall the
writing of a history of Neo-Hellenism, any more than they have fore­
stalled previous attempts (when the available material, of course, was
much less extensive). In our own troubled times, the Greek people have
felt a need, greater perhaps than ever before, to assimilate the solid
findings of the social sciences, particularly those of the historical sciences,
so as to dispel the feeling of being suspended in the void of centuries.
They have demanded to know the historical origins of their nation and
its place in contemporary civilization. To some extent this is because the
Greek is conscious of the weight of the past. Anyone who studies modern
Greek history cannot help but be astonished to discover how close the
past is to the present: the influence of the past is constant and all-
pervasive. To the Greek, the events of the past seem as recent as perysi,
"last year," or properysi, "the year before last."
There are enough histories, Greek and foreign, to satisfy a normal
intellectual curiosity. Most of them, however, and certainly the best—
K. Paparregopoulos, K. Hopf, George Finlay, and G. F. Hertzberg, for
instance—were written more than a hundred years ago, and the more
recent exhibit a variety of defects ranging from an unbalanced presenta­
tion of material to a dearth of critical interpretation to bibliographical
xxvi INTRODUCTION

ignorance. Lack of the spirit of research has too often led to slipshod
history.
Consequently, the reader, whether Greek or foreign, is not aware of
the results of new researches and merely goes over the same old material.
Accordingly, the need to collect, carefully examine and classify new
material has become urgent. Sources and references must be searched,
historical facts must be gathered and checked, old points of view must
be revised, and new problems formulated before the study of Greek
history can achieve a proper momentum. It is a formidable task but
one which must be carried out expeditiously if the essential characteris-
tics of Neo-Hellenism are to yield the important lessons at present hidden
in them.
There is an equal need for the preparation of historical maps to ac-
company the texts. The lack of such maps and atlases constitutes a
sizeable gap in Greek historical knowledge.
The Greek nation has been harmed by this absence of an explicit,
scientific knowledge of history and the ignorance of crucial historical
problems. The unawareness of even the most prominent outlines of
modern Greek history has led to national myopia in the face of some
of the most serious contemporary problems and has severely hampered
the nation's intellectuals, politicians, and military leaders. Secondary
school teachers do not even have reliable history texts to quote from.
The children, the hope of the nation, continue to receive their education
from a series of carelessly written manuals. Their historical and social
education in school, so essential to modern life, is either inadequate or
worthless.
Thus, there is a manifest need for a history of Neo-Hellenism methodi-
cally constructed, scrupulously expounded, and illustrated with sufficient
maps. Even if such a work should have various imperfections and sooner
or later be made obsolete by the appearance of new knowledge, the
need is surely no less great, since obsolescence inheres in human work.
What is needed in particular is a history that stresses man's continuous
preoccupation with the necessities of life, with the vicissitudes of war,
with religion, with the problems of daily life, and the problem of choice.
History's proper aim, the study of mankind, has been too much neglected.
There simply does not exist any history of modern Greece that seeks to
probe deeply into human psychology and to explain to the modern
Hellene his nation, his ancestors, and himself. Only this kind of history
can provide a proper background for the education of every human
being and a true understanding of one's fellow man. History, in this
sense, then, is not merely a social science: it is the very foundation of
INTRODUCTION xxvii
the social sciences, the source both of social understanding and of a
broad social view.

Within this theoretical framework, I began in 1943 (from the very

outset, that is, of my academic career, and parallel with other re-
search) to devote a large part of my energies to the preparation of an
historical synthesis of Neo-Hellenism and the compilation of suitable
maps. In writing this history, I have relied on my long experience with
historical problems and materials, materials which have become com-
prehensive in recent years. With a view to tracing the historical process
as accurately as possible, I tried to return to the roots of the modern
Greek nation, where I was confronted with the fascinating and difficult
problem of determining at which precise point the modern Greek nation
began to emerge. A search for those essential characteristics which deter-
mined the evolution of the modern Hellenic nation finally led me to the
late Byzantine period ( from 1204 ). The development of the characteris-
tics of Neo-Hellenism at that time has not been noted in even the most
authoritative of Byzantine histories. Medieval Hellenism, in other words,
proved to be a transitional stage in the formation of Neo-Hellenism.
It soon appeared that an analysis of the last centuries of the Byzantine
Empire from this particular vantage point, while raising a number of
new and complicated problems, opened up many new horizons and led
to the very heart of the historical process. I simply eschewed the usual
narrative approach to the late Byzantine period and tried to view it in
terms of the emergence of Neo-Hellenism. According to the conventional
view, this took place when the old world was on its way out. In reality,
however, what happened was that the old world, under pressure from
powerful internal and external forces, was transformed into a new world.
Thus was Neo-Hellenism born. It suffered and struggled in the difficult
conditions which surrounded it; it tried to find itself, to survive, and to
chart a better future. The historian follows this story with mounting
interest and involvement.
The Palaeologian period has had a deep effect on the modern Hellenic
nation and is therefore central to an understanding of it. We must fre-
quently go back to this period if we are to understand fully, for instance,
the ethnic composition of the Greek nation, the historical precedents for
those types of social organization which evolved under the Turkish
occupation, the aspirations and pursuits of the Greek people, their cus-
tomary religious observances, their artistic and intellectual orientations,
their legends and traditions. Similarly, it is in the Palaeologian period
that we find the causes of the devastation of the Greek lands, the flight
of populations, and the founding of new settlements, and that we learn
xxviii INTRODUCTION

of some of the more ancient communal institutions and the first appear-
ance of the armatoles, or guerrillas. These institutions were all vital in
determining the evolutionary course of Neo-Hellenism, and they there-
fore constitute a powerful reason for fixing the starting-point of modern
Greek history at the beginning of the thirteenth century (1204).
However, we have chosen to narrate at length only those dramatic
events associated with the reign of Constantine XI Palaeologus. Our
justification here is that Constantinei reign has always been closely
identified in the popular mind with the spirit of Neo-Hellenism and is
therefore in that sense the real vinculum between medieval and modern
Hellenism. The popular assessment is a valid one: Constantine, like the
Neo-Platonist philosopher Gemistos and his disciple Bessarion, con-
sciously aimed at the rebirth of the state. To the extent that men like
these have come to incarnate the idea of Neo-Hellenism, I have accord-
ingly stressed their importance as the progenitors of the nation.
The period that marks the beginning of the modern Greek nation was
turbulent indeed. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire was accom-
panied by cries of despair and distraught pleas for political and social
deliverance. But the murmurings of hope, the new artistic and intellec-
tual voices which heralded the dawn of a new era, could not be entirely
drowned out. Such is the canvas of our history.
ORICINSOF
THEGREEKNATION
Ш1ММЈШ^МЈ^М(МЕ1ЕММ1ШМЈЕ1ШЈ^ЈМЈМЈМЈМЈМ(ШМ[М1МЈ

ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ ETHNIC
INFUSIONS

Fallmerayers Theory
The fundamental problem of modern Greek history may be fairly epito­
mized in the form of two related questions. What are the ethnic origins
of the Greek nation? What are the sources and components of Greek cul­
ture? Both have provoked widespread discussion and contention. Both
have raised a number of additional questions concerning which scholars
have sometimes disagreed completely. Indeed agreement may not be pos­
sible on many details. Yet surely it is now possible, particularly in view
of the moderation of nationalistic sentiment, for reason and research to
guide us to some definite conclusions, and even perhaps to a solution of
the basic problem.
The question of ethnic origins was first formulated by the German his­
torian, Fallmerayer,* in 1830, just a year after the successful consumma­
tion of the Greek struggle for independence. This was a time when phil-
hellenists and the civilized world in general still had great hopes for the
political regeneration of Greece. Fallmerayers theory, 1 initially advanced
in his Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters (A
History of the Feninsula of Morea during the Middle Ages) and later
developed in other works, immediately attracted widespread attention.
According to him, the ancient Greeks had disappeared completely and
the modern Greeks were merely descendants of Slavs and Albanians.2
Naturally, there were repercussions throughout the academic world.

* All superior numbers in the text refer to footnotes which have been collated in
the section Notes towards the end of the book.
2 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Scholars everywhere tried to analyze such an important ethnological pos­

tulate. The outcome of these exhaustive investigations, in spite of certain
disagreement on particular points, has generally been that Fallmerayer
grossly exaggerated in his interpretation of the sources, sources which
consist of a few brief and tantalizing texts drawn from Evagrius, Menan-
der, John of Ephesus, a letter from Patriarch Nicholas III (1084-1111)
to Alexius I (1081-1118), and the "Brief Chronicie" usually referred to as
the Chronicle of Monemvasia.3 Fortunately, historians of today know
only too well how the impressionable and unsophisticated chroniclers of
the past, for all their sensitivity and perception, were prone to embroider
the facts of history for special effect. Nor have the recent investigations
of the MiracuL· Sancti Demitrii, because of its imprecise nature, especially
with respect to chronology, led to any conclusive results.4 Finally, the
archaeological findings in Corinth that have been regarded by some as
traces of Avaro-Slav settlement 5 are in fact Byzantine; on the other hand
the recently discovered remains of funeral pyres at Olympia do indeed
point to the appearance of the Slavs in the Péloponnèse by the second
half of the seventh century.

The Sfovs
Certain positive results of historical research, however, can be confidently
set down. The incursions of the Avaro-Slav peoples started in the sixth
century. By the end of that century,6 but more especially in the early
years of the seventh century, following the overthrow of the Byzantine
Emperor Maurice (582-602), the northern regions of the Balkan penin­
sula had been permanently settled. The period of anarchy and internal
chaos that followed the death of Maurice provided the Slavs with further
opportunities to invade the south,7 and it is these subsequent waves of
invasion that are difficult to follow with any reasonable degree of accu­
racy. The Slavs finally reached the Péloponnèse by the middle of the
seventh century.8 The Slav migrations were effected not only by invasions
of force but also by peaceful means, although it is true that the migrations
may have been due in part to certain extraneous factors such as the
plague of 746, which decimated the indigenous population of these re­
gions.9 In any case, their peaceful progress south can only have been a
slow one. They moved as isolated groups of peasant farmers and shep­
herds, and the various place-names they left behind indicate that the
line of their march was through the mountainous highlands of the west.
Indeed, the very gradual, almost imperceptible, nature of their progress
is probably the most important reason why contemporary sources did
not record it more fully. The Slav tribes which settled down in Epirus,
Macedonia, Thessaly, and the Péloponnèse originally spoke a Slav dialect
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ ETHNIC INFUSIONS 3

related to Bulgarian.10 Although definite proof is lacking, the Slav migra­

tions which took place at the time of Maurice probably displaced many
Greeks from the Péloponnèse and northwestern Greece, who then sought
refuge in Sicily and Italy. 11
From the very outset, the assimilation and hellenization of the Slavs
proceeded apace. In the first place, they suffered military reverses in 688
and 783 during the reigns of Justinian II (685-695; 705-711) and Con-
stantine VI (780-797) and again during the reign of Irene (797-802).
At the same time, the Church continued to proselytize. In the words of
Dvornik,
the Christianization and hellenization of the Slavs in Macedonia, Thrace, and
Epirus—at least in those parts of these provinces which remained under Byzan-
tine rule—were pressed on with vigor during the first half of the ninth century,
and it is interesting to follow the different stages of the ecclesiastical reorgan-
ization of those regions after Christianity had been utterly destroyed there.
This meritorious activity of the Byzantine Church reaped its best harvest under
the Patriarch Photius.12
The defeat which the Slavs suffered before Patras in 805,13 when they
had risen up in arms, finally sealed their fate. A deliberate program of
hellenization then began in the Péloponnèse. Under the aegis of the
Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus (802-811), settlers drawn from other
parts of the Empire were moved in, Greek emigres were persuaded to
return, and whole towns were rebuilt.14 But the process of hellenization
was slow. Not even by the reigns of Leo VI (886-912) and Alexander
(912-913) had the Christianization of the Slavs been fully accom-
plished.16
The process of hellenization was not brought about merely by religious
conversion and military defeat. On the contrary, the Slavs were simulta-
neously exposed to a variety of intellectual, political, and economic influ-
ences. The big cities of Constantinople, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Patras
were obvious centers of continuous cultural diffusion, as Vasmer correctly
points out.16 Yet Hellenic culture did not emanate solely from these
places; it emanated too from a few small towns which preserved their
Greek names, such as Caesarea, southwest of Kozane.17 Greeks were also
to be found in small, isolated, and frequently inaccessible places, in re-
mote island and peninsula strongholds, or secure mountain fastnesses.
One may surmise that a few of Justinian's celebrated fortresses may have
served some useful purpose in providing refuge for the custodians of
Greek civilization.18 These last places of refuge are mentioned by the
anonymous writer of the life of St. Luke the Younger (tenth century),
who gives a reliable narration 19 of the invasion of central Hellas by
4 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Symeon, the Bulgarian Czar, and refers to the flight of the inhabitants
of Phocis to the towns: "whereupon those in the towns became shut in
like prisoners, while those who went to Euboea and the Péloponnèse
found safety." 20 Chalcidice is a notable example of a place which lay
outside the path of the invader and which was not subsequently settled
by him because of its mountainous situation. The plateau of Arnaea (as
it is known today) was celebrated in oral tradition until the end of the
eighteenth century as having been densely populated by Greeks through-
out the period of the Bulgarian invasions. Other places which avoided
inundation by the Slavs and therefore continued to harbor Greeks were
probably the mountainous districts of southern Macedonia, Pieria and
Vermion, as well as parts of eastern Macedonia.21 Indeed the Greek popu-
lation was not entirely uprooted even from the plains; various toponyms
suggest that the Greek inhabitants returned to their lands as soon as the
invasion ended.22
The Chronicie of Monemvasia speaks of the people of Corinth who
found sanctuary on Aegina, the people of Argos on the island of Orobe
(?), the people of Laconia in the surrounding mountains and in Monem-
vasia. Such references are typical, though in fact they occurred in dif-
ferent places at different times. The persistence of archaic Greek peculi-
arities in such districts as Tsakonia 23 indicates that the Taygetus and
Parnon mountains, especially the latter, served as places of refuge. The
Chronicle of Galaxidi, although it was not written until about 1703, simi-
larly offers us a good deal of insight into the manner of Greek resistance
to the onslaughts of the Bulgarians and other invaders. It is based on
personal reminiscences as well as officiai Byzantine sources. Here we have
a saga of heroism and bloody conflict, of retreat to fortresses, islands,
and mountain peaks, of harassed pursuit, of days of hardship lengthening
into years. Here we watch the Greeks, finally driven by necessity, des-
peration, and the desire for freedom, and fortified at last by the Byzantine
armies, rushing forth to reoccupy their lands. 24
The spiritual vitality of the Church was centered in the monasteries
and the seats of numerous bishops and metropolitans. Her intellectual
energy was attested in the works of leading clerical scholars. Monasteries
and bishoprics were both effective in the work of proselytism.
A variety of ordinary needs brought the Slav into daily intercourse
with the Greek. There were commercial transactions to be made and the
financial inducements which work offered. Undoubtedly, too, the search
for winter quarters brought many Slav shepherds down into the plains.
Whatever the reason, they came into increasing contact with Greeks-
peasants, big landowners, ecclesiastical administrators, and civil officials.
The urban centers where they came principally to sell their goods were
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ ETHNIC INFUSIONS 5
all predominantly Greek. Naturally, it is difficult to ascertain the precise
nature of the relationships which were formed; but, at the same time, it
is unlikely that this seminomadic people retained a completely self-
sufficient mode of existence. Not that their institutions and tribal alle­
giances were suddenly abandoned: it is probable that they held to these
while paying homage through their chiefs to the functionaries of the
Byzantine Empire. 25
References can only rarely be found to Slav settlements surviving into
the tenth century, and these are only to settlements in Achaia and Elis
and on the slopes of the Taygetus Mountains, where the people came to
be known as Melingoi and Ezeritai.26 The small district of Zygos, where
the Melingoi lived, has been subjected to a good deal of interesting com­
ment. As early as the fifteenth century the Greek traveller, Lascaris
Kananos, remarked that the people of this district spoke a dialect similar
to that of Lübeck in northern Germany, which was called "Slavia," "Scla-
vinia," and "Selavonia."27 The Slavs of the Taygetus were last mentioned
by Chalcocondyles in the fifteenth century.28 Professor Socrates Kougeas
has this interesting comment to make on the assimilation of the Melingoi
people:
The way of life of the people of Zygos, called Melingoi, was in many respects
similar to that of the inhabitants of the neighboring fortress of Maina—those
who were later called Maniatai. According to Porphyrogenitus "the Maniatai
were descended not from Slavs but from ancient Romans (Byzantines), who
were always called Hellenes by the local populace." The Maniatai, like the
Melingi, had acknowledged fealty to the imperial authority from very early
times. During the period of the Despotate [of Morea] the Maniatai and the
people of Zygos, though of different racial lineage, had clearly begun to amal-
gamate as a consequence of racial intermixing during the Palaeologian period.
Eventually, the fusion of these two peoples resulted from the assimilation of
the remaining Slav elements by the preponderant Greek population. There
emerged a way of life that reflected certain reciprocal influences but that
was at the same time thoroughly Hellenic. This way of life, influenced by the
traditions of ancient Sparta, exhibited many of the characteristics today so
typical of the Maniatai—a fierce and vengeful nature, a predilection for army
life, a passion for political independence . . .29
By the beginning of the Turkish occupation, it would appear that the
total assimilation of the Slavs had been effected. This was certainly the
case in southern Greece,30 although there may have been a few remnants
in western Thessaly and Epirus. All this is not, however, to suggest that
the influence of the Slavs ceased forever. On the contrary, the peaceful
penetration of parts of northern Greece, especially Thrace and Macedonia,
continued until the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. These later immigrants
6 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

were mostly Bulgarians, who came as itinerant rural workers, building

craftsmen, or laborers.31
The comparative facility with which the Bulgarian language could be
learned meant that occasionally the process of assimilation was reversed.32
The Patzinaks in Ardea were one people so affected. But this process has
to be carefully examined. The study of linguistics has shown that Slav
languages were unable to influence the morphology and syntax of the
Greek language in any significant way.33 Insofar as vocabulary is con­
cerned, Meyer maintains that this influence is restricted to the loan of no
more than 273 words, of which only a few are in everyday speech. Most
of these borrowed words are concrete nouns dealing with some aspect of
a bucolic existence.34 On the other hand, the Greek inheritance in certain
Slav languages, especially Bulgarian, is considerable.35
Since most Slav toponyms allude to some aspect of nature, they ob­
viously derive from a peasant and shepherd culture. It is not always clear
whether they were brought into Greece by Slavs who settled down per­
manently, by tenants situated on monastic and lay estates, or by the
Vlachs, Arvanito-Vlachs, and Albanians, who became thoroughly inter­
mixed with the Slavs, particularly in the western districts. The matter is
further complicated by the fact that the toponyms represent the residual
deposits of successive layers of history,36 which, in the case of Greek
Macedonia at least, have been proved to belong to virtually every chrono­
logical period down to the twentieth century.
Nevertheless, at least the broader ramifications of the problem of Slav
influence on Greece can now be seen against a background of scientific
knowledge that permits the virtual abandonment of Fallmerayer's theory.
Only in Soviet Russia has there been any recent enthusiasm shown for
it37—an enthusiasm which must surely now be muted, however, in view
of the findings in 1960 of the Greek anthropologist, Ares Poulianos, who
did his investigations while in Soviet Russia. Using the methodological
standards of the Soviet Anthropological Institute, Poulianos showed by
means of a series of exhaustive measurements and analyses that an un­
broken racial affinity existed between the ancient and modern Greeks.38
It must be admitted, however, that the precise extent of Slav influence
on each successive stratum of the Greek ethos is, by its very nature, ex­
traordinarily difficult to determine.

The Albanians
When the controversy surrounding Fallmerayer's theory was at its height,
Thomas Gordon, the Scottish philhellenist and participant in the Greek
revolution of 1821 to 1829, observed that certain scholars had looked for
traces of Slav settlement and influence in the Péloponnèse. But he found
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ ETHNIC INFUSIONS 7
that these really belonged to the hellenized descendants of Albanians,
who were not only still living there but also still spoke their own lan­
guage.39 Gordon, who at least knew the Péloponnèse at first hand, main-
tained that these people were definitely not descendants of Slavs but
rather of Albanians, who had come into Greece during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. It is now known that these new immigrants settled
down in the Péloponnèse and Epirus, particularly in the region of the
Pindus Mountains. It is also known that many of these Illyrian Albanians
spoke a Latin dialect. They were, in other words, Arvanito-Vlachs, who,
besides their own Vlach language, also spoke Albanian fluently.40 Their
subsequent impact on Greece, especially in the south, was much more
lasting than that of any of the preceding Slav migrations.
Many opinions have been advanced as to when the Albanians first
appeared. At the more dubious extreme the migrations have been placed
as early as the eighth century.41 At the more plausible extreme they have
been placed closer to the fourteenth century.42 However, the weight of
evidence would seem to point to an intermediate period. At any rate, at
the end of the thirteenth century, official acknowledgement was made of
the peaceful settlement of Albanians in mountainous western Thessaly
near Karditsa—specifically, in the district of Phanarion. In view of this
fact, it seems likely that they may have begun to move in as early as the
twelfth century, sporadically and peacefully at first, occasionally with
official sanction, though not always with the approval of the indigenes.
In 1295, for example, Michael Gabrielopoulos, lord of Thessaly, received
the entreaty of his people "not to bring in, thou nor thine heirs, any more
immigrants, or to have Latin soldiers in thine employ." 43 The document
exemplifies the usual national distrust of all foreign intruders.
After 1318, the peaceful Albanian infiltration came to an abrupt halt.
A leaderless horde of twelve thousand people, comprising the three tribes
of the Malakasioi, Bouïoi, and Mesaritai, descended upon Thessaly and
ravaged the countryside. Greek and Catalan authorities in this area were
forced to withdraw to the immediate vicinity of castle strongholds.44
Some of these raiders spoke Albanian, others Arvanito-Vlach, which
would seem to suggest that they came from southern Albania.45 Indeed,
the survival of certain oral traditions concerning the origin of the Al-
banians reinforces such a conclusion. In particular, the Arvanito-Vlachs
of Acarnania, or Karagounides (which is the name applied today even
to the Greek-speaking inhabitants of the plain of Thessaly ), believed that
their ancestors left the area of Avlöna (Valona) some four or five hun-
dred years before. Thence they had dispersed throughout the district of
Metsovon, in Epirus along the Aspropotamos River (Achelous), and in
Kalarites.46 Whether or not this is so, it is definitely known that the Al-
8 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

banians who plundered Thessaly were eventually pacified by the Byzan-

tine emperor Andronicus III, to whom they swore allegiance in 1333.47
The year 1348 marked the end of Byzantine sovereignty in Thessaly
and the beginning of Serbian domination.48 Under their leader, Stephen
Dušan (1331-1355), the Serbs conquered a large area of northern Greece
including parts of Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly.49 The principal side-
effect of the Serbian conquest was that the penetration of Albanians
further towards the south was facilitated, the more so since many of
them served in the Serbian armies as mercenaries.50 As the Serbian con-
quest advanced, Stephen Dušan settled many Albanians on the domains
of Greek military and lay magnates. Later on Greek and Latin rulers
used these Albanians as mercenaries.
On the whole, it would seem that the inroads of the Albanians, accom-
panied as they were by yet another wave of Slavs—on this occasion Serbs
and Bulgarians—contributed significantly to the diminution of the former
Greek element in southern Albania and Epirus. 51 Simultaneously, there
was a marked dispersal of the Greek population of Thessaly, Aetolia, and
Acarnania ( the two latter comprising southern Epirus ) ,52 which took the
form of disorganized flight towards the coast.53 On one occasion, shortly
after the death of Stephen Dušan in 1355, an abortive attempt was made
to stem the Albanian advance and to rehabilitate the Greek refugees of
Epirus. Nicephorus II, Despot of Epirus (1356-1359), son of John II
Ducas Orsini, led an army against the invaders, but was defeated and
killed at the battle of the Achelous (spring 1359 ). 54 Thereafter, Serbs
and Albanians held undisputed sway throughout the whole of north-
western Greece, virtually as far as the Gulf of Corinth. Only the castles
of Naupactus and Vonitsa were still in the hands of the Angevins and the
Toceos. Albanian colonization in Greece was thus further extended.55 Yet
the displacement of Greek families was by no means universal. The Greek
element remained in the ascendant in Vagenetia,56 where the coastal
littoral of Epirus opposite Corfu is broad and isolated and where numer-
ous wealthy monasteries are to be found. Some noble families certainly
sought refuge in Ioannina,57 but the supposition that most of the Greek
population remained on their land would seem to be borne out by the
fact that this same district today coincides almost exactly with an area
where the language retains a number of Greek archaisms.58
Many of the events of this period can be only hazily reconstructed.
After the death of Stephen Dušan, the situation in Epirus and Thessaly
became more and more confused.59 Symeon Uroš, Dusan's half-brother,
who conferred upon himself the title of "King and Emperor of the Ro-
mans, Serbs, and all the Albanians," G0 ruled in Thessaly and Epirus from
1356 to 1371(?). fil He established his court in Trikkala and then pro-
 'S* IT:
ff//*'///?'

mm φ-

Figure 1. Castle of Trikkala.

10 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

ceeded to divide his territorial inheritance. In 1367, Ioannina was as-

signed to his kinsman, Thomas Preliumbovic, and Aetolia and Acarnania
(that is, southern Epirus) went to the Albanian tribes of Boua and Liosa
respectively.62 Serb influence extended throughout the western plain of
Thessaly as far as Pharsala and Domokos,63 while Albanians and Arvanito-
Vlachs were the dominant element in western Thessaly and southern
Epirus. This situation remained largely unchanged until the appearance
of the Turks towards the end of the fourteenth century, although there
was constant friction between the two groups. Indeed, it was because
Preliumbovic wished to prevent Albanian dominance that he finally called
upon the Turkish army for direct military support. In this way, he facili-
tated the expansion of Turkish hegemony in Epirus. 64
The descent of the Albanians into Attica and the Péloponnèse took
place after 1382 during the last years of Catalan control (1311-1388).
Attica had been recently devastated by a company of Navarrese soldiers
of fortune, and as a step towards the repopulation of this region King
Peter IV of Aragon gave official consent to Albanian colonization, which
subsequently extended to the highlands of Boeotia, thence to Euboea,
and, finally, during the Turkish occupation, to the islands of Salamis,
Aegina, Angistri, and Andros.65 Albanians may have made their first ap-
pearance in the Péloponnèse during the despotate of Manuel Canta-
cuzenus ( 1348-1380 ), but colonization on a large scale did not take place
until the time of Theodore I Palaeologus (1383-1407). In 1394, he retook
Corinth after its occupation by the Franks, and mention is made of the
sudden appearance at the Isthmus of 10,000 Albanian men, women, and
children, with their animals. It is reasonable to suppose that such a large
number could only have been in flight from the Turk. Thereafter, the
colonization of the Péloponnèse followed a predictable pattern. Settle-
ments were made with official concurrence in Achaia, Elis, and Arcadia,
whence they later spread into Messenia and Argolis. Much later, after
the collapse of the Despotate of Morea (1461), Albanians appeared on
Hydra, Spetsai, and Poros,66 where their hellenized descendants form
substantial segments of the present-day populations. It is likely that
Arvanito-Vlachs and Vlachs were also caught up in the migratory stream
of Albanians to the Péloponnèse. In this regard Cousinéry calls our atten-
tion to the fact that there were certain peoples in the mountainous parts
of Argolis who, besides speaking Greek, spoke a language which was
practically identical with that of the Macedonian Vlachs.67
At the end of the fourteenth century, thousands of Greeks sought refuge
from the Turks in the Péloponnèse. These, together with the Albanian
immigrants, greatly increased the military capability of the Péloponnèse,
which was a crucial factor in the subsequent history of the region. It is
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ ETHNIC INFUSIONS 11
also worthy of comment that this diverse and swollen population yet
managed to preserve and to perpetuate its essential Greek character.
Turkish pressure was not the only cause of Albanian migration towards
the Péloponnèse. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, Carlo I Tocco
(1381-1429), ruler of Cephalonia and Zacynthus, had an ambition to
re-establish the Greek Despotate of Epirus. With the support of the local
Greek element, he proceeded to march through Epirus and western
central Hellas. According to the anonymous author of the Panegyric to
Manuel and John Palaeologus, he pushed back the "barbarians" by a
combination of intrigue, persuasion, and force.68 Who were these "bar-
barians"? What districts were subjugated along the route of Carlo's
march? The answers to these questions are supplied by Venetian sources,
which refer to the expedition of the ruler of Cephalonia against the
Albanian leader, Boua Sgouros, and his house in 1405. The small town
of Anatolikon, with its rich fishing grounds, was taken by a mixture of
intrigue and guile. Dragomesto (now Astakos) and Angelokastron were
conquered by force. In this way, the permanent occupation of southern
Epirus, Acarnania, and Aetolia by the Albanians was hampered, and
many of them were propelled towards Attica and the Péloponnèse.69
However, some Albanians remained. At the very time the Panegyric
was being written mention is made of the survival of some Albanian
settlements in southern Epirus: "These people are never content to settle
down in cities, towns, or castles. They retain their nomadic habits and
are scattered throughout mountain and plain." However, the coastal plain
itself, together with the more important urban centers such as Arta and
Ioannina, was inhabited by Greeks.70 A good deal of this kind of infor-
mation, which can be culled from the Panegyric, is therefore valuable for
the light it throws on the essential differences between Greeks and
Albanians. The Greeks were mainly townspeople and farmers; the others
were nomads who moved from mountain to plain with the fluctuation of
the seasons. Even so, the hinterland was not inhabited solely by Alba-
nians. Strong evidence points to the survival of ancient tribes of Epirus, 71
who spoke a quaint and colorful form of Greek, retained popular tradi-
tions about ancient Greece, and possessed discernible Greek character-
istics—not the least of which was a fervent passion for freedom and
independence. 72
If the evidence of the Panegyric is seen in conjunction with the Vene-
tian accounts of the military undertakings of Carlo I Tocco, it is quite
apparent that this invasion contributed materially to the movement of
Albanians and Arvanito-Vlachs towards eastern central Hellas and the
Péloponnèse.73 Final proof, if necessary, would seem to be provided by
the fact that the twenty-year-old Paul Spata, brother of the ruler of
12 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Aetolia, Gin Boua Spata, was dislodged from his fortress of Naupactus
by the Venetians in 1407 and accepted the asylum offered by his father-
in-law, Theodore II Palaeologus, Despot of Morea.74
Amicable relations generally subsisted between those Greeks and Alba-
nians who lived in close proximity with one another. Indeed, as a result
of this, it may be presumed that whole Greek villages were assimilated
by the Albanians, particularly in those areas which were predominantly
settled by Orthodox Christian Albanians. Certain manifestations of the
reaction to Turkish rule may be relevant to an understanding of this
process of reverse assimilation. For instance, Sourmelis suggests that one
of the reasons why certain Greek villages in Attica were assimilated more
readily in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was that their in-
habitants observed that the Moslem Albanian mercenaries of the Turks
refrained from molesting Christian Albanians.75
In much the same manner as the Slavs, Albanians continued to infil-
trate Greece throughout the entire period of Turkish occupation. Most
of these were Moslems who came sometimes as peaceful immigrants,
sometimes as brigands, and sometimes as mercenary soldiers in the Turk-
ish army. However, much research has still to be done before the precise
degree of Albanian influence in Greece is known. To what extent did the
Albanians merely serve as bearers of Slav toponyms? 76 Of the various
toponyms, later subject to linguistic corruption by the Greeks, which were
genuinely Albanian, which Turkish? 77

The Vlachs
The question of the extent to which the Albanians merely acted as
bearers of Slav toponyms raises an analogous question about the nature
of Vlach influence in Greece. These people had certainly intermixed with
the Slavs, and it is likely that many Slav names which have survived in
Greece are a legacy of Vlach settlement.78
There is a copious literature dealing with the origins of the Vlachs,
and a number of conflicting theories have been put forward. Some con-
tend that the Vlachs were descended from colonists of the Roman Empire
or from an admixture of Romans and Thracians. This particular viewpoint
was initially advanced by the amateur Vlach historian, Rozias, in 1808.79
In other words, he considered the Vlachs merely as brothers of the Ru-
manians. 80 Another theory holds that they were latinized Dacians or
Thracians, or even a single branch of this larger family—that is to say,
the tribe known as Bessoi. Some postulate an Illyrian origin. Still others
maintain that, in the case of those dwelling in Greece, they were no more
than latinized native Greeks. This last point of view has been upheld in
a very simple, yet convincing, manner by the Greek historian, Constantine
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ E T H N I C INFUSIONS 13

Koumas (1777-1836), himself probably of Vlach extraction. However,

his theory has gone virtually unnoticed to this day, in spite of the fact
that it was advanced at the beginning of the last century, probably in
reply to Rozias:
If the extraordinary hero of Macedonia succeeded in spreading the Greek lan­
guage throughout the whole of the East, even as far as India, in a period of
only ten years, it scarcely puts a strain on our credulity to imagine that the
Romans might have accomplished the same thing! Indeed, it seems but per­
fectly natural that over eight centuries the Latin language should also have
taken root in precisely those places where Latin colonies were planted—from
England to the Euphrates and from the Elbe to the deserts of Africa. For
almost six centuries before the fall of Rome, the whole of what is now European
Turkey was filled with Roman armies, Roman prefects, Roman lords and mag­
nates. The result of such continuous contact between the Romans and their
subject peoples was that whole peoples like the Macedonians, Thessalians, and
Greeks not only learned the language of their masters but in many cases com­
pletely forgot their own mother tongue. Only in the big cities did the Greek
language live on. Only the mountains of Illyricum impeded to some extent the
irresistible progress of the Latin language. Even here, in mountain and valley,
the village inhabitants mixed their language with Latin and so formed the
bizarre, hybrid dialect which is still extant in certain districts of Epirus, Thes-
saly, and Greece.81
There is much to support Koumas' opinion. Latin, after all, was the
official language of administration for more than seven hundred years,
and this, as Koumas suggests, necessarily affected the local population.
An important source dating from the reign of Justinian asserts that many
of the European parts of the Empire spoke Latin, even in those areas
where Greek predominated. This was especially true in the case of civil
servants. Evidence provided by numerous Latin and Greek inscriptions
attests to the establishment of Roman settlements in Greece. These settle­
ments no doubt were conscious of their Roman citizenship and no doubt
also sought to impress their civilization on the autochthonous inhabitants.
It is not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that many of the latter
adopted the Latin speech. The speech of their descendants today is
clearly derived from this early form. Adoption of the Latin speech must
have been especially prevalent in the isolated and undeveloped western
districts, which were oriented towards Italy.
The problem, however, is more complicated. If there were Vlachs,
particularly in the Greek regions, whose original background may have
been, as we believe, Greek, there were others whose origin was quite
different. An undated source of the seventh century, describing the
Avaro-Slav migrations, refers to a Latin-speaking people from the regions
14 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

of the Danube, which sought refuge in the northern parts of Greece.82

In this people we have the origin of another branch of the Vlachs, among
whom we may include the Vlachorynchini of later documents as well as
the Vlachs north of Lake Langadha ( Koroneia ) near Thessalonica, men-
tioned by the seventeenth-century traveller Evliya Tschelebi, and possibly
also those of Moglena, who still exist and who differ somewhat from the
Vlachs of the Pindus in language, customs, and traditions, a difference
which may be explained by their Danubian origin.83
The arrival of this latinized people, to which we have referred above,
took place at a time when the Latin language was still being spoken by
the inhabitants of the districts involved. Regular intercourse between the
newcomers and the local inhabitants was thereby facilitated, and in this
way a new element, which came to be known as Vlach, gradually evolved.
This new element spoke a Neo-Latin dialect, resembling that spoken in
the Danubian regions. This resemblance served during the Turkish occu-
pation as an inducement to migrate to these rich northern regions.
The intricacies of the problem of Vlach origins become even more
apparent when it is realized that successive waves of Slavs and, later,
Albanians settled down in those areas which were already occupied by
Vlachs.84 Later still, during the Turkish occupation, Greek-speaking im-
migrants from the plains and highlands of central and western Greece
also found shelter in the inaccessible complex of the Pindus Mountains.
All of these people came into daily contact with one another. However,
the exact nature of this intercourse and the manner in which they all
finally succumbed to Hellenic culture still lie hidden in unexplored his-
tory. Vague oral traditions refer to Vlach migrations from northern Epirus
to the Aspropotamos River district. Besides these, there is only the ten-
tative evidence of G. Weigand, who has attempted to construct a picture
of settlement in the Pindus Mountains by reference to the traces which
its peoples have left. From a total of 65 toponyms that he described, 29
were attributed to the Slavs, 22 to the Vlachs, and 15 to the Greeks. The
last predominated in the region from Kerassovo to Karpenision; the first
were confined mainly to the western slopes of the Pindus and to the south
of Lake Ioannina.85
The patriot of 1821, Kasomoulis, has referred to the Vlachs of Pindus
as Greco-Vlachs in order to distinguish them from the Arvanito-Vlachs
(neighbors of the Colonia Albanians), who lived in the villages around
Moscopolis (now Voskopojë) such as Grammousta and Nicolitsa. The in-
fluence of these Greco-Vlachs upon the development of the Greek nation
is somewhat more palpable. Towards the end of the Byzantine Empire
they united with the Greeks in order to confront the Turks more effec-
tively. Throughout the period of the Turkish occupation they continued
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ ETHNIC INFUSIONS 15

to make common cause against the invaders.86 Subsequently, they took

the lead in the establishment of Greek schools and in the propagation
of Greek education, and their talents as craftsmen, merchants, and war­
riors enriched the life of Greece. From this racial crucible in the mountain
fastnesses of western Greece, among the Latin-speaking Greco-Vlachs,
the Greek-speaking nomads called Sarakatsans,87 and the intractable
guerrillas and brigands of Acarnania, came one of the sparks which re­
kindled the flame of Greek nationalism.

The Franks and Turks

The Latin occupation from 1204, when Constantinople fell during the
Fourth Crusade, to 1566 left almost no permanent ethnic imprint on the
Greek nation. This was especially so in the north, where Latin influence
prevailed during the very brief period from 1204 to 1224. Even in the
south, where the Latin presence made itself felt for a much greater length
of time, assimilation tended to be rapid because of the small numbers of
the invaders. The Latins established themselves in hastily constructed
fortresses whose aspect of impermanence contrasted starkly with the
august solidity of their counterparts in western Europe. The petty states
set up under Latin rule were finally swept away by Byzantine and Turk­
ish armies. Thereafter, such influence as the Latin rule may have had on
Greek society faded rapidly and the Latin element was completely in­
gested. In time even the immediate products of racial intermixture, the
Gasmuli or Vasmuli, similarly disappeared.
It is possible to find the hellenized descendants of a Latin ethnic in­
fusion on the Aegean islands of Tenos, Naxos, Syros, and Santorini. How­
ever, the only indications of their origin are the survival of foreign names
and some vestiges of Roman Catholicism. The persistence of Roman
Catholicism, however, is hardly a reliable criterion of ethnic descent,
since conversion of Orthodox islanders to the Latin rite occurred during
the late Byzantine and Turkish periods. During the last two centuries of
the Byzantine era and throughout the Turkish occupation there were no
less frequent cases of Catholic apostasy to Orthodox dogma. Proof of
the Greek ethnic origin of most Aegean Roman Catholics exists in the
structure of their language, which followed the normal morphological
development of the southern, and in particular the Cycladic, dialect: the
names of trees, shrubs, wildflowers, fruits, and the like, are the same,
and most importantly the customs and traditions remain entirely similar.88
The Turkish component in the ethnic structure of the Greek nation
was limited 89 by the fundamental differences in religion which always
separated these two peoples. Indeed, the influence was rather of an in­
verted kind, since thousands of Greeks who were converted to Islam
16 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

wrought a subtle transformation in the character of the Turkish nation

and permanently affected its development.
The persistence of Hellenism must be ascribed to the fact that the
newcomers remained in the minority at all times. This minority suffered
a gradual and imperceptible transmutation by the dominant Hellenic
tradition. Neo-Hellenism, as such, began to emerge after the appearance
of the last intruders, the Albanians and Arvanito-Vlachs. Its center of
gravity was to be found in the Péloponnèse, where most of the Slavs and
Albanians had settled down. Here, in spite of the heterogeneous character
of the population, the process of hellenization and cultural diffusion con-
tinued, even during four centuries of Turkish occupation.
There were many potent forces at work. Greek civilization itself was
an irresistible inducement. The Greek language survived as the vital
living organism through which the essence of this civilization was pre-
served and transmitted. In the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor Ortho-
dox Christianity provided a common framework of religious belief, which
was constantly propagated by the Greek clergy, especially those in the
monasteries and principal ecclesiastical centers. Finally, there was the
whole complex of social and economic relationships, which tended to pro-
mote the interdependence of all peoples under the Turkish yoke, and the
bond of common resistance to the Moslem invader, which everywhere
brought raias, or non-Moslem subjects, ever closer together. On the other
hand, the religious polarity between Greek and Moslem always remained
fundamental: it not only prevented the conjunction of the two groups
but indeed virtually precluded any close and viable relationship.
The resemblance between certain aspects of ancient and modern
Greek society has been sufficiently striking to attract the attention of
numerous foreign observers since 1821.90 There is a remarkable consensus
among foreign observers as to what the more notable traits of the modern
Hellenes are—nimbleness of perception, easy adaptability, depth of feel-
ing, fervent patriotism, hatred of occupation by foreigners, and passion
for politics.91 It is also widely accepted in academic circles today that a
knowledge of the customs and traditions of the modern Greeks provides
an understanding both of the ancient past and of the essence of the Greek
ethos. Thus the evidence found in folklore and language is the most re-
liable guide to a study of the overall impact of foreign elements on
Greece. While our knowledge of these varied influences is incomplete,
it can certainly be extended by intensive comparative studies of the folk-
lore of particular districts in combination with detailed historical and
geographical research.92
^1ШЈМЈШЈМЈШШ1ШШМШШ1ШШШЈШШиШ1Ш1ШЈШРШ1ШШШ

THE SURVIVAL OF GREEK

CIVILIZATION

From the Roman Conquest to the Tenth Century

From the time of the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 B.C., the Greeks,
like so many other conquered peoples, lived for centuries on the periphery
of political life in a sprawling empire whose center was Rome. The Greek
peninsula, especially southern Greece, was no longer a political center of
importance. This situation was not substantially altered by the establish­
ment of Constantinople in 330 A.D., since Constantinei purpose in found­
ing the city was, in part, the strengthening of Roman influence throughout
the provinces of the East. When the division of the Empire between East
and West was formalized by Theodosius in 395 the focus of the eastern
segment of the Empire was fixed even more clearly upon the Bosphorus
and Asia Minor. Southern Greece constituted, geographically, a large
province of the new empire, but it remained remote in a political sense.1
Nevertheless the act of Constantine as well as that of Theodosius con­
tributed to the survival and consolidation of Hellenism in the area. "For
long centuries," writes Gregorovius,
the peculiar significance of Constantinei creation was understood by neither
the Greeks of that time nor their descendants. The building of Constantinople
in itself not only ensured the perpetuation of the Greek nation but the preserva­
tion for posterity of the incomparable treasures of Greek civilization. Without
Constantinople, indeed, Greece and the Péloponnèse would have been con-
quered and colonized by barbarous peoples. Without this mighty fortified city
and the protection which it offered it is impossible to conceive of the conserva-
tion of Greek culture, or of the emergence of the Greek Church, or even of the
18 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

existence of the Byzantine Empire. In Constantinople, however, was born not

only a rival of Athens but an enemy of pagan Hellenism.2
During the reign of Constantine the Great and his successor there was
a spirit of toleration towards the diverse religions of the Empire. The new
capital was in constant intellertual intercourse with Athens and probably
with Corinth and Thebes. 3 Yet the very name Hellene, because of its
connotation with the ideas and religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks, was
already becoming synonymous with pagan. As adherents of the Christian
religion gradually multiplied in Greece they tended to eschew the appel­
lation Hellene in favor of Romaios, Roman, the more so because of an
overriding sense of imperial citizenship. The pejorative overtones of the
word Hellene only inhibited its use, thus destroying its function as the
primary symbol of national identity. A few writers continued to use the
national label; 4 others, particularly during the sixth, seventh, and eighth
centuries, adopted the variant Helladikoi.5
In time, the national appellation acquired additional connotations,
With the ruins of imposing buildings and monuments everywhere to be
seen, the ancient Greeks, according to the testimony of generations, could
only have been a people of towering physique and transcendent intellec­
tual qualities bordering on the supernatural. "Hellene" therefore took on
a further meaning, "giant," β which persisted in the popular mind down
to the twentieth century.
The heterogeneous races and peoples of the Roman Empire lived for
centuries within a social and political framework variously composed of
elements of the ancient cultures of the East, the Hellenistic empire of
Alexander the Great, Christianity, and the Roman polity. But since Greek
civilization was deeply rooted in the East it was the Greek-speaking ele­
ment which exerted the most profound and lasting influence upon the
civilization of the Eastern Roman Empire. The artistic and intellectual life
of the Empire was predominantly Greek, and some of its manifestations
could be readily detected in the early Byzantine state. Elements of Greek
drama, for instance, were absorbed into the tragic and comic styles of the
popular Byzantine theater. 7 An overwhelming majority of the inhabitants
of the Byzantine Empire spoke the Greek language, and intellectual, and
indeed political, activity was largely governed according to the standards
embodied in Greek education.
This far-reaching influence of Hellenism, whose very spirit and apothe­
osis were incarnate in the city of Athens, was shorn of its overtly pagan
forms after the establishment of the Roman imperium in Constantinople.
A definite reaction against Hellenism coincided with the extension of
Christianity throughout the Eastern Empire. It was characterized by a
vigorous attempt to extirpate all forms of idolatry. During the reign of
T H E SURVIVAL O F GREEK CIVILIZATION 19

Theodosius (379-395) particularly, the official campaign to stamp out

pagan worship was sedulously pursued. Many statues and works of art,
formerly sacred to the ancient Greeks, were deliberately destroyed,
among them the Sarapeum of Alexandria. In emulation of Constantine
the Great, others—Praxiteles' "Lindia Athena" and "Knidia Athena," and
Phidias' "Zeus"—were removed to Constantinople. For the time being
Athens was spared, probably because of the city's cultural renown. Yet
it was here that the fires of pagan worship burned most brightly; it was
here, too, that various philosophical schools constituted the principal in-
tellectual bulwark against the new religion.8 The invasion of the Goths
under Alaric dealt another destructive blow to paganism. It is quite pos-
sible that Christians collaborated in the destruction. One of the victims
was Eleusis, which ceased thereafter to be a center of pagan rites.
It is by no means clear exactly how Christianity spread through Greece
and especially to Athens. In the absence of more conclusive evidence it
seems that it must have spread by a process of gradual infiltration over
the years. Certainly by 529 it had advanced so far as to convince Jus-
tinian that, the splendor of Athens notwithstanding, the ultimate prose-
cution of paganism might be pursued with impunity. In that year the
teaching of all pre-Christian philosophy in Athens was placed under
interdict and the lands of Plato's Academy were confiscated. "Thus,"
writes Gregorovius, "the ancient religion was finally effaced from the
cities, although its practice was surreptitiously preserved by the Neo-
Platonists. For centuries afterwards Greek idolatry found adherents in
the inaccessible regions of Greece, especially the Taygetus Mountains.
Something of the pagan spirit, moreover, continued to be communicated
to each successive Christian generation. Even the modern Greek's mind
is steeped in the forms and observances of ancient mythology." 9
In spite of the near disappearance of pagan worship the cities of
Athens, Corinth, and Patras lived on as centers of a vital Hellenic culture.
The Slav invasions had a negligible impact upon the culture of Attica,
as the virtual absence of Slav toponyms of any kind, to which allusion
has already been made, sufficiently attests. The racial strain of Attica
was slightly adulterated by the Slav infusion of the sixth century and
after, but its civilization remained almost intact.10 According to legend,
St. Gislenos, who came from a prominent family in Attica, studied in
Athens X1 before founding the famous monastery at Hennegau, Germany,
in 640. Hopf, who was the first to bring this information to the attention
of scholars, believes that during the reign of Heraclius ( 610-641 ) Athens
was a center for the study of Greek culture.12 In a letter of Pope Zachary's,
reference is also made to Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury
( 668-693 ), as "a Greek philosopher who studied in Athens and then be-
20 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

came Latin." In Canterbury Theodore established a school for the teach-

ing of Greek.13 One source mentions that St. Stephen of Surozh visited
Athens in the eighth century and there met a number of local philoso-
phers and orators.14
Between the seventh and tenth centuries, the assimilation of foreign
peoples was aided not only by the progressive consolidation of Byzan-
tine authority but, most importantly, by the spread of Greek learning
which emanated from the monasteries. Monastic libraries were reposi-
tories of the ancient knowledge to which many had access. Cedrenus,
for example, mentions that the famous mathematician Leon, having been
instructed in rhetoric, philosophy, and mathematics by a distinguished
ninth-century mentor from Andros and having been enormously stimu-
lated by this induction into intellectual pursuits, then journeyed to several
monasteries in search of more knowledge: 'When he found the right
books he immersed himself in them, and eventually attained great heights
of erudition." 15
This assimilation extended throughout the entire geographical extent
of the Byzantine Empire, in Asia Minor, continental Greece, and the
islands of the Aegean. During the middle Byzantine period (the seventh
through the eleventh centuries) the whole of Asia Minor became, cul-
turally as well as politically, an integral part of the Byzantine state.10
The absorption of diverse national groups, not only in Asia Minor but
throughout the whole Empire, occurred along with the dissemination of
the Greek language and Greek learning. Ultimately, it was this fusion
of many peoples, all possessing a common culture, the most important
ingredients of which were Greek, that gave form and coherence to that
distinctive civilization we now call "Byzantine." 17
The Greek language continuously preserved the priceless treasures of
Greek literature, both ancient and medieval, at the same time that the
demotic tongue kept alive many of the most ancient cultural traditions.
Customs, habits, crafts, songs, even architectural forms,18 all survived
the ravages of time in the folklore and common memory of the people.
The modern Greek language is replete with words and expressions that
deal with archaic social situations or that are fossilized remnants of
ancient modes of expression.19 In Theocritus' Idylls20 and in the works
of Byzantine scholars such as Eustathius and Joseph Bryennios, it is by
no means uncommon to find references to proverbs, popular sayings,
oaths, curses, superstitions, and so on,21 which have been faithfully
handed down through the centuries to the present.22 Their persistence
stresses the continuous and uninterrupted tradition of the Greek way
of life.
T H E SURVIVAL O F GREEK CIVILIZATION 21
From the Tenth Century through the Thirteenth
An important sign of a national culture is the existence of forms of liter-
ary and artistic expression that are overtly national in character and
origin. Such forms of expression, which were specifically and self-
consciously Greek, arose within the civilization of the Byzantine world.
They were at once cause and effect of a growing consciousness of Greek
national identity.
However, it was in Asia Minor, not Greece proper, that these new
manifestations first appeared. To be sure, the ancient centers of Greek
civilization, notably Athens, continued not only to preserve but to propa-
gate certain elements of the intellectual heritage of the past.23 The study
of ancient Greek writers never ceased. Michael Choniates, for instance,
the twelfth-century Archbishop of Athens, declaimed eloquently upon
the intellectual decadence of the Athenians, though his critical faculties
could still be fed by the books which he procured in Athens, indicating
the existence of some scholarly activity in that distinguished city.24 Yet
it is not possible to accept unreservedly the testimony of Master John
of Basingstoke (thirteenth century) that Athens remained a fertile oasis
of learning during the period of Latin domination.25 Quite definitely, the
intellectual activity of Athens decreased and, although it did not entirely
disappear, its influence was then of a subsidiary, or at most a comple-
mentary, nature.
The survival of traditional folk songs, especially the ballads (para-
logai), similarly implied that the memory of ancient times was never
completely erased from the popular mind. The ballads provide a definite
link with the ancient world, for their thematic material is often identical
with legends which were used constantly in the classical theater. The
very word "song," tragoudi, was derived from "tragedy," tragodia.26
By the eleventh century the Greek people had already developed some
sense of a national commonalty. Towards the end of the eleventh century
an anonymous commentator on Aristotle's Rhetoric spoke of the pillage
of Asia Minor by Danismend, the Emir of Kastamonu, and of the duty
of Athenians to support their courageous compatriots in their unhappy
predicament: "It is necessary, therefore, that we Athenians look to the
glory of other Greeks in their desperate struggle." 27 Although Michael
Choniates himself was more concerned with disparaging the intellectual
achievements of his fellow Athenians, it is obvious that he considered
them to be the direct descendants of the ancient Greeks.
The people of Asia Minor who attracted the attention of the Athenians
in the eleventh century lived in the highlands and valleys of the Taurus
and Anti-Taurus mountains. For centuries they had been engaged in
22 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

conflicts with the Arabs 28 and later the Turks. These struggles had fired
the imagination not only of the common people but of poets, and thus
was born a series of stirring epic cycles which extolled the valor and
fortitude of the several protagonists. The Arabs had their Seyyid Battal,
the Turks their Danişmendnăme, which drew extensively on the former,29
and the Greeks their Digenis Akritas.
The Digenis Akritas occupies a position of almost unique importance
in the popular affections of the Greeks. A good deal of the folklore upon
which it draws, together with the epic itself, is still current in the Greek
world. For centuries, the bravery of the Akritai had been praised in tales
which were kept vividly alive in the vernacular. Gradually, the ver­
nacular established itself as a vehicle of literary expression, until by the
tenth century, or perhaps as early as the ninth century, Akritic poetry
had evolved definite forms not unlike those of today. 30 It would seem
from the language used in its construction that the Digenis Akritas was
written during the tenth or eleventh century by an unknown poet, who
may have been a priest or monk from Cappadocia. 31 Whatever its author­
ship, it may be said without exaggeration that modern Greek literature
stems from popularly inspired epic poetry of the kind epitomized by the
Digenis Akritas. Since the struggles of the people of Asia Minor not only
inspired the poetry but also aroused the impassioned sympathy of the
Greeks of continental Greece and the Aegean,32 the very awakening of
Greek nationalism may be said to coincide with the rebirth of epic
poetry. The deeds of the principal Akritic heroes such as Digenis, Con­
stantin, Armouris,33 Porphyris, Andronicus and his sons, and others,34
transcended the narrow limits of the particular districts in which their
exploits took place. They appeared as symbols of bravery in a national
struggle.
It would seem that other forms of popular expression, songs, novels,
prose narratives of various kinds, developed simultaneously with Akritic
poetry. However, we have little knowledge of these. 35 In 1180, the French
poet Aimé de Varennes, author of Florimont, maintained that he listened
to Greek songs in Philippopolis (now Plovdiv) which recounted the ad­
ventures of Florimont and of Philip, "great-grandfather" of the great
Alexander. He also said that he returned to France with a version of the
original novel, or historical romance, of Florimont.36 However, this state­
ment must be treated with caution; it is probably an example of the kind
of prevarication to which poets of this time were especially prone. 37 It is
more credible that de Varennes refers to a copy of the Byzantine version
of the Alexander Romance, which derives from an original publication
of the third or fourth century, the Pseudo-Callisthenes. 38 This novel about
Alexander the Great was translated into at least twenty-four languages
THE SURVIVAL OF GREEK CIVILIZATION 23

during the Middle Ages and became generally known throughout the
East as well as in Western Europe. Indeed, no other mere literary work
was copied and translated so extensively at that time. Its influence upon
the literature of various European and Eastern countries is a subject
which falls outside the scope of this study, although we may remark its
very considerable impact upon the Greek-speaking world down to the
end of the period of Turkish sovereignty.39 The widespread oral currency
of various narratives associated with the Alexander Romance—that is to
say, the Byzantine version—gave rise to numerous popular beliefs and
traditions which are held to this day by the inhabitants of the peninsula
and islands of Greece.40
The Byzantines commonly depicted Alexander as a Byzantine king, or
"as a saint, or at any rate as a holy person who establishes monasteries
and churches in the manner of the actual Byzantine Emperors." 41 They
also represent Philip of Macedonia as the first Christian king, in accord-
ance with a tradition which persisted in Philippopolis at least until the
time when it was recorded by the English chronicler, Walter Vinsauf.42
In Byzantine times, scholars often evoked the examples of Alexander
and Philip when it was their intention to exhort or flatter the influential
and the mighty. Indeed, the legends which surrounded the person of
Alexander were so pervasive as to affect even the Turks. By the twelfth
century a tradition had grown among them that "the Turks were finally
to be crushed by those with whose assistance Alexander had once crushed
the Persians." 4S
Today it is apparent that the reputation of Alexander the Great and
even of his father Philip was much greater among the Greeks of the
Middle Ages than many scholars have hitherto assumed. Literary and
archaeological research constantly furnishes new proof that the deeds
of these remarkable Macedonians reverberated down through the ages
and that vivid impressions were left in the minds of each successive
generation. According to the novel, Alexander was the dominant military
genius of the Greek and Oriental worlds, and his example served as a
model of bravery, wisdom, and, to a lesser degree, shrewdness. A com-
mon memory of Alexander in these terms and of Philip and Macedonia
in general was always present, as we shall again have occasion to notice.
Finally, recent research has revealed the close connection between
Byzantine painting and its classical and Hellenistic counterparts. The
classical and Hellenistic methods of representation served as perennial
models for Byzantine artists. The Alexander Romance is only one of the
many novels illustrated with miniatures that circulated widely during
the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. However, it was the most be-
loved, and accordingly survived the longest. Nothing is known of the
24 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

other novels of the middle Byzantine era, but the miniatures of the
Alexander Romance are alone sufficient to provide a concrete connection
between the classical age and the Byzantine. They closely follow the
style of the classical originals, using the same special artistic technique.
They belong to one of the most interesting genres of antiquity. Illustrated
manuscripts of the tenth and eleventh centuries also show that icono-
graphie skills were transmitted from generation to generation. Many of
the manuscripts of this period—for example, the Pseudo-Nonnus and the
Pseudo-Oppian—recount episodes clearly derived from the traditional
legends of antiquity. The miniatures of the Alexander Romance in the
Pseudo-Oppian have a definite expository value in that "they still reflect
classical style, thus providing evidence for the existence of an illustrated
Pseudo-Callisthenes in the late classical period." 44
The popularity of the Alexander Romance is evinced in numerous por-
trayals of its hero's life in Byzantine pottery, marble and ivory bas-reliefs,
and various manuscripts which are still extant. Especially striking exam-
ples of pottery are the vases produced by lay artisans from the eleventh
to the fourteenth centuries, fragments of which have been unearthed in
Athens, Thessalonica, and Constantinople, the three principal centers of
Greek civilization.45 Of the several examples of marble bas-reliefs, prob-
ably the most celebrated, that of the Ascension of Alexander the Great,
is to be found in the Cathedral of St. Mark's in Venice. However, others
come from Thebes ( late tenth or early eleventh century ), Constantinople
(twelfth or thirteenth century) and Mistra (fourteenth century). Yet
another exists in the narthex of the main chapel of the monastery of
Docheiariou on Mt. Athos. Each work of art is characterized by a scene
representing the craftsman's interpretation of an episode from the illus-
trated text of the various Byzantine versions of the Alexander Romance.
These illustrations are themselves derived from another version, which
originated in the Roman-Hellenistic period.46
An increasing regard for the civilization of ancient Greece was espe-
cially discernible throughout the period of the Macedonian dynasty ( 867-
1057). It was actively encouraged by the Emperor Constantine VII Por-
phyrogenitus. Classical inspiration was conspicuous in the writing of men
like Michael Psellus, historian and philosopher, who contemplated the
Acropolis with the utmost reverence and whose admiration for Plato
knew no bounds; Arethas (ninth and tenth centuries); the twelfth-cen-
tury Homeric scholar, Eustathius, Archbishop of Thessalonica; and his
disciple Michael Choniates, Archbishop of Athens, who was so disillu-
sioned with his fellow Athenians as to develop an extravagant, almost
fanciful, veneration for the ancient Greeks.47
Such veneration was not without its disadvantages. Almost without
Figure 2. Ascension of Alexander the Great.
26 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

exception these scholars wrote in classical Attic and disdained the ver-
nacular then being developed as a literary medium through Akritic and
other poetic genres. The results of such antiquarianism, in terms of the
evolution of the Greek nation and its culture, were far from salutary, for
a crucial moment had arrived in the transition from medieval literature
to that written in modern Greek. The historian Spyridon Lambros recog-
nized this when he commented upon Michael Chômâtes' adherence to
the traditional Attic language: "Byzantine literature would have assumed
a better national literary mode if writers at that time had chosen to
express their ideas and feelings in the more natural, living language of
the people. Byzantine letters generally would have appeared more vivid
and dynamic if, instead of imitating Attic Greek to the detriment of
many of their literary endeavors, writers had courageously set about the
literary formulation of the language of the streets and of the home. They
would have been wise to eschew the eclectic and highly symbolic official
language of the Church and the state." 48
When scholars and artists turned towards antiquity, the people gen-
erally followed. They did so readily because the revival of ancient Greek
influence in no way provoked the opposition of the Christian Church;
on the contrary, the Church gradually assimilated it into the Christian
tradition.
Each memory and practice of ancient Greek civilization handed down
through the centuries contributed to a process of cultural fermentation
by which the Byzantine world was imperceptibly transformed into the
Greek nation. The Byzantine Empire created new conditions and needs
which necessarily determined the character of modern Hellenism. Innu-
merable complex forces were at work. The task of delineating the princi-
pal landmarks and stages of growth in what was, after all, a slow and
intricate process of evolution, is a formidable one. Nevertheless, a con-
vention exists, as we have already pointed out, that the year 1204 marks
the point from which the new Hellenism was projected. It is now our
immediate concern—difficult, or even impossible, as the undertaking may
well turn out to be—to examine further into the reasons for this choice.
^@|рјрр@РЈШ1ррЈШ1ШРЛ]ШШМР@@1Ј1ЈР1РЈ11ШМ1

ORIGINS OF NATIONAL
CONSCIOUSNESS

Various Theories
The question of determining the origins of Greek national consciousness
arose as a corollary of the nineteenth-century controversy surrounding
the racial derivation of the modern Greeks. Obviously, Greek historians
have been principally concerned with the matter, and it is with their
views that we may conveniently begin an analysis of the problem.
The first tentative hypotheses were advanced by Zambelios, who con­
sidered that the origins of this Greek feeling of a national consciousness
could clearly be traced back to the Byzantine period. This particular
scholar's approach is distinguished more by an a priori belief in that
which he sets out to prove than by concrete evidence. Nevertheless, he
points to the continued existence of language and folk songs as sufficient
indication of the early awareness of a Greek cultural identity.1 Papar-
rhegopoulos later expressed the same view, though with greater clarity
and precision. Recognizing the essential continuity of the Greek language
and the existence of a popular literary heritage, he believed that the
origins of modern Hellenism would have to be sought amid the anarchy
and confusion which accompanied the Fourth Crusade (1204). He saw
too that there was a marked revival of communal institutions during the
later Byzantine period (brought about chiefly by the progressive deterio­
ration of central authority ) and that a spirit of popular resistance to the
Latin conquerors was in the air. All these factors indicate that modern
nationalism derives from the medieval Greeks.2
Although yet another historian, Sathas, attempted to embellish Papar-
rhegopoulos' theory, the latterà version is generally accepted by most
28 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

modern Greek historians.3 Two of these in particular, Amantos and Voyat-

zides, have supplemented a primary interest in the history of the Byzan-
tine Empire with studies on modern Greek history and are therefore
well qualified to trace the relationship between the two eras. Amantos,
in his History of the Byzantine Empire, thinks of the year 1204 as the
terminal point of the Byzantine Empire, 4 while Voyatzidis suggests that
the Palaeologian period ( 1261-1453 ) does not constitute the end of By-
zantine Hellenism but the beginnings of Neo-Hellenism. New political
forces, he says, arose in the Eastern Roman Empire and presaged the
establishment of a new Hellenic state.5 Which of these interpretations
comes closest to the truth is, however, a question that need not concern
us here, since both authorities are in full agreement that many of the
forms of the political and cultural expression of modern Greece are essen-
tially derivative of Byzantine Hellenism. In this sense, the year 1204
marks a watershed in the history of modern Greece and the civilized
world.

Political Decentralization after Fourth Crusade

The Byzantine Empire was laid low by the Crusaders from the West, but
its structure had already been undermined by a combination of ruinous
taxation, rapacious taxgathering, and the consequent decrease in the
amount of land owned by peasants. 6 The dislocation of agricultural life
brought misery and confusion, and the rapidity with which the Empire
collapsed brought on an acute moral crisis for the Greek population: the
choice between submission and loss of freedom, or resistance and loss of
property.
Certain cities, such as Thessalonica, submitted meekly in order to pre-
serve a nominal independence: a promise from the conquerors that local
institutions would be respected. 7 Many nobles offered no resistance in
the expectation that their privileges and property would remain intact; 8
others chose to flee the enemy with the aim of finding secure hiding
places from which resistance could be organized. Nevertheless the com-
parative ease with which the conquerors were able to impose their will,
particularly upon the nobility, aroused the patriotic ire of at least one
contemporary observer, Nicetas Chômâtes: "They felt neither degrada-
tion nor dishonor in bowing their heads to the invader. They felt not a
single pang of shame in disdaining to fight—if only for their children's
sake. Not then, nor later, were they aroused by thoughts of freedom."
Indeed, his resentment was so impassioned that he accused some—in par-
ticular, the descendants of old military families—of intriguing actively
for the destruction of their country: "worthless men, corrupt and licen-
ORIGINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 29

tious, who were consumed by an ambition to destroy their country" solely

in order to advance their own interests. (Even at that time, Choniates
seems to have had the vision of a unified nation. ) In the general turmoil,
nobles ensconced themselves in castles and surrounded themselves with
all the pomp and panoply of sovereign princes. This practice was most
pronounced throughout the Péloponnèse, where petty nobles vied con-
stantly with one another for the perquisites and appendages of princely
power.9 Their factious spirit was not finally curbed until the Turkish
conquest of the Péloponnèse.
The situation of constant antagonism and actual armed conflict between
Greek and Latin states naturally made it all the easier for these petty
principalities to assert their sovereignty, and this political fragmentation
of the Empire in turn facilitated Turkish domination. The Fourth Crusade
brought about political chaos and physical ruin at precisely the time
when the Empire was in most need of political unity. Whole communi-
ties were uprooted. Some were displaced, only to re-establish themselves
somewhere else. Others completely disappeared. Some centers of popu-
lation were swollen by the addition of refugees. Others were depopu-
lated.10
Some indication of the extent of the dislocation of the population may
be gleaned from events in Nicaea, where large numbers from Constanti-
nople took refuge, and in Ioannina. The city of Ioannina was fortified by
Michael I Comnenus Ducas (1206-1215), founder of the Despotate of
Epirus. Many Greeks sought the security of its walls and, until they found
new homes, there received the solicitous attentions of its ruler, this new
"Noah." 1г Probably no fewer than half of the refugees from Constantino­
ple found their way to Epirus; others came from the Péloponnèse through
Aetolia.12 This mountainous and isolated region of western Greece served
not only as an impregnable fortress against the Latin invaders but also
as a focal point of active resistance, as much in the thirteenth century as
in the Second World War. This new infusion of Greek refugees, sharing
with all the inhabitants of the region the experience of resistance to a
common enemy, constituted yet another factor in the assimilation of im-
migrant Slavs.
The importance of the Crusades and of the Fourth Crusade in particu-
lar is therefore not that they provided a connecting link between the two
principal segments of European civilization. Rather, they set up an inter-
action between East and West, which thereafter characterized all relations
between the two and resulted ultimately in the emergence of a new
Greek nation. After 1204—even after the recapture of Constantinople by
Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1261—the Byzantine Empire was never more
30 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

than a simulacrum of its former self, because of the persistence of cen-

tripetal influences. In its place appeared a series of separate Greek states,
Nicaea, Trebizond, Epirus, Macedonia, and later, the Péloponnèse.
Individual rulers derived such authority as they possessed from alli-
ances with the local nobility. Yet, for precisely the reason that the tradi-
tions of Hellenism were most sturdy among the peasants, the process of
political decentralization tended to revivify the sense of Hellenism in the
everyday lives of the people. The shifting of the loci of power, that is,
tended to magnify and clarify what might otherwise have remained dif-
fuse. Roman traditions withered in the courts of the new sovereign states;
Greek traditions throve in proportion. At the same time, in the islands
and mainland areas which lay under Latin domination, the vitality of
Greek intellectual life continued to encourage a spirit of resistance.
As we shall presently see, resistance to a succession of conquerors, Bul-
garian, Serbian, and Turkish, as well as Latin, greatly heightened the
Greek national consciousness. Indeed, the unrelenting struggle for survi-
val, sustained by the knowledge of an illustrious past, constituted the
principal ingredient of Greek nationalism. The writings of all of the im-
portant historians of this period—Nicetas Choniates and Nicephorus Greg-
oras, for example—bristle with allusions to antiquity, proclaim the nobil-
ity of struggle, and always exalt the name Hellene. Choniates implored
God "to keep our people intact." He strove to inculcate in Greeks an
awareness of the glorious nature of their struggle, even to the extent of
referring to their defeat only with the most obvious reluctance: "How
is it possible for history to recount the great deeds of barbarians when
history itself is the greatest achievement of the Greeks?" 13
Greek nationalism therefore began to assume a more definite form dur-
ing the period of Latin conquest. It was manifest in the deeds and aspira-
tions of the people. It was even evident to some extent in the life of the
Orthodox Church, especially in the period of Turkish domination. To be
sure, the nationalist awakening was counteracted to some extent, after
the twelfth century, by the persistence of a sense of Roman citizenship
within the decrepit framework of the restored Byzantine Empire. But this
became more and more tenuous and artificial because it no longer corre-
sponded to reality. For example, the Byzantine armies which had offered
such ineffectual resistance to the Crusaders 14 had been composed mainly
of foreign mercenaries; but now, in the struggle with the Latin invaders,
at least in the beginning, their character was completely transformed.
Greek soldiers increasingly filled out the ranks, and it was the example
and inspiration of their ancient forebears which sustained their martial
ardor.
National resistance to the Latin conquerors was especially fierce in the
ORIGINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 31

Despotate of Epirus (comprising Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, and parts of

Thessaly), the Empire of Nicaea, the Péloponnèse, and Crete. In each,
we see a microcosm of the larger struggle. From each, we may therefore
offer graphic illustrations of the importance of this period in the historical
evolution of the new Hellenism.

Rivalry between Epirus and Nicaea

Apart from the several conflicts between Greek and Latin states, the ri-
valry between two important Greek states, Epirus and Nicaea, was a
crucial factor in the development of Hellenism. Unfortunately, little is
known about the political pursuits of the "Grand Comneni" of Trebizond
and their contribution to the growth of Hellenism. Although Trebizond
became the center of an intellectual movement renowned for its scientific
achievements, 15 the political influence of the "Grand Comneni" in the
Greek world was dissipated in a series of futile struggles with the em-
perors of Nicaea.16
The historiography of Epirus is regrettably deficient. Most of our knowl-
edge of this state is derived from Nicaean historians, who naturally tended
to interpret events from their own point of view.17 Apart from these,
virtually the only known records are the writings of a single monk, Isaac
Mesopotamites. Nevertheless, a careful sifting of both sources enables us
to reconstruct a fairly accurate picture of the political situation in Epirus.
The aims and ambitions of the rulers of that state seem especially clear-
cut.
Beginning with Theodore Comnenus Ducas (1215-1230), who had
lived for a long time in the royal court of Nicaea, a contest developed
between Epirus and Nicaea for hegemony over the former territories of
the Byzantine Empire. Rulers competed for the right to be regarded as
the legitimate successors of the Emperor in Constantinople and for the
titles and honors which stemmed therefrom.18 At first, the controversy
crystallized around the status of the Church in Epirus. Political circum-
stances had already conferred a kind of de facto independence upon the
Epirotic Church, and Theodore saw that his own political authority could
be enhanced by maintaining this separation from the Church in Nicaea.19
He therefore appointed or encouraged the election of local prelates with-
out reference to the hierarchy of the Church, thereby promoting further
estrangement between the two states. Since the Oecumenical Patriarchate
supported the principle of ecclesiastical unity and thus, indirectly, the
primacy of the Empire of Nicaea, Theodore also found himself in open
conflict with the central organization of the Church. 20
The head of the Epirotic Church was the Metropolitan of Naupactus,
John Apocaucus (1155-1233), one of the most prominent figures of his
32 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

time. Apocaucus had received a sound classical education in Constantino-

ple and was particularly influenced by the philosopher-historian Michael
Psellus. He was also, like his contemporary, Archbishop Michael Choniates
of Athens, an ardent admirer of the ancient Greek world generally.
Indeed, his role in Naupactus was entirely analogous to that of his friend
and colleague in Athens. After 1219, Apocaucus became an eager sup-
porter of and apologist for the ruler of Epirus. His letters to his patron
are paeans of praise for Theodore's audacious military exploits. They
record Theodore's conquests of Neopatras, Prosakon, Platamon, and,
finally, Thessalonica (1224). There, Theodore brought to an end the rule
of the Montferrat family; and there, in the spring of 1224, he was anointed
emperor by Archbishop Demetrius Chomatianus of Achris (Ochrida).
This event dramatized Theodore's emergence as a redoubtable rival of
the emperors of Nicaea,21 and Apocaucus thought that nothing could be
more fitting than that Theodore assume the imperial mantle in the Great
City.22 In a letter to Patriarch Germanus of Nicaea he extolled the
virtues of his emperor: "Here, in the West this man has looked un-
tiringly to the interests of his people. We already know him to be a
gift from God, a savior of the Christians of Epirus. He has reconquered
many towns, bringing back those citizens who had fled and reuniting
those who had been separated from one another. The religious in churches
and monasteries can again perform their proper duties as shepherds of
the people and custodians of the Church. All rejoice as before in shep-
herding the people, and the sheep listen to them and gather together in
an ever increasing flock—thanks only to our emperor." 23
John Apocaucus and two other Church hierarchs who owed their posi-
tions mainly to his influence, Demetrius Chomatianus, Archbishop of
Achris, and George Vardanis, Metropolitan of Corfu, formed a brilliant
intellectual coterie in the Despotate of Epirus. All were acutely conscious
of being Greek.24 Apocaucus, particularly, made constant use of the term
Hellas when referring to the southern regions of Greece.25 Vardanis 26 was
an Athenian and had studied under Michael Choniates. As a young man
he found Latin rule insufferable and subsequently left for Epirus with a
letter of recommendation from his mentor. "No longer," it said, "could he
bear living among us here. We have been humiliated, and our country
has become a barbarous land of impious people." 27 Later, while a deacon
in the bishopric of Grevena, Vardanis declined to accept the episcopal
see of Vonitsa 28 despite the fact—at least according to Apocaucus—
that Vonitsa lay in the midst of a Greek-speaking population and was
exclusively Greek.29 He preferred the more challenging apoštoláte in Gre-
vena among a people who were predominantly uncivilized and spoke a
foreign language.
ORIGINS O F N A T I O N A L CONSCIOUSNESS 33

Learned men such as these served as the standard-bearers of Greek

civilization in the remote areas inhabited by foreign settlers.30 In the
cities, such as Arta, their role was not only a clerical one. Bishops and
nobles frequently sat in conclave 31 to discuss and direct the affairs of the
city.
As the conquests of Theodore Comnenus Ducas extended to Macedonia
and Thrace, it appeared that he would be the first to enter Constantinople
and thus triumph over the emperors of Nicaea in their struggle for su-
premacy. However, his political ambitions were suddenly cut short by his
defeat at Klokotnitsa in April 1230 at the hands of the Bulgarians. Still,
Epirus retained its intellectual life and cultural orientation towards an-
cient Greece. 32 Some time later the poet Ermoniakus was commissioned
by his patron, John Ducas Orsini (1323-1355), to paraphrase the Iliad
in modern Greek verse. His trochees were not the work of a competent
craftsman,33 but at least they reflected the interest in the Homeric epics
that was current at this time. This literary movement was probably stimu-
lated by Eustathius' commentaries on Homer in his Parekvolai and seems
to have gathered momentum at the end of the twelfth century.
By the end of the thirteenth century, mounting Greek resistance to alien
intruders was also evident in those parts of Thessaly which had become
detached from the Despotate of Epirus. The secular and ecclesiastical
lords of Phanarion combined to extract from their overlord, Michael
Gabrielopoulos, a promise that Albanians would be prevented from set-
tling in their district. Greek nobles feared the consequences of clandestine
infiltration by foreigners. Their petition also contained the specific en-
treaty, quoted previously, that Latin soldiers be excluded from the castle
garrison of the "Lord of Thessaly." The Greek petitioners demanded that
they should themselves garrison the castle, that they should be entitled
to certain tax exemptions, and that they should have the right to trial by
all their peers in the event of being charged with breach of discipline-
demands of a sort that could be made only because of the power and
influence which they already wielded. In addition, it was further vouch-
safed to them that they might take possession of the monastery of Lef-
kousias and the "Megale Porta, together with all lands appertaining to
it." 34 According to the Gabrielopoulos document, their influence also ex-
tended to the exercise of civil jurisdiction in particular localities. All rights
were jealously guarded. It was therefore an accretion of many vested in-
terests which accounted for the common front which many Greek nobles,
of high and low rank alike, presented to foreign intruders.
The defeat of Theodore Comnenus Ducas at Klokotnitsa removed the
only formidable rival to the emperors of Nicaea in their struggle to regain
the capital of the Empire. Although themselves refugees from the Latin
34 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

usurpers, the policy of reconquest remained uppermost in the minds of

the rulers of Nicaea. The founders of the Nicaean empire, Constantine
Lascaris ( 1204-1205 ) 35 and his brother Theodore were capable, indeed
intrepid, leaders of the Greeks of northwestern Asia Minor. Theodore
(1204-1222)—"a generous man, and one who moved with the celerity of
an eagle in flight"3e—was especially unrelenting in his efforts to imbue
his people with a spirit of militant resistance. Although the inhabitants
of this region were generally peaceable in outlook and neophytes in the
art of war,37 they gradually became a fearless and efficient fighting force.38
It was there "in the Bithynian camp," as Sathas so accurately observed,
that the Byzantines were truly transformed into Greeks.39 After 1204,
Hellenism's center of gravity shifted to the Empire of Nicaea.
Theodore I Lascaris was forced by the circumstances of his time to
appeal for assistance directly to the people and to individual nobles.
Towns and villages had completely severed all ties with Latin-dominated
Constantinople, were separate and self-contained communities, and had
revived their own local institutions, which had fallen into decay during
periods of imperial control. This situation required the rulers of Nicaea
to descend into the market place to plead their higher cause. The people
could only be aroused against the conquerors by a process of cajoling,
haranguing, and shaming; by being engaged in a hundred different bar­
gains with the nobles of a hundred different places; by being convinced
of the suffering and humiliation which would attend passive submission.
Evidence, unnoticed until now, that Theodore I frequently convoked
assemblies of the people and representatives of crafts' guilds (ta laode
systemata) 40 from various districts, conferred and ate with nobles in
private, and generally apprised all of the need for concerted military
action,41 would seem to suggest that the efforts of the Nicaean emperors
were not all unavailing. Many nobles, including those who were refugees
from Constantinople, were won over by receiving grants of land for life.
This policy of making grants in pronoia over both public and ecclesi­
astical lands was continued by Theodore's heir, John III Ducas Vatatzes.
The condition of free farmers on these estates, however, grew steadily
worse with the passing of the years, until it became indistinguishable
from serfdom.42
The nature of Theodore's appeal, and especially his manner of ap­
proach, had the effect of blurring social distinctions and awakening in
all, peasant and noble alike, a sense of personal concern about the dis­
memberment of the Empire. His purpose, like that of his counterpart in
Epirus, Theodore Comnenus Ducas, was to inflame and direct the spirit
of national resistance to foreign oppression. His efforts met with the un­
stinted approbation of Nicetas Choniates, who was never slow in finding
ORIGINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 35

classical analogies and who compared Theodore I with Alexander the

Great. If zeal alone were the principal touchstone of fame the comparison
was apt, for Theodore's ambition was the total expulsion of the Latin
invaders and the liberation of Constantinople. Expulsion of foreign in-
vaders was the goal of the Greek raias throughout the period of Turkish
occupation until, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, it had be-
come known, quite simply, as the "Great Idea." "These ancient, natal
lands, where our homes have always been, seem as Paradise to us; and
our Great City, which is the pride of all the earth and so much coveted
by all the nations, seems verily the city of Almighty God." 43
Theodore I also fought valiantly against the Seljuk Turks, who exerted
continual pressure upon the Greeks of western Asia Minor. It was a strug-
gle which, to the people of Nicaea, bore every resemblance to that of
Digenis and the Akritai against the invaders. In the popular mind, Theo-
dore seemed to embody the spirit of Digenis Akritas. It is therefore
entirely conceivable that contemporary events brought about the revival
of the written tradition of the Digenis Akritas and that it came to be
cherished at least as much by the people of Nicaea as by people in later
Palaeologian times.44 It is even probable that the form of the epic may
have undergone conscious literary renewal at this time and that the extant
versions of it were in fact derived from those which appeared in the
Empire of Nicaea.45 If such is the case, we may presume that the oral
traditions and songs of the Akritic Cycle were also popular and wide-
spread.
In sum, the light of Hellenism apparently gave off a bright glow in the
Empire of Nicaea. Its increasing brilliance attracted an ever increasing
stream of refugees from Constantinople—scholars, monks, and ordinary
people. Among them were the historians George Akropolites and Nicetas
Chômâtes; Demetrios Karykes, the "Supreme Philosopher"; Monasteriotes
who later became Archbishop of Ephesus; Theodoros Hexapterygos, tutor
of Nicephorus Blemmydes; Blemmydes who, in his role as teacher of the
children of noble families, exerted a profound influence upon the intel-
lectual life of Nicaea, and, in addition to his poems, autobiography, and
correspondence, left behind manuals on logic and physics and also wrote
prolifically in the fields of theology, geography, medicine, and rhetoric. 46
John III Ducas Vatatzes (1222-1254), the son-in-law and successor of
Theodore I, was no less assiduous than his predecessor in seeking to expel
the invaders. He fought vigorously against Turk and Bulgarian, as well
as against Latin, and successfully freed large segments of the Empire.47
His sphere of operations also reached into the far-flung Greek islands.
In 1230 the two noble Cretan families of Melissinoi and Skordylai rebelled
against their Venetian overlords. Emissaries from the rebellious Greeks
36 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

appeared at the court of John III and promised to merge their island with
the Empire of Nicaea in return for assistance. John III immediately dis-
patched thirty-three galleys to Crete, which disembarked a military de-
tachment under the leadership of the Grand Duke Auxentius. However,
the combined Greek forces met with only limited success. After two years
of fighting, Rethymnon, Mylopotamos, and Kainourgion (Castel Nuovo)
were occupied, but Greek fortunes were eventually confounded by the
shipwreck of thirty of their galleys, the resistance of the Venetian castle
of Boniface, and the diplomatic astuteness of the dukes Bartolomeo and
Angelo Gradenigo. The rebellion finally sputtered out in 1236.48
Venice, to be sure, was never as easily defeated as the other Latin
powers. She possessed virtually unquestioned superiority at sea, impor-
tant outposts throughout the Aegean and the entire eastern Mediterra-
nean, and almost unlimited financial resources. Nevertheless, the Vene-
tians, like the Turks and Germans after them, were never able to break
the stubborn and implacable will to resist for which the Cretans became
renowned. Unfortunately, since our knowledge of Crete in this period is
necessarily derived from Venetian sources, the details of Cretan resistance
and the precise nature of the Cretan connection with the Empire of
Nicaea are largely hidden from us.
Within the context of the formation of the new Hellenism, mention
should be made of the oracles and prophecies in circulation concerning
the Lascarids and John III Ducas Vatatzes in particular. 49 Although these
prophecies were substantially the same as those which had widespread
popular currency around 1200,50 after that date they were related more
and more to the splendid deeds of the Lascarids. Greeks who lived under
the Latin occupation looked to them as sources of courage and inspira-
tion, thereby contributing to a cult of the Lascarids which bordered on
hero worship. After his death, John III was rapidly canonized, at least in
the popular imagination.51 Later, if for no other reason than that Vatatzes
had donated considerable tracts of land to the Church, that canonization
was officially confirmed.52

Political and Intellectual Developments in Nicaea

If Greek nationalism was born under foreign occupation, it was nourished
by the increasing consciousness of past greatness which appeared simul-
taneously in the Empire of Nicaea. The political and intellectual leaders
of the Greek people looked upon classical civilization as an ideal expres-
sion of their national individuality and therefore identified themselves
ever more closely with it. The past seemed all the more brilliant and dis-
tinguished in view of the chaos and disunity which surrounded them; a
past which afforded a paradigm of achievement and courage; a past which
ORIGINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 37

thus could inspire the Greeks to overthrow their oppressors. However,

the crucial role that reverence for the past played in the formation of
Neo-Hellenism does not seem to have been fully grasped, even by Nicaea's
principal historians, Anthony Meliarakis and Alice Gardner.
The revival, after 1204, of the name Hellene together with its vari-
ous derivatives,53 its widespread adoption in place of Romaioi, was
naturally stimulated by a heightened awareness of cultural differences in
the presence of alien conquerors. A marked fascination for the word can
be traced in the writings and utterances of emperors and scholars, al-
though its general use in everyday life was still inhibited because of re-
ligious distaste for its pagan overtones. In a letter to Pope Gregory IX
between 1231 and 1237, John III Ducas Vatatzes was clearly conscious
of being Greek in spite of the apparent obligations of his imperial title,
"John Ducas, by the Grace of Jesus Christ, Faithful King and Emperor
of the Romans." He proudly acknowledged the Pope's admission that
"wisdom reigns supreme among the Greeks . . . Wisdom, and the good
which flows from it, first flowered among the Greeks, whence it spread
to all others who cared anything for its acquisition and its practice."
Vatatzes bristled at the Pope's oversight in failing to mention that the
Roman imperium had been bequeathed to the Greeks from the time of
Constantine the Great : "for who in all the world gainsays the fact that the
Greeks are the only heirs and successors of Constantine? . . . The pro-
genitors of Our House, the Comneni and the Ducases—to say nothing of
the many other rulers—were all of Hellenic stock, and it is they who have
reigned in Constantinople for hundreds of years." Vatatzes believed that
the Roman Empire had truly become a Greek empire from the time of
Constantine the Great. To him, the official designation of the Byzantine
Emperors, "King and Emperor of the Romans," had been retained solely
out of the respect due to tradition and to the name of Constantine.
Thus, Vatatzes' claims to the territories held by the Frankish usurpers
were based upon the rights of legal succession and historical continuity.
"Although We have been driven forcibly from Our lands, We preserve
Our rightful authority in them, which, under God, is inalienable and
irrevocable." His refusal to accept the sovereign pretensions of John de
Brienne (1231-1237), the Frankish Emperor of Constantinople, was un-
equivocal. "Moreover," he remarked with more than a trace of sarcasm,
"we are at a loss to comprehend where on sea or earth the dominion and
jurisdiction of the said Emperor could possibly lie." He then announced
his intention to resist the conquerors: "We shall never stop fighting or
resisting the usurpers in Constantinople, for if We did not fight them with
all Our might We should be sinning against Nature, Our Fatherland, the
graves and sacred temples of Our Forefathers." His letter to Pope Gregory
38 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

concluded with the threat that Greek arms were not to be despised: "We
have cavalry and a whole host of soldiery whose valor and fine martial
qualities have already been tested against the Crusaders and have not
been found wanting." 54
A consciousness of Greek nationality is similarly proclaimed by Va-
tatzes' successor, Theodore II Lascaris ( 1254-1258 ) and the latter's tutor,
Nicholas Blemmydes. Blemmydes referred to the Empire of Nicaea as an
"Hellenic Dominion." 55 Theodore II called it simply "an Hellenic coun­
try" or Hellas.56 It included within its borders parts of present-day Yugo­
slavia, the whole of southern Albania, Greek Macedonia, and Thrace, and
a great part of southern Bulgaria.57 Theodore II was familiar with the
ethnic composition of the Balkans and knew each national group by name.
As in the case of the various invasions, the antagonism between the Greeks
and the nationalities of the region sharpened the national consciousness
of each. The feeling was naturally most intense in the ranks of the oppos­
ing armies. The relations between the Greek and Bulgarian soldiers were
particularly acrimonious. When Theodore II wrote to inform his tutor of
his victories over Michael of Bulgaria, whose armies were pillaging eastern
Rumelia (now part of southern Bulgaria) and Macedonia, he spoke excit­
edly of the "remarkable feats of Greek arms and exemplary Greek bravery
which could only elicit your deepest admiration." Since Theodore II was
constantly in the midst of his soldiers, he can hardly have failed to infuse
in them at least a modicum of his passion for Hellas. It is possible to form
some idea of the depth of his Greekness from certain literary and philo­
sophical fragments which are still extant. These are significant, not merely
for the fervor they express, but for the way in which they reflect the essen­
tial character of Greek nationalism. In one place, he speaks of his delight
in using the language of ancient Greece and says he prefers it to the
ecclesiastical language of the period, which, because of its innumerable
biblical expressions he has not been able to master. He looks upon the
classical language as "more dear to him than life itself." 58 He also admires
the ancient monuments of Pergamon, which he considers to be "replete
with the genius of the Greeks—very images of Wisdom itself." The city
of Pergamon, "which so reflects the glory of our ancestors, is for that rea­
son a constant reproach to us as their descendants." б9 То Theodore II it
seemed that the people of his empire should feel forever humble in the
presence of such artistic greatness.
The Nicaean interest in the physical heritage of the past extended to a
preoccupation with archaeology not equalled until the Renaissance. It was
also paralleled by a dedication to "all the arts and sciences." In spite of
the external menace which the emperors of Nicaea faced at all times,
they found time to collect manuscripts, establish libraries,60 and generally
ORIGINS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 39

encourage intellectual and artistic pursuits. 61 Theodore II himself re-

ceived an extensive education in literature, theology, and philosophy,
and dreamed of making his capital the center of Greek learning. He
praised its accomplishments lavishly and believed, in fact, that it had
surpassed ancient Athens because classical learning and Christian theol-
ogy had been brought into harmony with each other. "This glorious city
of the Nicaeans prides itself precisely on this point. It has doubly en-
riched philosophy by reconciling objective wisdom, which is the funda-
mental achievement of ancient Greece, with the knowledge of God, which
transcends it. Although there are many schools of philosophy here, they
are all concerned with one or the other of these two sources of truth.
Thus, they philosophize in the manner of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates,
combining ancient philosophy with theology in a novel fashion, though,
having been nurtured on the divine words of Scripture, the Apostles,
and the Church Fathers, the premises with which they begin are the
divine doctrines of Christ." 62 Nor was the influence of Nicaea confined
to urban centers alone: "Its learning was diffused far and wide, and
even peasants were educated in its ideals."
Thus, from an intellectual as well as from a political and military point
of view, Nicaea not only shone as a symbol of cultural unity but served
as a rallying point of active resistance to the Frankish conquerors. "Many
cities have acquired power, many have gained renown, many have mag-
nified the glory of their people; but you, Nicaea, surpass them all. You
alone remain to shore up the mighty Roman Empire, which has been
shattered by the armies of so many different nations." 63 In yet another
encomium, Theodore II Lascaris extolled the brilliance of philosophical
thought which was to Nicaea "what music is to Corinth, weaving to
Thessaly, and tanning to Philadelphia." 64 If this analogy seems to descend
to a proletarian level in sharp contrast to his customary grandiloquence,
this was perhaps because Theodore II had reason to suspect the dedica-
tion to philosophy of many of his countrymen. In a letter to his teacher
Blemmydes, he bewailed the indifference many young people seemed to
show towards philosophy, despising it as a foreign science, although no
form of knowledge was more essentially Greek. Theodore II certainly
had this in mind when he predicted that philosophy would depart from
Greece and find refuge among the "barbarians" of the West, where it
would eventually make them famous. Those who denigrate philosophy,
he said, or who would ahenate it from its proper home will only bring
disaster and barbarity to the inhabitants of Greece. "Those who were
once proud of their philosophical inheritance would then become the
laughing stock of the entire world." 65
Theodore II Lascaris regarded these symptoms with uneasiness. He
40 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

knew from discussions with a number of the Western "barbarians" that

they were becoming adept in every aspect of philosophy.66 It was incon-
ceivable for reasons of national prestige that they should be allowed to
challenge, let alone excel, the Greeks. Thus, on one occasion when he
worsted Berthold von Hohenburg, emissary of the German Emperor
Konrad IV Hohenstaufen, in a philosophical debate, he considered this
no less than a national triumph, "a victory of the Greeks over the Ital-
ians." 67 Instances such as this demonstrate the projection of national feel-
ing among the Lascarids and the scholars of Nicaea.
Theodore II Lascaris, by the quality of his administrative and military
reorganization, 68 had almost created a viable Greek empire. In the task
of administration he had relied exclusively upon men of ability, many
of whom were not of noble birth. Indeed, he deliberately tried to limit
the power and influence of the nobility and thus to lessen class divisions.
This undivided attention to the welfare of all his people eventually pro-
voked the opposition of the nobility, as Pachymeres 69 has most convinc-
ingly pointed out. Yet, though many of his efforts were rendered vain
by his early death, Theodore II Lascaris remains a figure of fundamental
importance for Greek history through his love of Greek civilization, his '
strength of character, and his impressive intellectual powers. More impor-
tant historically, given his faith in the destiny of the Greek nation, which
was symbolized by a steadfast ambition both to reconquer Constantinople
and to reunite all Greeks under the imperial scepter, he may be regarded
as the true originator of the "Great Idea." He was the first Greek em-
peror to be pictured with the double-headed eagle of the Byzantine
Empire, which, in the opinion of Voyatzidis, represented a projection of
imperial claims towards the Greek lands of both Europe and Asia. The
double-headed eagle thereafter became the emblem of the Byzantine
state. Later, during the Turkish occupation, the eagle became the cher-
ished motif of the Greek raias, signifying the national aspiration of all
Greeks to be free from foreign domination—or for the "Great Idea." 70
If many of the actual reforms of the Lascarids soon disappeared, the
"Great Idea" certainly inspired the Palaeologian usurper, Michael VIII
( 1259-1282 ). This, in itself, was an indication of its power and pervasive-
ness, even at so early a time. However, the work of internal reorganiza-
tion that had so distinguished the reign of Theodore received a setback.
The nobility enjoyed a resurgence of power, and this was accompanied
by progressive deterioration and demoralization of the army and the civil
service. When, in 1261, Michael VIII captured Constantinople, which
then became the capital of the new Byzantine Empire, his ephemeral
triumph, far from arresting the deterioration, even contributed to it. His
subsequent successes in Mistra, Monemvasia, and Maina ( 1262 ) 71 cer-
ORIGINS O F NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 41

tainly established important bridgeheads from which the Latin invader

was finally driven out of the Péloponnèse; but, on the other hand, through
his lack of concern with the Turkish menace in Asia Minor, the Greek
foothold in this vitally important region was gradually pried loose.
Michael VIII threatened not only to complete the reconquest of the
Péloponnèse but also to occupy Crete. Here, the Greek inhabitants still
offered resistance to the Venetians. Venetian apprehension in the face
of what seemed to be an impending invasion led the Doge Ranieri Zeno
to implore Pope Urban IV in a letter dated 8 September 1264 to or-
ganize a new crusade against the Greeks. The Venetians were naturally
concerned over the fate of their colonies, especially Crete, with its vital
strategic position, and wanted desperately to secure their ramified eco-
nomic interests throughout the eastern Mediterranean. For this reason,
they also addressed similar appeals to the rulers of other countries.72
For the time being, however, the recapture of Constantinople led to
a revival of hope among all Greeks under foreign domination. In Crete,
for example, the Venetians experienced considerable difficulty in re-
newing alliances with those local elements which, for reasons of profit
or security, had seen fit to acknowledge fealty to Venice. The prospect
of restoring the Byzantine Empire prompted the Orthodox clergy to re-
emphasize its attachment to Emperor and Patriarch. Many of the clergy
preached sermons which were distinctly nationalistic in tone. They
stressed the legality of Michael VIIFs succession to the throne and ex-
horted all those still under foreign rule to redouble their efforts against
the conquerors and thereby hasten the fulfillment of imperial reunifica-
tion. From 1264 to 1299, Crete was convulsed by revolutions led by
George Chortatzes and Alexius Kallerges.73 This protracted struggle must
have greatly stimulated feelings of fraternal compassion among all Greeks.
However, Venetian determination to thwart the ambitions of Michael
VIII, together with the reappearance of the Turkish menace on his
flank, was sufficient to induce him to open negotiations with Venice. In
two agreements of 1268 and 1277 he seems not only to have abandoned
his plans for Crete, but also for the Messenian strongholds of Modon
(Methone) and Coron (Korone). This utterly discouraged even the
most resolute of the Greek fighters, and Cretan resistance effectively col-
lapsed. Chortatzes and many of his followers sought refuge in the im-
perial court at Constantinople. 74 It is not known how large this stream of
refugees was or how long it lasted. Most of them, including Chortatzes
himself, settled in the eastern marches of the Empire towards the end of
the thirteenth century. Andronicus II Palaeologus ( 1282-1328 ) rewarded
them with "salaries to be fixed annually." 75 There they joined the fight
against the Turks.
42 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Venetian power therefore remained firmly entrenched in Crete and

throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Yet a subtle change in relations
between the new Byzantine Empire and Venice occurred at this time.
A number of Venetians who were especially well acquainted with the
political situation in the Empire saw that the two states could mutually
benefit from a united front against the Turks. They believed that any
diplomatic overtures made with the aim of effecting such an alliance
with the Byzantine Empire would be warmly received. Marino Sañudo
Torsello (1270P-1343?), in his work relating to the Venetian possessions
and the projected crusade, also recognized that any co-operation between
the two states would most likely prove doubly useful to Venice: it
would not only lead to successful confrontation with the Turks, but
would also assist in the pacification of her Greek possessions.76
Michael VIII Palaeologus and his heirs proved in the end to be power-
less to resist the Turkish flood. Quite apart from the egregious error of
allowing the administrative reorganization effected by Theodore Lascaris
to fall into decay, the removal of the throne from Nicaea to Constanti-
nople meant that the center of government was isolated from the nerve-
center of Greek civilization. Here, in the ancient capital of the Eastern
Roman Empire, the old Roman traditions quickly reasserted themselves
and the Orthodox Church resumed its traditionally close association with
the imperial polity. In these circumstances the growth of an Hellenic out-
look, exemplified in, for instance, the use of the national name, Hellene,
was temporarily suspended.
However, the national spirit was rekindled in direct proportion to the
extent to which the Empire was forced to contract to the predominantly
Greek regions of the Empire in Europe and Asia Minor, to Hellas as
Theodore II Lascaris had called them. Actual use of the words Hellas
and Hellene tended to become more widespread 77 towards the end of
the fourteenth century despite the imperial restoration. For example,
although Demetrius Kydones generally used the words Greek and
Roman 78 interchangeably, he once tried to explain the gap between East
and West on the assumption that educated people could not really be
interested in what was happening in the West, because "anyone who is
not a Greek is a barbarian." 79 Thus, whatever meaning he attached to
the word Roman, it was clear from this context that he at least regarded
the Greeks as the indisputable heirs of ancient Greek civilization.
The Westerners had no doubt in their minds who the Greeks were.
In various official documents, Popes and Western kings invariably used
the words Graecia and Graeci, or the latter's then-current French equiv-
alent, Gńeu.80 Nor do they appear to have doubted where these Graeci
lived. In the fifteenth century, Thrace was explicitly identified as being
ORIGINS O F NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 43

part of Greece; 8 1 and it is precisely in Thrace, of course (or Eastern

Rumelia, as it came to be called), that overland travellers in later cen-
turies first became aware of their arrival in Greece.82 Even in the thir-
teenth century Theodore II Lascaris wrote: "You will have arrived in
Greece from Europe when first you arrive in Thrace." 83 Thus, in spite of
a certain imprecision which surrounded the use of the word Hellene after
the Palaeologian restoration, it is apparent that the inhabitants of the
Byzantine Empire were Roman in only the most formal sense. If the
majority did not fully appreciate this fact, the Western Europeans cer-
tainly did; so, too, did the writer of the Chronicle of Morea, a Gasmulus,
when he said: "Long ago, these 'Romans' were called 'Greeks/ They
were always distinguishable by their extreme arrogance; indeed, they
still are. It was only from Rome that they took the name 'Roman/ " 8 4
This period then, from the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries,
was a seminal one in the formation of Hellenic nationalism. It was at this
time that the words Hellene and Hellas came into use in conjunction
with the word nation. John III Ducas Vatatzes appears to have been the
first to effect this conjunction (see above, page 37) and the word genos
also recurs constantly in various texts during the last two centuries of
the Byzantine Empire. 85 It was used with increasing frequency during
the period of Turkish occupation ( 1453-1821 ) and was especially promi-
nent in the writings of scholars towards the end of the eighteenth century
and at the beginning of the nineteenth. What this signified, of course,
was that the cultural and racial equation, the essential strength of the
nationalist mystique, was established by the time of John III.

Cultural Activity during the Latin Period

Although the Greeks were reduced to a condition of political subservience
during the period of Latin domination, their national cohesion was never
really broken. There were, for example, a variety of cultural manifesta-
tions. Marino Sañudo Torsello had this to say of the underlying impor-
tance of religion in Greek life: that the inhabitants of the Despotate of
Morea, of Cyprus, Crete, Euboea, Rhodes, and many other islands, being
Greek, remained faithful to the Orthodox Church even though they were
dominated by the Franks and fell technically within the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the Pope; but their hearts and minds were immutably
Greek, and whenever they were free to do so they never hesitated to
show it.86 Torsello specifically mentioned a number of places throughout
the Aegean where nationalism was in constant ferment. His information
is reliable and corroborates the conclusions of modern literary research-
ers, who, by methods of linguistic analogy, have identified the local
origins of some of the Greek literature of the period. Both sources under-
44 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

line the point that specific forms of nationalist expression were never
stifled, even in those places where the Latin conquest appeared to be
most complete.
The theme of Greek bravery permeates these diverse works. There was,
for example, the chivalric novel, The Trojan War, which was written by
an unknown Greek poet, probably about the middle of the thirteenth cen-
tury. Based upon Benoît de Sainte-Maur's romance of the same name
(1180), its purpose in the Greek version was to extol the well-known
Homeric heroes who triumphed over their adversaries.87 It was a source
of direct inspiration for the writer of the Narrative of Achilles and it
helped to catalyze national feeling.
The Narrative bears no relation to the Iliad. Its author is concerned
solely with lifting the morale of his compatriots by using Achilles as a
universal symbol of Greek bravery. Thus, the hero, "in whom all Greeks
take pride," is transplanted to the period of Latin conquest, where he
confronts the knights of the West with all the courage of his ancient
counterpart. Indeed, it is probable that the Narrative was written as a
Greek response to the Chronicle of Morea, whose author, as we have
seen, was given to lavish praise of the Latin conquerors. If such is the
case, the Narrative was probably written towards the end of the thir-
teenth century or at the beginning of the fourteenth century. This, to be
sure, is not the conclusion of Hesseling, one of the editors of the Narra­
tive. Although he detects un orgueuil national assez fort, a strong na-
tional pride, he considers rather that it was written at the beginning of
the fifteenth century 88 as a narration of "past grandeur" and only inci-
dentally as an anodyne to the feelings of a resentful, conquered people.
In other words, he overlooks the fact that a conscious evocation of the
past was one of the essential springs of Greek national feeling and that
both were invariably aroused in circumstances of foreign occupation. It
would seem that Sathas came closer to the truth when he said that
Achilles personified the Greek desire for revenge against the Crusaders. 89
The Achilles of the Narrative is demonstrably a medieval hero, a second
Digenis Akritas. The very similarities in their lives suggest a common
inspirational background. Both possessed heroic qualities which deter-
mined their subsequent achievements; both received a classical Greek
education; both wore the armor of Byzantine soldiers; both abducted
their wives and were pursued by their brothers-in-law, whom they de-
feated. The influence of popular legend and poetry in each work is plain.
Although the Narrative has never had the same vogue 90 as the Digenis,
it may be considered as the connecting link between the Digenis Akritas
and the popular seventeenth-century romance, Erotocritus. Some of the
ORIGINS O F NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 45

images and episodes of the Erotocritus are obviously derived from it, for
example the duel of Achilles with the Frankish knight.91
The appearance of five romantic poems between the thirteenth and
fifteenth centuries may also be regarded as possible expressions of the
cultural nationalism of this period. Written in a demotic language and
fifteen-syllable iambic verse, they are all landmarks in the development
of modern Greek literature: Callimachus and Chrysorrhoe (thirteenth
century), Velthandrus and Chrysantza (thirteenth century), Lyvistros
and Rhodamne (fourteenth century), Florius and Platziaflora (end of
fourteenth, or beginning of fifteenth century) and Imberius and Marga-
rona (fifteenth century). The oldest of the five, Callimachus, was written
by Andronicus Comnenus Ducas Palaeologus. The authorship of Velthan­
drus and Lyvistros is unknown. Many incidents in these poems can be
traced to the ballads and love songs of troubadours who sang in the
courts of the Latin rulers in Greece and the eastern Mediterranean. These
songs were learned by the indigenous Greeks and were gradually adapted
to the Greek mode. They contain, of course, many episodes and allusions
which reflect the social and cultural environment of Western Europe;
nevertheless, they have become an authentic part of the modern Greek
literary tradition.92
Thus, the period of Latin conquest witnessed not only the reinforce-
ment of the oral traditions of the Greek people, but also the establish-
ment of the demotic language as a formal literary vehicle. Vivid and alive,
the language of the people insinuated itself into the courts of the Latin
rulers against all their efforts to preserve and to impose their own. The
conquerors found it necessary to use Greek, in both its written and spoken
forms, in order to regularize their relations with the conquered. There-
after, most of the official documents, seals, and proclamations were in
modern Greek, as were the inscriptions on all Venetian coins destined
for colonies. In these ways the invaders gradually "succumbed to the
ever growing demands of Greek national feeling." 93
ШМШММШШМ1ММММШЈШМ1МЈШЈШШЈШ1ШШМЈМЈМ1МЈРЈ

THE PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD

Classical Revival in Literature and Art

The tenth century, despite its splendid artistic and literary achievement,
was surpassed by a series of advances in literature, philosophy, and art
under the Palaeologian dynasty during the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries. This Palaeologian Renaissance occurred throughout the entire
Hellenic world, but particularly in the three cities of Constantinople,
Thessalonica, and Mistra. As was the case in Nicaea, the principal hall­
mark of the Renaissance was a renewed interest in classical civilization,
resulting in a marked emphasis upon the traditions, forms, and practices
of classical education.
In the realm of literature, a group of literateurs dedicated themselves
to the elucidation and exposition of the masterpieces of antiquity. Their
work is considered philologically sound by modern specialists. Four
names, especially, stand out during the reigns of Michael VIII Palaeo-
logus (1259-1282), Andronicus II (1282-1328), and Andronicus III
(1328-1341): the monk Maximus Planoudes (born in Nicomedia about
1255) and his pupil Manuel Moschopoulos, both of whom taught in
Constantinople; Thomas Magistros and his pupil Demetrius Triclinios,
both of whom taught in Thessalonica.1 Each pair formed a distinct lit­
erary school in the two chief centers of Greek civilization, and each
attracted a multitude of students and disciples. Together, they laid the
foundations of modern textual criticism. Demetrius Triclinios, for ex­
ample, who is perhaps the best known of the four, developed the tech­
nique of collating and comparing a variety of manuscripts before pub­
lishing his final text. Modern philologists express approbation of his
methods, his powers of perception, and the entire critical acuity of his
approach. 2
THE PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD 47
Other distinguished scholars, notably Nicephorus Gregoras and Nich-
olas Kavasilas, advocated the use of ancient rhetorical methods in the
education of youth and constantly drew upon historical examples and
precedents in their own writing, even in the case of religious subjects.
In his eulogy of St. Demetrius, for instance, Nicephorus Gregoras com-
pared the saint with Alexander the Great. 3 An encomium to St. Demetrius
by Nicholas Kavasilas was entitled Paean to the Handsome Demetrius.4
Secular themes, such as a paean to the city of Thessalonica, were treated
in the declamatory style of the ancients. The lives of other saints were
written in a manner even more clearly derivative. These were, in fact,
closely modelled on Plutarch's biographies, although, to be sure, this
was a technique which had been used by earlier writers when recounting
the lives of Byzantine Emperors. 5 Nevertheless, Gregoras and Kavasilas
enriched the tradition of hagiographical writing with new conceptions
and novel devices of expression which in many respects foreshadowed a
new literary epoch.
Consciousness of the enormous debt owed to the past also provided
the basis for a number of parallel developments in the sciences. Theodore
Metochites initiated them by recognizing the importance of mathematics
for the systematic study of astronomy. At the age of forty-three, he re-
ceived his first lessons from the mathematician Manuel Bryennios and
was instructed in the works of Theon, Ptolemy, Euclid, Theodosius,
Apollonius of Perga, and Serenus, on which all of his subsequent publi-
cations in astronomy depended. The importance of Metochites is such
that all further work in astronomy during the fourteenth century by
George Chrysococces, Isaac Argyros, Theodore Meliteniotes, and Nich-
olas Kavasilas is either directly or indirectly dependent on Metochites.
In medical science, the names of John Actuarius and Nicholas Myrepsos
are prominent, the latter for his contributions to pharmacology in par-
ticular. In the field of philosophy, Manuel Olovolos (born ante 1250) and
Joseph of Ithaca (c. 1280-1330) were both admired and emulated by
their contemporaries. 6
Theodore Metochites is certainly the outstanding figure of the period,
not only for his contributions to so many fields of knowledge, but also
because he both personified and expressed the skeptical spirit of his age.
His genius was a universal one—mathematician, astronomer, politician,
philosopher, restorer of the monastery of Chora, renowned for its mag-
nificent mosaics, and profound Christian thinker. Sensitive and con-
cerned, he perceived many signs of decadence in the Byzantine world,
all of which deeply troubled him. His first twenty years had been spent
in Nicaea (he was born in 1260 or 1261 ),7 and much of his early literary
output was concerned with reconciling, in the manner of the Nicaeans,
48 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

the apparently contradictory natures of the ancient Greek literary herit­

age and Christianity. However, he was later shaken by an inner crisis
of religious faith, which among other things raised doubts about the
intrinsic worth of ancient Greek civilization and the value to mankind
of intellectual pursuits deriving from it. This was the kind of spiritual
disturbance that affected many of his contemporaries in an era of un­
certainty and even men like Demetrius Kydones a full century later.
Characteristically, those who were tormented by it, Metochites among
them, took refuge in the ancient Greek belief in omnipresent Fate. 8 This
belief had never ceased to be a part of the Greek consciousness, and its
overtones have persisted down to the present day. Since the essential
element in this belief is an awareness of the reality of change and the
transitoriness of mankind, its reappearance among those who watched
and lamented the decay of a once mighty empire was perhaps only to
be expected.
If there is a distinctive style of the Palaeologian Renaissance, it is
possible that painting brings us closest to its essence. Artists looked to
antiquity not only for a solution to their technical problems but also as
a fount of experience and inspiration through which their own feelings
could be expressed. The extent of this preoccupation was as evident in
Bulgarian and Serbian art as in Byzantine art. Radojčič has correctly
remarked that "the touching expressionism which reached its climax in
the fourteenth century and which was not only the last representation
of the final style of Byzantine art but also the last art form in Eastern
Europe directly descended from ancient times is now disintegrating in
remote caves in Bulgaria." 9
Much has still to be learned about the respective contributions of
various painters to this soi-disant Palaeologian style and the different
roles of the major centers of art. For all that, there appears to be general
agreement that a "revolution in art" 10 did in fact take place. Although
it bore the unmistakable imprint of Christian and monastic influences
and many of its manifestations were purely imitative of ancient art, its
originality consisted in the development of new forms of expression, for
which antiquity merely provided the inspiration. As Demus says: "never
before in the history of Byzantine art, not even in the tenth century, was
the past viewed so intently. If the term 'renaissance' be used with the
meaning that it has acquired in the West—that is to say, in the sense of
creative adjustment towards antiquity—it is true that it may be similarly
applied to the evolution of Byzantine painting from 1260 to 1300. . . .
Their painting was based upon absolute mastery of Hellenistic methods,
but they eschewed imitation; rather, they explored the inner substance
of their medium and thereby created entirely novel art forms." 1г
T H E PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD 49

The intellectual and artistic life of the Palaeologian period therefore

contributed to the birth of modern Hellenism and, in part, to the birth
of the modern era throughout Europe generally. Many historians—art
historians, in particular—nonetheless tend to view these phenomena in
isolation or to regard them at most as the first signs of emergent national-
ism. Demus, for instance, is prepared to acknowledge the signal impor-
tance of Nicaea in preparing the ground for the Palaeologian Renaissance
and admits that national resistance to the Franks was a significant factor
in its growth.12 Yet, for him, these are secondary considerations. The
Greek spirit was active elsewhere at the same time. The Despotate of
Epirus, for example, long a thriving center of Hellenism, was the scene
of vital architectural activity. Various ecclesiastical monuments of this
period are constantly being discovered today in places remote from the
mainstream of modern life. It is likely that future archaeological finds,
particularly in Macedonia, will increase our knowledge of the cultural
achievements of the period.
However, sufficient evidence has already been adduced to indicate the
Greek awakening and its characteristic orientation towards antiquity.
Yet, it was the Empire of Nicaea, not the Palaeologian Empire, which
provided pre-eminent leadership in this moment of national retrospection
and rededication. As Theodore Metochites writes, Nicaea was the real
seed-bed of national revival (diesosen hystems anabioseos spermata)—
"the repository" 13 of a great civilized inheritance, whose seeds, as we have
seen, required only a favorable environment in which to germinate and
fructify.
The term renaissance as applied to the cultural quickening of the
Palaeologian period must therefore be used with considerable prudence,
since the cultural influence of ancient Greece never at any time ceased.
It merely contracted or expanded with the political and social circum-
stances of the Empire, which were themselves constantly changing.

The Cultural Prominence of Thessalonica

The chief city of Macedonia, Thessalonica, was especially noted for its
intellectual mettle during the Palaeologian period. The city had stood
secure on the periphery of the storms of foreign invasion throughout the
centuries. A certain degree of self-government (to koinon) had always
been maintained, and the traditions of ancient Greek civilization had
been preserved better than in other cities of the Eastern Empire. There
are relatively few periods after ancient times in which the history of
Thessalonica is hidden from us. It may be said, however, that except for
the very brief occupation of the city by the Saracens in 904 and by the
Normans in 1185, Thessalonica, until 1204, escaped occupation by for-
50 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

eigners, except, of course, the Romans, and her institutions were therefore
permitted to evolve in a regular and organic way. When, in 1204, Thessa-
lonica submitted to her Latin conqueror, Boniface Montferrat, it was
only on condition that the corporate rights of the city guaranteed by the
Byzantine Emperors would be respected and maintained. The traditions
of ancient Hellenism and of Hellenistic civilization as well as the laws
and customs of the city also survived the Latin invasion.14
Thessalonica's intellectual and artistic vitality throughout the four-
teenth century, especially in architecture, painting (miniatures and
frescoes), and calligraphy,15 derived from the influence of older artistic
techniques, notably those of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This is
most evident in the field of fresco painting, where the dramatic intensity
of scenes in Church frescoes ( for example, the Holy Virgin of the Church
of Chalkeon), far from being Palaeologian, is a direct inheritance of the
twelfth century monastic art of Asia Minor, especially that of Cappa-
docia.16 The same quality of vigorous realism in Macedonian Church
frescoes is now regarded as the main distinguishing feature of Macedo-
nian painting.
The excellence of painting was by no means confined to Thessalonica.
Veroia, Achris, Kastoria, as well as the ancient center of Orthodoxy,
Mt. Athos, were equally celebrated for the skill of their artists. Even in
distant Serbia, at the time of Milutin ( 1282-1321 ), painters whose signa-
tures proclaim their Greek ancestry 17 practiced their art. A number of
Greek painters and goldsmiths also settled in Ragusa (Dubrovnik) be-
tween 1365 and 1386, where they exerted some influence.18
Throughout the fourteenth century, Thessalonica was an important
center of Greek scholarship and learning, ambitious to emulate in her
own time the glory of ancient Athens.19 Demetrius Kydones spoke of his
city as the home of poets and orators and suggested that God had en-
dowed the city with a certain "intellectual, almost spiritual, pre-emi-
nence. " 2 0 The scholars of Thessalonica were keenly aware of their Greek
descent and contributed in a variety of ways to the diffusion throughout
the Palaeologian Empire of a heightened consciousness of ethnic iden-
tity. "I think that there does not exist in the whole of Greece," wrote
Nicholas Kavasilas, "a single Greek who does not honor this city and
who does not feel within his heart that it has assumed the mantle of
cultural leadership. There are even those who believe their stature is
increased merely by saying that they come from Thessalonica. This is
the city which produces worthy orators and students of Plato and Aris-
totle . . . her character is no less than that. No city has preserved so
faithfully the laws of the ancient Greeks. Nor must we forget those
who have practiced philosophy; nowhere else in the whole of Greece
Figure 3. Church of Saint Elias.
», IFK t!
Figure 4. Saint George the Swift.
THE PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD 53

have there been so many." 21 There was a host of writers: Nicephorus

Choumnos; Thomas M agis tros; the brothers Demetrius and Prochoros
Kydones, and Theodore and Nicephorus Kallistos Xanthopoulos; the
jurist, Constantine Armenopoulos; 22 the archbishops Gregory Palamas
and Neilos Kavasilas; 23 the latterà nephew, Nicholas Kavasilas; 24 and
many others.25 The monk, Matthew Blastares completed a legal treatise
(Syntagma kata Stoicheion) which was quite as important as the more
famous Hexabiblos by Armenopoulos: it exerted a profound influence
throughout Eastern Europe, particularly in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Russia.26
Of all these considerable writers, none, however, was more steeped in
the traditions of classical antiquity than Demetrius Kydones. "As long
as he was alive," wrote his pupil, Manuel Calecas 27 in 1398, shortly after
Kydones' death, "one had the impression that the language and wisdom
of ancient Greece still lived and flourished." About four hundred and
fifty of the letters of Kydones are extant. Each was written with classical
elegance, and together they constitute a not insignificant historical archive
from which to approach a study of the second half of the fourteenth cen-
tury. Kydones' classical erudition notwithstanding, he was a profound
believer in Christianity. In common with many other Byzantine scholars,
he apparently saw no intrinsic incompatibility between classical and
Christian learning.
Most of the scholars of this period were interested in problems of so-
cial inequality and injustice. They were particularly concerned with
finding some means of ameliorating the lot of the peasants and never
hesitated to denounce the evils of usury and the cupidity of the nobility.28
All of their writings on such subjects are characterized by extensive
study, careful argumentation, and a broad outlook. They tended to regard
these problems as symptoms of a deeper infirmity which afflicted Byzan-
tine society as a whole. Their ideas spread to Constantinople,29 and the
influence they had on Byzantine society was another landmark in the
development of modern Hellenism. In the autumn of 1371 (some years
after he had opposed the democratic movement of the Zealots in Thessa-
lonica against the nobles and rich landowners) Kydones addressed him-
self to John V Palaeologus as follows: "Those who live in bondage can-
not properly be called human beings, for it is not possible for one who
belongs to another to belong also to himself. Yet man is created for the
sake of himself, which is clearly demonstrated by his possession of free
will. If he loses it, it were better that he no longer claim to be a human
being." 30 These words embody the idea that became in the fourteenth
century the animating force of Greek nationalism. The ideas about the
reformation of society and the state which originated in Thessalonica
54 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

in the fourteenth century were an important inspirational source for the

eventual projection of the Greek national character.

The Effect of "Pronoia" on the Peasantry

Unhappily, the artistic and intellectual achievements of this period were
short-lived, for the Byzantine state underwent a social crisis from which
it never recovered. This was brought about by the insatiable land hunger
of the big landowners, lay and ecclesiastic. At the same time, there was
increasing external pressure on the Empire from the Ottoman Turks.
Emperors had long conferred grants of public land for life to the care
(pronoia) of landowners, statesmen, and particularly soldiers in recog-
nition of distinguished public service. Originally, the pronoiarioi, the re-
cipients of such grants, were obliged to continue their service to the state
in the same capacity in consideration of which the right had been be-
stowed. However, from the time of the Comneni (1081-1185)—a period
which was characterized by an increasing assertion of power by a mili-
tary oligarchy—grants in pronoia came to be associated exclusively with
a definite obligation of military service.31 There is an important distinc-
tion to be made, however, between land held in pronoia and an older
system of direct land grants, which had been made primarily as a means
of reward to loyal and deserving soldiers: these latter constituted a class
of soldier-farmers who worked their own lands,82 whereas the land held
in pronoia usually consisted of vast estates cultivated by farmers who
were bound to the soil and therefore utterly dependent upon the pro-
notarios. Nevertheless, a new class of powerful landed magnates came
into being on the basis of their steady acquisition of public lands under
the system of pronoia. The development of the system of pronoia along
these lines became the dominant characteristic of social organization
during the late Byzantine period. 33 The pronoiarioi, or soldiers (stratiotai)
as they were officially called, occupied a position of overriding impor-
tance and influence in Byzantine society, which, of course, was still over-
whelmingly based on an agricultural economy. On the other hand, small
free farmers and soldier-farmers were being reduced to a condition of
poverty and subservience. As Nicetas Choniates remarked, the provincial
inhabitants were deprived of "their money, their clothes, even their loved
ones by the avarice of the military class/' Choniates implored divine in-
tervention to deliver the people from their miserable circumstances. 34
After the Fourth Crusade (1204) and the introduction of Western
European feudalism into the Byzantine world, the system of pronoia
penetrated the Empire much more thoroughly. As we have already no-
ticed, the collapse of central authority was generally conducive to the
growth of a military oligarchy.35 This oligarchy soon exerted a vigorous
THE PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD 55

and decisive influence upon the political, social, and economic life of
the Empire. The military class constituted a definite ruling oligarchy
in the sense that its members monopolized the control of such public
affairs as were still being conducted and offered the only protection to
local communities and indigenous institutions. To be sure, it was not an
exact equivalent of its feudal counterpart in Western Europe. On the
contrary, it was intimately involved in the life of the cities of the Empire,
with which important economic contacts were maintained. The military
oligarchs spent something less than half their time on their rural estates,
except in rare instances.36 The Byzantine world, however, though obvi-
ously influenced to a degree, never accepted the ideas of its Latin over-
lords as to the proper organization of society.37
The national struggle against foreign invaders also had the effect of
reinforcing the strength of the local nobility mainly because the exigen-
cies of defense led to increasing use of grants in pronoia. Emperors made
substantial grants to local magnates as a means of enhancing their own
authority, increasing the effectiveness of military resistance, and pro-
viding suitable rewards to co-operative nobles.38 During the Palaeologian
period (1261-1453), the pronoiarioi continued not only to consolidate
but to advance their positions vis-à-vis the imperial administration. In
order to gain support for his policies, Michael VIII Palaeologus estab-
lished the heritable and inalienable character of the pronoia,30 and in
addition to the normal revenues of the estate the pronoia now carried
with it generous exemptions from taxation.40 It was no more than the
formal acknowledgement of a social fact when the pronoiarioi were dig-
nified with such titles as despot, caesar, and sebastokrator. Never, before
the Palaeologian period, writes Charanis, "was the Byzantine Empire
dominated and ruled by a number of great families—families which were
related to each other and to the ruling dynasty." 41 Before official recog-
nition of the inheritable character of the pronoia was accorded, it had
naturally tended, in confused and unsettled times, to become inheritable
in practice. However, by granting official patents of heritability, the im-
perial administration merely encouraged the pronoiarioi to seek further
means of personal aggrandizement. The small free peasant and soldier-
farmer were forced to sell their lands 42 and more and more were driven
to abject subservience as tenants on large estates. Under the Palaeologi,
the great estate held in pronoia became the ne plus ultra of social de-
velopment in an agricultural society; it was not only the basic form of
agricultural tenure but provided the principal means of military security
for the state. Yet, even so, the small landholder did not entirely disappear.
Side by side with the great landowning oligarchy, middle-class farmers
apparently continued to exist who, to the extent that they were also
56 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

granted land in pronoia, fulfilled a definite civil function within the state.
Many of the representatives of this class suffered extinction as free-
holders along with the small peasant landholders. Many of them sought
refuge in a monastic life. But a number survived as farmers.43 Some of
the latter settled in Thrace, and it was chiefly they who were resettled in
Karasi (Asia Minor) by the Turks in 1354.44 It would seem that the
pronoiarioi had a definite obligation to furnish the state with a specified
number of light soldiery in proportion to the amount of land held.45
The position of peasant smallholders and the middle-class pronoiarioi
gradually deteriorated. Unfortunately, though, the relationship of one
class with the other is difficult to determine precisely because of a con-
fusion of terms used for the various categories of smallholders—free
farmers; paroikoi (free peasants, though to a degree dependent);
douloparoikoi (free peasants, though in a very low social and material
position, which put them just above slaves); proskathemenoi (tenants
only recently established on the land); and so on,46 Though the villages
of free peasants decreased in number and size, a free communal life was
preserved in many places in Thessaly, Macedonia, and Asia Minor.47
During the period of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the ex-
tent of land owned by monasteries was enormously increased by royal
grants, occasional bequests, and outright purchases. Monastic properties
were notorious for the economic inefficiency with which they were run,
yet their steady physical growth merely absorbed more and more people
who might otherwise have turned their hands to increasing the yield of
the soil or assisting in the defense of the Empire. This constant accretion
of monastic land was yet another factor which contributed to the demise
of the free peasantry as a class; also, since it was usually accompanied
by a decline in agricultural productivity, 48 the misery of the peasant's
plight was invariably aggravated.
The management of most monastic estates was frequently character-
ized by scandals involving simony and nepotism in the disposal of Church
lands. It was not unknown even for paroikoi and anakamptikos echontes
( these were in effect sharecroppers ) 49 to engage in these practices during
times of disturbance. Sometimes the lands would be safely restored to
the Church when bishops or metropolitans placed the offender under
threat of excommunication or invoked the assistance of the secular au-
thority.50 On other occasions, however, a powerful noble, taking advan-
tage of the confusion of the moment, would free tenants bound to Church
lands who chose to become his own soldier-farmers and grant them the
land to which they were formerly bound. Thus, at one time, the tenants
of the monastery of St. George of Zavlantia, in Thessaly, with the help of
the local governor, the sébastokrator John, were enrolled as his soldiers.
T H E PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD 57
In this instance, however, the monastery was successful in thwarting their
intentions and recovered both the estate and its tenants (1348). 51
The growth of the military oligarchy and the enlargement of monastic
estates led to economic paralysis of the Byzantine Empire and therefore
contributed immensely to its eventual demise. Thus the Empire may be
said to have succumbed finally to a kind of hypertrophy of two of its
most important limbs, the Church and the military oligarchy. Above all,
the vast cleavages which had opened between the classes prevented the
development of a united front against the Turks, and the realization of
Greek nationalism was thereby indefinitely postponed.

The Hesychast Controversy

The social imbalance which appeared to be destroying the Byzantine
state was promoted by violent religious turmoil and a series of civil wars
that convulsed Eastern Christendom from 1339 until virtually the end of
the fourteenth century. Although many of the details surrounding the
Hesychast controversy have still to be learned, it stemmed essentially
from the introduction into the body of Greek monasticism of an extreme
form of asceticism known as Hesychasm. This movement had far-reach-
ing repercussions on Orthodox Christianity; it reappeared at various times
with greater or lesser impact on successive generations throughout the
Byzantine era. In the fourteenth century, it arose as a particular manifes-
tation of the uncertainty and despair which were the inevitable accom-
paniment of social dissolution and foreign invasion.
According to Meyendorff:
Hesychasm profoundly affected monastic life on Mt. Athos and in Thessalonica,
especially after it found an ardent protagonist in the person of the monk,
Gregory Palamas, who later became Archbishop of Thessalonica. Palamas was
descended from an aristocratic family of Asia Minor which migrated to Con-
stantinople towards the end of the thirteenth century. The family atmosphere
in which he grew up was characterized by a deep respect for the monastic ideal
and, in particular, the life of pure prayer and contemplation. He completed a
brilliant academic career in the court of his patron, Andronicus II, and later
followed his monastic vocation. Subsequently, he came to be regarded as the
perfect exemplar of the life to which he had dedicated himself. He was par-
ticularly admired for the breadth of his erudition, the sharpness of his intellect,
and the severity of his asceticism. Palamas completely discarded the Platonist
world of ideas. He considered it utterly incompatible with the Christian con-
ception of a God who was the only source of creation and who alone had abso-
lute freedom to exist and to will. To him, Aristotle's proof of creation was un-
convincing. To him, all life was in Christ, through whom alone came revela-
tion—by ceaseless prayer and contemplation.
The chief adversary of the mysticism of Palamas was the Calabrian monk,
58 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Barlaam, who represented the final glow of Byzantine civilization in Italy.

Although faithful throughout his life to Orthodox Christianity, he was at the
same time steeped in the spirit of the Italian Renaissance. An eminent scholar
both of Western theology and ancient Greek philosophy, Barlaam visited
Greece, where his arrogance and ambition succeeded only in alienating Byzan-
tine scholars.
For a time, he taught in Thessalonica and there became interested in the
Hesychast movement. However, the prevailing ignorance of Hesychast monks,
who were unable to satisfy his sharp and inquisitive mind, led to rapid dis-
affection. . . . Barlaam regarded the study of Plato and Aristotle as the essen-
tial prerequisite for communication with God: philosophical knowledge was
mankind's finest achievement and most useful tool. This attitude towards phi-
losophy constitutes the basic difference between the outlooks of Palamas and
Barlaam.62
Barlaam's lectures in Thessalonica and Constantinople at least made
scholars aware of the importance of Western philosophy. "Those who
listened to the Calabrian monk," writes Schirò, "could not help but
realize that the West had also progressed, that it had reached an ad-
vanced stage of philosophical development, even that traditional Byzan-
tine scholarship ought to be re-examined in the light of contemporary
philosophical thought in the West. The teachings of Barlaam helped to
bring about this revision." 53 Anyone who studies the intellectual history
of Thessalonica cannot fail to be impressed with the central importance
of theological and philosophical discussion. Indeed, from this time for-
ward, each of the two civilizations, Western and Byzantine, began slowly
to rediscover the arts, science, and literature of the other; and, on the
Byzantine side, it was largely through a new respect for the West, which
exposure to its religio-philosophical ideas initially brought about, that
the impetus towards rediscovery occurred. The leaders of the opposing
parties, Palamas and Barlaam, engaged in endless polemics, and oecu-
menical synods met one after the other in an attempt to adjudicate the
disputes and placate the troubled souls of the Orthodox masses.
In spite of Barlaam's opposition, the mysticism of Gregory Palamas
prevailed. The influence of Hesychasm was so pervasive that philosophi-
cal studies and classical education fell into abeyance. Its eremitic and
introspective outlook affected many who would otherwise have devoted
themselves to the philosophy of ancient Greece. Hesychasm was therefore
inimical to the development of a liberal spirit, which might have re-
generated the Byzantine world. Even the enthusiasm of so fervent an
apostle of Hellenism as Nicholas Kavasilas (see above, page 50) grew
mute under Hesychastic influence. Doubtless Demetrius Kydones was re-
ferring to this debasement of philosophical studies in Thessalonica and
THE PALAEOLOGIAN PERIOD 59
Constantinople when, in 1376, he wrote to his former pupil Radenos that
"the Macedonian (that is, the Thessalonian) and the Byzantine (that is,
the Constantinopolitan ) despise philosophy/' 54
On the other hand, Hesychastic mysticism represented the last attempt
to revivify Byzantine monasticism and monastic art. Its influence in both
respects was particularly marked in Russia and the Balkans.55 Hesychasm
does not appear to have stifled artistic inspiration or inhibited the vener-
ation of antiquity, both of which persisted at Mt. Athos even after the
fall of the Empire. 56
Although for a long time the Hesychast controversy remained confined
to the realm of theological disputation, it suddenly acquired political im-
portance when, in 1341-1342, John Cantacuzenus, leader of the military
oligarchy and pretender to the throne, was invited by the monks of
Mt. Athos to support Hesychasm against the teachings of Barlaam. In
return, the monks supported his claims to the throne. His principal rival
in the struggle for political ascendancy was Alexius Apocaucus, who
relied upon the masses and had the backing of Empress Anna of Savoy
(mother of the minor, John V Palaeologus). This personal contest be-
tween John Cantacuzenus and Alexius Apocaucus gradually assumed
the aspect of a class struggle in which one side fought for the preserva-
tion of its privileges and the other for freedom from oppression. The
plight of the peasants exacerbated the struggle.
The civil war was fierce and indiscriminate. The countryside was
ravaged and, in some areas of Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, utterly
devastated. Peasants crowded into castles and towns—Thessalonica and
Adrianople, for example—in an attempt to escape the general turbulence.
The presence of these hungry masses in the already overcrowded cities
merely hastened the process of social disintegration, which was already
well advanced. In these cities, a middle class had grown strong on the
profits of a lucrative trade with Italy, principally the cities of Venice and
Genoa. Many families had enriched themselves, and, incidentally, their
wealth contributed to the development of education and the arts. They
saw civil war and turmoil as providing an appropriate opportunity for
the assertion of their independence from the nobility and the exercise of
a definite role in the direction of public affairs.
The struggle between John Cantacuzenus and Apocaucus assumed a
particularly cruel and vicious form in Thessalonica from 1342 to 1347.57
The social ferment left its mark on the people of Thessalonica. Kydones
knew this when he advised the dignitary Phacrases in 1372 that the
notables should not greedily extract profits from the people or provoke the
exhausted citizenry in any way, but should handle public affairs in a
spirit of amiability and good will and attempt to come as close as possi-
60 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

ble to the people.58 Although rebellion had been crushed, the need felt
for social change had not. There were many in Byzantine society who
believed that, if its enemies were to be stayed, the financial wherewithal
for its armies had to be found at all costs, even if this meant the whole­
sale alienation of monastic and ecclesiastical lands and the confiscation
of the Church's plate. Consciousness of the need for drastic and continu­
ing social change was suffused throughout the Empire. Its scholars were
aware of it, and its leaders, such as Manuel II, were aware of it, as we
shall presently have occasion to see.
It was not only political and social disturbances that were leading the
Empire inexorably to disaster. The Ottoman Turks, who were recent con­
verts to Islam, had proclaimed their Holy War against all infidels at the
very time when the seeds of Neo-Hellenism had begun to sprout. Their
primitive society adjusted itself swiftly and simply to the socio-religious
changes consequent upon adoption of the new religion. They burst over
the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire with frenetic zeal. Certainly, the
influence of Arab-Persian civilization had softened many of their barbaric
customs; 59 but in the intoxication of a Holy War, the Turks reverted to
their wild atavistic instincts and to a display of barbarism of the kind so
vividly described in the epic of Danişmende.
ШШ1ШІМІМіШШШ@@1МІШШШІШШШШІЕвШРІШі1ІШМІШ

TURKISH CONQUEST OF
ASIA MINOR

Effect on Greek Population

At the beginning of the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks forced their
way into Armenia and there crushed the armies of several petty Armenian
states. No fewer than forty thousand souls—the largest mass exodus in
Armenian history г—fled before the organized pillage of the Seljuk host
to the western part of Asia Minor. From the middle of the eleventh cen­
tury, 2 and especially after the battle of Malazgirt (1071), the Seljuks
spread throughout the whole Asia Minor peninsula, leaving terror, panic,
and destruction in their wake. 3 Byzantine, Turkish, and other contempo­
rary sources are unanimous in their agreement on the extent of havoc
wrought and the protracted anguish of the local population.
The dearth of adequate documentary evidence makes it difficult to
measure precisely the contraction of Hellenism in Asia Minor or to analyze
the process of its total obliteration in some places. Yet such evidence as
we have proves that the Hellenic population of Asia Minor, whose very
vigor had so long sustained the Empire and might indeed be said to have
constituted its greatest strength, succumbed so rapidly to Turkish pressure
that, by the fourteenth century, it was confined to a few limited areas.
By that time, Asia Minor was already being called Turkey. 4
The most reliable sources from which a reconstruction of the Turkish
conquest of Asia Minor may be attempted are the synodic Acta of the
Oecumenical Patriarchate, 5 the various reports of bishops and metropoli­
tans, and the hierarchical lists of patriarchal and metropolitan sees.6 In
these we read of the agony of the Church as she contemplated the effects
of Turkish conquest: the ruin of her people in so many ecclesiastical
62 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

provinces, poverty and deprivation, and the consequent inability of the

faithful to support their metropolitans and bishops. Many of these ecclesi-
astics were given, in addition to their own sees, other sees which had
become vacant. These too, however, were overtaken by the same fate. In
the end these ecclesiastics retained nothing but their titles. If we essay a
comparative study of the records of various dioceses, we discover that,
one after another, bishoprics and metropolitan sees which once throbbed
with Christian vitality became vacant and ecclesiastical buildings fell
into ruins. The metropolitan see of Chalcedon, for example, disappeared
in the fourteenth century, and the sees of Laodicea, Kotyaeon (now
Kütahya), and Synada in the fifteenth.7
With the extermination of local populations or their precipitate flight,
entire villages, cities, and sometimes whole provinces fell into decay.
There were some fertile districts like the valley of the Maeander River,
once stocked with thousands of sheep and cattle, which were laid waste
and thereafter ceased to be in any way productive»8 Other districts were
literally transformed into wildernesses. Impenetrable thickets sprang up
in places where once there had been luxuriant fields and pastures. This
is what happened to the district of Sangarius, for example, which Michael
VIII Palaeologus had known formerly as a prosperous, cultivated land,
but whose utter desolation he afterwards surveyed in utmost despair.9
The mountainous region between Nicaea and Nicomedia, opposite Con-
stantinople, once clustered with castles, cities, and villages, was depopu-
lated.10 A few towns escaped total destruction—Laodicea, Iconium, Bursa
(then Prusa), and Sinope, for example—but the extent of devastation else-
where was such as to make a profound impression on visitors for many
years to come.11 The fate of Antioch provides a graphic illustration of the
kind of havoc wrought by the Turkish invaders: in 1432, only three hun-
dred dwellings could be counted inside its walls, and its predominantly
Turkish or Arabian inhabitants subsisted by raising camels, goats, cattle,
and sheep. Other cities in the southeastern part of Asia Minor fell into
similar decay.12
Whether the Hellenic element survived or disappeared depended to
a very large degree on its geographical situation. The eastern provinces
of the Empire, for instance, such as Melitene and Keltzene, were gen-
erally devastated because they lay in the path of the Seljuk advance. This
area was also to become a battleground between Seljuk and Mongol.13
But in Cappadocia the Hellenic element was fortuitously preserved be-
cause in moments of peril the local inhabitants were able to find refuge
in the caves which abounded in that region.14 Other areas in which the
Greek populace managed to survive were the eastern marches of the
Empire towards Upper Mesopotamia,15 the rough and barren districts of
TURKISH CONQUEST OF ASIA MINOR 63

Pisidia and Cilicia,16 and the impassable mountain regions of the Pontic
Alps. In all these places, Greek populations lived on, secure and intact.17
As a general rule, too, the inhabitants of coastal towns and districts, espe-
cially those which remained in contact with Constantinople and the mari-
time states of Genoa and Venice, suffered much less than those who
lived in the hinterland. Hellenism was therefore not totally extinguished
in Asia Minor. But the few Greeks who survived lived under the most
trying conditions, in great deprivation. So at any rate we conclude from
a study of contemporary ecclesiastical documents. 18 The presence of
Greeks in certain regions during modern times is by no means an indica-
tion of their survival from Byzantine times. The eventual reappearance
of Greek communities and the re-establishment of ecclesiastical sees in
Asia Minor usually resulted from the subsequent migration of settlers
from other parts of Asia Minor 19 and the Aegean islands, or from con-
tinental Greece itself.
However, the survival of compact Greek communities, especially in
Pontus, Cappadocia, and southeastern Asia Minor, is definitely proven
by the evidence of anthropogeography and the combined results of lin-
guistic, anthropological, and folk research. The dialects of Pontus, for
example, particularly those of Amisus, Oenoe ( Turkish Unye ), and Ophis
(Turkish Of), together with those of almost twenty Greek-speaking vil-
lages in Cappadocia, form a distinct linguistic entity characterized by
archaic constructions incomprehensible to the speaker of modern Greek.
The Cappadocian language is very close to medieval Greek and stems
from Hellenistic times. There is no evidence to suggest, as Karl Dieterich
does, that it derives from a period of monastic colonization in the district
of Caesarea during the fourth century.
These people also exhibit interesting anthropological characteristics.
Those in the coastal region of the Pontic Alps are distinguishable as a
rule by their fine Greek features and dignified bearing, while those in the
interior, towards Armenia, reveal a strong Armenian strain, not only in
their looks but in language, manners, and customs. This Armenian influ-
ence is most pronounced in Cappadocia, where the features and body
structure are strikingly Armenian—large and excessively high foreheads,
big fleshy noses, and short strong bodies. The prevalence of such features
in the Greek provinces of eastern Asia Minor must be due to the extensive
intercourse between Byzantines and Armenians during the ninth and
tenth centuries, when a dynasty of Armenian origin reigned in Constan-
tinople. As for the Greeks of southeastern Asia Minor, the marked Semitic
influence apparent in their features can most likely be explained in terms
of the large Syrian migrations into Asia Minor during the Isaurian period
( 717-867 ). 20
64 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

NATURE OF INVASION
The success of the Ottoman Turks in Asia Minor was principally due
to the daring and ardor of their attacks and the inability of Byzantine
generals and field commanders to cope with their disorderly method of
fighting. The quality of resistance by the military and Akritai of the east­
ern provinces tended also to be less effective by reason of the heavy taxes
imposed by Michael VIII Palaeologus at the instigation of his provincial
governor, one Chadenos. 21
The first wave of Ottoman Turks, the nomad Yuruks,22 settled in the
district of Sogut, southeast of Bursa, under their ruler, Ertoghrul, in the
middle of the thirteenth century. The descendants of the Greek refugees
of 1922 from that district still talk of that invasion.23 The Sultan of
Iconium, Alä ed-Din I Kaikobad, had granted Ertoghrul (or Etourel
Ghazi, as the refugees called him ) the Ermeni Mountains and the group
of villages known as Domanits, near Byzantine Angelokoma, for part of
his summer domain.24 This established the Ottomans in a frontier region,
as it were, of the Seljuk state, close by the most advanced of their forti­
fied positions at Eskişehir. Beyond this point lay the Byzantine Empire
and the first of her defenses at the fortress of Belokoma (Bilecik). 26
This district, then thinly populated, formed the tiny but dynamic nucleus
of the later great Ottoman Empire, which absorbed and assimilated so
many Moslem and Christian peoples. Ottoman activity assumed a threat­
ening aspect under Osman, son of Ertoghrul. In particular, there were
those known as ghazis,26 indefatigable in war, zealous in religion, and
with an insatiable lust for plunder and booty, who, as the principal
standard-bearers in a Moslem holy war against Christians, confronted
the Akritai. Initially, under Osman Bey, the ghazi leaders appeared to act
with a certain unity and accord, though they soon gave way to the
marked freedom of action which was always thereafter their most notable
and fearsome characteristic. Not only did they claim the right to expro­
priate Byzantine lands, but Osman himself and his successor, Orchan
( 1324-1362),27 were forced to acknowledge these claims by distributing
the land among those ghazis who had most distinguished themselves.
Although these fiefs were revocable, they bore in every other respect an
aspect of feudal organization. Fief-holders, for example, or timar-erleri
as they were called in the old Ottoman chronicles ( still later to be known
as timar-sipahiler), exacted tribute from vassals, who were obliged to
rènder military service also.28 These fiefs produced incomes ranging from
2,000 or 3,000 to 19,999 ake. Larger fiefs producing incomes up to
99,999 ake were called ziamet, and their proprietors zaim. This proce­
dure of granting fiefs to fighters was not in itself Osmanie, but appears
tö have derived from an older Seljuk institution.29
TURKISH CONQUEST OF ASIA MINOR 65

The continuous attacks and pillaging by Turkish warriors naturally

spread devastation and dread throughout the countryside. For some,
especially peasants, the choice between capitulation or flight was not
quite as bitter as it was for others : they were already suffering under the
oppressive rule of their own local nobility and to accept the conqueror
often seemed merely the exchange of one master for another.30 When the
spread of the Ottoman dominion appeared not only inevitable but some-
times welcome, resistance was frequently no more than token. Thus, after
the fall of Nicaea (2 March 1331), some towns which were still free
hastily acknowledged vassalage and paid heavy tribute ( haraç ). Even so,
Turkish assaults by land and sea and the capture of prisoners continued
and were often the necessary preludes to surrender by the inhabitants
of other towns.31 Tradition has it, for example, that, in the time of
Orchan, Rysion and its neighboring villages capitulated, but only after
the forcible seizure of Libyssa ( Dakybiza ) made their position untenable.
The nobility, unable to cultivate their lands, could either abandon their
estates or accept the fait accompli of conquest. Those who optimistically
seized the estates of departed landowners were eventually faced with the
same option. They, too, were caught up in the torrent of flight; they, too,
became "the poor, the naked, and the homeless." 32
Men, women, and children followed in the wake of retreating armies
in an effort to reach the safety of European shores or the coastal cities
of the Sea of Marmara, which offered the last places of refuge. They
walked until they collapsed. Pachymeres gives us a vivid description of
the pitiful caravans of refugees in northwestern Asia Minor that were
continuously arriving in Nicomedia: old people, women, and babies lay
in the streets of the city or outside its walls on the seashore, weeping and
wailing for a lost husband, son, daughter, brother, or sister.33 Under such
conditions, some of the greatest families of Anatolia became extinct.
Some fortunate ones joined the flight to Constantinople. Among these
were the Phocas, Scleros, Bryennios, Comnenus, Angelos, Vatatzes, Tar-
chaniotes, and Philanthropenos families.34
However, there were some landed magnates, military leaders, and gov-
ernors,35 who, by signifying their willingness to submit and co-operate
and subsequently by entering into special agreements with the Turks,
were allowed to remain in their towns and castles. In this way many
retained their lands and received other privileges. Among the Christian
populace, too, there were adventurers who took an active part in the
Turkish invasion in Asia Minor in the hope of being rewarded with a
share of the plunder. It is difficult to evaluate the precise nature of the
role these Christians played (the Kafir-sipahiler as they are known in the
old Ottoman chronicles) in the Ottoman state; it is even more difficult
66 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

to define the nature of their obligations. Probably the most that can be
said is that the Ottomans were prepared to tolerate Christian fief-holders
in their midst in the hope that they, or their descendants, would one day
be converted to Islam.36

Crypto-Christianity and Greek Apostasy

All the Turkish peoples were tolerant and conciliatory towards the "peo-
ple of the Bible" (Ahi al Kitab), both Christians and Jews, when they
submitted quietly and peacefully. This was a most important factor in
the rapid spread of Turkish domination. However, this attitude did not
prevent the Turks from frequently confiscating Christian churches or
from behaving in other respects with singular barbarity. 37 Hence Chris-
tians were never able to move about with complete freedom or to express
themselves with impunity. Their descriptions of their sufferings reveal a
repressed fear that was never far below the surface.38 O r c h a n extended
compassion towards the faithful; but towards the unfaithful, oppression."
So wrote the Turkish historian, Sükrülläh, adviser to Murad II (1421-
1451) and Mohammed II ( 1451-1481 ) ,39 The raias, for instance, were
afraid to approach other Christians, even their own priests, who had been
taken captive by the Turks, or to broach religious subjects. In such cir-
cumstances, most Christians, especially those who lived in remote areas
in constant proximity to the Turks, eventually lost their own language
and adopted the Turkish language. 40 Indeed, if Christians were to live as
free men and to enjoy wealth, honors, dignity, and office, they had to
become assimilated with their rulers by professing Islam or else attempt
to escape to mountainous and inaccessible regions or to Christian states.
The combination of physical suffering and concern for personal and mate-
rial well-being thus led many families, or even whole peoples, to accept
conversion to Islam. However, there were other pressures at work: fanat-
ical dervishes and other devout Moslem leaders like the ghazis constantly
toiled for the dissemination of Islam.41 They had done so from the very
beginning of the Ottoman state and had played an important part in the
consolidation and extension of Islam. These dervishes were particularly
active in the uninhabited frontier regions of the east. Here they settled
down with their families, attracted other settlers, and thus became the
virtual founders of whole new villages, whose inhabitants invariably ex-
hibited the same qualities of deep religious fervor. From places such as
these, the dervishes or their agents would emerge to take part in new
military enterprises for the extension of the Islamic state. In return, the
state granted them land and privileges under a generous prescription
which required only that the land be cultivated and communications se-
cured. The monasteries ( zaviye or ribât ) that were customarily built over
TURKISH CONQUEST O F ASIA M I N O R 67

dervish graves served as small caravansaries where travellers were able

to find food and shelter.42
Ottoman religious tolerance, however, all but ceased to exist during
times of actual fighting. From the time when the Ottoman Turks first
settled in the district of Sogut and then spread out towards Bithynia,
cases of forcible conversion and, coincident with this, of clandestine
Christianity have been recorded. Oral traditions also are replete with
instances of both. 43 In general, the tendency towards individual and mass
conversion seems to have been directly related to the resumption of mili-
tary activity: Greeks and other Balkan people often sought to evade
anticipated destruction at the hands of rampaging Turks by announcing
their religious capitulation. The Turkish avalanche always left behind the
detritus of Greek apostasy, but it never buried the Greeks. Quite the con-
trary, in fact: these renegades from Greek religion often became the
bearers of Byzantine institutions to the Ottomans. Their influence there-
after on Turkish thought and manners (in spite of Köprülü's claims to
the contrary 44 ) was manifest in many aspects of private and public
activity.
There were also many "converts" to Islam who merely maintained a
pretense of Moslem belief while secretly practicing the rites of Christi-
anity, sometimes throughout their whole lives. Of these we shall presently
have more to say. Their descendants, however, in time found themselves
unable to withstand the effects of constant association with Moslems, and
the eroding influences of daily social and economic contact slowly and
subtly affected the doctrines and practices of Islam. "Crypto-Christianity"
thus frequently constituted an intermediate stage in the process of ulti-
mate conversion to Islam. It was certainly one of Hellenism's greatest
tragedies.
In commenting upon the disappearance of the Greek population of Asia
Minor, it is well to point out again that very little relevant historical
evidence has been preserved. Suffice it here to mention the interest-
ing comments of a distinguished voice on Anatolian and Turkish affairs,
that of the German, A. D. Mordtmann. On a journey to Cappadocia in
the interior of Asia Minor, he observes in his diary:
We know precisely the size of the Seljuk and Ottoman migrations. We also
know with reasonable certainty that, far from being prolific peoples, their re-
productive energies were dissipated for a variety of reasons. From this we may
correctly assume that the major part of the Moslem population in Asia Minor
did not stem from the Turkish migrations, but rather from the Gallo-Greek
population which had become converted to Islam. The same may be presumed
to have occurred, mutatis mutandis, in the other provinces of Asia Minor. Also,
a number of other factors have led me to believe that, while in many places
68 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

the people may have ostensibly professed Islam, they are in fact still secretly
Christian. I have had many interesting conversations and have visited many
places, which shall nevertheless go unreported because the people trusted in
my discretion not to reveal things which could only expose them to danger.
Frequently, I would be engaged in a serious dispute with certain persons and,
not knowing the Koran well, sought ways to explain myself. At that, my rivals
would suddenly burst into laughter, open their shirts, and show me a cross. Or
again, when sometimes my stock of words in Turkish was exhausted during
the course of our mutual altercation, to my great astonishment they would
suddenly begin to express themselves very correctly in the Greek language-
ancient Greek, but with modern Greek pronunciation. Who could betray such
a people? 45
Yet Turkish domination over so long a period must have considerably
reduced the Greek Orthodox population, not only by uprooting it but also
by the process of individual and mass conversion to Islam, as we have
noted. This seems to have been true in Bithynia and in those parts along
the west coast of Asia Minor, the fertile valleys of the Maeander, Cayster,
and Hermus rivers.46 The fact that very few oral traditions and very
little folklore mention the conversion of the inhabitants of Anatolia to
Islam 47 can be explained in part by the extreme rapidity with which the
Turks asserted their predominance. Even at the end of the fourteenth
century, for example, Demetrius Kydones lamented the substitution of
Turkish place-names for Greek; by 1454 as many as four-fifths of the
place-names may have been changed.48
Kydones described the fate of the Christian peoples of Asia Minor
thus: "The entire region which sustained us, from the Hellespont east-
wards to the mountains of Armenia, has been snatched away. They [the
Turks] have razed cities, pillaged churches, opened graves, and filled
everything with blood and corpses. And they have ravaged the very souls
of the inhabitants by forcing them to ignore the true God and to practice
their own infamous rites. Alas, too, they have even abused Christian
bodies. And having taken away their entire wealth they have now taken
away their freedom, reducing them to the merest shadows of slaves. And
with such dregs of energy as remain in these unfortunate people, they
are forced to be the servitors of the Turks' personal comforts." 49
1^1МШ1ШШШШ1Ш1Ш1ЅШ^ШШЅ1ШШШШШЅ^@ШШ

TURKISH INVASION OF THE

BALKAN PENINSULA

Piracy in the Aegean and Ionian Seas

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Turkish operations ex­
panded rapidly into the Aegean and Ionian seas. In this area, indeed,
piracy had been a very common phenomenon from the time of the Arab
conquest and the beginnings of the Crusades. 1 In the fourteenth century,
from places such as the Emirate of Menteşe 2 on the coast of Asia Minor,
hordes of Turkish pirates descended upon the Dodecanese, plundering
livestock and crops and carrying off the inhabitants. 3 Even the northern
coasts of continental Greece did not escape the depredations of Moslem
pirates. The monasteries of Mt. Athos were especially singled out as
targets, and many monks fled westward to other monastic centers and
to places like Veroia and Meteora.4 Nor were the Turks alone. Taking
advantage of the general confusion, Spanish, Catalan, Venetian, Genoese,
Slavic, and Greek pirates also roamed the Aegean with impunity, attack­
ing and capturing ships and generally behaving with gross savagery and
cruelty towards crews and passengers. These corsairs also penetrated
into the Sea of Marmara 5 and looted the islands and coastal areas of
continental Greece from Thrace to the Péloponnèse.6 Many coastal vil­
lages were devastated, and their inhabitants sought refuge in more secure
places. According to oral tradition, a number of new settlements in the
interior were founded by these refugees. By the time of the Fourth
Crusade, many islands were depopulated, 7 though the depopulation was
temporary in most cases.
However, in 1383 Tenedos was left utterly devoid of human life as a
result of Genoese and Venetian rivalry; 8 Astypalaia was laid waste in
Figure 5. Monastery of the Metamorphosis, Meteora.
TURKISH INVASION OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA 71

the time of Murad I (1362-1389), and it was not until 1415, at the time
of the Council of Constance, that it was rehabilitated by the Venetian
nobleman, John Quirini.9 The traveller Clavijo (1403-1406) mentions
the existence of many uninhabited islands in the Dodecanese, though
Psara and Antipsara apparently still retained their populations. Accord-
ing to him, there were Turks living on Samos.10 Caumont passed through
the Cyclades in 1418 and noted that a number of those islands were
completely depopulated. 11 But it is to Buondelmonti that we must go in
order to appreciate the full extent of devastation in the Aegean and to
understand fully the fear and afflictions of its peoples. Buondelmonti
alludes constantly to the Turkish pirates who sailed as far as the Ionian
Sea, even to Corfu, with the local inhabitants retreating before them
into the security of isolated and fortified castles, where some of the most
ancient family lineages were preserved and popular traditions more read-
ily survived. At sunrise, occasionally at a given signal, these people would
open the gates and go down to their fields, always to return at night.
This tedious pattern of life continued, in some cases, for whole centuries.
The islands around Paros seem to have suffered particularly at the hands
of the Turks. Here again, the inhabitants would leave their homes for
varying lengths of time, to return only when the danger was past. In
other cases—Siphnos and Naxos are two in point—the balance of the
population was seriously disturbed when a large proportion of the men
either emigrated or were shipwrecked. Many marriageable women died
unmarried.12
Such conditions obviously favored a recrudescence of the slave trade,
and Greek, Turkish, Albanian, Tartar, and other peoples were sold in
the slave markets of the East. The Catalans developed a particularly
lucrative trade in Greek slaves after their conquest of part of Hellas in
1311. From their principal market in Majorca, a vital line of communi-
cation stretched across the Mediterranean all the way to the East. Of
these Greeks we know little, except that they demonstrated great skill in
various fields ranging from commerce and the fine arts to farming and
handicrafts.13

The Ottoman Landings in Thrace

Piracy at sea was but one of the ways the Turks extended their dominion.
Civil war between John V and John Cantacuzenus, as well as Serbian,
Bulgarian, and Turkish participation in that war, also contributed to the
dislocation of the northern provinces of continental Greece and to wide-
spread ruin throughout the countryside.14 Turkish mercenaries in the
Greek armies of this period proved to be forerunners of the Turkish host
which overflowed the European provinces of the Empire. Refugees from
72 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Asia Minor looked to Europe for their safety with less and less hope.15
The Greeks in Europe did not fare much better under their own rulers.
As Kydones despairingly wrote in the autumn of 1352: "Those who
govern in our land have the power of earthquake and of plague—and are
of no more use. Everyone seems to wish his neighbor dead. Where there
is peace, it is more often than not with the enemy; and where there is
war, it is between brother and brother. Everyone shamelessly takes up
weapons against his own kind." But he realized that his complaint was
futile and gloomily predicted in the spring of 1352 that the attitude of
his countrymen would "surely bring to our cities today the same fate that
befell Perinthos, an immortal monument to our thoughtlessness; tomor-
row we will listen to the strange language of the Turks in high places." 16
There was little exaggeration in this prophecy. Already, villages in Thrace
and Macedonia were being transformed into rubbish heaps (palaio-
choria), farmers were crowding into castles and cities 17 and leaving the
fields untended.
From the time the Ottoman Turks first set foot in Thrace under Sulei-
man, son of Orchan, the Empire rapidly disintegrated. The first cities to
fall were Tzympe in 1353 and Callipolis in 1354, the latter after an earth-
quake had toppled the walls of the city. "The earthquake consumed not
only buildings and property," wrote a contemporary observer, Archbishop
Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica, "but the lives of the people: their
mangled remains were tossed quite impartially, as the poet says, to the
dogs and vultures." The Archbishop was passing by chance through the
Hellespont in 1354 and was an appalled witness of an event which was
to have such great consequences for all the Balkan peoples: large num-
bers of Turkish ships, almost as if bridging the two continents, were
milling about and disgorging their cargoes of rapacious troops on the
European shore.18 There were many Greek scholars thereafter who re-
flected upon the debacle and left for posterity a fascinating record of
their feelings and thoughts. 19
Outright civil war and the internecine struggles of semi-independent
regional governors in Thrace who failed to co-ordinate their efforts either
with one another or with the capital contributed to the ease with which
the Turks extended their sway. Suleiman first conquered the peninsula
of Thrace and then used it as a bridgehead for his advance on Rhaedestos
and inland.20 Oral traditions, preserved to this day among Thracian ref-
ugees who settled in Greece, indicate the immediate flight of the popu-
lace to the safety of the mountains. Most of the inhabitants of Plagiarion
(Turkish Bulayir) in Thrace escaped into the rough country of Kuru Dag
on the northern shore of the Gulf of Saros. The descendants of these
people of Plagiarion still talk of "Ghazi Suleiman" and many of his works
TURKISH INVASION O F T H E BALKAN PENINSULA 73

(for example, the imaret or asylum for the poor which he founded, his
mausoleum, the great mosque, formerly Hagia Sophia, all of them places
of pilgrimage for later sultans). Another place of refuge for the Greeks
at this time was Mt. Hieron,21 and there were no doubt other mountains
and isolated refuges as well.
From the very beginning of the Turkish onslaught under Suleiman,
the Turks tried to consolidate their position by the forcible imposition
of Islam. If Şükrüllâh is to be believed, those who refused to accept the
Moslem faith were slaughtered and their families enslaved. "Where there
were bells," writes the same author, "Suleiman broke them up and cast
them onto fires. Where there were churches he destroyed them or con­
verted them into mosques. Thus, in place of bells there were now
muezzins. Wherever Christian infidels were still found, vassalage was
imposed upon their rulers. At least in public they could no longer say
'kyrie eleison but rather 'There is no God but Allah'; and where once
their prayers had been addressed to Christ, they were now to 'Mohammed,
the prophet of Allah/ " 22
The conquests of Suleiman were continued by some of his most distin­
guished generals, whose services were usually rewarded by the granting
of a fief.

The Extension of Turkish Control

The Turkish conquests from Ankara to the Hellespont and the rapid con­
solidation of the landings in Thrace were soon followed by further exten­
sions of the boundaries of their influence. The extent of their far-flung
territories immediately raised manifold problems of organization and con­
trol. The ghazis, of course, had been the principal instrument of Turkish
conquest, but with their loose organization they were of little help in the
stage of consolidation. Recognizing this, Orchan had attempted to forge
another military force both more disciplined than the ghazis and more
dependent upon himself, the infantry (yaya), and later, the cavalry
(müsellem). However, these had not developed in accordance with his
expectations and had certainly not displaced the ghazis. The ghazis were
still the main force of the Turkish army, and their fanatical spirit still
determined its character, though Orchan's reorganization had the effect
of making them a more orderly and tractable corps. Indeed, it was to one
of the leaders of the ghazis that Orchan entrusted the task of carrying
out the invasion (akin), and so it was still a relatively undisciplined army
that spread terror among the inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula, Hun­
gary, Transylvania, and Slavonia.23
The problem therefore still remained of building up a strong and, above
all, loyal permanent army to guard the vast Ottoman nation. This was
74 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

finally achieved by Murad I (1362-1389), whose qualities as man and

ruler still provoke violent differences of opinion. Şükrüllâh extols him for
his faith, his justice, his mercy, and a variety of other virtues; 24 the
Bulgarian author of the life of the Despot, Stephen Lazarevic, while
acknowledging Murad's power, characterizes him as savage and brutal.25
Be that as it may, Murad I was responsible for taking the crucial step
which ultimately transformed the Turkish army. Early in his reign, prob­
ably in 1363,26 Kara Roustem, a theologian from Karaman, offered a solu­
tion to the problem of what to do with the burdensome excess of prisoners
of war.27 He suggested that one-fifth be assigned to the personal use of
the Sultan. In this way the janissaries came into being, youths between
the ages of fifteen and twenty who were trained as an elite corps of the
Sultan's and in time became not only a legend but a terrible scourge to
the Christian nations.28
Murad deployed his power and asserted it more efficaciously among
his subjects. It was from this time that the Turkish state began to lose
its primitive tribal character and to take on the trappings and character­
istics of an Asiatic despotism. The janissaries were the slaves of the Porte
(Kapı Kulları) 29 and became the principal support of the state. From
the time of Bayezid I (1389-1402), these personal slaves of the Sultan
were occasionally granted fiefs or installed as governors in certain prov­
inces with the specific purpose of staving off any attempts by the older
Turkish families to reassert their positions of influence in the state.30
As rapidly as the Ottoman Empire grew in strength, so the Byzantine
dissolved. The Byzantine throne was occupied by a series of incapable
and profligate emperors whom the patriot monk of Magnesia character­
ized thus: "They are 'slaves'—of their bellies, their lusts, their bile. They
are nefarious, lazy, cowardly, garrulous, braggart, shameless, arrogant,
and utterly disdainful of everything. Because they are devoid of brains
and sanity they have submitted to vile slavery and pay tribute to the
barbarians, whom they meekly obey. Those who before were merely
rude, haughty, and hateful to their own people now compound their
ignominy by appearing ridiculous to their enemies . . ."
The same writer also records the shame of the Byzantine armies. "These
were no longer the organized and well-disciplined armies of yore, but
rather a rabble led by arrogant men who oppressed the people; they had
forgotten their function as protectors. These leaders commanded nothing
but disrespect. They were weak and effeminate in their behavior, cow­
ardly, stupid, licentious, insolent, dissolute, predatory, traitorous, reckless
—men who pillaged the property of others and left fields, gardens, vine­
yards, and forests desolate; men who knew only how to destroy those
who were Veaker.' Words did not exist to describe the wickedness of
Figure 6. Fifteenth-Century Janissary.
76 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

these insensate, obdurate, callous, ungrateful men—if, indeed, they could

be called men and not beasts. . . . That was why God had forsaken
them and the enemy rejoiced . . ." 31
The Turkish peril took many grotesque forms. Turkish sympathizers,
whether out of weakness or opportunism, began to exert an ever increas-
ing influence on the life of the free cities of Thrace and even of Constan-
tinople. These were the collaborators and black-marketeers of the period,
whose numbers normally swelled as the Turkish menace loomed larger.
Such men had no compunctions about giving direct assistance to the
Turks in exchange for material rewards such as money, sheep, and cattle.
They also had commercial dealings with the enemy, came and went
openly in his camp, even caroused with him before returning to the capi-
tal to spread alarm among their fellow citizens. They intimidated the
populace with threats that they would report anti-Turkish attitudes or
activities to their "masters." They spoke and behaved with such audacity
that many Greeks, the more timorous, perhaps, believed it better to obtain
immediate conditions for the surrender of the city than await conquest
by the Turks and their flunkies. Not only treason but defeatism was there-
fore prevalent in Constantinople and in all those cities which came under
siege. The inhabitants of the once gay capital felt as if incarcerated in
prison. Almost from the towers of its walls, they could watch the enemy
lay waste the earth, slaughter, pillage, burn houses, churches, and public
buildings, insult the faith, and mock the religious. Grief, poverty, and
hunger crowded in upon the capital. People had no heart even to try to
cultivate the land. Citizens and soldiers seemed to have been divested
of all morale, and slaves abandoned their masters, who themselves were
already "enslaved." Many sought to escape by fleeing to the more secure
islands of the Aegean. The city was losing its very life.32
From the time of the conquest of Adrianople by Murad I in 1361 33 —
an event that left a permanent mark in demotic legend and p o e t r y -
Turkish conquest spread throughout Thrace, Bulgaria, and the entire
Balkan peninsula.34 If not required for their own military use (as in
Didymoteikhon, for example), the Turks razed almost all castles lest they
serve as bases for local rebellion.35 If by chance some were left standing,
they were ungarrisoned and unattended and fell into ruin with the pass-
ing of the years.36 Vainly, Byzantine scholars attempted to warn promi-
nent men in the West of the dangers they would face were Constantinople
to fall.37 Vainly, they tried to apprise the grandees of the court of John V
Palaeologus of the consequences if those in authority continued to dis-
regard the plight of the masses.
But the exploitation of the masses continued, greatly aided by the
venality of the judges,38 whom Demetrius Kydones called "thieves." 39
TURKISH INVASION OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA 77
Yet the masses remained loyal to the state. There may have been restive-
ness and incipient rebelliousness, but the people still turned to Constan-
tinople for their ultimate deliverance. It did not come, of course. The
Empire was rotten at its core, and the Turks gnawed easily through its
soft and putrescent pulp.
The failure of the Balkan peoples, Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, and
Serbian, to unite against the Turk and the weakening of their military
forces by constant internecine warfare and by sporadic political and social
upheaval were their final undoing. After the defeat of the Serbs at Çirmen
or Cernomen near the Hebrus River in 1371, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the
Byzantine Empire became tributaries of the Ottoman Empire and were
obliged to render assistance in Ottoman campaigns. Panic gripped Frank-
ish and Greek rulers everywhere in Greece, and for the first time, on the
initiative of Pope Gregory XI, plans were mooted for some kind of con-
certed resistance against the Turks. One plan was to call an assembly of
Christian rulers in Catalan-controlled Thebes on 1 October 1373, to
devise ways and means of combatting the Turkish threat. The plan
failed.40 Then Manuel (later Manuel II Palaeologus), who was at that
time the ruler of Thessalonica and who of all the sons of John V was
especially noted for his combative spirit as well as his strength of char-
acter, wisdom, and literary bent, himself seized the initiative. Taking
advantage of the defeat of the Serbs, he freed parts of Macedonia from
the heirs of Stephen Dušan, who still maintained tenuous control in that
region, and entered Serrai in November 1371.41 He inflicted a number of
defeats on the Turks, both at sea and on land, occupied several fortified
positions, and liberated many prisoners, all exploits which delighted his
teacher, Demetrius Kydones.42 Although МапиеГѕ successes proved to
be only ephemeral, they were sufficient to rekindle the flame of Greek
resistance, as we shall presently observe.
In spite of these temporary setbacks, the Turkish armies continued
their advance westwards through Thrace. General Evrenos Bey con­
quered the town of Komotine (Turkish Gumuljina) in 1364 or 1365 and
from there moved into Macedonia 43 with Tsantarli Kara Halil, the hon­
ored and celebrated "Torch of the Faith" (Haïreddin). The Turks won
Serrai in 1383. It was here, two years later, outside the southwest wall of
the city, that the Sultan, Murad I, built the famed mosque called Atık,
or Eski Mosque. Until the very end of Turkish domination in Serrai, some
of the twenty-four Turkish quarters of the city preserved the names of
several of the most illustrious individuals and families in Turkish history—
such names as Ghazi Evrenos, Basdar Haïreddin, Bedreddin Bey, and
Simavnaoglou.44
Using Serrai as their major operational base, the Turks captured Veroia
78 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

in 1385-1386, Bitola (Turkish Monastir) in 1382-1383, Christoupolis in

1387, exacted tribute from Thessalonica after four years of siege in 1387,
and conquered Kitros in 1386. They then struck south and subjugated
Thessaly in 1393. They invaded Epirus for the first time in 1385, then
Aetolia and Acarnania (Karleli), where Albanians and Arvanito-Vlachs
put up some resistance. The Péloponnèse was overrun by successive
waves in 1380(?), 1387, 1388, and 1395.45 During the reign of Bayezid I,
the monks of Mt. Athos declared their submission,46 and in 1397 Athens
capitulated and was subjected to temporary occupation.47
Some slight, yet tantalizing, evidence regarding the situation in north-
ern Epirus appears in the Chronicle of Dryopis, which, though almost
certainly based on earlier sources, cannot be fully relied upon since the
sources themselves have been lost. However, it would seem that after
the conquest of that area the Turks tolerated the existence of Christian
feudatories, both secular and ecclesiastic, which were even recorded in
the official Turkish land registry. 48 These registrations in northern Epirus
and southern Albania were probably effected during the time of Baye-
zid I, after his campaigns of 1394 and 1397. They were begun in the
districts of Premeti and Koritsa.49

Conditions in the Greek World, 1354-1402

The last fifty years of the fourteenth century are probably the most ob-
scure in Balkan history. It is a period characterized by an indiscriminate
terror inflicted by hordes of undisciplined ghazis. Savage forays against
the Greeks by these warriors were designed to spread demoralization
and panic as a prelude to actual invasion. Of course, it had never been
easy, even in more settled times, to travel any great distance across the
lands of peoples who, after all, spoke many different languages. 50 How
much more difficult with the constant likelihood of encountering the
ubiquitous Turk! This peril was compounded by an almost unparalleled
outbreak of lawlessness and banditry. 51 For there were many who refused
to bow under the yoke of Turk, Frank, or Albanian and who had no other
recourse but to enter into a life of brigandage and rapine.
Adrianople in 1389 provides a typical example of the disorder of the
times. When the city was free, according to a contemporary patriarchal
document, the metropolitan had sufficient means from the income of the
ecclesiastical lands of his province to support large numbers of the poor;
in 1389, about twenty-eight years after its capture, he was deprived not
only of land and income but even of a cell in which to live. The cathedral
and all the "prominent churches" of the city had been seized. Many of
the inhabitants of the city had been taken into captivity, with a resultant
decline in the Christian population. Eventually, it was decided to move
TURKISH INVASION O F T H E BALKAN P E N I N S U L A 79

the metropolitan seat to nearby Agathopolis "until Adrianople should

once again be restored to the Greeks." 52 The word "restoration" (apokata-
stasis) was on the tongues of Greeks everywhere.
As in Asia Minor, many property owners espoused Islam with the in-
tention of obtaining certain social and material advantages. Religious
conversions in continental Greece and in other Balkan lands seem to have
been on as large a scale as in Asia Minor. The sources, though, are
generally silent on this point, and very little contemporary evidence exists.
At any rate Kydones referred in distress to the small remnant of the Greek
race and to the fact that increasingly large numbers of Greeks were being
caught up in the stream of Islam.53 Again, too, as popular tradition and
the evidence of nomenclature in places like Thrace amply attest, Moslem
priests were notably successful in proselytizing and in catechizing their
faith among the frightened people.54
The condition of the Empire was exacerbated by bickering between
the Emperors and their families, particularly between John V and his
son, Andronicus IV. These internecine squabbles continued sporadically
until the last decade of the fourteenth century and so degraded the par-
ticipants that on occasion they called on the Sultan to mediate. No less
ruinous were the struggles for ascendancy between various factions
within the imperial court. Threats were met with counterthreats, accusa-
tions with recriminations: 55 "our people, decadent now for so many
years," lamented the contemporary scholar, Theodore Potamios, "have
become but a mere simulacrum of the nation they once were." These
conditions of instability were of course propitious for the rise of oppor-
tunists and self-seekers, many of whom climbed to positions of great
power and influence in the state and proceeded by illegal and unscrupu-
lous means to amass huge fortunes.56 Such wealth, by its very size and
conspicuousness amid the general poverty, usually proclaimed its nature,
thereby stirring the people to anger and providing grounds for new
social disturbances. 57
By 1394, the Byzantine capital itself began to be slowly strangled by
the armies of the Sultan. Only the fear of slavery, the dread of being
forced into recantation of their faith, and the prospect of the desecration
of their churches gave the inhabitants courage to withstand the siege for
seven years.58 It was their good fortune that the Turks had not yet
fully developed the technique of siege operations. Nevertheless, Con-
stantinople experienced the same agonies as all those cities which subse-
quently suffered sustained siege by the Turk. Palaces, public buildings,
churches, and monasteries were either destroyed or allowed to fall into
decay.59 The inhabitants of the city (and we may presume that this was
the case in other cities and regions) continuously decamped. Most of
80 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

these refugees eventually found their way to Venetian-controlled Crete,

where of course they only encountered fresh difficulties.60 Some were
monks and artists who took to their new abode the conservative spirit
of Orthodoxy in art; others, like the monk Athanasius,61 were scholars
who nourished Byzantine culture in this distant island by their influence
as teachers of children. Indeed, they seem to have inspired a new style
of painting in Crete, one characterized by its austerity; 62 simultaneously,
men like John Simeonakis actively fostered Hellenic studies, at least in
a small way, long before the scholars and teachers did who fled there
after the fall of Constantinople. 63 Such slight evidence of these develop-
ments as we possess is important for the light it sheds on the artistic and
intellectual flowering of the sixteenth century.
The desperation of the Greeks was intensified by the defeat of the
Crusaders at Nicopolis (28 September 1396). This event seemed to pre-
cipitate a flight from all Greek communities. Most of the inhabitants fled
towards the Danubian principalities on the coasts of the Black Sea,
where remnants of ancient Greek colonies still existed, and towards the
Péloponnèse, where eventually a dynamic center of Hellenism was formed.
Thus began a new phase in Greek history.
From the beginning, the stream of refugees included artists, intellec-
tuals, and members of eminent families. Among them, for instance in
Serbia, were a number of painters from Thessalonica whose murals pres-
ently adorned the monastery of Ravanica (built 1385-1387), the church
of Sisojevac (1390-1400), and the monastery of Resava ( 1407-1418 ).64
Others, or their descendants, achieved fame as writers in Serbia: Antonije
Rafail, for example, grateful for the protection offered him by the Despot
of Serbia, Stephen Lazarevic, who wrote in 1419/20 an encomium in
honor of the Despoťs father, Lazare, a martyr and saint, who had been
killed at the battle of Kosovo Polje (1389); Nikon Hierosolymites (born
с 1380), confessor of Lazare's daughter, the princess Helen, for whom
he recounted his journey between 1398 and 1412 to Jerusalem, to the
monastery at Sinai, and to Egypt; the poet, Demetrius Cantacuzenus,
descendant of a branch of the great Byzantine family, who settled in the
mining center of Novo Brdo towards the middle of the fifteenth century.
Cantacuzenus wrote several books in the old Serbian language, some of
them still unpublished. 65
Certain extant sources document the settlement of many Greek refu­
gees in the Danubian principalities from the beginning of the fifteenth
century. Here they rapidly acquired honors and wealth, the more easily,
perhaps, because Greek influence had preceded them. A metropolitan see
for Hungary and Walachia had been established in Curtea-de-Arges as
early as 1359, during the reign of Alexander Basarab (1352-1364); its first
TURKISH INVASION O F T H E BALKAN PENINSULA 81

bishops were Greeks (Hyakinthos, succeeded by Chariton, who was fol-

lowed by Anthimos Kritopoulos ). The Danubian rulers, in particular
those of Walachia, maintained close ties with the monasteries of Mt. Athos
and often invited Greek priests to their courts. The priests were followed
by Greek merchants, mariners, artisans, painters, and also architects, who
built churches and monasteries. The close and harmonious rapport be-
tween the principalities and Hellas brought about the introduction of
popular Greek books, which affected the rudimentary beginnings of
Rumanian literature. 60 Thus the Greek refugees on the Danube developed
little oases of Hellenic civilization. Later, during the long period of
Turkish domination, they nourished from afar the economic and intel-
lectual development of the modern Hellenic nation by providing financial
assistance, books, and other necessities.
The consequences of Greek movement to the south were no less im-
portant an influence on modern Hellenism. The populations of entire
towns and districts scattered like leaves throughout the islands of the
Aegean and the Péloponnèse. Although definite evidence of the gradual
evacuation of Thessalonica and Constantinople exists, there is no written
evidence testifying to the large-scale dispersal of peasants. Thus, while
the motive for flight—the hope of freedom in the still unoccupied south-
seems plain enough, the origins of the refugees and the nature of their
impact on their new abodes remain obscure. Only the findings of lin-
guistic and geolinguistic research enable us to unravel a part of this
historical mystery. Thus, the marked resemblances between the dialects
of Andros, Tenos, Mykonos, and Syros in the Aegean Sea on the one hand
and those of northern Greece on the other seem to support an hypothesis
that Greeks from the north sought refuge on these islands between 1364
and 1413. Similarly, the dialectal similarities between the inhabitants of
Korthion and those of Chalcidice provide some grounds for a belief
that refugees from Chalcidice went to Apano Castro on Andros. The
dialect of Tenos is also similar to that of Apano Castro in its distinctive
tonal features as well as in the change of the nonaccented vowels ε and о
into ι and ου and the dropping of the nonaccented ι and ου, which are
both characteristic of northern phonetics. Apparently, the disjunction of
the dialects of Mykonos and Syros from the others can be explained in
terms of the settlement of southern Greeks on those particular islands
after the fourteenth century.67
The evidence of linguistics may again be offered as proof of the north­
ern Greek origins of certain villages in the Péloponnèse—between Lace-
demon and Kynouria, near Mt. Parnon, for example. It is not entirely
gratuitous to suppose that Greeks from the north fled to these districts
as the Turks took over their lands in the latter half of the fourteenth cen-
82 ORIGINS OF T H E GREEK NATION

tury.08 From all over threatened Constantinople itself, from its borders,
from places outside it, and from others much further afield, they streamed
down to the Péloponnèse. Lands formerly forested, wild, and uninhabited
were cleared for habitation and the population multiplied. Ten thousand
Albanians joined the Greeks in common exile.69
The Péloponnèse became not only the haven but the hope of Hellas.
John VI Cantacuzenus had installed his capable son Manuel as governor
there in 1348 with the avowed intent of completing the expulsion of the
Franks and rooting out the Catalans from their strongholds in central
Hellas. Manuel's people stood solidly and loyally behind him, and the
Péloponnèse attracted more and more Greeks who had tasted persecution.
There was a notable increase in prosperity and culture. The capital city,
Mistra, became virtually the City of Hellenism. Fully cognizant of the
Turkish threat, Manuel moved resolutely to ensure the security and
integrity of his realm. To this end, on one occasion he entered into
an alliance with Frankish lords and bishops, reinforced by a few galleys
belonging to Venice and the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jeru-
salem. In the summer of 1364, this motley array routed the Turks at
Megara, burned thirty-five Turkish ships, and pursued the remnants of
the enemy force clear to the walls of Thebes. Only by claiming the pro-
tection of the Turkish ally, the Catalan Roger de Lluria, fib, did the
Turkish forces escape total annihilation.70
Thus, when Thessalonica, Constantinople, and the other cities which
still remained nominally free were wracked by civil strife and intermit-
tent warfare, Mistra, under Manuel (1348-1380) 71 and Matthew (1380-
1383) Cantacuzenus, in spite of the greed and factiousness of Peloponne-
sian lords,72 became undisputed leader of Hellas. Unfortunately, not many
clues remain as to the quality of M is tra's political and cultural pre-emi-
nence. Apart from a few splendid examples of architecture, both sacred
and profane and some evidence of distinguished ancient Greek scholar-
ship,73 little else remains besides this fragment written by Demetrius
Kydones to the monk, Agathias, then in the Péloponnèse: "You will make
me happy with news of your people, which I pray you to cast in the
incomparable literary style which has always been your badge but which
now seems all the more beautiful for having been developed in Hellas." 74
Finally, the Péloponnèse acquired another politically important dimen-
sion, crucial in the development of modern Hellenism: a mettlesome con-
tingent of refugee Greeks and a generous infusion of naturally warlike
Albanians and Arvanito-Vlachs had been absorbed into the original popu-
lation. A people with such qualities tended to inspire resistance against
the Turk and afterwards formed a strong bulwark for the defense of
Hellenism.
 i«·,

•••¿ж

kV Ши.
Jpr*

јШР'

Figure 7. Monastery of Peribleptos, Mistra.

Figure 8. Palace of Mistra.
TURKISH INVASION O F T H E BALKAN PENINSULA 85

No small contributor to the terror and chaos which marked the end of
the fourteenth century was the fearsome Tamerlane.75 The fury of his
invasion struck first in the East, where it drove the Christians to headlong
flight in every direction, but especially towards the West. Waves of
refugees, Christian and Moslem, arrived in Constantinople and spread
fresh panic among the population of the city.76
The Christians of Asia Minor, and indeed of all those provinces con-
quered by Tamerlane, suffered cruelly. They incurred his full wrath in
reprisal for Manuel IFs letting the remnants of defeated Turkish armies
cross into Europe from Asia Minor—and in Greek ships.77
With Tamerlane's defeat of the Turks at the battle of Ankara in 1402
and the widespread internal convulsions attendant upon it, a temporary
pause occurred in the seemingly inexorable rise of the Turkish nation.
Manuel II took advantage of its weakened state and succeeded in having
Suleiman concede him the taxes formerly imposed on the monasteries of
Mt. Athos and their lands in the region of Thessalonica. He gave two-
thirds of the latter to the monks.78 In 1403, Thessalonica itself was re-
stored to the Byzantine Empire. 79 The defeat at Ankara brought an
unexpected but welcome intermission that permitted some temporary
economic resuscitation of Constantinople 80 and other cities, including
Thessalonica.81 Some, however, mistook the respite for reprieve; though
the monk, Joseph Bryennios, at least did not. Bitterly, he deplored the
lavishness with which the wealthy in the city spent their money on three-
storied homes instead of on city walls, where the "renovations" were
needed.82
Ш^М^ШМШШШШМШШШМШШШШРШМЈМЈМЈМММЈ

THE CHURCH AT BAY

The Crisis of Faith

During the Turkish invasion the Orthodox clergy suffered the same trials
as their flock, but because of the additional responsibilities of their voca­
tion, they also suffered the anguish of not being able to give real com­
fort to their people, especially in those pastorates under Moslem rule
where they faced daily the agonies of thousands of captives. "All of these
people come to us," wrote the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Matthew, some
time after 1325, "as though in search of a savior, and they weep as they
unburden their miseries. Since we can offer them nothing but tears-
nothing—we are unable to help them." Save only, of course, the most
fervent prayers for the mercy and salvation of God.1
The ordeals and afflictions of everyday life moved the clergy to search
for theological explanations. Thus, the many narratives, letters, speeches,
and theological works of this period not only reflect the dolor of the
people, but offer all manner of advice, consolation, and encouragement.
It was at this time that the sermon became exalted, with an emphasis
quite novel in Orthodoxy, as a vehicle for sustaining the faith, and it
came to have enormous influence on the lives of the people. Many of
the preserved texts have never been studied in any systematic way, but
they provide a rich fund of information on the nature of the people's
sufferings and also offer insight into the theological convolutions within
the Church.
Of course the great problem confronting Orthodoxy was how to ex­
plain the decadence of the state and the accompanying atrophy of the
Christian spirit. In theological terms, the answer was soon given that the
decline of the state was caused by Christian sinfulness, ingratitude to­
wards God, and deliberate infraction of Goďs commandments, especially
THE CHURCH AT BAY 87
the one that commands love of neighbor.2 "Love, indeed, has completely
disappeared," wrote Joseph Bryennios typically, "and brotherly harmony
has vanished. No one any longer knows the meaning of human under-
standing. Solicitude has been forgotten. One looks in vain for Christian
compassion, a tear of pity, a single prayer to Christ. Such hatred has
arisen among us that we take greater delight in our neighbor's miseries
than in our own well-being." 3 Or, according to another who wrote be-
tween 1365 and 1370, the estrangement of the Orthodox from God had
resulted only in universal corruption: "it is not that none of us does any
good, but that we are calumniators, blasphemers, prattlers, traitors. We
are covetous, greedy, and treacherous towards one another. There is no
pity, only contumely, suspicion, and malevolence." That was why, in the
opinion of this anonymous monk, "the wrath of God is just." 4
In the same vein, Bryennios' comments ranged over society as a whole.
Nobles took part in acts of gross illegality; those in charge of civic affairs
were rapacious; judges were venal; and the agents of all those in author-
ity were cheats and frauds. If those who governed society were arrogant,
selfish, avaricious, impious, unrepentant, and incorrigible, it was only
to be expected that such qualities would have their counterparts among
the mass of the people. 5
The decline of religious life in both the eastern and western provinces
of the Orthodox Church was an incontestable fact. The only exceptions
appear to have been in Constantinople, as Bessarion pointed out in 1463,
and its adjacent islands, in Thessalonica, and perhaps a few other places.
Elsewhere, Christians scarcely knew even the name of the Holy Bible,
much less the number or names of its books. They were quite incapable
of discussing the hope which their souls sustained, and on the rare
occasions when the Gospels were read to them, were merely mystified.6
The majority of Christians, said Bryennios, no longer knew what it was
to be a Christian; and even those who could make the sign of the cross
disdained to do so. Many were openly profane towards that which was
most holy, even denying its existence, and their blasphemy went un-
punished by Christian or civil authority. All forms of religious teaching
and counsel came to be looked upon as mummery and so fell upon deaf
ears.7
The conduct of some of the clergy did not help matters. 8 Monks in
Crete and other islands frequently lived in concubinage. 9 The sacerdotal
life became a refuge not only for those who genuinely sought to realize
a vocation but for those who merely sought mundane comforts. Most
priests, indeed, lived lives of uselessness, "because they came to the
priesthood not in order to work long and hard but to find escape from all
88 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

work." 10 Others were no different from merchants in their involvement

in the affairs of the market place. 11
No less iniquitous were the priests whose eagerness to hear confes-
sions was motivated more by lust for money than by concern for the
remission of sin. The body and blood of Christ were sold to those who
remained steadfastly impenitent. How dared they use the excuse that
they were merely making a living when they extracted every possible
profit from masses for the dead, donations of money and goods, endless
commemorative feasts, and monastic properties? 12 It was such people as
these whom Bryennios, in one of his palace speeches after 1417, held
responsible for the dreadful conditions in Church and state, the depopu-
lation of the cities, the despoliation of the provinces, the burning of
churches, and the desecration of altars and sacred objects.13
At the root of the Christians' despair lay a sense of deep indignation:
how was it possible for the Turks to conquer, prosper, and be happy
while Christians suffered? 14 The question left them restless and per-
plexed. Gregory Palamas tells us that when he arrived in Lampsacus as
a prisoner of the Turks, a crowd of men, women, and children surrounded
him. "Some wished to be confessed and spiritually cleansed; others wished
to have certain doubts about their faith removed; but most wanted to
know why God had forsaken them." 15 The Christians agonized over this
question for centuries.
The striking contrast between the rise of the Turkish nation and the
decline of the Empire constituted the most potent weapon of Moslem
religious propaganda. O u r faith, our God, and all our works," they
would say, "are obviously much better than yours. If this were not so,
such great power as our nation possesses would not be ours, nor would
most Christians be our captives and slaves." 16 Many Christians at this
time felt forced to admit that the intensity of the Moslem faith in God,
that burning quality which formed the animus of their religion, seemed
more vital and durable than their own.17
The defeat of Bayezid I at the battle of Ankara brought some relief
to the Christians, many of whom interpreted it as a demonstration of
divine mercy. Others, however, were less sanguine. Their relief was tem-
pered by a recognition of Christian unworthiness and by a knowledge of
Christian sinfulness, which, they felt, had only grown worse. When in a
short time their sufferings returned, the despairing "Why" became as
insistent as before. They looked for a single ray of light which might
penetrate their wilderness; in all those dark years it was the feasts of
the Church that alone seemed to provide any consolation. At one of these,
recorded Gabriel, Archbishop of Thessalonica, "on the Sunday before the
THE CHURCH AT BAY 89

feast of the great martyr, Demetrius," they came crushed in spirit and
eager for the warmth of the Church, among them the arrogant, the
rapacious, and the vainglorious as well as the poverty-stricken and the
slaves, the young and the old, people of every age and condition in life.18
The religious sense was sometimes stimulated by the dutiful practice of
the liturgy,19 though often it was transformed by sheer spiritual despair
into mere pietism.
Invariably, after formal worship, the congregations gathered in the
churchyards to discuss the misfortunes of the Greeks. Such scenes were
common throughout the world of Orthodoxy during the entire period of
Turkish domination. The churches became centers of political as well as
moral and religious indoctrination. Religious preaching was never di-
vorced from the lives of the people: its content always bespoke an aware-
ness of the contemporary condition and a continual search for the
Church's relevance to life.
The monastic spirit managed to survive throughout the crisis, and many
monks became paradigms of virtue in the conduct of their lives, un-
wavering in their efforts to comfort and counsel all Christians who lived
under Moslem rule or under its threat. They strove by continual preach-
ing to resuscitate the faith of the laity. Always cognizant of the duress
under which such Christians lived, their ministrations were based upon
a realistic acceptance of the force majeure and of the necessity of reach-
ing some kind of accommodation with it. By persuading Christians to
bend before the tempest, they hoped to protect them from its full impact
and retain their devotion and loyalty. Christians were therefore adjured
to obey local elders and to live by patience, hard work, purity and "with
wisdom, forbearance, honesty, true love, and the guidance of the divine
word and therefore to be virtuous by the power of God." 20
The Church also looked tolerantly on frightened crypto-Chris tians,
whose allegiance it naturally wished to retain. This phenomenon prob-
ably appeared during the period of Arab conquest, beginning in the
seventh century, and later, beginning in the eleventh century, under the
Seljuk conquest, though the sources remain silent as to its occurrence at
those times.21 The first recorded case of crypto-Christianity is to be found
in the period when the Ottoman Turks spread into Bithynia. Two pa-
triarchal epistles, dated 1339 and 1340 respectively, refer to Christian
inhabitants of Nicaea 22 who became Moslem after its capture by the
Turks in 1331. Later, full of remorse for their action, they asked Patriarch
John XIV Aprenos if the Church would receive them back. This patri-
arch, with an expression of charity that was representative of Christianity
at its best, replied that the Church would certainly consider them re-
90 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

stored to the body of the faithful. He who was truly contrite and, more-
over, had the courage to risk opprobrium and suffering for his faith could
be considered a martyr like the early Christian, James the Persian.
Even towards those whose fear of torture and retribution was such as
to inhibit a merely secret declaration of their faith, the Church extended
its tolerance and acceptance. They would be saved as long as they made
every effort to obey the commandments of God. The enemy could enslave
their bodies but not their souls.23 Thus, while the Church extolled any
sacrifice "for the faith" and thereby prepared the ground for the appear-
ance of its new martyrs (whom we shall presently discuss), it also
acknowledged the duress which produced crypto-Christianity. This mani-
festation was not unique to the time and circumstances about which we
speak, but it almost certainly led to Islam.
Since the Turks were generally tolerant, even indifferent, towards both
the teachings and the internal affairs of the Christian Church, patriarchs,
archbishops, and priests took advantage of this attitude to spread the
word of God by every oral and written means at their disposal,24 usually
without molestation. Surprisingly enough, however, they by no means
limited themselves to religious ministrations, but seized every oppor-
tunity to condemn the Turk for his tyranny. Such criticism, whether open
or covert, established a tradition of Christian pertinaciousness which
continued throughout the several centuries of Turkish occupation. One
frequently encounters references to the "barbarian" or the "infidel," and
ecclesiastical stalwarts of the fourteenth century, at a time when the
Turks still looked upon Christian teaching with indifference, even dared
to engage in public disputations with Moslem religious (hodjas).25
Others, such as an anonymous priest of Sosandra on the Magnesia River,26
though sorrowful at the spread of Turkish power, never resigned their
faith or their hope. This devout priest and fervent patriot exhorted the
Greeks to shoulder their burdens in the manner of their illustrious fore-
bears: it was John III Vatatzes 27 whom he chose to elevate as a saintlike
exemplar of courage and virtue and whom he proceeded to honor, a
hundred years after his death, with a glowing manifesto of his life.28

Eschatological Teaching after 1204

The closer the Byzantine Empire approached final collapse, the less
satisfied were the clergy with their explanation of the state of Orthodoxy.
Sinfulness could not be denied, but that seemed hardly a sufficient cause
for the Orthodox plight. There was no comfort in the fact that both
Moslems and Catholics were using the charge as a weapon in religious
proselytism. Nevertheless, it was hard to believe that the Orthodox plight
was not some kind of divine omen. How illumine the darkness? How find
THE CHURCH AT BAY 91

meaning and consolation? How offer uplifting insight into the brutish
conditions of life? Such questions stimulated the spirit of mysticism. It
was the revival of this spirit, inspired by renewed study of the New
Testament and Byzantine theological literature, that led to the proposal
of an alternative explanation for the Orthodox predicament: the spread
of Islam and the social injustices inflicted by the Turks were but signs
of the approach of Armageddon.29
Thus, there was fertile ground for the vigorous reassertion of eschato-
logical ideas after 1204.30 All eschatological teaching was adapted to the
new conditions. The Byzantine misfortune was in no sense the conse­
quence of divine displeasure, but purely and simply because of its geo­
graphical location and perhaps the envy of Satan. It could not be other­
wise "because the Greeks value self-restraint, wisdom, and prayer above
all others." God had prevented neither the coming of "the false prophet,"
Mohammed, nor the spread of his teachings at the expense of Christian­
ity, because the coming of the Antichrist was merely a prelude to the
end of the world and the beginning of Goďs Kingdom. The peoples who
welcomed the teachings of Mohammed would be destroyed with the
Antichrist himself and would be cast "into a lake of fire where they will
suffer torment for centuries." The Great Day of God, when "He who
judges the whole world" would come, was therefore near at hand. Chris­
tians had to prepare themselves. God was punishing them now in order
that they might later be admitted to everlasting glory. Christians should
therefore strive harder than ever to withstand temptation.
"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he is tried,
he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them
that love him" (Epistle of James I:xii). And there were certainly many
other passages from Scripture which comforted the faithful masses. In it,
they could find exculpation from the instinctive desire to flee before the
Turkish storm, or solace for life's bitter miseries, or encouragement for
the patient bearing of sorrow. "Remember the word that I said unto you,
The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me,
they will also persecute you; Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness' sake; When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
another; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (John XV:xx;
Matthew V:x; and X:xxii-xxiii). Bryennios considered the victims of the
invaders as martyrs for the faith.31
This kind of eschatological teaching naturally had its greatest impact
on the simple souls of the masses. The times were exceedingly favorable,
as might well be imagined, for the widespread circulation of oracular
prophecies, both ancient and new, which foretold the end of the Empire,
the ultimate defeat of the Turks, and the second coming of Christ. Re-
92 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

search has still to be done, however, on this coincidental phenomenon.

Those Christian virtues which had received special emphasis since the
time of the Apostles, love, hope, and faith, the very crown of virtue,32
were particularly lauded in this period. Faith was seen as the universal
salve which would enable all Christians to endure their manifold miseries
with fortitude and even with joy.33 This at least was the gist of the re-
marks of the Metropolitan Isidore Glabas, as he attempted to assuage the
sufferings of the people of Thessalonica after 1383: "Since these in a cer-
tain sense are but a trial, a catharsis of sinful corruption, so therefore
you can only be purified by the insults and sufferings with which you are
afflicted; in this way you stand before the glorious Christ and, having
shed all blemish, commune with Him." 34 In the same manner, the Turkish
occupation was regarded as an affliction designed only to test their faith;
in the opinion of the Patriarch Gennadius, it was "an exercise of faith." 35
"After all," said Isidore, "so many of the saints are renowned for the ways
in which they resisted temptation. Even among barbarians and foreigners
there were those who not only saved themselves, but, by their example,
enlightened others. That is why we need spiritual strife as well as
vigilance, and everyone ought to realize this." 3G Persistence in faith
is the only path to Christian salvation and the redemption of each
individual soul. We have no record that a single theologian disagreed.
In times of conquest and occupation, the only real danger is that the
deprivation of freedom and wealth seems a greater evil than the loss of
faith. But, in truth, all the physical and mental torment which slavery
brings are as nothing compared with corruption of the soul. Even the
loss of all worldly goods is preferable to the dereliction of duty towards
God. For without God, hope itself is impossible.37
Far from being dissonant with Church tradition, these ideas represented
an attempt to return to the original doctrines of Christianity and thus
exercised a restorative influence upon religious life. The Church thereby
prepared itself inwardly for the struggles and sacrifices for the faith
which were still to come and tried to imbue its flock with the same re-
solve. The faithful were taught that they must endure everything, even
the sacrifice of their own lives, for the Church: the eternal glory of the
heavenly life awaited them only. Those to whom faith and devotion
brought the crown of martyrdom were to be blessed and revered.38 In-
deed, the years of persecution and torture that Christians endured in
Roman times had truly returned. It was not long before the conqueror,
by oppression and calumny, forced many to recognize the choice that
would sooner or later have to be made: to be converted or to be killed.
With this realization, many prepared themselves for martyrdom. 39
THE CHURCH AT BAY 93

The '"New* Martyrs

Converts to Islam were often fanatical devotees of their new religion
and assiduous enemies of Christianity,40 thus providing an example for
those who remained Christians. Christianity was therefore continually
menaced. Nevertheless, the struggles of Christians who were tortured for
their faith served to inspire and to rally the faithful, and the martyrdom
of the Orthodox Church bears witness to the numerous champions of the
faith during the period of Turkish occupation. In the past, it has been
customary to designate as "new" martyrs only those who suffered after
the fall of Constantinople; to these, however, ought properly to be added
the large numbers of people who met martyrdom much earlier, from the
very time when the conqueror began his march.41 Among such martyrs
were the young, the simple, and the plain—monks, craftsmen, merchants,
servants of both Turk and Greek. "And I still affirm," wrote the biog-
rapher of the martyr, John of Ioannina, in 1543, "that he gave strength
to many then, as he will continue to do in the future. He was a source
of courage for all who came after him; and just as many were brought
by his example to demonstrate the same eagerness to die for their country,
so others in the future will also be encouraged to become heirs of the
Kingdom of Heaven. His example has constrained many Christians to
reflect again upon the denial of their religion, about which they seemed
to have no qualms in the past." 42 These remarks help to explain a wide-
spread tendency among the people of particular regions to honor their
martyrs as saints long before the Church accorded them official recogni-
tion. The lore of martyrs always evoked a good deal of popular interest;
hymnographers often composed canticles in their praise.43 It is clear that
the "new" martyrs, by arousing the people's determination to resist the
conquerors, were national heroes in a palpable sense. Thus, by main-
taining religious zeal and by sustaining a popular Christian conviction
of moral primacy in the contest with Islam, the Church contributed in a
positive, if indirect, way to the movement of national resistance.
Yet the Church never announced a policy of official opposition to the
Turks. The reasons for this become apparent after even the most cursory
reflection upon the circumstances of conquest. The upper clergy knew
how harsh the conqueror could be and were therefore loath to provoke
him, and they also knew that the Turk, unprovoked, allowed the Church
to exist in relative freedom and did not prevent the clergy from carrying
out their religious duties. At the same time, the Church was not pre-
served "unchanged in form," as Joseph Bryennios would have us believe.44
There were other more subtle ways in which the Turks occasionally
wielded their power so as to influence Church affairs in accordance with
94 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

their designs—for example, in the appointment of bishops, where, ironi-

cally enough, the opportunity to interfere was provided by Christians
themselves with their process of episcopal election.45
In other respects, as for instance in the ecclesiastical and liturgical
life of the Church, the Turkish influence, though apparent in a variety
of ways, was really superficial, except in certain provinces. Where the
Turkish language had taken hold, in Cappadocia, for example, the pa-
rochial priests, even some bishops, spoke Turkish and dressed in the
Turkish fashion. The Gospels, Epistles, and the Mass in general were
often the only things which continued to be read or sung in Greek. And
in some of the provinces of the Church, where economic and intellectual
decay was especially marked, priests often did not possess a whole Bible
even but had to rely on fragments. "When reading texts, they merely
parroted a sound which they vaguely thought to resemble Greek, but
they could not understand a whit of what they were saying." 4e
There were, however, more fundamental reasons for the Church's re-
luctance formally to announce its opposition to the Turks. These had to
do with the specific injunctions of Holy Scripture and the precepts of
sacred tradition handed down by the Church Fathers. There were in-
numerable lessons which seemed to exalt the temporal power.47 On the
basis of such texts, Isidore Glabas, the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, in
an undated letter from Constantinople, advised his flock to submit to
domination by the Turk. He deplored any attempts to resist the con-
queror: "It is our duty to obey our masters. We who have become serv-
ants must serve. We must carry out all those orders which relate to the
affairs of the world. We must do this because so we have been taught
by those who are saints, by the Apostle Peter himself who said, 'Submit
yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake'; and by Paul
who commanded, 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God' (Epistle to the Romans XIII:i). We must
therefore do that which it is clear must be done: love our masters and
obey them in all temporal things." 4S The same kind of counsel was taken
up by prominent officials in Thessalonica, probably priests, during the
actual siege of the city (1383-1387). "To try to liberate the homeland
from the Turks was to do no less than to wage war against God." 49
What appears to have been uppermost in the minds of the clergy was
the need "to keep things spiritual secure and intact." All had to be sacri-
ficed for the sake of Orthodoxy, even life itself if necessary. Isidore's con-
cern for the preservation of the Church was quite as explicit when he
enumerated the more positive duties of Christians: "Let us be sure above
THE CHURCH AT BAY 95

all, my brothers, that with all our energy and power we keep Orthodoxy
unstained, even if it be necessary to this end that our worldly wealth be
dissipated, our country enslaved, our limbs mutilated, our bodies tortured,
our lives violently extinguished. Let us endure all this with joy if it mean
that our flawless religion be not betrayed." 50 These words, of course,
carried the indirect injunction that it was incumbent on all Christians,
in the interests of a higher duty, to disobey both temporal and spiritual
leaders whenever Holy Law was contravened or flouted. There was no
mistaking such an obligation when the Apostles themselves had laid
down that "We ought to obey God rather than men/'

The Church in the Latin Dominions

It was not only with Islam that the Church had to contend. The struggle
for the preservation of the faith and of the Greek race had also to be
carried on against Roman Catholic proselytism. Certain Greek votaries
of the Union of the Orthodox and Roman Churches were a not incon-
siderable element in this regard. Conditions in the Latin dominions were
especially unfavorable to the Orthodox Church, and its travail in those
places was bitter and protracted. In Cyprus, for example, the difBculties
of the local Church were directly attributable to Roman Catholic ascend-
ancy and the efforts of individual Roman Catholic hierarchs to subvert
the integrity of the Orthodox Church. Against the persistent encroach-
ments of Roman Catholicism (as, for example, in meetings in Cyprus at
Limassol, October 1220, and Ammochostos [Famagusta], September 1222),
Orthodoxy was able to maintain its position only by compromise and con-
cession. Moreover, the number of Orthodox episcopal sees declined.
Orthodox bishops were required to seek the approval of the Latin bishop
in the assumption of their ecclesiastical offices; thus, formal acknowledge-
ment of Roman Catholic primacy could not be avoided. The Orthodox
clergy thought it necessary to accept such restrictions in the interests of
preserving the substance of Orthodoxy, of preventing more drastic limi-
tations, and of cushioning the inhabitants against actual persecution and
conversion to the Roman Catholic doctrine. Even so, the Oecumenical
Patriarchate refused to condone such submissiveness and continually ex-
horted the clergy to hold their ground firmly and faithfully in the defense
of Orthodoxy; and in general, the people of Cyprus were united in oppos-
ing Rome's interference and oppression. True, the Cypriot Church was
reduced to a position of virtual subservience by the Bulla or Constitutio
Cypria of Pope Alexander IV of 3 July 1260; true, too, that with the
passing of time the Cypriot Church found itself isolated from Orthodoxy
and generally considered apostate to "the tradition of our ancestors'
96 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

faith." Yet, from at least the beginning of the fifteenth century, the
Cypriots maintained that they had never abjured the rules, customs, and
traditions of Orthodoxy and indeed actively solicited the normalization
of relations with the Oecumenical Patriarchate. It was in response to
these overtures that the austere Joseph Bryennios was dispatched to
Cyprus as an emissary of the Patriarchate, though on that occasion he
recommended the rejection of the Cypriot proposals (17 March 1412).51
During the period of Venetian domination in Crete ( 1211-1669), metro-
politan and archepiscopal sees were occupied by Roman Catholics, chiefly
Venetians. Only the lower clergy were left in relatively untrammelled
charge of their parishes, though still subject to occasional restrictions
and oppression. The upper clergy, however, were forced to discontinue
their ministrations, 52 with the consequence that such spiritual oversight
as still remained was exercised directly by the Oecumenical Patriarch.
Despite these disabilities, the Patriarch retained a spiritual hold over the
masses of the faithful and sought constantly to strengthen it by means
of encyclical letters and the missions of clerical ambassadors. It was with
the aim of maintaining the isolation of his ungoverned Cretan flock from
Roman influence 53 that Anthimos, "Archbishop of Athens and President
(Proedros) of Crete" was sent to the island, there to suffer martyrdom,
probably towards the middle of the fourteenth century. 54 He was followed
in 1381 by Joseph Bryennios, who, however, was quickly removed by the
Venetians 55 because of fears of a possible priest-inspired, popular move-
ment of religious and political independence.
Various attempts to substitute Latin for Orthodox ritual invariably
failed because of popular resistance. This was probably the chief reason
why the authorities allowed the lower clergy, with archpriests (proto-
papades), or leaders among the lower clergy, as their only superiors, to
continue their pastorates according to Orthodox rites. On the other hand,
neophyte priests were required first to appear before the Latin archbishop,
who demanded that they swear obedience to the Roman Catholic faith.
Later, with the permission of the central authority in Herakleion (for-
merly Chandax) and bearing letters of credence from the Latin arch-
bishop, they would be allowed to journey to one of the Venetian-con-
trolled cities of the Péloponnèse (principally Coron or Modon), there to
be formally ordained by the Greek bishop according to Orthodox ritual. 56
Naturally in order to win this privilege many Cretan priests were prepared
to be demonstratively philo-Latin in their relations with their nominal
Roman archbishop.
Through archpriests and archchoristers who had demonstrated their
trustworthiness in this way, Venice was able to keep fairly well apprized
of the temper of her Orthodox subjects and of their relations with the
THE CHURCH AT BAY 97

Oecumenical Patriarchate as well as of the missionary activity of exarchs

and other clergy who were sent to Crete by the Patriarch. Any persons
suspected of conniving at the extension of patriarchal influence in Crete
were severely punished by imprisonment or banishment. 57 Yet it was also
true, as we have noticed, that certain restraints were put on the Roman
clergy. Venetian authority was quick to curb excessive zeal on their part
or to curtail the demands of particular Roman hierarchs when it seemed
that these might trespass too far on the sensibilities of the Orthodox
Church. 58
On the whole, the people of Crete remained loyal to Orthodoxy. Indeed,
in one way at least they were able to advance it. During the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, there was a veritable spate of church-building,
which left its mark for posterity in the hundreds of churches to be found
today in villages, big and small, in fields, inaccessible valleys, and even
on the tops of mountains. The frescoes in these churches depict the spirit
of the Cretans and their devotion to the traditions of their nation; they
also reflect the austere Orthodox character and faithfully preserve the
Byzantine tradition of iconography. They are devoid of Italian influences,
for which Constantine Kalokyres offers the most probably correct expla-
nation:
This is due to the unshakable faith of the Greek people of Crete and to their
worthy priests. In the other realms of art and of the intellect (as for example
in architecture and sculpture), the Cretans clearly accept the Western-oriented
influences of their environment and their period. The two streams, Greek and
Latin, are merged. But in every respect which touches upon the character of
Orthodoxy and Orthodox doctrine, the Greek influence is rigidly preserved.
The beliefs and traditions of the race which stemmed directly from the By-
zantine Empire were never forgotten by the Cretans, enslaved though they
were. . . . And as they looked at their frescoes throughout the whole period
of Venetian and Turkish domination, the common memory of the Empire lived
on. They were consoled by the unity of past and present; they received hope
in the silence and mystery of their churches; they taught their children of the
glories of the Empire to which they were all inseparably bound; their hearts
were warmed by the thought of what lay in the future, of the time which
would surely come when they gathered their strength and shook off the foreign
yoke . . . Truly, as they clustered in the village churches with the darkness
of slavery all about them, as they gazed upon the frescoes and together taught
their children the story which these conveyed, here was a message which not
only all could understand but which could simultaneously uplift their souls.
For the frescoes spoke of the persecuted Founder of the Faith and of the
struggles of the saints and martyrs and of the agony of the Church and the
faithful in Orthodoxy—a story which only those who were enslaved could
really understand.59
98 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

The situation in Euboea was similar. Again, the designs of the Roman
Catholic clergy were circumscribed by the Venetian authorities, who,
though interested in religious matters, had no hesitation in subordinating
these to the interests of political expediency. Thus, considerable under-
standing and toleration were frequently extended towards the Orthodox
Church.60 On one occasion, for example, Theodore II, Despot of Mistra,
took steps to obtain official recognition of the ordination of Cretan priests
by the Orthodox bishops of his realm. With the agreement of John VIII
Palaeologus and the Oecumenical Patriarch, he founded a new bishopric
on the peninsula of Maina (probably in 1429) and by 1435 was successful
in winning Venetian acknowledgement of the valid ordination of such
priests in Venetian dominions.61
In regard to the conversion of the Orthodox to the Latin rite, and vice
versa, the evidence is meager indeed. Nevertheless, it is known that many
of the Catalans who settled in continental Greece after their victory near
the Cephisus River in Attica in 1311 over the descendants of the Franks,
who had originally established themselves there and who, with the Cata-
lans, were on that occasion excommunicated by the Pope, eventually
became Orthodox as a result of continual intermixing over the years with
the Orthodox inhabitants. In an attempt to put an end to such apostasy
(and no doubt to set them against the Turks who had settled in Thebes
as allies of the Catalan brothers, Roger and John de Lluria), Pope Urban
V (1362-1370), on Christmas Day, 1363, suspended the excommunication
for three years. On the other hand, double abjuration of the Roman
Church on the part of the Orthodox was punished by the confiscation of
property. Thus, Stephen Mastrothodoros of Thebes, son of a Greek mer-
chant, lost all his property to Michael de Gaspo when, on his death-bed,
he denied Roman Catholic dogma and returned to the Orthodox fold.
Again, Pope Clement XVI once bitterly complained to the Archbishop
of Nicosia because he had been told by King Peter de Lusignan that large
numbers of Catholic women were participating in Greek Masses and
generally discharging their religious obligations according to the rites of
Orthodoxy.62
In the case of Crete, the number of converts to Rome was considerably
less than the number of Venetian settlers who made the journey to Ortho-
doxy. Apostasy from the Roman Church continued in spite of the severe
punishments prescribed by the Roman Church. According to Hofmann,
this was no mere "transient phenomenon" but a "continuous evil," which
he attributed to three factors: first, the indigent condition of the Roman
clergy, who lived on the domains of Venetian noblemen, but who were
so poorly paid they were eventually forced to abscond; second, the ab-
senteeism of many Latin bishops; and third, lack of education and wide-
THE CHURCH AT BAY 99

spread immorality on the part of the priests themselves.63 These are cogent
reasons, no doubt, but of far greater importance was the simple and in­
escapable fact of contiguity. Venetians, especially the nobility, gradually
became accustomed to the new environment and to Greek mores; and
from this familiarity grew an identification of interests, mutual under­
standing, and, eventually, spiritual rapprochement.
In sum, although Frankish control in the Aegean and eastern Mediter­
ranean would seem to have provided ideal conditions for the propagation
of Catholicism 64 and although Orthodoxy was constricted by the very
circumstances which gave Catholicism its opportunity, it was the conver­
sion of Catholics to Orthodoxy, rather than the reverse, which appeared
to be the rule. 65

The Question of Union of the Churches

In those Greek lands which still remained free, the question of Church
reunion always loomed large and was the source of much controversy.
Naturally, it was a problem which seemed to assume greater immediacy
when the Turks set foot in Europe; for in the face of Turkish invasion,
the Orthodox attitude towards Catholicism could only appear as a great
dilemma.
The Palaeologi, believing that the security of the state depended upon
assistance from the West, were disposed to proffer the Union of the
Churches as an enticing quid pro quo—г. diplomatic weapon, unfortu­
nately, which was already blunted from too much use. Whenever they
appeared to be on too friendly terms with the votaries of Union, they
merely incurred the wrath of the Orthodox.Ge
Some of the reasons which motivated the desire for reunion were gen­
uinely patriotic, but there was also the fear of a future under Turkish
domination and of the loss of their wealth. In addition, many scholars,
attracted to the world of antiquity, were filled with admiration for the
classical revival in the West.67 These philo-Latin scholars and theologians
assiduously studied the texts of the Church Fathers, among others, and
theological tradition generally. And as they analyzed those matters in
dispute between the Churches, they came to the conclusion that the two
opposing systems, both of which had sprung from the same source, were
fundamentally not in opposition at all.
Their most eloquent spokesman at the end of the fourteenth century
was Demetrius Kydones, who had translated the works of St. Augustine,
St. Anselm, and St. Thomas Aquinas. He had close connections with
Western clerics and scholars, even with the Pope himself, as well as with
John VI Cantacuzenus, John V Palaeologus, and Manuel II Palaeologus.
The last three held him in high esteem.68 Indeed, Kydones' later conver-
100 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

sion to Catholicism was seen as a substantial blow to Orthodoxy.69 In one

of his works, he re-examined his whole spiritual life and his rapproche­
ment with Catholicism. There is no more interesting testament than this
to the ideological ferment of the Byzantine scholars, the quality of the
dialectic of Kydones' opponents, and the pitiful struggle between both
factions, which was exacerbated by jealousies and personal rivalries within
their own circles and even within the palace. He pointed to the long
separation of East and West, which had estranged the people and "caused
a great deal of ignorance on both sides." The Byzantine people, he went
on to say, had come to lean upon these differences—differences between
Greeks and barbarians"—and utterly to despise the West. However, a
study of Western literature had revealed to him a new world of ideas. It
had shown him a people "who toiled ceaselessly to penetrate the fantasti-
cally complex thought of Plato and Aristotle," philosophers towards whom
his own countrymen manifested a supreme disregard. After himself ex-
amining the texts of the Fathers of both the Western and the Eastern
Churches, he found that there existed among them all "an admirable
harmony." Finally, he maintained that the ties of New Rome (Con-
stantinople) with its more ancient counterpart were much closer than
his contemporaries believed. Everything great that New Rome possessed
—empire, government, even name—was derived from antiquity, that is,
ancient Rome, and that was why it owed a debt of deference towards
Rome. The same position could be attributed to the clergy of both East
and West. These things had to be borne carefully in mind by those who
spoke as though ancient Rome were in an inferior position to New Rome.
Equally interesting were the remarks he later made about the caesaro-
papism of the Emperor, the dependence of the Patriarchate on the
temporal power.70
The views of Kydones on the question of Church reunion were also
held by his disciple, Manuel Calecas; 71 by Theodore, Andrew, 72 and
Maximus Chrysoberges; Manuel Chrysoloras; and, in the middle of the
fifteenth century, by the former Archbishop of Nicaea, Bessarion. Kydones
and Maximus Chrysoberges, in particular, took the Roman Catholic view
that the root cause of Orthodox woes was the Photian Schism, which had
occurred when a synod in Constantinople denied that the Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father and the Son: the Greeks were being enslaved
and destroyed because they had strayed from the proper path of faith.73
This explanation, however, was rejected by Joseph Bryennios: "If we
suffer," he wrote to Maximus Chrysoberges, "it is not because we will not
submit to your pope, as you say; on the contrary, it is because of the rise
of this impure and infamous race of unbelievers, which itself is due to the
righteous wrath of God, whom we have made angry. Even so, our pitiable
THE CHURCH AT BAY 101

plight is due to some extent to the sheer physical proximity of our neigh-
bors. You are wrong to rejoice over our miseries. It is not your place to
assail us, but rather to assist us as brothers. But there is no mercy in you.
You attack us as though you believe our sufferings to be just." He went
on to say that all who opposed reunion were proud of their unshakable
faith in Orthodoxy, in spite of the heretical proclivities of many emperors
and patriarchs. Lastly, he proceeded to enumerate the long list of those
who would remain true to Orthodoxy until the Second Coming of Christ.
Bryennios was a determined and unrelenting apologist for Orthodoxy:
"You yourselves suffer from an incurable affliction," he wrote to Maximus
again, "though its causes are not external. You incite one another to war
like madmen; even your Popes do battle among themselves, and you force
your people to stain their hands with the blood of their brothers. You are
no better than those lunatic people who cut off their own limbs . . ." Or
again, "if purity of life and correctness of behavior be the touchstones,
then right is clearly on our side. Nor is that all, for we have wisdom,
humility, and self-restraint, we treat our churches with decency and
proper vigilance, we are the true supporters of the dignity and sacred
practices of the Church . . ." 74 Bryennios also greatly criticized the hypo-
critical stance of those who embraced the Roman Church's doctrines even
though they considered "our ancestors to be much more pious," an atti-
tude, he felt, in view of the circumstances of the time, to be transparently
self-serving.76
Philo-Latin scholars and priests remained in a distinct minority. The
air seemed to be filled with theological discord and recrimination, typified
by the continual verbal onslaughts of Kydones against various patriarchs
and archbishops, and vice versa,76 but the sound and the fury were really
deceptive. Most of the clergy, especially the monks, unflinchingly rejected
the idea of reunion; they were merely following the body of the faithful.
Thus, when the traveller Buondelmonti commented on the sparseness of
the population in the capital at the beginning of the fifteenth century, he
bore witness to its irreconcilable hatred of the Latins. The capital would
brook no alliance or agreement with the Latins, even though it received
a thousand assurances that such an agreement would be kept.77 Brocquière
wrote later of the conquered Greeks of Bithynia that they despised the
Latins much more than the Turks.78
At the same time, the decline of the Empire brought on a crisis which
rent the Eastern Church and gave impetus to the reassertion of Catholic
claims. The situation was considered of sufficiënt gravity to warrant the
persecution of eminent philo-Latins at the end of the fourteenth century. 79
Thus, division in Church and state appeared at precisely the time when
unity against a redoubtable enemy was most needed. It is this internal
102 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

laceration to which Demetrius Chrysoloras no doubt refers in his re-

mark after 1403, that "our entire people has been split in twain." 80
In order to combat the philo-Latin predilections of certain scholars and
theologians and to reinforce the traditions of Orthodoxy, the Oecumenical
Patriarchate renewed its contacts with the sister churches of the Balkans.
Orthodox peoples, including those of Russia, were further united by
the influence of Hesychasm, its associated movements, and the body of
literature arising from them. 81 On the whole, clerical and scholarly opposi-
tion to the movement for reunion may almost be said to have been deter-
mined a priori by the pervasive influence of the Greek Orthodox tradition.
When, for example, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus deemed it ex-
pedient to extend toleration towards the West and to the movement for
Church reunion, though without any intention himself of renouncing Or-
thodoxy, the clergy prevailed upon him to reverse his policy. In the event,
he appeared satisfied to use men like Kydones and Chrysoloras, whom he
greatly esteemed, in no more vital a capacity than that of diplomatic en-
voys charged with seeking assistance from the West. But the powerful
states of the West in any case insisted on the Union of the Churches as
prerequisite to any negotiation.82
Thus, the chasm between the Eastern and Western Churches remained.
Apart from the diverse intellectual, economic, and national differences
between the two cultures, the Orthodox tradition had been further rein-
forced by the Photian Schism and recollections of the Fourth Crusade and
Frankish domination, which served to promote the growth of national
consciousness. For it was not long before every philo-Latin was regarded
as a kind of traitor.83 Of course, national consciousness in its modern sense
still did not exist, but a common loyalty to Orthodoxy afforded a most
durable base.
But there was also another base. The opponents of Church reunion and
papal primacy were apprehensive that a merger of the Churches could
only mean the surrender of the traditional inheritance. This was the fear
that George Kourtesis Scholarios, then known as the monk Gennadius,
had voiced on the eve of the siege of Constantinople. The legacy of
Greece was part of the national foundation as surely and as inseparably
as Orthodoxy itself. That this was the meaning of "traditional inheritance"
seems to have been made abundantly clear by Bryennios when he stood
before the members of the Synod of Santa Sophia on 17 March 1412. As
he presented his views "on the suggested reconciliation of the Cypriot
Church with Orthodoxy," he emphasized the points which in his opinion
justified such a step: "It is the Orthodox Church we have in common; it is
our riches, it is our past glory, it is our nation . . ." 84
The Orthodox Church, then, while it continued to be an important
THE CHURCH AT BAY 103

repository of the official Roman tradition and therefore from time to time
disapproved of the use of the national appellation, Hellene, nevertheless
by its inflexible attitude towards the Roman Church it contributed sub-
stantially to the growth of an Hellenic national consciousness. This trend
was accentuated by certain political and social spasms within the Hellenic
world which paralleled its religious upheaval.
ШіШ1|Щ@ІШ1і111]1{1І1Ш1і1111ШІР1ШІР1МІ1І1МІ11М@

THE CATALYST OF CONQUEST

Hellenism in the Frankish Dominions

At the end of the fourteenth century, as we have seen, the intellectual
and political frontiers of Neo-Hellenism became more clearly defined.
The seeds of Hellenic renascence were sown amid the debris of Byzantine
ruin. As the major centers of Hellas—Constantinople, Thessalonica, west­
ern Thessaly, Epirus, Athens, and the Despotate of Morea—were engulfed
by the Turlcish tide, so the very extremity of the Greek people revived
the sense of a common historical destiny.
However defective the documentation for the rise of modern Hellenism,
enough is known to indicate its general direction. It might be thought, for
example, that most of the relevant information (like the Chronicle of
Galaxidi or the kinds of narratives which are occasionally unearthed in
Greek monasteries and which have proved so useful in the illumination
of Greek history) would have been lost or destroyed with the passing of
time. But this is not entirely so. The continual publication of new texts
and the systematic study of old ones are constantly yielding further knowl­
edge of the essential components of Greek national consciousness.
The fact of this national awakening is confirmed, as might perhaps be
expected, by a study of the Greek lands which still remained free at the
end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. It is
even true of the Greek provinces which were occupied by the Franks,
who held complete political dominion over the Greek people, a fact which
served to stimulate Greek national resurgence. The Franks formed a tiny
minority in the midst of the Greeks, and because of this they never felt
their sovereignty to be secure. They sought both to understand and to
cohabit peacefully with their subjects. Indeed, they went a good deal
further. Henry of Flanders (1206-1216) was perhaps the first of the
T H E CATALYST OF CONQUEST 105

Frankish emperors of Constantinople to set a precedent for his successors,

which we have no reason to suppose was not subsequently followed, when
"though Frankish himself, he behaved with friendliness and magnanim-
ity towards the people of Constantinople and the Greeks as a whole. Many
of those in the city became his officials and soldiers, and he always treated
the masses as though they were his own people." x
The Frankish yoke was never so rigorous as to prevent the Greeks,
especially the nobles, from seeking profit and prestige, and Greeks were
able to express themselves and move about within fairly generous limits.
Such freedom, though expedient for Frankish purposes, provided scope
for the growth of a spirit of resistance and the more rapid maturation of
national consciousness. These effects can be observed even in distant and
isolated Cyprus off the coasts of Syria and Asia Minor. In 1425, the Greek
peasants of Cyprus, following a piratical incursion and pillage by the
Mamelukes (Saracens), rose in angry insurrection against their overlords.
Under their leader, the groom Alexis, they quickly overran the center
of the island and set up chieftaincies in Lefka, Limassol, Peristeronas,
Morphou, and Oreine. Although the revolt was soon squashed, many
Frankish nobles and Roman Catholic clergy were caught up in its fury.
The revolt had obvious socioeconomic overtones, but its nationalistic
character is evident in the fact that it was above all a spontaneous peasant
uprising against foreign domination.2 Leontios Machairas, though himself
a Greek, described it in his Chronicle from a Frankish point of view, and
did not, or did not wish to, comprehend this nationalistic significance.
The struggles of the Greeks to extricate themselves from their servitude
were later assisted by Helen, second wife of John II Lusignan and daugh-
ter of the Despot of the Péloponnèse, Theodore II Palaeologus. We will
note her role in another context.
In the Despotate of Morea, Theodore I Palaeologus (1382-1406), while
forced to contend with his fractious nobility and forever at loggerheads
with Venice and Frankish lords, constantly strove to build on the achieve-
ments of his predecessors, in particular those of Manuel Cantacuzenus.
Lest his spirit flag, he was reminded of the glorious history of Sparta and
Lycurgus 3 by Demetrius Kydones. The outlook in the Morea was more
favorable than that in Constantinople: the Turkish threat was not yet
imminent there and the Despot remained more or less independent. It
was in order to ensure the continuance of this situation that Theodore I
(probably when he passed through Thessalonica on his way to the Morea)
and his brother devised a plan of political and military collaboration with
the aim of permanently staving off Turkish invasion. The alliance was
soon broadened by an agreement with the Florentine ruler of Corinth,
Nerio Acciajuoli, and was directed against both the Navarrese mercenaries
106 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

in the Péloponnèse and the Catalans in Athens and Amphissa. In 1383,

however, the two brothers were hard pressed by the Turks and invoked
the assistance of Venice; but with the voluntary capitulation of Thessa-
lonica in 1387, Theodore saw no other option than to commit a com-
plete tactical volte-face. He thereupon made overtures to the fierce ghazi
Evrenos Bey, ostensibly with the aim of suppressing a rebellion of his
own recalcitrant nobility led by John, son of Matthew Cantacuzenus. No
doubt he hoped that this new compact with one enemy, the Turk, would
be just as useful for the time being in forestalling another, the Frank.
However, his plan of effecting the expulsion of the Franks from the whole
of the Péloponnèse with Turkish aid—as a preliminary to confronting the
Turks-completely misfired (1394). 4 And finally, when the armies of
Evrenos Bey began to ravage the Péloponnèse in 1400 and Theodore, in
despair, attempted to sell Mistra to the Knights of St. John, he was foiled
by his own people, who responded to the angry protests of their metro-
politan.5
After the conquest of Crete by Venice (at the end of 1210 or the begin-
ning of 1211), the Greek population there also remained unsubdued.
Arbitrary acts of government, the usurpation of nobles' land, the proscrip-
tion of the upper Orthodox clergy, and onerous taxation resulted, as we
have seen, in continuous turmoil and unyielding defiance.6 In the period
1364-1367, the rebellion of the Kallerges brothers in Crete and their
attempts to re-establish contact with Constantinople were but some of
the many instances of Greek tenacity. Even Venetian noblemen who had
previously played a leading part in the revolt which temporarily set up
the so-called Republic of St. Titus in Crete in August 1363 conspired
openly with the Kallerges. This was a phenomenon which we have at-
tempted to explain before in terms of the mutual understanding and grad-
ual identification of interests between the Greek population and Venetian
colonists in Crete. What it signified, of course, especially in the period
after the Council of Florence (1439), was an increasing confluence of the
two peoples and the eventual assimilation and hellenization of Venetian
settlers. Characteristically, the eldest of the Kallerges brothers, John, al-
ways acted in the name of the Byzantine Empire and announced that he
fought not only for the liberation of his island but for its union with the
Empire. 7 The ardor with which the peoples of Crete ( and indeed all the
island peoples of the Aegean) proclaimed their Greek connections has
been previously noted. 8 It was an attachment to an idea, both national
and religious, which the historian Ducas succinctly expressed when he
spoke of the Cretans as guardians of the Royal Gate (Basilike Pyle), later
known as the Golden Gate, at Constantinople and remarked: "These faith-
ful Cretans were always devoted to the saints and relics of the Church
THE CATALYST OF CONQUEST 107

and to the Empire of Constantinople." Ducas described the Cretans, furi-

ous because of the treachery of a citizen in Constantinople, as addressing
the Emperor thus: "O great Emperor, is it fair that we should place Con-
stantinople before our own land and that we should be eager to spill our
blood for the sake of the City when those who live in it and therefore
bask in an inherited glory are no more than traitors?" 9 The national
awareness of the Cretans was also reflected by the inscriptions in Ortho-
dox churches during the period of Venetian domination which referred
pointedly to the various reigning sovereigns. "It is obvious from these
inscriptions," wrote Constantine Kalokyres, "that the Cretans struggled
continuously against the Venetians throughout the fourteenth century and
into the fifteenth; the spirit of Greek nationalism was developed from
generation to generation to a point where the Cretans . . . even made
provocative references to the Byzantine Emperors, declaring openly not
merely that they acknowledged the Empire's supreme authority but that
everything they did was directed towards bringing them into conjunction
with it." 10 The Church in Crete and the lower clergy in particular were
the chief protagonists in this movement of national resistance. 11
The position of the Greeks in Messenia, Euboea, and Corfu was rather
more fortunate. Corfu was surrendered in 1386-1387, but only after the
islanders won Venetian acceptance of a number of demands aimed at
preserving the security and integrity of the Greek community. These con-
cessions in fact inaugurated a new form of limited political control for
places under Venetian rule, and the same kind of regime was subse-
quently set up with only minor variations in Nauplia (1389), Tenos, and
Mykonos (both in 1392). The same also occurred in Argos, which had
previously fallen within the jurisdiction of the feudal "Assises of Ro-
mania." 12
In Chios, which was occupied by Genoa for the second time between
1349 and 1566, there was a conspiracy, probably some time between 1380
and 1388, which had both national and religious undercurrents. Greeks
on the island rose up against their Genoese rulers and the Roman Catholic
clergy, but the uprising sputtered out because of the treachery of one of
the rebels. Ten of those involved were hanged, their properties confiscated,
and a portion of their lands given to the traitor as a reward. 13 If this event
did in fact take place between 1380 and 1388, it was at the time when
Manuel II was rallying the Greeks against the Turks in Thessalonica and
eastern Macedonia.
The conditions of life in mainland Greece, Frankish-controlled as far as
the Isthmus of Corinth, are almost completely unknown. The excellent
researches of Antonio Rubio y Lluch, mainly in the Catalan archives, on
Catalan rule (1311-1388), provide almost the only light on the subject.
108 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

In Frankish documents there is not a single mention of the Greeks of

Attica and Boeotia throughout the entire period of Frankish occupation
and only a very few during the Acciajuoli period ( 1388-1460 ). Rubio y
Lluch epitomizes the situation with the remark: "it would seem as if the
Greeks had been banished completely from the history of their own
country." 14 Fortunately, Catalan documentation is replete with informa-
tion on the Greeks and filled with allusions to their gradual increase in
influence at Athens and other cities of the duchies of Athens and Neo-
patras, at Thebes, Levadia, and so on.15 Yet the Catalans, like the Franks,
generally treated the Greeks as an inferior people and excluded them
from the jurisdiction of the civil law, which applied only to the con-
querors—the conquistadors as they called themselves.16
Majorca seems to have achieved an especial primacy in the Catalan
sphere. Its trade flourished, and Majorcans served in a number of high
offices in Thebes, where their services were much esteemed. Nevertheless,
Athens and Levadia figured more prominently as centers of Catalan set-
tlement and influence. As for the Greek urban dwellers—merchants, crafts-
men, amanuenses—none escaped the exactions of Catalan rule. But it was
undoubtedly the peasants who fared the worst. They were scarcely more
than chattel slaves.17 No one was permitted to engage in any legal trans-
action (the buying or selling of property, for example) unless certain
political rights had first been explicitly conferred.18
Rights of this kind, however, were not wholly withheld from the Greeks.
Those in Levadia were endowed with "all the rights and privileges of the
Franks," under the Great Seal of St. George,19 as a reward for opening
the gates of their city to the victors after the Catalans defeated the Franks
of the Duchy of Athens at Cephisus in 1311. Catalan magnanimity in this
case was not altogether disinterested: Levadia was the key to the entire
Catalan military position in Greece. Not only did it lie roughly at the
center of the Catalan possessions, but its mighty castle, one of the most
beautiful survivals from Frankish occupation, strategically dominated the
crossroads which in one direction led to the narrow passes of Parnassus
and in another to the ancient route between the duchies of Athens and
Neopatras. 20 Seventy years later, in 1381, Peter III of Aragon again re-
warded the inhabitants of the city, Greek and Catalan, who had success-
fully defended it against the Navarrese, by a bestowal of the unique right
to govern themselves according to Catalan laws and the "customs of
Barcelona." 21
Specially favored treatment was accorded the Levadian family of
Mavronicholas. Immediately after the capture of the city in 1311, a num-
ber of the Mavronicholas family was designated Notary and assumed all
the rights of Catalan citizenship. Later, in 1366, at the instigation of
T H E CATALYST OF CONQUEST 109

Roger de Lluria, fils, Frederick III of Sicily renewed these privileges for
the benefit of Mavronicholas' son, Nicholas.22 Nicholas' son, Constantine,
in turn succeeded his father as Notary at the time of Peter III, who con-
firmed the same citizenship rights, though now with the addition of per-
petual rights in chancery and the privilege of naming his successor.23
Peter III also stipulated that Constantinei children could marry Frankish
women, a right which had never previously been bestowed.
Similar substantial privileges were conferred on Nicholakes Maniakes,
who had helped to extend the authority of Roger de Lluria, fils, in Thebes;
and the Athenian, Demetrius Rentes, Notary and later Chancellor of
Athens, who, with a few other Greeks, had courageously defended Megara
against the Acciajuolis.24 Another Demetrius was designated Castellan of
Salona (now Amphissa). 25 Such Greeks invariably became the most influ-
ential among all leading noble families.
These illustrations of generosity towards Greeks and the fact that the
Catalans recruited Greeks for their subsequent military expeditions
against various enemies would seem to indicate that by the second gen-
eration the Catalans had lost their initial uncomprising bellicosity. But
there was still no doubt who the masters were, for these Greeks were
impressed into fighting whether they liked it or not. Of all the Greeks,
the Catalans preferred to have Peloponnesians in their ranks, especially
the cavalry of the Albanian settlers in the Péloponnèse, whom they re-
garded as the most experienced in war. The constant social intercourse
and the growth of mutual interests over the years brought about rela-
tively less stringent policies on the part of the conquerors. A number of
Catalans, for example, disregarding the Roman Catholic Church's specific
injunction to the contrary, married Greek women and even adopted the
Orthodox faith.26 Indeed, in 1365, during the patriarchate of Philotheos,
the first Orthodox Archbishop of Athens under Frankish domination was
consecrated. He was "the Most Honored" and "the Exarch of all Greece."
However, he died in Constantinople before assuming his charge. A pro-
visional replacement, the monk Neophytos, was sent to Athens in the
following year "pending the consecration of an Archbishop of Athens by
the grace of God." This particular metropolitan was given full ecclesiasti-
cal rights over the archdiocese of Thebes and Neopatras and the patri-
archal diocese of Aegina, though he never actually took up his intended
post because of certain political irregularities in the Duchy of Athens at
that time.27
The Greeks benefitted, too, from mutual antagonism between the Cata-
lans and Navarrese during the years 1375 to 1388. As we have seen,
Theodore I of the Morea and Manuel II of Thessalonica had previously
entered an alliance against Catalans and Turks with the Florentine ruler
110 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

of Corinth, Nerio Acciajuoli. Acciajuolťs constant preoccupation in this

alliance, his obsession even, was the displacement of Catalan authority.28
And in the general political confusion groups of brigands emerged from
their mountain fastnesses in the eastern highlands and preyed on anyone
they met. Once, near Bitrinitza ( now Tolophon ), the brigands Cuyrataci,
Androni, Gostila, Pacioti, and others relieved the Archbishop of Megara
of 160 ducats. "Their names," writes Rubio y Lluch, "are obviously Greek
and call to mind the mountain guerrillas (klephts), and armatoles, the
heroic fighters of the glorious war of independence." 29
At the same time the political position of the Greeks showed marked
improvement. Greeks are mentioned among the foreign members of the
Council (Conseil, Universitad) of Athens and Neopatras. 30 Very little is
known of the actual method of election of these members; only that
spokesmen (sindichs, procuradors) of the whole Council were chosen to
deal with the Duke. 31 One would like to imagine that there was in exist­
ence a separate Greek authority which handled all affairs affecting the
Greek community, but this hardly seems possible. Nevertheless, in its
ordinary reports furnished direct to the Duke (always written in simple
and artless style), the Council made many requests; they were rarely
ignored. Occasionally, the members even went so far as to demand the
recall of high Catalan officials when these had incurred popular dis­
pleasure. 32
King Peter III of Aragon, an admirer of antiquity and the Greeks,33
seemed to reflect this discernible improvement in Greco-Catalan relations
when, in a letter of 1381, he thanked the Count of Neopatras and all
Albanians who lived in Greece (Aliada) because as good and faithful
vassals they had defended Catalan lands against the Navarrese and other
enemies. Rubio y Lluch is assuredly correct when he assumes that by
Aliada Peter III meant Phthiotis and certain other districts in the Duchy
of Neopatras. In December of the following year, 1382, Peter III per­
mitted Greeks and Albanians to settle in Attica under the generous con­
dition of tax exemption for two years.34
Nerio Acciajuoli, who succeeded Peter III as ruler in Catalan Greece,
also saw that the situation required delicacy and forbearance in handling
the Greeks. He acknowledged the tenure and jurisdiction of the Orthodox
metropolitan, accepted the official status of the Greek language in his
duchy, and generally adopted a political stance calculated not to antag­
onize the Greeks. Like the Catalans before him, Acciajuoli acceded to
the appointment of Greek officials and notaries, allowed Greek aldermen
to participate in public affairs, and tolerated intermarriage between the
Catalans and the indigenous Greek inhabitants. 35 The assertion of Greek
influence in these diverse ways was symbolized in Athens by the restora-
T H E CATALYST O F CONQUEST 111

tion of old churches and the foundation of new ones.36 Similar conces-
sions, notably in the religious field, which were extended to Greeks in the
county of Salona 37 constituted demonstrable proof that the conquerors'
grip in Hellas was growing looser.
There was a certain amount of intellectual activity during the Catalan
period. Scholarly copyists were particularly prominent: Nicholas Chryso-
berges and his brother-in-law, George Protobelissenos; Demetrius Chlo-
mos, who in 1339 entrusted the monk Kosmas Kamelos with the task of
copying the medical works of Nicholas Myrepsos and Oreibasios (fourth
century); Demetrius Peroules, who was translating the works of Theo-
critus in the same year; one Alfonso, of Catalan descent, who, at the
beginning of the fourteenth century, was copying various works by Galen;
and Simon Atoumanos, Archbishop of Thebes, who published the New
Testament in Greek and Latin and translated Plutarch into Latin. 38

Hellenism in Epirus and Thessaly

At the turn of the fifteenth century, western Thessaly and southern
Epirus, which had always maintained a close cultural affinity, continued
to support the traditional values of Hellenic-Christian learning and civili-
zation. Certain places in particular were notable for their contributions
to the Greek heritage through the long night of foreign rule, whether
Albanian, Arvanito-Vlach, Serbian, Frankish, or Turkish. There was Trik-
kala, for instance, with its restored monastic community of Stagai (one
of a group of monasteries known as Meteora), whose five monks, Neilos,
Makarios, Athanasius, Gregorios Stylites, and Neophytos,39 almost con-
temporaries of one another in the fourteenth century, achieved lasting
renown. Athanasius, who had learned ancient Greek in the vigorous in-
tellectual atmosphere of Thessalonica,40 was certainly the most imposing
of the five. There was also Phanarion, near Karditsa, famed both for its
staunch nobility and its monastery of Levkousias. The monastery, which
fell within the jurisdiction of the patriarch, had as its abbot in 1383
Euthymios, who also was "superintendent of the neighboring monas-
teries in Vlachia [Thessaly]." 41 There were also the cities of Epirus, par-
ticularly Ioannina and Arta,42 which clung to the strong Greek traditions
of the Despotate of Epirus and still kept "the Greek nation pure." And
everywhere there were old noble families, schools, and monasteries, both
near the cities themselves and in remote parts of the Pindus Mountains
and its spurs, which remained constant in their guardianship of the
national heritage. 43
Places like these must surely have retained a large part of the treasure
of manuscripts that Nicephorus Blemmydes had studied some one hun-
dred years before. At the time, he had wondered that there were so
112 ORIGINS OF ТВОЕ GREEK NATION

many "books": they were "difficult to count" and "hard to get at." Some
were unknown, even to people who had spent their whole lives studying
manuscripts. 44 Indeed, it was these remote monasteries that continually
supported Christianity and Greek learning, thus maintaining a constant
source of national unity. Some of the educated and determined abbots
in these monasteries greatly influenced the course of intellectual and
political change in this troubled period.
There had always been a strong Hellenic tradition in the Despotate
of Epirus, which had never been expunged by Serbian, Albanian, or
Arvanito-Vlach rule. It should not be forgotten that in Thessaly, through­
out the Frankish occupation and even after the conquest of Stephen
Dušan in 1348, a sizable class of Greek nobles had not only managed
to survive but had stubbornly clung to certain liberties and privileges.
That Dušan should have renewed these privileges was clear evidence of
the extent to which Greek influence was entrenched in Thessaly at the
time. These noble families (among the most prominent and best-known
of whom were the Melissenoi, Strategopouloi, and Gabrielopouloi ) were
instrumental in introducing traditional Byzantine law and feudal customs
into the Serbian social organization.45 Besides the more prominent fam-
ilies, there were many other nobles who played a similar role in places
like Phanarion (as was mentioned as early as 1295), Larissa, Trikkala,
Pharsala, Domokos, Demetrias (Volos), and the two Almyroses. In the
manner of their compeers elsewhere, they were still able through their
wealth and power to wield considerable influence in the local gov-
ernment of their districts, and their authority in most areas of public
activity was undeniable. According to unwritten law, the law of custom,
Notables also exercised substantial judicial powers in their communities.46
The prominent families of Epirus and Thessaly and the Greek popula-
tion in general always tried to reassert their former predominance. Un-
fortunately, there is no conclusive evidence to this effect, but it can be
illustrated, for example, by the transitory triumph of Nicephorus II of
Epirus in Thessaly after the death of Stephen Dušan (1355) and his at-
tempts to rehabilitate the scattered Greek inhabitants in their former
lands. These plans were of course thwarted by Nicephorus' death at the
hands of the Albanians in the battle of Achelous in 1359.47 Then, during
the period from 1367 to 1383 the Serbian Despot of Epirus, Thomas
Preliumbovic, sought to crush his Greek subjects forever. To this end, he
tried to extirpate the authority of the Church in Epirus by banishing
Sebastianos, the Metropolitan of loannina, distributing the "villages and
estates" of the Church among the Serbs, marrying Greek widows to Serbs
while providing them with dowries from the confiscated property of the
THE CATALYST OF CONQUEST 113
local inhabitants, and generally entering upon a campaign of outright
persecution of the clergy and Notables of Ioannina.48
However, it was the rampaging Albanians, with their uncontrollable
eagerness for pillage, who constituted the greatest danger to the regime
of Preliumbovic. Even those who had settled down in Ioannina he sub-
jected to the most repressive of measures. Since he desired to be known
by the soubriquet, "Slayer of the Albanians," his policies redounded in-
directly to the benefit of the Greek community.49 By the end of his reign,
his obsessive hatred of the Albanians and perhaps the fact that the Turk-
ish danger was beginning to loom ominously on the horizon led him to
make overtures to Manuel Palaeologus, the ruler of Thessalonica, who had
already achieved fame for his resistance against the Turks. Or perhaps
Manuel initiated the rapprochement by sending out feelers to Prelium-
bovic. Whatever the case, in 1383, in September of which year the Metro-
politan Matthew arrived to take up his seat in Ioannina, Gabriel, the
Abbot of the monastery of Archimandreion, was dispatched to Manuel in
Thessalonica, whence he returned with a nobleman named Mangaphas.
Both envoys were subsequently present at an imposing religious cere-
mony in which, with the blessings of the metropolitan, "the Despotate
was vested in Thomas Preliumbovic." r,° Their mutual concessions and
courtesies doubtless signified close collaboration between the two. As
Loenertz observes, Thomas Preliumbovic acknowledged Manuel as sov-
ereign, by whom he was in turn acknowledged despot.51 Later, Prelium-
bovic again expelled his metropolitan, who, like Sebastianos, retired to
Arta, but left the Church's tenant-farmers undisturbed 52—an action which
was of course attributable to Manuel's diminishing usefulness after the
investment of Thessalonica by the Turks (1383-1387).
The Serbian hold on Epirus ( 1346-1385 ) was irretrievably broken after
Preliumbovic's assassination by his personal guard in December 1384.
All authority there was then assumed by the Florentine patrician, Esau
de Buondelmonti, brother of the Duchess of Cephalonia and Leukas, at
the invitation of both Greek and Serbian noblemen in Ioannina and
Ioasaph, Abbot of Meteora, former king of Thessaly, and brother of Pre-
liumbovic's widow, Maria Angelina Ducaina Palaeologina. "Then," ac-
cording to the Chronicle, "Esau the Despot, being well-disposed towards
Christianity, ignored the demands of the Serbs that they continue to
remain in possession of the Church's lands and fortune formerly be-
queathed to them." 53 The Metropolitan Matthew was recalled, the prop-
erties and tenants of the Church reinstated, and the integrity of the realm
secured. Palaeologus Vryones bore the insignia of the Despotate there
from Constantinople, and Esau was duly invested with it in the presence
114 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

of Matthew by the bishops of Velia and Dryinoupolis. In 1387, when

Thessalonica became tributary to Murad I, Esau was forced to appear
before the Sultan and acknowledge Turkish suzerainty over the Des-
potate.64
In Thessaly, foreign rule still had indigenous support.55 The successors
of Stephen Dušan (1331-1355), his stepbrother Symeon Uroš (1355-
1371?), and the latter's hellenized son, John, could not but acknowledge
a situation in which Slav settlers were being progressively assimilated by
the Greek inhabitants and the great Greek families still exercised pre-
ponderant control. Indeed, the fact that the Greco-Serb John Ouroš
Palaeologus, the ruler of Thessaly (1371P-1381?),56 was succeeded by
"powerful" Greeks, who were probably his relatives 57—Alexius Angelos
Philanthropenos (1381P-1388?), afterwards famed as Caesar of Greater
Walachia, and later Alexius' brother, Manuel Angelos Philanthropenos
(1388P-1393)—can only be interpreted as further evidence of the domi-
nance of these Greek families. These brothers were descendants of the
Epirotic-Thessalian branch of the great Byzantine family of Philanthro-
penos.58 To another relative, Stephen Ducas, son of Radoslav Chlapen,59
Ouroš was in a position to grant only the districts of Domokos and
Pharsala. Yet precisely how the Philanthropenoi were able to succeed
Ouroš remains an obscure problem; 60 as obscure as it is clear, on the
other hand, that Serbian rule in Thessaly came to an end not with the
Turkish invasion in 1393, as hitherto thought, 61 but with the abdication
of John Ouroš Palaeologus in 1381 (?)—the same hellenized Serbian ruler,
in fact, who finally became Abbot of Meteora with the name of Ioasaph.
Alexius Angelos Philanthropenos came into contact with Makarios
Choumnos and, later, Gabriel, abbots of the Nea Mone of Thessalonica,
to which Alexius bequeathed, in January 1384, the village of Kolindros
in Macedonia, for possession after his death. He also entered into rela-
tions with the brothers Theodore and Manuel Palaeologus of Thessa-
lonica 62—partly no doubt out of consideration of the familial ties which
joined the houses of Palaeologus and Philanthropenos, 63 but partly too
in order to help set up a common front against the new political forces
throughout Hellas. It seems unlikely that there could have been any other
purpose behind Alexius' presence in Thessalonica in January 1384, a few
months after the commencement of the Turkish siege, for Alexius, the
ruler of Thessaly, and Thomas Preliumbovic of Epirus had acknowledged
Manuel as suzerain in 1382 and 1383, and negotiations were in progress
between Greek and foreign rulers for concerted opposition to the Turk.64
At the beginning of the fifteenth century, the Count of Cephalonia
and Zacynthus (Zante), Carlo I Tocco, laid claim to the inheritance of
his uncle, Esau de Buondelmonti. With the backing of the people of
Figure 9. John Ouroš Palaeologus as the Monk loasaph.
116 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Epirus, he began a series of campaigns against Albanians and Arvanito-

Vlachs in Aetolia, Acarnania, and Epirus for the re-establishment of the
Despotate of Epirus. Carlo's struggles against the Albanians immediately
attracted the attention of Manuel II, who, it seems, never gave up his
plans for effecting an alliance between all ( or at least the most powerful )
Christian rulers in Hellas in order to resist the Turk.65 The Greek nobility
of Ioannina were no less diligent in prevailing upon their ruler, the Duke
of Cephalonia, to effect just such an alliance and to assume the title of
Despot with which his predecessors, Thomas Preliumbovic and Esau de
Buondelmonti, had been honored. Thus, when Manuel II went to the
Péloponnèse on 29 or 30 March 1415,66 Carlo I with alacrity sent his
brother, Count Leonardo, there to assist the Byzantine ruler in subduing
certain refractory noblemen. Leonardo blockaded the castles of Elea-
voulcos, who was among the most unruly of the nobles, forced him into
submission, and was promptly honored by a grateful Manuel with the
title, "Great Constable/' Carlo I for his part was dignified with the
accolade of "Despot of the Romans." The event was celebrated in Ioan-
nina with lyrical enthusiasm:
There was great joy in Ioannina as rich and poor sang out the honor of their
lord; afterwards, Carlo as Despot immediately turned his sword against Arta
so as to assert his authority throughout the Despotate.67
With the Greek population steadfastly behind him, Carlo marched
against Arta and was successful in ridding southern Epirus of the Al-
banian yoke. Carlo's wife, Francesca, beloved daughter of Nerio Accia-
juoli, who was well known for his philhellenic proclivities, appears to
have learned well from her father. Since she was by all accounts capable
and ambitious ("she dominated her husband"), it was probably due to
her influence on him that the Greek archbishopric of Leukas was re-
stored. Her paternal inheritance made her "sufficiently Greek and suffi-
ciently proud" to subscribe her letters as "Empress of the Romans" and
to affix to them a vermilion wax seal in the manner of the Byzantine
Emperors. 68 Thus the court of Tocco, like others in Hellas, could be con-
sidered thoroughly hellenized.69 It had become so through the persua-
sion and support of the Greek community on which it was superimposed
and which thus constituted fertile ground for the growth of Greek
nationalism.

Hellenism in Macedonia
Serrai and Thessalonica were the twin bases of Hellenism in Macedonia.
Greeks there had held important positions in the state of Stephen Dušan;
indeed, the Notables of Serrai, Prosakon, Zichna, and Hierissos were all
T H E CATALYST O F CONQUEST 117

Figure 10. Manuel II Palaeologus, between His Father and Eldest Son.

Greeks. A supreme court, whose members were dignified with the title
of superior judge, 70 was constituted from the body of Greek Notables and
other nobles. Municipal councils, which also served as lower courts, were
composed of aldermen and nobles, also Greek. Of course the importance
of such findings is that they help us to determine the nationality of local
populations.
Manuel undoubtedly had come into contact with such Notables when
he entered Serrai in November 1371 ( see page 77 above ), though, as we
have seen, his dominion there was brought to an abrupt end by the
Turkish invasion in 1383.71 After that date, Thessalonica remained the
only bastion of Hellenism in Macedonia, and the future could not have
looked more dismal. The enemv ravaged the countryside without let or
hindrance, while in the city the disagreeable effects of Zealot rule lin-
gered on.72
In defying the Turk, Manuel chose to act completely independently of
the Byzantine court. For four whole years (1383-1387), while his father,
John V, had opted for vassalage as the price of friendly relations with the
Sultan, Manuel staunchly resisted its demands before the very walls of
Thessalonica. His courageous stand had the effect of provoking enthusi-
astic comment from the citizenry of Constantinople and even calling forth
118 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

a stream of volunteers for the defense of Thessalonica. "Freedom is a

great thing," wrote Manuel's teacher, Kydones, from Constantinople, "and
it is equally great to show that one does not cringe before one's inferiors.
People who do not have freedom ought to direct all their energies towards
getting it, and those who already have it towards keeping it." Kydones'
letters to Manuel were filled with lofty sentiments about freedom and the
duty of hurling defiance at one's enemies.73
Manuel's struggle was an unequal one, though he made every endeavor
to seek allies and reinforcements. An approach to the Venetians brought
the response, in April 1385, of a quantity of arms, two officers, and a
regiment of excuses. Another approach to Pope Urban VI led to the dis-
patch in 1386 of a papal emissary to Thessalonica, who offered Church
reunion as the price of assistance from the West. Manuel indicated his
preparedness to pay, but the Hesychasts thought the price too high and
turned against him, so the projected union never in fact occurred.74
The ruler of Thessalonica surrounded himself with a group of young
and educated advisers who were fired by the same ideals. One of these,
in continual touch with Manuel's teacher, Kydones, endlessly castigated
his apathetic compatriots in his search for some means of easing Thessa-
lonica's plight. Some of these youthful followers were considered too
implacable in their patriotism and too remorseless in their antagonism
towards the Turk, but with all their influence on "Manuel and the goings-
on in the city," they were unable to prevent the city's eventual submission
to the Turk.75
Thessalonica nevertheless became the core of national resistance and
the pivot of various coalitions against the Turk. Manuel's contacts with
other dignitaries (his brother Theodore, who ruled in the Péloponnèse;
the ruler of Corinth, Nerio Acciajuoli; the Greco-Serbian Despot of
Epirus, Thomas Preliumbovic, and his successor, Esau de Buondelmonti;
the Caesar of Thessaly, Alexius Angelos Philanthropenos ), all comprised,
as Loenertz observes, "the warp and woof of a fabric from which a pat-
tern slowly emerged." 7G There are still many gaps in the story, though
the researches of G. T. Dennis have gone a long way towards filling them
in. But it is curious that Dennis does not interpret the pattern and Man-
uel's part in its fabrication as a stage in the awakening of Greek nation-
alism.77
Thessalonica's leadership in continental Greece before its surrender to
the Turks is incontrovertible. The city was not only a symbol of freedom
for all Greeks but a center of diplomatic activity and a home of signifi-
cant learning based on classical education. Examples of past courage
which shone through the classical heritage were readily summoned to
mind by savants and higher clergy, and were at least recollected as
Figure 11. The Walls of the Citadel of Thessalonica.
120 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

legend by most inhabitants. Indeed, the ancient Greeks were thought to

be so admirable that the Metropolitan, Isidore Glabas (1380-1384), could
unblushingly represent them to his Christian compatriots as "paragons
of brotherly love." 78
The adulation of antiquity was therefore universal and unreserved.
Many of the writings of politicians, savants, and even clergy were filled
with remembrances of the ancient Greek world: Gods, demi-gods, heroes,
generals, poets, philosophers, orators, historians, all found reverent and
affectionate mention.79 To these, all contemporary officials, however lowly
or distinguished, were compared with a view to offering solace or praise 80
—or to shaming them into defiance of the enemy.81 Thus, in the middle
of the fourteenth century, Demetrius Kydones compared Manuel Canta-
cuzenus, the Despot of the Morea, with the Athenian general, Iphicrates, 82
and later, in 1383, congratulated Manuel for his ability to metamorphose
the people of Thessalonica into "heroes of Marathon." In order to combat
despair and defeatism, he advised: "let us face the enemy and stand firm
before the tide; let us resist the spirit of defeat and endure everything
that we must. Let us do all this in full knowledge that a sense of despera-
tion cannot possibly be of any assistance; on the contrary, it can only
prevent us from utilizing one of our good characteristics—if indeed we
have any left." 88
Manuel II was equally eloquent in exhorting his people to resist the
Turk: "I must remind you that we are Romans, that ours is the land of
Philip and Alexander and that it has always been the destiny of their
successors to triumph against any foe. No enemy has ever prevailed
against them: no more than the dust against the wind or the candle
against the flame." And he continued with words that were just as much
a hymn to freedom as they were characteristic of the young prince's
constant exhortations to his people:

With God's help, the enemy will not now, nay never, conquer us while we are
capable of bearing arms and fighting for the honor with which we prefer to
die . . . I know that all of us believe it better to fulfill our destiny, that is to
die, than voluntarily to submit to this most profane of barbarians.
Death under such circumstances, far from being horrible, was a true
release,

for it saves us from many more and much greater evils. Death is only the final
evil which . . . brings a swift end to all troubles. Death is not the worst evil,
as many have said before and as I believe many will say again. This is assuredly
proved by the fact that all those cities which have fallen to the barbarian have,
without exception, come to prefer death to slavery. Let us therefore do our
THE CATALYST OF CONQUEST 121
utmost, let us suffer eveiy thing for freedom, for if there is nothing more vile
than slavery, there can be nothing better than freedom.84
This period of trial for the people of Thessalonica ( 1383-1387), though
it ended finally in submission, was, in the judgment of at least one un­
known writer at the beginning of the fifteenth century, a glorious moment
in their history.85
МапиеГѕ historical allusions were not lost on his people. There was the
cenotaph of G. Vibius Quartus, for example, a square Roman column
outside Philippi which gave rise to many traditions. The column, "the
rack of Alexander's mare," as the local people called it, was seen by
Giovanni Maria degli Angiolello in 1470 and by the traveller, Pierre Belon,
about 1550, during the darkest years of Turkish rule.86
This monument, a huge square monolith in the shape of an altar, four meters
high, which had been erected in honor of the Roman centurion, G. Vibius
Quartus, still exists today. However, the square shape at its base has become
almost round because of continual scrapings over the centuries by peasants.
They collect the dust of the marble and give it dissolved in water to mothers,
so that their milk will produce children with the courage of Alexander.87
Alexander the Great had become so much a part of the popular mythol­
ogy of this period that, in a fourteenth-century manuscript of the Alex­
ander Romance which is preserved in the archives of the Greek com­
munity in Venice, he is depicted standing with the crown and garb of a
Byzantine Emperor and holding an orb in his left hand. The barely
legible inscription underneath reads: "In the name of Christ faithful
King and Emperor of all the East and the whole . . ." 88
Manuel recognized that the people of Thessalonica were descended
from two nations, the Roman and the Greek. That is, like his predecessors
the emperors of Nicaea, he knew that the Byzantines were Greeks who
had chosen on grounds of imperial prestige and political utility not to
reject their Roman traditions. Typically, in a palace speech to officials
and others around 1415, Joseph Bryennios spoke of an unbroken history
from Lycurgus and Themistocles through the Romans to their Byzantine
successors.89 Again, the unknown author of the Panegyric to Manuel and
John VIII Palaeologus spoke of the commingling of the two "official
nations," Greek and Roman, from which emerged "one nation, the best
and most distinguished, and of whom if it be said 'Romano-Greek' [Romel-
lenes] it were well said." 90 The Roman tradition, as we have previously
noticed, existed chiefly in Constantinople, 91 where it derived its strength
from official, imperial, and ecclesiastical sanction. Although the tradition
still persisted, increasing stresses had progressively weakened it; and out
Figure 12. Cenotaph of G. Vibius Quartus.
T H E CATALYST OF CONQUEST 123

of the weakening eventually came a formulation of the national problem,

first by the Neo-Platonist philosopher, George Gemistos, and then by the
historian, Laonicos Chalcocondyles, a half century later. The earlier com­
mentaries are nonetheless important as starting points for a direct
approach to the ferment of ideas that ultimately resulted in the definition
of Greek nationalism.
None of the Palaeologi had been as assiduous as Manuel in dissemi­
nating the Hellenic spirit and arousing the Hellenes. His love of Hellen­
ism was such that it expressed itself not only in unflagging opposition to
the Turks but in a desire for fundamental social reform. After 1371, with
the aim of bolstering the defenses of his realm, Manuel, impervious to the
protests and complaints of Isidore, Archbishop of Thessalonica,92 expro­
priated half the monastic properties of Mt. Athos and the district of
Thessalonica and distributed them in pronoia to the military.93 Manuel's
social ideas and projections would make an interesting subject for more
detailed study.
Curiously enough, Bayezid I and later Mohammed II embarked on
similar programs of property redistribution at the expense of the class
of ulema, or learned men. Bayezid pre-empted certain religious property
endowments (ivakf) on behalf of the state and reassigned them to the
military class as a means of strengthening it.94 It would be gratuitous to
suppose that the actions of Manuel and Bayezid were unrelated to each
other, though it is a matter for some conjecture as to who imitated whom.
In all probability, however, the program originated with Manuel. All the
lands which were found subsequently to have been distributed in pronoia
fell within the district in which Manuel exercised effective jurisdictional
control while ruler of Thessalonica. In general he never hesitated to con­
fiscate ecclesiastical property or to arrive at a variety of other radical
solutions to serve the emergency needs of his country's defense 95—as can
be concluded from a memorandum to him from Gemistos which we shall
shortly discuss.
Without question, МапиеГѕ measures strengthened the military oli­
garchy at the expense of the monasteries, and to this extent the system of
pronoia benefitted the state, but it did not produce the same salutary
results that the former system of small military holdings had done.96
So Bayezid seems to have been provided with a model for ready action
when the institution of wakf began to fall apart. In an attempt to circum­
vent the law and evade taxes, certain prominent fief-holders had con­
verted portions of their estates into wakf, ostensibly for philanthropic
reasons. In reality, however, the big landed families continued to derive
sole benefit from the lands which they had pretended to give up; thus,
while the number of wakf increased, the fief-holdings, on which the
124 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Ottoman military and social organization was primarily based, corre-

spondingly decreased.97
Manuel II, who succeeded his father John V, reigned over the Byzan-
tine Empire from 1391 to 1425, a most critical time. His contemporary,
Manuel Calecas, postulated, "had Themistocles been alive, the chaos
would make his senses reel." 98 In 1391, at the beginning of Manuel's
reign, Thessalonica was taken by Bayezid I. For this most formative tran-
sitional stage in the development of Greek nationalism, Isidore, the arch-
bishop of the city, is the most illuminating source of information on
Thessalonica's internal affairs, civic organization, and social structure.99
Who then were the civic leaders, the "intendants" (hoi ton koinon
phrontistai) of this city at the end of the fourteenth century? There were
first of all those who had traditionally held power in the city (hoi
dynatoi), then the middle class and clergy (hypourgoi tou theou).100
Thus the authority of the lords temporal (politeuomenoi archontes) had
not disappeared, 101 though it was now certainly diminished by the
Turkish conquerors. In particular, Turkish encroachments so circum-
scribed the traditional authority of the "intendants" (proïstamenoi ton
koinon) that they were no longer able, whatever their wishes may have
been, to guarantee the integrity of property or the security of life and
limb.102 The people of Thessalonica, whose memory of the Zealots 103 was
still vivid, tended to cast the entire blame for these conditions on their
leaders, whom they accused of avarice and wanton sacrifice of the inter-
ests of the community. It was therefore hardly surprising when the city's
leaders, faced with such a precipitate and bitter reaction, chose to adopt
the line of least resistance by resigning their positions and dropping all
interest in civic affairs. Recognizing in this abdication of responsibility
an immediate danger to the city, Archbishop Isidore attempted to change
their minds by emphasizing the need for responsible leadership. Only
such men as they, he urged, men who possessed mental and administra-
tive talents, could be expected to handle public affairs, while the peasants,
the artisans, the tent-makers, and the shoemakers, the lower class (hoi
chydaioi ) in effect, had no hope of being able to cope with the needs of
the city in such critical times. Those who formed the upper class, both
by right of "reason and intellect," were not only the few but the best.104
Thus in an hour of crisis, the leaders of Thessalonica were brought to
a recognition of their responsibilities and, with it, an understanding of
the necessity to persevere against the Turk in order to preserve whatever
authority they could. The institutions of the city were gradually adapted
to meet both the requirements of Turkish hegemony and the exigencies
of effective government. As a direct result of the personal representations
of Isidore at the court of the Sultan, certain substantial privileges
(charités) 105 were accorded the city. Although not actually enumerated,
THE CATALYST OF CONQUEST 125

they nevertheless helped to maintain the social and religious freedom of

the inhabitants, without, however, allaying the people's suspicion of their
own leaders. To protect the city's institutions its leaders had to attempt
to mollify the Turkish authorities by working with them.106 Moreover, it
was easy for those who were weak, ambitious, or self-interested to assume
a servile role or to encourage Turkish interference in civic affairs on their
own behalf. For these and other reasons many, indeed most, of the leaders
were branded by the people as collaborators of the conqueror.
It is in Thessalonica in 1395 that we encounter first mention of the
enforced recruitment of Christian youths who were subjects of the
Ottoman Empire for service in the corps of janissaries. From the text of
Isidore, who commiserated with the unfortunate parents of the boys,
we learn that the fledgling janissaries were trained in the use of dogs
and falcons, that they were in training through summer and winter, and
that they were subjected to endless marches across mountain, river, and
plain.107 However, the actual year in which the impressment of Christian
boys began is still not known.108
After the death of Isidore in 1396, his successor, Archbishop Gabriel,
appears to have won the esteem and respect of the Turks by dint of his
personable qualities, his virtue, and his high morality. At any rate, the
Turks acceded to many of his washes and thereafter behaved with un­
accustomed mildness, even generosity, towards the inhabitants of Thessa­
lonica. On two different occasions he represented his people at the court
of Bayezid I and was successful in obtaining further privileges for the
city, or, at least, according to his anonymous eulogizer, he was the
principal cause of a "more tolerable slavery." 109
After the surrender of Thessalonica in 1387 and its later occupation in
1391 the future seemed gloomy indeed. But Bayeziďs defeat at Ankara
in 1402 and the attendant convulsions over the Ottoman succession pro­
vided some ray of hope for the Greeks, however evanescent. Manuel's
plans 110 to obtain support in the West were dashed by the rivalries and
animosities of the Christian powers. Who will save the state and its
people? was the cry of despair echoed by everyone. "Piety has vanished
from the earth," wailed Joseph Bryennios, "learning has departed, wis­
dom has faded away. Were only the philosophers of ancient times capable
of understanding? Is there no one today who can provide the answers
to our problems?" Bryennios and many other clergy tried, but their an­
swers, to say the least, tended to be discrete. It was difficult to see how
the moral regeneration of the Orthodox was going to effect the kind of
change which society, if it were to survive, so patently and urgently
needed. Bryennios' waspish suggestion after 1415 that the wealthy in
Constantinople ought to see to the repair of the city's walls certainly
seemed, in the circumstances, rather more practical. 111
^ЈМММ1МЈММ1Ш1ШЈМ1МЈМ1М1ШМШМШММЈМ1М1ШМ1ШМЈ^Ј

GEORGE GEMISTOS

Prospectus for Reform

In the Péloponnèse, remote from the influences of the capital, certain
features of Greek nationalism—military, political, social—tended, because
of this remoteness, to appear in clear focus. Here, in the person of George
Gemistos, by all odds the most ardent devotee of Hellenic civilization in
the period under consideration, Neo-Hellenism found its first true spokes-
man.
After a rich and variegated experience in the brisk political and re-
ligious atmosphere of Constantinople, Gemistos settled in Mistra some
time before 1414. Almost in the shadow of the Taygetus Mountains, it
was indeed an environment of repose and calm which contrasted strongly
with that of the capital. 1 He was appointed to a superior judgeship, which
we may deduce from a contemporary reference to him as prostates tou
ton Hellenon megistou dikasteriou ( president of the greatest tribunal of
the Hellenes), 2 and from a play of words (mochthon mestos—full of
pains ) in the literary work Epidemia tou Mazarí en Hadou ( The Sojourn
of Mazańs in Hades) hinting at his name, Gemistos (Full). 3 No doubt
his talents had brought him to the notice of the Emperor Manuel II
which thus led to his appointment as a trusted adviser to Manuel's
son, Theodore II, Despot of Morea. From this influential position in
Theodore's court, Gemistos must soon have become intimately acquainted
with the problems of the city. Even without this opportunity, how-
ever, his judicial office provided an unparalleled vantage point from
which to view the manifold social miseries of the Despotate and, in par-
ticular, the arbitrary actions of the nobility. Whatever the case, he was
in a position both to study individual injustices and to observe the situa-
tion throughout the state before expounding his ideas. It is probably in
GEORGE GEMISTOS 127

terms of this comprehensiveness of outlook that the words of his pane-

gyrist, the monk Gregory, in the funeral peroration, take on their full
meaning: "with love of mankind his driving motivation, he appeared not
so much the judge . . . as the protector and guardian, the helper, the
father, the man who always held out his hand to the downtrodden, who
so many times came to the aid of widows, who comforted the poor and
defended everyone in need with every means at his disposal . . ." 4
Gemistos' stay in Mistra up to the time when he submitted his first memo-
randum to the young Theodore II seems to have had a crucial influence
on the formation of his ideas.
His philosophy was Platonist in inspiration and was therefore funda-
mentally concerned with the reform of government and society. The re-
organization of the state was the sine qua non of any effective solution
of its economic, social, and political problems. Gemistos thus leaned
heavily on the traditions of ancient Greece, and he also encountered some
of the quandaries and anxieties inherent in this reliance. The past may
have been sacrosanct, but it was not enough. Still, in a manner which
was characteristic of so many of the scholarly votaries of Greek civiliza-
tion, Gemistos 5 saw the Turks, for example, as reincarnated Persians and
the struggles against them as a revival of the Persian wars. It was a notion
which, interestingly enough, recurred on the eve of the great nationalist
resurgence of 1821, when it actually precipitated the final achievement of
nationhood.
The times seemed favorable for an attempt at reorganization. Manuel
was preoccupied with his many projects to this end. As we have seen,
he even expropriated ecclesiastical property in order to gain such
strength as was necessary to throw back the enemy. In the middle of
1415, he was successful in apprehending and removing to Constantinople
many of the Peloponnesian nobles who arrogantly pursued their own
feudal interests 6 to the detriment of others and persistently defied the
"Greek higher authority." It is against the backdrop of such events that
Gemistos' manifestoes must be seen: first, in the wake of Manuel's moves,
a letter to Manuel (before 1415) and a memorandum to Theodore (per-
haps in 1415); then, later, in 1418, a second memorandum to Manuel,7
in which he developed his ideas about the individuality of the Greek
nation and the rise of Greek nationalism. Above all, improvement of the
political, social, and economic situation in the Péloponnèse was seen as
a necessary prelude to successful confrontation with the Turk. Gemistos
revealed himself not only as a theorist of Neo-Hellenism but as one who
could offer concrete proposals to translate his theory into the reality of
a viable nation state.
For many years, he says, he studied various means of saving the state.
128 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

He now ventures to suggest that the situation would benefit from the
application of his ideas.8 Hellenism, social justice, and determined oppo-
sition to the enemy are the three fundamentals of his thought. The state
can be saved from the tyranny of the nobility and from the depredations
of its enemies if the spirit of Hellenism among his compatriots is revived
and strengthened and if a series of reform measures is adopted.
Gemistos was well versed in Greek history and sensible of the lessons
of his nation's past.9 The nature of his national and historical awareness
was, in essence, what he tried to impart, beginning with the memorandum
to Manuel. To Gemistos, the two facts which proved the Hellenic roots
of the inhabitants of the Greek lands were a common culture and lan-
guage.
The cradle and natural abode of the Greek nation was the Péloponnèse
itself, the Greek peninsula, and the surrounding islands. But the Pélopon-
nèse possessed special historical and geographical advantages which en-
hanced its importance to Hellenism: the fact that, as he believed, "from
there, the greatest and most glorious works of the Greeks have sprung"
and that its mountainous configuration, its fortresses, to say nothing of
the valor of its people, all provided a singularly effective defense against
its enemies. Its security should be further strengthened by building walls
across the Isthmus of Corinth.
However, "bad government" had negated the natural defensive ad-
vantages of the country. Since the nobles had abdicated the responsibili-
ties of leadership because of the degrading activities in which they en-
gaged and because of their ruthless exploitation of the peasantry, their
spheres of action ought to be severely circumscribed. Moreover, if there
were merchants who had been elevated to positions of public responsi-
bility, they ought either to cease commercial trafficking or resign from
office.10 Thus, although it was the conflict between public and private
interests which Gemistos was most concerned with denouncing, his refer-
ence to merchants disclosed the fact that the middle class was already
taking an active part in politics. If his proposals be read as a whole, it is
clear that Gemistos' primary concern was to reinforce the position of the
middle class, of which he was a member, vis-à-vis the great noble families
of the Péloponnèse. These latter, by opposing the concentration of power
in the hands of the Despots, had prevented the necessary creation of a
unified state. And the ideal state, according to Gemistos, could only be
a monarchy "advised by those who were truly worthy, and with excellent
and valid laws." Besides the Platonist strain, which of course is evident
here, Gemistos may have been influenced by the prevailing political
climate in Italy: he is known to have been interested in the forms and
functions of government as seen by various rulers in that country. 11 As
GEORGE GEMISTOS 129

for the "truly worthy," where else could they be found if not among the
middle class? ". . . The best advisers are the educated men of the
middle class . . . those who are neither very rich nor very poor. The
rich, from sheer habit of wealth and love of it, think only how to turn
a profit and want nothing else; the poor, from sheer poverty, are unable
to think of anything save escape from want. It is those in between who
can be expected to look to the common interest." To have dared to ex-
press opinions of this kind suggests that the nobility had already suffered
serious, if only temporary, reverses in the state.
Laws, he went on, had to be brought into harmony with the contem-
porary needs of the state and society. Above all, the laws must aspire
towards political, social, and economic reform of a kind, radical if need
be, that would free the people from onerous taxation, from forced labor
(which was "akin to slavery"), and the other exactions of the nobility.
The nobility, and the Despot in particular, ought to eschew the life of
luxury and direct all their attentions and energies to military prepara-
tions for the defense of the state.12
The military problem was the most formidable one facing the state.
There was an urgent need to organize a national army—an army composed
only of citizens of the state—which would always be in top fighting trim.
To accomplish this, it was essential for the military class to devote itself
exclusively to military matters and to be exempt from all taxation.13
Gemistos here offered a solution to the problem with which Theodore
Kolokotrones came to grips some four hundred years later: how to figure
out the number of soldiers there would be in camp next day. What
chiefly caused the uncertainty, of course, was the soldiers' ever present
necessity to return to their villages and farms to stave off their families*
destitution. Gemistos, adapting an idea from Plato's Republic, suggested
that the people of the Péloponnèse be divided into two categories: those
who were liable to military service and those who paid taxes. Those in
the former group, by their exemption from taxation, could be expected
to develop strong convictions of loyalty and a sense of devotion to duty.14
Kolokotrones also thought to divide citizens into two similar classes,
though with the difference that each class would alternate between stints
of military sendee and farming every six months.15
Gemistos' ideas on monastic life and property, as he expounded them
to Manuel II, were no less daring for his time. It is not proper, he said,
for monks to lay claim to a share of the "public wealth" on the grounds
that the monastic life was taken up with "meditation." 16 Nothing within
the "public domain," whether property or serfs, was theirs by right. On
the contrary, they ought to be content with the returns from their own
properties, which were in any case already exempt from taxation. He
130 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

later went on to say that the religious had deviated from the true spirit
of the monastic life, which prescribed only such work as was necessary
to live plainly in accordance with normal monastic resources. There was
too much profit from "that which was improper" to the monastic life, in
particular the work of serfs, the toil of others.17
Next, Gemistos launched into a criticism of officialdom. The state's situ-
ation was deplorable because of public expenditure on projects "which
could not be justified" and because of the preposterous claims of a class
of officials who always seemed to be after privileges, exemptions, and
grants. Shamelessly indifferent to the common weal, this class was inter-
ested only in preparing itself for a life of idleness. By squandering the
wealth of the state, which was indispensable to its security, they would
deliver it into the hands of its enemies and so would be guilty of a heinous
crime. Yet they had the impertinence to claim that their properties and
offices were no more than payment due for services rendered, either by
themselves or their predecessors. They were oblivious to the impending
disaster hovering over all. They could not see that if the state were ruined
by their presumptuous demands upon it, they, too, would suffer ruin along
with it. Gemistos had no wish to dispossess those whose gain was the
result of honest service: it was parasitical service and counterfeit gain
that he reviled.18
He accused the nobility of regarding justice, truth, and the public good
as empty words, while measuring happiness in terms of vestments, silver,
gold, luxuries, and pleasures, to the exclusion of any thought about the
safety of themselves, their children, their country, or even freedom. There
are those who speak eloquently of "justice and truth" when the matter
at hand is barren of profit, but only let them smell personal gain and see
how their tongues become tied and their lips sealed. "When cities are
governed by men like these," he added, "even where the strongest and
best laws have previously been enacted and still are valid, they inevitably
come to ruin, for those very laws are hedged around by obfuscation and
confusion. Good laws are always needed, but they are good only while
they have force. When they do not, even the best are of little or no prac-
tical use. And it is the integrity of officials which determines whether or
not the force of law will prevail." 19
To counterbalance the power of the great landed magnates, Gemistos
put forward a radical plan for the increase of cultivation and the reform
of the agricultural economy : complete freedom to own, to build, to plant,
and to cultivate as much land as the individual proprietor was able and
willing to cultivate. By opening up virgin lands in this way, Gemistos
thought to solve a dual agricultural and social problem. Another side of
his social program, to which we have already alluded, was his support
GEORGE GEMISTOS 131

of the middle class—that is to say, merchants who had acquired wealth,

power, and office through legitimate trade. 20 For their part, the members
of the middle class were only too pleased to co-operate and indeed were
able to reach positions of power and influence by allying themselves with
the common people. 21 He deplored the practice of mutilating prisoners
and suggested instead that they be put to useful work: "it is pitiful to see
among us those who have suffered this kind of punishment; it is barbaric
and quite alien to Greek custom." 22
The thought of this singular man ranged the gamut of his society's ills.
He offered a plan for restoring the currency and stabilizing public finance
by a system of controls over the export and import of goods to protect
local products. And he declared that, if called upon to do so, he would
not hesitate to accept responsibility for the application of his ideas. For
the times were so critical that no one could afford to turn his back upon
them. The state had to be reorganized and modernized in order to face
a new and deadly enemy, an enemy whose military organization had
already proved equal to the job of conquest, however ill-equipped its
society seemed in other respects. The proposed reforms, without which
the enemy could not effectively be met, were not impossible or even
difficult to apply. Their successful implementation waited only upon the
enthusiasm and sincerity of the ruler. Indeed, no greater or nobler ideal
existed, he told Theodore, than the task of securing the realm by every
means in his power and thus preserving the "nation." 23
While some of Gemistos' suggestions have a Utopian flavor, the use of
successive memoranda as a framework for the expression of a coherent
corpus of ideas suggests that their content had sufficient immediacy to
evoke responses in men like Manuel, Theodore, and perhaps others of
their kind. At least, their willingness to listen encouraged Gemistos to
persist further in the hope of realizing his ideas though the hope eventu-
ally proved vain.24
As we shall see, his ideas were discussed for many years, especially
by his students, and in 1427 Theodore rewarded him with the benefice
of the castle and district of Phanarion.25 Perhaps it was only the disorderly
state of society that restrained the Palaeologi from proceeding to the
realization of his program.
Gemistos' discouragement at not having his program adopted can only
be guessed at. No one saw more clearly than he or said with such tenacity
what had to be done. But his ideas, it would seem, were too radical, and
he certainly lacked the power to impose them. To this extent, he remains
a tragic figure in history. The honors and rewards which the Palaeologi
bestowed upon him (perhaps in a calculated effort to flatter or to appease
—and thereby silence—possible ambition) could not divert him from his
132 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

purpose. His later works not only continue to project the ideas of his first
simple memoranda but do so in a more profound way.26 The plans were
never abandoned by him or his students, as we shall attempt to show.
Gemistos Influence
An important piece of historical exegesis which has recently come to
light is the interpretation of an ancient oracle that purports to unfold
the destiny of the Péloponnèse far into the future. Written by a monk
named Isidore, this commentary contributed indirectly to an understand-
ing of certain ideological cross-currents in the Péloponnèse which have
definite bearing on the renascence of Hellenism. Isidore addressed his
commentary on the oracle (which was supposedly an oracle of the
ancient Pythia's) to the Italian princess, Cleopa Malatesta (who mar-
ried Theodore II in Mistra on 19 January 1421 ). 27 Cleopa had adopted
the Hellenic way of life (probably Orthodoxy along with it) 28 and
in common with her compatriots was profoundly disturbed by the Turk-
ish peril. The oracle, which was in fact written some time before 1430
and not between 1446 and 1449 as has been hitherto believed, spoke
of "a leader of the Hellenes, short of stature, crook-nosed, blond and
fair" who would build a wall across the Isthmus, the third to do so. His
efforts would be in vain, though, and he would be disappointed because
the Turks would defeat the warlike Greeks.29 Isidore rendered the phrase
"leader of the Greeks" as "Emperor of the Hellenes" {Basileus ton
Hellenon) and thus became the first person, so far as can be determined,
to use the modern title, which is so much a part of the national con-
sciousness.
The oracle further prophesied that the time would come, however,
when the Turks would be defeated. This would occur "when the pine-
tree falls upon the ground and blood is shed upon the pine" ( hotan konis
pityn dexetai kai pity s ly thron), when, as Isidore explained, "fighters
receive laurels and honor in war and are ready to shed their blood for
these laurels." The defeat of the Turks would follow a reorganization
of the army and a renewal of the determination to fight back (a re-
kindling of the spirit of ancient Greece, so to speak). He who fortified
the Isthmus for the "fourth time" would therefore be the fortunate one.30
There is little doubt about the origin of the oracle. A number of clues
—use of the phrase, "leader of the Hellenes," mention of the persistence
of an Hellenic entity from ancient times far into the shadowy future, the
archaic style of composition, the emphasis on honoring the military class,
an underlying optimism for the future, all these point to the authorship
of Gemistos or his circle of followers. In other words, by attempting to
invest their beliefs with the authority of ancient oracular prophecy, they
GEORGE GEMISTOS 133

hoped to gain acceptance of their ideas. Just what, however, Isidore's

connection with the coterie of Gemistos was and just what currency his
commentary had cannot be ascertained.
All the same, Isidore tried to assist Gemistos' plans by bringing per-
suasion to bear on Cleopa to improve the military situation in the Pélo-
ponnèse. And since Gemistos himself had previously made a direct ap-
proach to Theodore, it can only be assumed that his plans were at least
well known in that quarter. Unfortunately, that is all we do know. What
Theodore thought about Gemistos' plans for social reform and renewal
of the Greek spirit remains hidden from us.
In 1433, Cleopa died, 31 and Gemistos seized the opportunity in her
funeral panegyric to return to the political situation and to remind
Theodore II of his duty to take drastic and decisive steps for the state's
security: "only you have the power to accomplish what is needed. It
ought to be your main, if need be, your only concern, for others will
follow where you lead. God willing, we can be saved, but if you neglect
your duty our danger will only be increased . . . Great deeds, not little
ones, are called for; only they can ensure the safety and well-being of
the people." 32
Cleopa's reaction to Gemistos is equally unknown. But at least the
behavior of her daughter, Helen, indicated a degree of national alertness
among some members of the family of Theodore II Palaeologus. After
Helen's marriage to John II Lusignan, the King of Cyprus, on 3 February
1442, she was able to impose her will on her weakling of a husband for
sixteen years. Relentlessly, she fought against the powerful hold of the
Frankish military and ecclesiastical establishment in her island, always
striving to ameliorate the condition of the Greeks, to raise them to posi-
tions of political and military prominence, to enhance their influence
generally, and to restore the prestige of the Orthodox Church. Naturally,
these efforts met with stern opposition from the Latin element, especially
the Roman Catholic Church. Then and later she was criticized and
traduced for her efforts. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (later Pope Pius
II) recognized the deep national consciousness of this Greek princess
when he denounced her as hostile to the Latin religion and an enemy
of the Roman Church, 33 and it seems probable that Gemistos f whom she
must have listened to on several occasions, and whose proposals she must
have discussed) was instrumental in the development of this conscious-
ness.
Notwithstanding the opposition Helen encountered, it was from this
time that the hellenization of foreigners, particularly the French, gathered
momentum. Greeks began to hold offices even in the Lusignan palaces,
and they as well as their language eventually came into the ascendant.
134 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Surely this trend should be attributed to a revival of national feeling.34

The trend, however, was abruptly arrested during the period of Venetian
domination from 1489 to 1571. The Venetians imposed a system of such
rigid centralization in order to subordinate the interests of the colonies
to those of the metropolitan power that the Cypriots came to look back
nostalgically to the Lusignan period and show affection towards French
travellers.35
There only remains for consideration an assessment of the influence of
Gemistos' ideas on those regions close to Mistra, both north and south.
Was there, for example, any connection between these ideas and the
movement in Venetian-controlled Crete in 1415, which, instigated appar-
ently by only a few persons, aimed at the liberation of the serfs? 36 Or, if
the evidence remains inconclusive on this point, can anything more ex-
plicit be said of Gemistos' influence to the north? Gregorovius affirms the
probability that Gemistos' ideas had echoes in Athens and northern
Greece 37 but confesses his inability to offer definite proof.
Though neither question can be answered, at least one event may be
mentioned, as much for its likely bearing on the question of Gemistos'
influence as for its certain relevance to the awakening of national con-
sciousness among the Athenians. When Antonio Acciajuoli, Duke of
Athens, died without heirs in 1435, George Chalcocondyles, father of the
historian, Laonicos, and relative of the Duke's widow, Maria Melissene,
moved quickly to break the Frankish yoke. Maria sent him as her envoy
to Murad II to obtain the Sultan's consent to the proposal that the gov-
ernment of the Duchy be entrusted to herself and her "most worthy" kins-
man, as she fondly described Chalcocondyles. However, Chalcocondyles'
rivals, who still held substantial political power in Athens ( proestesan tou
demon), managed by various stratagems to persuade Maria to abandon
the citadel, whereupon they installed in it her late husband's family. They
then banished Chalcocondyles' family from Athens.38 There were ap-
parently two opposing factions in Athens: the one, led by Maria and
Chalcocondyles, claimed the succession and promoted the expulsion
of all foreign rulers; the other, out of jealousy, perhaps, towards the
family of Chalcocondyles, or simply for reasons of self-interest and self-
preservation, followed a policy of subservience to foreign rule. The former
clique also appears to have sought alliance with the chief aspirant to
national leadership, Constantine Palaeologus, then Despot of Morea, who
possessed kinship ties with the extensive Peloponnesian branch of the
Melissenoi family. This supposition would seem to be borne out by the
remarks of Sphrantzes: that at the request of Maria Melissene he had
been sent by Constantine with many soldiers and "bearing his official
silver seal" (enorkon argyroboullon) to receive Athens and Thebes in
GEORGE GEMISTOS 135

exchange for certain territories in the Péloponnèse near Laconia, where

the Melissenoi had their estates. But just at that time the Turkish general,
Turahan, besieged and captured Thebes (while Chalcocondyles lan-
guished in the Sultan's prison as a hostage for the deliverance of Athens
to the Turks ). The Sultan knew Constantine's plans only too well, which
accounted for Chalcocondyles' incarceration and Turkish acquiescence in
the seizure of the Duchy of Athens by the relatives of Antonio Acciajuoli.
Sphrantzes' mission was therefore abortive. 39 Constantine was too ambi-
tious and too dangerous. But although Constantine's plans were foiled
on this occasion he remained undaunted and, as we shall see, merely
waited for a more auspicious moment to put his plans into effect.
Where now could Chalcocondyles pursue his goal if not in the Des-
potate of Morea? Here, indeed, he (not his son, Laonicos) next appears
in 1446 as Constantine's ambassador to the court of Murad II.40 He was
guided there because in Constantine he recognized a kindred spirit whose
approach to the requirements of Neo-Hellenism and to the solution of
contemporary political and economic problems was consonant with his
own.
шшшшмішшшшшшшшішшшшішішшшшішшшшіш

10

THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN

EMPIRES AFTER ANKARA

Some General Observations

The boundaries of the Byzantine world from the time of the battle of
Ankara (1402) to the accession of Murad II (1421) included, besides the
capital itself, a few small cities and towns along the Sea of Marmara—St.
Stephanos, Epivatae, Selymbria, Herakleia—and the Black Sea—Medea,
Agathopolis (Aktopol), Pyrgos (Burgas), Anchialus (Pomoriye), Mesem-
bria (Nesebar), Varna (Stalin). Present-day Thrace and Eastern Rumelia,
which had only recently been occupied, were still known to travellers of
the fifteenth century as Hellas or Graecia or Grèce,1 whereas Asia Minor
was already being called Turkey.2 Also belonging to the Byzantine Empire
was the coastal district from the Strymon River (which included Chal-
cidice and Thessalonica ) to the center of the Malian Gulf, along with
the coast of Thessaly and an undefined segment of its hinterland, as well
as the town and district of Lamia. The Despoiate of Morea, of course,
was also part of the Byzantine Empire. In addition, Scyrus and the islands
of the northern Sporades fell within the Empire, but since they harbored
nests of pirates, Byzantine sovereignty there was scarcely more than
nominal. 3
The Emperors still exercised a shadowy suzerainty over Thracian Ainos
(now Turkish Enos) and the islands of the Northern Aegean—Lemnos,
Imbros, Samothrace, and Thasos—though these were also tributaries of
the Genoese house of Gattilusi.4 This was a time when the financial re-
sources of the Empire were as meager as its social and religious problems
were great. The Byzantine gold piece (the celebrated bezant of the
Crusaders), which had for centuries broadcast its wealth and strength
THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN EMPIRES AFTER ANKARA 137

throughout the markets of the world, had lost its value and practically
ceased to circulate outside the Empire. This was a consequence of
the Palaeologťs practice of continually debasing the coinage in order to
finance their manifold projects and needs. 5
Commerce and navigation had fallen into the hands of foreigners,
Venetians and Genoese in particular, who wielded immense economic
power in Constantinople and the ports of the Aegean and Black Seas.6
They vied with one another to see who could most profitably sap the
Empire. Venetian loans, which were offered to Byzantine Emperors in
exchange for commercial concessions, also contributed to the economic
ruin of the Empire.7 Kydones had described the humiliation of John V
at the hands of Venetian merchants: "surety having been given and the
promise of a loan extracted from the moneylender, he then turns around
and reneges on his pledge and thus contributes to the worsening of an
already desperate economic plight," adding that "to a merchant, money
is more precious than his eyes." 8 Financial exploitation of this kind was
hardly less significant than fundamental religious antagonism in deepen­
ing Byzantine hostility towards the West. Therefore the Emperors cast
around for new ways of meeting the financial commitments of the Empire
and paying the heavy tribute demanded by the Turks (which, in 1432,
was 10,000 gold pieces) 9 and could only hit upon new taxes, of which
they devised a ruinous number.10
Certain extant descriptions of travellers shed an illuminating light on
the Empire's social decay. For example, the Spaniard, Pero Tafur, a noble­
man himself, remarked in 1433 that in no part of the world did the nobil­
ity enjoy so much freedom (license, of course, is what he meant) as in
Greece. Nowhere else were serfs so dependent on the nobility; in effect,
they were the chattel slaves of noblemen. 11 Similarly, Schiltberger, who
was a captive of the Turks at the end of the fourteenth century, had writ­
ten that his masters criticized wealthy Byzantines so volubly mainly be­
cause of their gross behavior towards the poor, which was why the Turks
considered this to be one of the reasons God had decided to deprive
Christians of their lands and give them to the Turks.12
The political and economic collapse of the Byzantine Empire was
paralleled by its intellectual decline. "Who," Manuel Calecas had asked
some time before 1390, "in the midst of this debacle would want to worry
about learning when every moment one's very life is in danger?" Nor
did the capital itself avoid the effects of intellectual blight. Its inhabitants
could no longer form a clear picture of the purposes and meaning of
learning. According to Calecas, they were no longer impressed by the
ideals of the sort of teacher who was modest, dispassionate, and purpose­
ful, but rather (and here he seems to have had a particular person in
138 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

mind) by those of the gross and self-conceited blusterer whose precepts

were just what might be expected from a "great, hairy, fleshy" creature.13
The fifteenth-century traveller, Christopher Buondelmonti, also accused
the people of the capital of being avaricious and totally indifferent to
their past glories.14
The future seemed black indeed. Only the West, perhaps, could have
saved the Empire. To that end, Manuel II and John VIII entered into
fitful negotiations with the Pope and his curia and finally subscribed to
the Union of the Churches at the Council of Florence in 1439. The deci-
sions of the Council for many years bewildered the Orthodox in Frank-
ish-occupied lands. The Pope lost no time in sending Catholic bishops
to the islands of the Aegean and granting special privileges to those
Orthodox who demonstrated their eagerness for Union.15 In Crete, espe-
cially, the efforts to gain acceptance of Union were so sustained that a
Unionist party emerged among the Orthodox.16 Still, very few of the
leaders of that society ( particularly scholars and priests, among them was
the bibliographer, John Plousiadenos, who was also noted for his literary
and musical talents ) 17 were for financial, political, and social reasons
disposed to support Union. As for the people as a whole, they resisted
the blandishments of foreign bishops and their Greek puppets and re-
mained faithful to Orthodoxy.18 They were guided by the circulars and
letters of many—Marc Eugenicus and George Scholarios, to mention only
two—who opposed Union and urged further resistance to the imposition
of Western dogma.19
The struggle of Helen Palaeologina in Cyprus for the welfare of her
compatriots also appears to have received definite, if unintentional, assist-
ance from the Council of Florence. In spite of initial resentment in Greek
lands under Frankish occupation at the decisions of the Council, the
consequences which soon flowed from those decisions were vastly dif-
ferent from those the Catholic Church had anticipated. As Hackett ob-
serves, when Pope Eugenius
announced to the nations of the West that, as a result of the Conclave, the
once-despised Orthodox were now not merely of one flesh and blood, but also
of the same faith with themselves, it seemed to many of these Latin settlers
no act of apostasy to abandon their ancestral creed for one which by their own
spiritual head had been pronounced so absolutely identical with their own.
This development, entirely unforeseen, was immediately opposed by Eu-
gene and his successor, Nicholas V, both of whom sought to reverse this
drift among Franks in Greek countries. Writing to the Inquisitor and
Exarch of the "province of Greece," Nicholas ordered that appropriate
T H E BYZANTINE AND O T T O M A N E M P I R E S AFTER ANKARA 139

measures be taken to eradicate the evil, if need be with the assistance

and backing of the civil arm:
The Pope, while disclaiming any idea of condemning the tenets of the Ortho-
dox, protests that it is not permissible to thus mix up the two rites—an act
neither intended, nor sanctioned, by the Council of Florence.
But so far as the Cypriots were concerned, as Hackett points out, these
measures met with no success whatever.20
It was from this time that the area of dissension between Unionists
and anti-Unionists began to resemble a battleground. "Union became
division.,, 21 Among the Byzantine delegates to the Council were Antonios,
Archbishop of Heraclea, and Dorotheos, Archbishop of Trebizond, and
others who had subscribed to Union only with considerable reluctance.
On their return, they were so completely taken aback by the bitter dis-
approval of their actions which they encountered everywhere that they
disavowed their stands and repudiated their signatures.22 The conserva-
tive spirit of Orthodoxy reasserted itself.
John VIII, who lacked the diplomatic finesse of Manuel II, found him-
self utterly incapable of coping with the revolt of the clergy, particularly
the monks, and the opposition of an equally zealous populace. The people
stayed away from Masses celebrated by Unionist priests, whom they
looked upon as infamous, and Marc Eugenicus, the chief protagonist of
Orthodoxy and leader of the anti-Unionist party, fought for his cause
eloquently and unceasingly. After his death in 1445,23 his disciple, George
Kourtesis (Scholarios), continued the struggle. But the Empire deemed it
politically expedient to support the Union cause despite its unpopularity.
This attempted rapport with the West and the continued comings and
goings of the Byzantines were meanwhile watched by the Turks with
growing annoyance. They resolved to put a stop to the proceedings. In
the opinion of Sphrantzes at least, it was indeed the Union of the
Churches which was the "first and foremost" reason for the eventual
capture of Constantinople. 24
As against this state of affairs in Constantinople, the situation among
the Ottomans was quite different. As an example, we may turn to the
organization of the Turkish army and quote the striking description pro-
vided by Bertrandon de la Brocquière, who saw it in 1432 or 1433:
They are good-looking, of medium height and build, with long beards. I am
well aware of the expression "strong as a Turk," yet I have seen many Chris-
tians who surpass the Turks in this regard . . .
They are diligent, willingly rise early, and live on little food, being satisfied
with badly baked bread, raw meat dried in the sun, milk, curdled or not, honey,
 A

!
Figure 13. John VIII Palaeologus.
THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN EMPIRES AFTER ANKARA 141
cheese, grapes, fruit, vegetables, and a mere handful of flour, with which they
make a soup—enough to sustain six or eight men for a whole day. . . . They
think nothing of sleeping on the ground.
Their dress consists of two or three cotton tunics, thrown over one another,
which fall to their feet. Over these they wear a robe made of felt, like a mantle,
which they call a capinat. This garment, though light, withstands the rain, and
some are very fine and handsome. They wear knee-length boots and long panta-
loons, which may be of red velvet, silk, fustian, or common stuff. When on the
march or in battle, they pull up their tunics and tuck them into their trousers
so they can move more freely.
Their horses are good, cost little in food, gallop well and for a long time.
They feed them only at night, and then only five or six handfuls of barley and
double the quantity of chopped hay . . . Nearly all their horses are gelded;
a few are kept as stallions, but so few that I have never seen a single stal-
lion. . . .
Their headgear consists of a round white cap, ornamented with plates of
iron on all sides to protect the whole head and the neck. It is about six inches
high and ends in a point . . . They sink deeply into their saddles, as if in an
armchair, and keep their knees very high in short stirrups; in this position, the
least thrust from a lance is enough to unseat them.
The weapons of those who possess reasonable means are a bow, a shield, a
sword, and a strong, short-handled mace spiked at one end. The last is a vicious
weapon . . . I am convinced that a strong blow from it on a helmeted head
would stun a man. Several of the Turks have small wooden bucklers with
which they cover themselves well on horseback when they draw the bow. . . .
The soldier's obedience to his leaders is unequivocal . . . his great feats of
arms and the resounding conquests which have made him master of a land
more extensive than all of France are mainly due to that constant obedience.
I have been assured that, whenever Christians have taken up arms against
them, the Turks have never been caught unawares. Whenever the Christians
are after them, the Turkish commander selects men to spy out the enemy's
march and sends his army forward two or three days' march from the place
where he has decided to fight. If he considers the circumstances favorable, he
falls upon the enemy suddenly, adopting a different order of march. A big
drum gives the signal, and the front-line troops move forward noiselessly; those
behind also follow quietly without disturbing the ranks in any way. Men and
horses alike are trained to the exercise, and ten thousand Turks advancing in
this fashion make less noise than a hundred armed Christians. . . . The Turks
attack on the run, and since they are all lightly armed they cover a distance
of three days' normal march between nightfall and dawn. Trained in these
tactics, they could not possibly wear full armor like the French and the Ital-
ians. . . . Yet by the very speed of their advance, they nearly always succeed
in their various battles in taking the Christians by surprise and crushing
them. . . .
The manner in which they deploy for battle varies according to the circum-
stances. When they decide that a particular place offers favorable opportuni-
142 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

ties for attack, they separate into several corps, the actual number depending
on the size of the army, and they press the attack from different sides. Since
they have mastered the art of converging their various corps, wooded or hilly
country presents no difficulties, and this particular technique is commonly em­
ployed in such places.
At other times, they prefer ambush. A few well-armed men are sent to search
out the enemy, and, if he is reported unprepared, an immediate decision is
made to take advantage of the situation. But if they find the enemy prepared
and in orderly array, they surround his army at the distance of an arrow's flight
and then press hit-and-run attacks continually from all sides. Backwards and
forwards, punishing man and beast alike, the Turks keep up the attacks until
the enemy is thrown into confusion. . . . The lightning speed with which they
move enables them, almost by this alone, to inflict defeat upon the Christians
almost invariably. Even when retiring from the field of battle, they use their
bow with such deadly skill and accuracy as rarely to miss either horseman or
horse.
Each mounted Turk has a small tabor attached to the front of his saddle.
If the commander, or any officer, descries any disorderliness in an enemy ad­
vance, he beats the tabor three times, which is the signal for everyone within
earshot to do the same. In a moment, every man is thus alerted to rally round
his leader and, depending upon the circumstances, either to receive an attack
in well-ordered array or to join his squadron in a series of sharp counterattacks
on all sides.
In pitched battles, they sometimes adopt other tactics. In order to terrify
the horses, fire is hurled into the midst of the opposing cavalry; or large num­
bers of camels or dromedaries, each chosen for his spiritedness and stoutness
of heart, are driven ahead of the front-line troops.
These are some of the ways in which the Turks have been fighting the Chris­
tians until now. Certainly I do not wish to speak ill of them or to underrate
them . . . nevertheless, I am quite sure that well-trained armies, properly led,
could easily triumph over them. . . ." 25
The size of these irregular armies was always fluid. Various accounts
estimate them to contain as few as 50,000 men (30,000 from Anatolia and
20,000 from Rumelia) 2β and as many as 120,000. In the latter case, ap­
proximately half were mounted and well armed with shield and sword,
while the remainder were poorly armed and on foot. Some of these foot
soldiers carried only a sword or a bow, and many had no more than a
club. Nevertheless, the Turkish infantryman was generally considered
better than his Greek counterpart and, by any standards, an excellent
soldier.27 Ducas is in general agreement with Brocquière's description of
Turkish infantry: "They no sooner hear the herald's call to battle, which
in their language is called akin, than they advance in a seething and agi-
tated mass, most of them without kitbag or rucksack, without spear, bow,
or sword; most of them, in fact, with no more than a club and a single
 THE BYZANTINE ANT) OTTOMAN EMPIRES AFTER ANKARA 143
28
intent . . . to capture a Christian." The jumbled appearance of an
army composed of such infantry inspired Brocquière to add the indignant
comment that "it is Christendom's great shame to be beaten into sub-
mission by such people, who are much less formidable than they think." 29
In conquered territories, the sultans introduced the system of spahi
feudatories to bolster their authority. Some of these, the Hisar-eri or Kale-
en, occupied castles and constituted regular fortress garrisons throughout
the fifteenth century.30
The Turks of this period were still a folk with simple customs, imbued
with the faith, fanaticism, and frenzy of newly-converted Moslems.31 They
also had the natural robustness of a people inured to the primitive hard-
ships of a life spent in tents summer and winter 32 and raised in an heroic
atmosphere of chansons de geste.33 They had a lust for plunder and per-
haps, too, for the incidental gain of feudal seignority. Their fiefs, of
course, resembled those of the Franks and the Byzantine pronoia. How-
ever, the fief-holders, as we have seen, had only the temporary usufruct
of their fiefs, which were always revocable at the will of the sultan. They
did not form a closed class in the manner of the feudal lords of the West;
neither did they behave abominably towards the common people as did
their Byzantine counterparts, who had succeeded in having the transmis-
sion of pronoia made heritable.
Turkish moral standards and outlook were of course derived from the
precepts of the Koran and the religio-ethical ideas of the Akhis3* all of
which had substantive application in everyday life. Compassion and char-
ity in particular, especially towards those of the same faith, brought ever-
lasting rewards in paradise. These two ideals accounted for the charitable
works which were characteristically prolific in Islam—the foundation of
mosques, poorhouses, fountains, bridges, religious schools (medrese), and
the like.
Many contemporary travellers provided interesting testimony to the
moral virtues of the Ottoman Turks during peacetime: they were com-
passionate, cheerful, charitable, sincere, honest, and, when the need arose,
courageous. According to Pero Tafur, "The Turks are a noble people,
much given to truth. They live in their country like nobles, in their ex-
penditure and in their actions, in the matter of food and of sports, in
which latter there is much gambling. They are very merry and benevo-
lent, and of good conversation, so much so that in those parts, when one
speaks of virtue, it suffices to say one is like a Turk." 35 With their appre-
ciation of moral values and their respect for social justice, the Turks
certainly seemed to live on a higher plane than the Byzantines and other
Christians.
Certainly, this was what the Turks themselves felt, and this was their
144 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

principal moral weapon against the Christians. They could not stomach
the Byzantines, those conceited sophisticates—men who looked upon all
others as barbarians while themselves transgressing the laws of their
Bible. The Turks thought that "therefore Almighty God has decreed
that they should take the land from [Byzantine] Christians, because they
do not conduct their affairs, spiritual or temporal, with justice, because
they look to wealth and favor, and the rich treat the poor with haughti­
ness and do not help them either with gifts or with justice and do not
hold to the doctrine which the Messiah has given them." The Turks,
who were astonished at the ease with which they defeated Christians,
searched for an explanation and found it precisely in their social iniqui­
ties: the Turks were the chosen instruments of Goďs retribution. Their
conquest of Christian lands could not be explained in terms of their own
strength, wisdom, or holiness, but rather in terms of the injustice, igno­
miny, and arrogance of Christians. The bad deportment of the Turks
towards the Byzantines is probably attributable to this belief. At the
same time, its corollary was that Turks and Moslems would only be
successful in conquest for as long as the spiritual and temporal leaders
of Christendom persisted in their unjust and corrupt ways. The Turkish
books of prophecy were quite explicit on this point.36 It was a telling
augury, all the more so because it had its Greek analogues (which we
shall later show), and it survived until the Greek revolution of 1821 37
—indeed until present times.38
Such ideas as these not only formed the basis of the Turkish view of
the world but could also be used effectively in imposing it. They could
not have been unknown to the Byzantines—to the philosopher, Gemistos,
for example, who had lived and studied in Bursa (Prusa) under the
Jewish teacher, Elissaeus, and may well have influenced him in the for­
mulation of his social reforms.
While the social and political ideas of Gemistos and his followers were
being propounded as a solution to the critical condition of the Byzantine
Empire, a ten-year struggle for supremacy between Bayeziďs sons came
to an end (1403-1413), and the Turks, after reorganizing their forces,
resumed their advance against what remained of the Byzantine Empire.

Murad II
After the battle of Ankara in 1402, unity was restored to the Ottoman
Empire during the period of Mohammed Гѕ sole reign ( 1413-1421 ) and
the reign of Murad II (1421-1451). The old passion for conquest soon
revived among the Turks, along with their engagingly sung 39 epics, full
of national and religious sensitivity, pride and fervor.
Murad II was short, fat, and dark-complexioned, with mongoloid fea-
T H E BYZA.NTINE AND OTTOMAN EMPIRES AFTER ANKARA 145

tures, exaggerated cheek-bones, beady eyes, a huge hooked nose, and a

rounded beard. Although his predilections were for peace rather than
war (which only interfered with the pleasures of sodomy, the harem,
and wine-bibbing), he nevertheless exhibited formidable military and
administrative abilities.40 Among his Turkish subjects, he came to be re-
garded as gentle, good, just, and generous. Also, he adopted the practice
of his predecessors of distributing fiefs among those whom he wished to
honor. These, as we have seen, were obliged in time of war to furnish the
sultan with a stipulated number of men and to accompany their lord
into battle. 41
In 1422, one year after Murad II ascended the throne, Turkish armies
besieged Constantinople, laid waste the surrounding countryside, cap-
tured and forcibly removed the inhabitants living in the environs of the
capital.42 Manuel II, now an old man, watched the storm "pensively" and
reflected how inert the inheritance of the past, the ancient and glorious
Byzantine traditions, had become. "We no longer need an emperor," he
confessed to his courtier, Sphrantzes, "but a financial wizard." 4';i
On 21 July 1425, Manuel II died, to be succeeded by John VIII (1425-
1448). Murad proceeded to detach Varna and the districts of the Strymon
River and Zituni (Lamia) from the Empire. It was hardly more than a
formal gesture, however, since the governor of Zituni had already recog-
nized his inability to ward off the Turks: two years before, he had ceded
Stylis and Avlaki to the Venetians.44
The capital slowly became deserted, with whole quarters uninhabited.
The patriarchal Church of the Apostles, with its sumptuous, porphyry
tombs of the Byzantine Emperors, had already succumbed to the ravages
of time. Constantine XI (1449-1453), the last of the Palaeologi, found
himself unable to restore his crumbling palace. Most of the population
was in flight to the imagined security of distant places. As for those who
stayed, ubiquitous poverty, beggarly attire, and uniformly low spirits
spoke eloquently of the sufferings already endured and still to come.45
It is all the more astonishing, therefore, to watch the exhausted citi-
zens drawing upon some untapped reservoir of strength and continuing
to resist the Turks. A number of reasons of course underlay this perti-
nacity: we need only reiterate here their remembrance of the past—an
historical consciousness which subserved national precognition. The liv-
ing organism of Hellenism, that is to say, was transmuted into a new
Hellenism by the stubborn will to survive. It was a will whose force
was attested by Pero Tafur when he wrote that Thrace had become
depopulated "because the Greeks carried the entire burden of war and
were subjected to great cruelty by the Turks." 4e Or as the last Byzantine
historian Critobulus pointed out, the Turks were opposed to the last by
146 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

the "forces of the Romans" on land and sea and met with much resist-
ance and a fighting spirit.47
A similar fate befell Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia. Burak Bey,
son of Evrenos, invested it in June 1422, and then proceeded to pillage
the neighboring district of Kalamaria, to the east as far as Cassandrea
( ancient Potidaea ) .48 According to a benefactress of the Mt. Athos mon-
astery of St. Dionysius in 1420,49 there were many inhabitants of the city
who, "in the oppressive atmosphere of this impending storm," had fallen
like herself "from wealth, glory, and prosperity" into utter poverty. Many,
indeed, were suffering from hunger. That was why about eight thousand
had abandoned their homes and left the city. In 1423, the governor of
Thessalonica, Andronicus Palaeologus, and the local nobility saw no alter-
native but to deliver Thessalonica into the hands of the Venetians, on
the condition that municipal autonomy, archepiscopal rights, and the
privileges of the Church would be respected. 50 The precedent for such a
move already existed in the case of Corfu (see page 107 above).
After the death of Manuel II, Murad II stepped up military activities
against Thessalonica and Lamia, and again Turkish forces ravaged the
countryside in the vicinity of both towns. But at the end of 1425 or the
beginning of 1426, after John VIII agreed to the surrender of Varna and
the districts of Strymon and Lamia, the harassment ceased.51
So, for a few more years, the Venetians remained in Thessalonica.
But it was not a very comfortable stay. The Turks were intent on making
their position untenable, and the Greeks accused them of breaking their
promises and violating the rights of the community.
What were these rights? It is vital to know them since, constituting
as they did a concrete system of privilege, they enabled Thessalonica to
preserve without interruption until the very end of the Turkish occupa-
tion the traditional framework of communal life that had made her a
stronghold of Hellenism. First in importance among these was the Senate
( sometimes called Council ) or, as it seems to have been popularly known,
the "Twelve"; it is referred to in fourteenth-century Byzantine texts. Its
composition was predominantly aristocratic, though burghers were in-
cluded in it. Intimate knowledge of the customs of the land was a neces-
sary qualification for membership, and the institution's responsibilities
were to take charge of civic affairs and ( in the absence of central author-
ity) defense. The Venetians, however, suspended its prerogatives over
the protests of the people of Thessalonica and in spite of written guaran-
tees to the contrary. It cannot have met more than a few times during
the entire period of Venetian control. However, it is probable that the
council of twelve Notables, which functioned with broad governmental
and judicial powers until the last years of Turkish rule, was a continua-
T H E BYZANTINE AND O T T O M A N E M P I R E S AFTER ANKARA 147

tion of this original Council of Nobles.52 Evidence provided by a metro-

politan deed of sale, dated 1502, and signed by clerical officials and
"nobles of the city" establishes this connection. Professor Stilpon Kyria-
kidis, who published the document, stresses the need to examine this
evidence carefully for the light it can throw on the form of government
of Thessalonica.53 The first question to be asked is, what was the compo-
sition of the Senate? If their signatures are counted the riddle is resolved,
for there were twelve: twelve members of a municipal council of whom
a majority of seven were clergy. The deduction that the "Twelve" was a
continuation of the earlier council of Notables would appear to be sound
if account is taken of the various references to "ministers of God" who
were members of the Council at the end of the fourteenth century (see
page 124 above). As for its structure at that time, it is likely that the
election of its members would have taken place "in accordance with the
wealth and personal merit" of each, to use Aristotle's phrase. In these
circumstances, it would have been in no way extraordinary for clergy,
together with nobles, to comprise the mainstay of municipal organization.
We may assume, therefore, that the structure was the same both before
and during the period of Turkish rule.
Another right the Venetians had granted the people of Thessalonica
was that of being tried before their own archepiscopal court in accord-
ance with custom. Information concerning this privilege contributes to
a fuller understanding of the central and continuing points of Greek law
throughout the periods of Venetian and Turkish domination. The judicial
authority of the archbishop, following "ancient custom," was this: "To be
able to sit in judgment in every case where a person wishes to appeal
to his judgment, and where a litigant seeks to establish his rights in
some dispute to be able without let or hindrance to oblige the opposing
party to appear before the hearing . . . the decisions and arbitraments
of the archbishop to have legal validity without fear of contravention and
the archbishop to be free to collect all entitlements arising from his de-
cisions on the basis of custom . . ." Thus, the judgments of an archbishop
were binding on both parties in any suit.
These privileges were not confined to the archbishops of Thessalonica.
Generally speaking, all bishops had acquired extensive civil jurisdiction
after the judicial reforms of Andronicus III Palaeologus and in particular
from the creation of the institution of "general judges" ( catholikoi kritai )
in 1329. Four judges comprised a supreme court, with a bishop as the
presiding member. In this way, the Church came to exercise substantial
influence in civil matters. The reforms of Andronicus III thus set an im-
portant precedent for the continuation of episcopal jurisdiction during
the period of Turkish rule, and the continuum was preserved. The conse-
148 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

quences of this for a captive nation were salutary indeed, for communal
life could still cohere around the traditional institution. We recognize in
the prerogatives of bishops during the Turkish period the same judicial
authority, following ancient custom, of the former archbishops of Thessa-
lonica.54
To the extent then that local autonomy remained under both Venetian
and Turkish rule, the judicial privileges of archbishops and their court
assessors formed an integral part of it. In Thessalonica, certain members
of the Twelve probably themselves constituted a sort of lower court, while
the archbishop presided over a high court. The traveller Robert de Dreux
noted in 1666 that the Christians of Thessalonica, along with Jews and
Turks, possessed their own separate courts ("y avaient aussi leur jus­
tice").55 Presumably, these institutions were maintained during the
Turkish occupation not only in Thessalonica but throughout the entire
Hellenic world. That is, civic Notables, aldermen, bishops, and Church
officials continued to dispense justice indulgently according to traditional
prescription and in conformity with the main written source of law, the
Procheiron or the Hexabiblos of that "most respected guardian of the
law and judge of Thessalonica," Constantine Armenopoulos.
Venetian rule in Thessalonica, though of brief duration (1423-1430),
was distressing enough. Hunger persisted in spite of occasional attempts
by the Venetians to mitigate its worst effects, at least among those ap-
pointed to defend the city, by bringing in money and food. But many
had nothing at all to eat and fled to Constantinople, 56 Turkish occupied
territory,57 or other Venetian colonies. On 29 March 1430, there was a
successful Turkish assault, and for three whole days the city was given
over to the plunder, slaughter, and imprisonment of its inhabitants. 58
Many of the people of Thessalonica hastily adopted Islam.59 The inci-
dence of religious abnegation in rural areas was probably far higher.
Murad II was quick to reassure the inhabitants. In an effort to populate
the city again, he invited back those who had fled and brought in others
from different parts of the Empire. A number of these were entrusted
with garrison duty, alongside Turks, in the turrets of the sea walls, and
in return were exempted from various taxes.60
At this time, too, the municipal council of Thessalonica would appear
to have been restored.
After capturing Thessalonica, Murad II next thrust against northern
Epirus, and quickly subdued parts of it. He then marched to the south
of Ioannina, thus transferring his military operations to the region 61 ruled
by Carlo II Tocco ( 1429-1448).62 The capital of Epirus capitulated on
9 October 1430. This surrender took place, however, after the metro-
politan of the city and its Greek and Serbian noblemen received a promise
THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN EMPIRES AFTER ANKARA 149

from Valesi Sinan Paşa,63 the governor of the European provinces of the
Ottoman Empire that is, Rumelia, that certain rights and privileges would
be reserved to the inhabitants. The Turkish general gave written assur­
ances that the people of Ioannina "need have no fear that they will be
taken captive or their children abducted, that churches will be destroyed
or turned into mosques [Masgidi]. The bells of the churches will con­
tinue to ring. The Metropolitan [of Ioannina] will retain his judicial pre­
rogatives and all other ecclesiastical rights, and nobles will be allowed to
keep their fiefs. Ancestral rights, property and personal possessions will
be guaranteed without question, and antßhing ehe you ask for will be
granted!' A great many copies of this document, which was in Greek and
known as the "Order [Orismos] of Sinan Paşa," have been preserved.
This document is of great importance in tracing the history of community
privileges because it is not only the oldest Turkish document known to
exist in a Greek center but it probably also served as a model for other
subsequent "Orders." G4
The reference to the judicial rights of the metropolitan commands our
attention because these were the same kinds of rights the Venetians had
accorded the people of Thessalonica. No less interesting are the reference
to noblemen and the additional concession that "anything else you ask
for will be granted."
The right of Christian lords to keep their fiefs is also attested in oral
tradition, which speaks of the so-called Christian spahis of Epirus who
were required to accompany the sultans on their military expeditions.
For two centuries, whenever an order arrived from the sultan, the feudal
lords of Delvino, Argyrokastron, Paramythia, Konitsa, and many other
places foregathered in Ioannina, whence they would set out to war bear­
ing aloft the banners of St. George. Only on arrival at the Pindus Moun­
tains would they fold these away and unfurl the Turkish standards. 05
After the conquest of Ioannina in the spring of 1432, Umur Bey, son
of Sarutza Bey, was charged with recording all land titles in the official
registry of the province (sancak) of Albania.66 By this means, of course,
Ottoman control in Epirus and Albania could be more effectively im­
posed. At the same time, this act immediately provoked the Albanians
into determined opposition and marked the beginning of their active
resistance against the Turks.67
From the book of registered titles of the sancak (which has been pub­
lished by Professor Inalcik), a great deal can be learned of the manner
of provincial administration in this period; the toponymy of the region
( which remained Greek to a noteworthy degree ) ; the settlement in rural
areas of Moslem foreigners or Christian converts to Islam; the existence
of great and petty feudal lords, chiefly Albanian and Turkish; and the
150 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

process of rapid conversion to Islam of Christian lords who were in­

digenous to the region. Although it is true that the records often mention
the names of Christians who were brothers or fathers of converts, the
reader of these lists would quickly form the impression, from the pre­
ponderance of Moslem, converted Moslem, and spahi feudal lords, that
Christian spahis were a tiny minority and soon disappeared altogether.
Yet this would be a misleading conclusion, for there were in fact ( as we
have already noticed from the evidence of oral tradition ) a large number
of Christian spahis in northern Epirus who remained faithful to Chris­
tianity. There were also many more who, after their apparent conversion
to Islam, continued for many years, even for centuries, not only to speak
Greek but secretly to practice their Christian religion.68
The earliest known registrations of people and economic resources in
the conquered territories (vilâyet tahriri) date from the time of Murad
II. The commissions which undertook this vital task of registration were
often headed by prominent military figures as, for example, Timurtaş
Bey, Halil Bey, Michal Oğlu Ali Bey, Tursun Bey, and others. Competent
recorders on the spot methodically assessed taxable capacity and care­
fully registered the names of persons and places in the book of titles.
This procedure was indispensable to the smooth functioning of the Otto­
man governmental apparatus. Every twenty or thirty years, in the inter­
ests of more perfect justice, special commissions were formed to review
the original lists. Local Christians often served as recorders on these com­
missions—as well as local Moslem converts, when perhaps a more diligent
registration of names was required. 69
The books themselves actually fell into two categories: the mufassal,
which registered taxation dues and also minutely detailed the economic
means of persons and places (and is therefore an invaluable guide to
nomenclature ) ; and the icmal, which recorded only the names of feudal
lords and the villages in their fiefs.70 Needless to say, a full and compre­
hensive study of the relevant archives will one day uncover new and
vital evidence bearing upon the history of modern Hellenism.
Also dating from the period of Murad II are numerous valuable sources
which deal with the mobilization of raias for the purpose of meeting the
military needs of the Ottoman Empire.
^1Ш1МШШШ1Ј11М1РЈ1јЦШШ1ШЈШ1И1@ШШ1111@1@Ш1ШЈ

11

IMPRESSMENT OF
CHRISTIANS

Reorganization of the Janissaries

Shortly before the capture of Thessalonica, Murad II authorized the
compulsory recruitment of Christian boys who were subjects of the
Ottoman Empire. 1 According to Uzunçarsılı, his motives were twofold:
to fill out the ranks of the janissaries, thereby creating an army in peak
fighting condition capable of resuming the Ottoman conquests which had
been brought to a halt in the wake of internal troubles after the battle
of Ankara; and gradually to build up the number of Moslems in Rumelia,
the Balkan peninsula that was in fact the place where impressment of
Christian boys first took place. The first of these motives, if not altogether
spurious, was certainly the less important of the two; but in any case it is
much more likely that Murad 1Гѕ sole concern was simply to ensure the
strength of the janissaries by a regular recruitment of Christians without
regard to the success of his military operations.
The reorganization was a decisive one. As Sphrantzes says, "Murad II
gave the janissaries special privileges and issued instructions which gave
them the institutional form they have retained to this day. Their former
role was quite different, as different indeed as the very clothes they
wore. Now they were ordered to forsake marriage altogether so as not
to be preoccupied with the care of wives and children and thus to be
able to devote all their energies solely to military pursuits. They became
"the sons of the sultan." These were not Murad II's only reforms, nor
indeed were they necessarily new, as Sphrantzes would have us believe.
There are a number of problems associated with the practice of impress­
ing Christian boys which may remain forever unsolved, not least that of
152 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

determining the extent to which the new organization and system of

recruitment of janissaries were in fact Muraďs original innovations or
merely the adaptation of older policies. For the moment at least, I think
we must accept the fact that Muraďs policies were refinements of tradi­
tional arrangements for the recruitment and education of Christian cap­
tives and that the emergence of the janissaries as the distinctive force
with which we are familiar was simply the outcome of a systematic re­
vision and consolidation of those arrangements. It is just that the extent
of Muraďs reorganization and the quality of his reforms left such an
impression on posterity that it obscured the work of his predecessors and
gave rise to the notion that it was he who had instigated the impressment
of Christian children and originated the institution of janissaries.2 For it
was not long before the new organization made itself felt in a renewal
of the strength and minatory disposition of the Turkish army.
Candidates for the ranks of the janissaries (called acem oğlan) were
henceforth recruited either from among captive Christians or from among
the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The latter method was
much the more usual. At first, impressments were carried out every five
years, though later, depending on the exigencies of warfare, these periods
were reduced to every one, two, three, or four years.3 The janissaries were
the only truly organized component of the Turkish army under Murad II.
The rest, the aktntzts, were irregulars.

Christian Spahis
Besides the janissaries and aktntzts in the armies of Murad II and those
of his predecessors, Murad I and Bayezid I, there were also a number of
Christian auxiliary armies. These, as previously noted, comprised the
armies of tributary Christian kings as well as Christian feudal lords
(hiristiyan timar-erleri) or Christian spahis, the Christian livery servants,
and others—all of whom were exempt from certain taxes.4 The spahis
were normally knights from the several Christian states of the Balkan
peninsula who had preferred to submit to the Turks in consideration of
being allowed to retain their fiefs.5 They consisted not only of Greeks,
but also of Bulgarians, Albanians, Vlachs, and Serbs, who, however much
they may have detested the despotic ways of the sultans, were nonethe­
less required to follow them to war. "If they had only seen other Chris­
tians, and above all the French, take up arms against the Sultan," wrote
Brocquière, "then I do not doubt that they would have turned their backs
on him and inflicted considerable injury upon him." 6 According to
J. Torzelo, the Christian spahis and their men may have numbered as
many as fifty thousand. 7
These Christian knights and landowners existed as a class only at the
I M P R E S S M E N T O F CHRISTIANS 153

tolerance of the Ottoman state. The merest soupçon of suspicion that

they were engaged in seditious activities against the Empire was enough
to lead to the prompt sequestration of their lands. Financial self-interest
therefore shackled them to the new regime. And as an auxiliary arm of
the main Turkish forces they proved extraordinarily useful in the process
of conquest and consolidation.8 Without them, large numbers of Turks
would have been tied down to garrison duty in the numerous fortresses
of the Empire. 9
The sultans were therefore indulgent towards "infidels" who showed
themselves ready to submit and to co-operate. And yet it must still evoke
our admiration that they were able not only to hold the allegiance of
such a large, heterogeneous, and alien-speaking group, but to send them
as military allies against people of the same religion, to enjoy the fruits
of their victories, and even in the fullness of time, as we shall see, to
assimilate them.
This process can be followed in the official Books of Titles of two
separate years (1454-1455 and 1466-1467) during the reign of Mo­
hammed II. It can be ascertained beyond question, for example, that
certain of the local nobility—Albanian, Arvanito-Vlach, and Greek—in the
Turkish districts of Trikkala, Phanarion, and Agrafa were permitted to
retain their properties by agreeing to co-operate with the Turks. This
situation had already come about by the time Ömer Bey, son of the
provincial governor of Thessaly, Turhan or Turahan, held sway in the
particular sancak which incorporated these districts. All told, in 1466-
1467 there were twenty-three districts ( nahiye ) in the sancak, including
Mikira-li, Platamon, Lidorikion, Domokos, and Chatalja (Pharsala).
There were 182 fiefs in the sancak ( 1454-1455 ), of which thirty-six were
held by Christian spahis.10 In the district of Trikkala, for instance, we
find mention of a fief belonging to Demetrius, son of one of the first of
the spahis (kadîmi sipahi), Michael, as well as various others belonging
to the many sons of Mikira(P), 11 who was apparently a powerful figure
and an extensive landowner in the district. One of the largest districts in
the whole province of Trikkala took its name from Mikira (Mikira-li)
and another from the prominent spahi, Kravaldi(P). There is little doubt
that the present name, Kravaři, is derivative of this Kravaldi. The sons
of Mikira, Peter, and Mustafa (whose name surely points to his conver­
sion to Islam) were jointly seised of one of the fiefs in Mikira-li; jointly
given was another fief to three other sons, Iglava, Domeniko, and Mouzer-
aki; a third fief went to still another son, Paul. These fiefs have probably
given their names to the present-dáy villages of Domeniko and Mouziariko
in the neighborhood of Trikkala. The names of the members of this
powerful family would seem to indicate that they were of Albanian or
154 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Arvanito-Vlach origin. Similarly, from the Book of Titles for the year
1466-1467, we learn that there were twenty-four shepherd holdings in
Levadia held by Albanians and thirty-four in the district of Thebes
(istifa). By this time, there were only twenty Christians among the 343
spahis in the district, a mere four of whom were fief-holders—proof
enough of the inexorable, if gradual, conversion to Islam of feudal lords.
Apart from the twenty Christian spahis, another nineteen whose fathers
had been Christian were recent converts.12
The Albanians and Arvanito-Vlachs who had settled in the rugged
province of Trikkala and generally throughout western Thessaly and
Epirus lived nomadic lives in the manner of other mountain peoples.
They had intermixed with the Vlachs of the Pindus Mountains and prob-
ably also with Slavs who still remained from early migrations and from
the more recent incursions of Stephen Dušan.13 It is only in these terms,
I think, that we can explain the existence in Trikkala in 1454-1455 of
Christian feudal lords with the names Boga and Pelegrin, whose father
was called Bogoslav.14 This conclusion would seem to be borne out by a
reference in the Chronicle of Proklos and Comnenus to one Bouges
(Bouges) or Bogoes (Bogkoes), which is certainly the same name as
Boga in the Turkish sources. This Bogoes is described as "Serbo-Arvanito-
Bulgaro-Vlach" in the Chronicle.15
In 1466-1467, the Bogoslav's fief became for a time the inheritance of
his sons, Ali and Mustafa, both of whom were Moslem converts (nev-
müsülman). Mustafa continued to manage half the fief, while the other
eventually reverted to the sons of Pelegrin, Gön and Girgor. In the dis-
trict of Trikkala in 1454-1455, mention was also made of the fief of
Klazinos(P), which was jointly held by the sons of Mihos, Ostoya, and
Miras, together with Ahmed, converted son of one Gin. le
These examples, of course, point to the rapidity with which Christian
lords were converted to Islam.17 There are many instances of one son's
becoming a Moslem while the other remained a Christian.18 They prob-
ably hoped by this means to ensure that their property would remain
in the bosom of the family,19 for converts immediately took the title of
Bey and were thereby entitled to aspire to the highest offices in the Em-
pire. 20 Such conversions must have had an unsettling effect on the Chris-
tian peasants who worked their lands.
The fief-holders of western Thessaly and central Hellas who became
converts to Islam were mainly of Albanian origin. Inalcik calls this to our
attention and even attempts to trace their ancestry.21 Of course the pres-
ence of many Albanians, or to be more precise, Arvanito-Vlachs, in these
parts during the middle of the fifteenth century is to be expected from
the remarks we have made passim about their settlement in the moun-
I M P R E S S M E N T O F CHRISTIANS 155

tainous regions of Thessaly. A number of Greek lords were also to be

found there: Demetrius, son of Theodore, for example; and in 1466-1467,
ilandan ( Leondaris ? ), cannoneer of the fortress of Zituni ( Lamia ). Both
of these were fief-holders. So, too was Peter, among the first of the spahis,
whose three sons in turn rendered military service to the sultan; they
jointly inherited their father's fief in 1466-1467. Other lords, Moslem con­
verts, appear to have had ancestors who were Greeks—Mustafa, son of
Filatrino,22 for instance, who was assuredly descended from the great
Philanthropenos family.
Besides Christian spahis in the district of Trikkala, there is also men­
tion of 103 Christian livery servants (ѵоупикЫг);23 Christian livery serv­
ants served in the Turkish army until the sixteenth century.24 The suita­
bility of the open plain of Thessaly for the grazing of horses probably
accounts for such a large number of such servants.
An Order of 1520 (that is, some fifty-four years later) affecting Trik­
kala mentions the existence of Albanian, Greek, and Vlach raias, but
makes no mention whatsoever of Slavs.25 Since Slav and Albanian foreign­
ers had previously inundated this region, how are we to explain the sud­
den reappearance of Greeks and disappearance of Slavs? The fact that the
Greeks are mentioned after the Albanians in this context is of course no
indication that they were a minority in western Thessaly. Where then did
they live? Perhaps we should recall that Trikkala, Phanarion, and Kar-
ditsa, with their neighboring villages and purlieus, were ancient centers
of Hellenism. As for the Slavs, we can only assume that they had become
assimilated by the end of the fifteenth century.
On the other hand, the explicit reference to Albanians attests to the
extensive nature of their settlement. The fact that they intermixed, as
did the Vlachs, with the Slav population probably supports the conten­
tion already advanced that they had also become bearers of Slav place-
names. At the time of Murad 1Гѕ reign, we observe, too, in Macedonia-
in Kastoria, Nevrokop, Serrai, and Veles—a number of Christian lords of
Slav and Greek origin. Again, some of their descendants became converts
to Islam—Musa, son of Petko; Bayezid, son of Augustus; Umur, son of
Theodore—to mention a few.26
There remains the problem of when the Christian spahis first appeared
in Thessaly. If we attempt to deduce the event from the fact that the fief
of Demetrius was inherited from his father, Michael, one of the first
spahis, we arrive at the reign of Murad II or perhaps Mohammed I
(1413-1421)—possibly even earlier, at the time of Bayezid I. For it is
quite probable that immediately following Bayeziďs conquest of Thes­
saly, Christian landowners who declared their fealty and willingness to
co-operate were left unmolested, with the sole obligation to render mili-
156 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

tary service to the sultan. This supposition would seem to be strength-

ened by the fact that the practice of granting fiefs had begun as soon as
the first Turkish armies of Bayezid occupied Thessaly. Of the 182 fiefs
in the sancak of Trikkala, thirty-six were known to be Christian. The re-
mainder had been apportioned among the military commanders of
Evrenos and Turahan after the first Turkish invasion (and later among
those who accompanied Turahan when he settled there permanently),
as well as among the relatives and retainers of the Beys (gulâm-i mîr),
the janissaries and other "slaves of the Porte" (карг-kulları). Another,
though less significant, category of fiefs consisted of those bestowed upon
the Christian relatives of the converted palace retainers of Beys and civil
functionaries (gulâm-i mír). Still others were granted to the volunteer
soldiers (gönüllü) and military heroes of renown (garip yiğit).27
Thus, the Albanian, Slav, Vlach, and Greek nobility of Thessaly sub­
mitted to the Turks in order to avoid an imagined reign of terror if they
refused. They chose to become vassals of the Turkish Empire in order to
save their lives and their fortunes. Most of the nobles, it would seem,
were converted to Islam in short shrift—by the second generation. In the
following centuries, many local Moslem Beys and Agas were descended
from them. And yet, it would also appear that the overwhelming majority
of Vlach- and Greek-speaking people, together with other Albanian or
Arvanito-Vlach settlers, simply withdrew into the mountain villages of
the Pindus and its spurs. Here, notably in the district of Agrafa, but
generally throughout Epirus and the west, they found the ideal refuge
from persecution; and here, aided by the natural advantages which the
region afforded, they staked new claims to life, liberty, and fortune.
Here, too, the Albanians eventually became assimilated by Vlachs or
Greeks, or else they finally emerged as Moslems. Only the Arvanito-
Vlachs, as we have seen, preserved their former identity.
In sum, except for the large class of Turkish fief-holders, the possession
of fiefs was limited to the small groups of gulâm-i mîr, gönüllü, and garip
yiğit, or to the remnants of the Byzantine military oligarchy that had
been absorbed into the class of Turkish feudal lords. On the whole,
Christian raias were excluded from the official Ottoman hierarchy and
military class. Indeed the Ottoman Empire, always mindful of its eco­
nomic welfare, saw that the raias (haracgüzâr reaya) were the chief
productive element in the Empire and therefore could not lightly be
released from payment of taxes by being allowed access to the military
class. This was a fundamental principle enshrined in the codes of law
(Kanunname), whose violation was expressly forbidden.28
Nevertheless, certain Christian raias came to perform duties of a mili-
IMPRESSMENT OF CHRISTIANS 157

tary nature which exempted them from some taxes, in particular those
of a supplemental kind (avanzi divaniye).29 These duties usually involved
the guarding of fortresses, narrow passes, and the like, and exemptions
were granted by extraordinary decree. Those exempted were called
muaf ve müsellem, meaning exempt from taxation, especially supple-
mentary taxation. Even so, Christians who acted as garrison troops in
fortresses in the interests of security came under the constant surveillance
of Turkish soldiers.30 In some cases, whole villages guarding narrow
passes (Dervenochoria) were granted additional immunities besides
total, or partial, exemption from taxation 31 in order to secure transpor-
tation and communication routes along which the official mails passed.
Thus unruly peoples were won over and Turkish forces were freed for
more urgent military commitments elsewhere.

The Greek Armatoles

A widespread institution under Turkish rule was that of the Christian
Armatoles, a sort of militia entrusted with certain defensive and police
duties. The question instantly arises: was there any connection between
the Armatoles on the one hand and the system of Christian spahis or
those other Christians exempt from taxes (muaf ve müsellem) on the
other? Or did the Armatoles perhaps evolve from one or the other of
these contemporary institutions? It must be admitted at the outset that
the likelihood of there being any relationship between the Armatoles and
the Christian spahis is remote indeed. The latter resembled the Byzantine
military caste, from whose remnants it was to a large extent composed.
Furthermore, there is no suggestion anywhere to be found that the duties
of the spahis were similar to those of the Armatoles. This was not the
case with the muaf ve müsellem, many of whom indeed served under the
name Armatoles in various parts of the Balkan peninsula.32
But the Armatoles, at least of Greece, appear to have been a distinctive
institution. Although first mentioned as auxiliaries of the Turkish armies
at the time of Mohammed II, 33 certain coincidental evidence exists which
fixes their origins in the reign of Mohammed's father, Murad II. In the
valuable introduction, written in 1824, to his two-volume work on Greek
folk songs, Fauriel noted that the institution of Armatoles first appeared
in Thessaly. According to oral tradition among very old Greeks, the war-
like and unsubdued people of the mountains used to come down into the
plains, entering villages and towns and robbing Turks and raias with
impunity. 34 The attackers assuredly emerged from the mountain range
which bisects Greece, the Pindus. Here, especially in the Vlach-speaking
district of Agrafa, the very remoteness of their abode provided perfect
shelter and security.35
158 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

These western regions were not only far away from Constantinople
and the main Turkish centers, but were also oriented towards the Vene-
tian colonies of the Ionian Sea. Since arms could be replenished and help
requested from these sources, the sultans had good reason to feel con-
cerned about the disposition of their inhabitants. We may therefore give
credence to the hitherto unverified evidence (probably based on Turkish
sources), of the Phanariote, Rizos Neroulos, that the original seat of the
Armatoles—the first armatoliki—wsLs in Agrafa and that the Turks ex-
tended recognition to them in the reign of Murad II. 36 This evidence is
borne out by another, much later, source to the effect that the Turks im-
posed only minimal imposts on these people, which were only rarely
paid.87
If final proof be needed, we may turn to the comments of the traveller,
Urquhart, who visited Tyrnavos in Thessaly in 1830. The Turkish com-
mandant there, who was himself descended from the first Turkish provin-
cial governor of Thessaly, Turahan Bey, told him that Murad II had
established the system of Greek Armatoles after Turahan proposed it.
This information was contained in an old Arabic manuscript from the
library of Tyrnavos which set forth the life of Turahan. According to it,
so Urquhart was told, Turahan had sanctioned the Armatoles in order
to pacify Thessaly and to be rid of the nuisance of wild mountain people.38
Thus, long before the capture of Constantinople, the first elements of a
national fighting force took shape.
The system of Armatoles proved an effective device for controlling
mountain people. In the western part of Greece, the densely forested
mountains and ravines, the torrential rivers, the thick and generally
rugged terrain provided extremely effective means of defense. By the
same token, it was an advantageous base for guerrilla operations. And
second to none as a place of refuge in these parts was the wilderness of
Agrafa, a veritable labyrinth of peaks, ravines, valleys, and forests. Other
similar places were Valtos and Xeromero, where the Tocco family still
held sway. From Agrafa the inhabitants could easily pour down into the
plain of Thessaly. In fact, it was in these places that those who did not
follow the Toceos to Leukas and Cephalonia found refuge.39 This untamed
and self-willed people continued to exist in a semi-wild and semi-inde-
pendent state until the 1821 revolution, controlling narrow mountain
passes, harassing or halting transportation, and pillaging Turkish settle-
ments in the plains.40
The Turks therefore found themselves among a hostile people. It could
only have been a waste of time and manpower to attempt to penetrate
and neutralize these mountain fastnesses far from the major centers of
population. Moreover, their conquests in the region generally could not
IMPRESSMENT OF CHRISTIANS 159

then be regarded as permanent; there were still formidable enemies in the

West awaiting an auspicious moment to strike.41 Rather than set a course
which would only arouse the bellicose instincts of the mountain people,
the sultans sought to win them over with privileges in return for garri-
soning strategic points in their mountain region. They thus served to
supplement the insufficient Turkish military force. From being an internal
enemy of the Empire to be reckoned with, they were transformed into a
useful regional militia. Of course these nomads, mainly Pindus Vlachs,
were by no means oblivious of the advantages attendant upon maintain-
ing their semi-independent status. With the coming of winter, they were
free to go down with their flocks to the Turkish-controlled parts of
Thessaly and Macedonia. The sultans had shrewdly completed the job
of conquest.
A lack of documentary material prevents us from tracing the history
of these mountain regions and ascertaining how they were governed.
The scanty information which is relevant mostly dates from a much later
period. However, it can be presumed from the little we do know that,
just as towns and districts which capitulated without resistance were
granted privileged status, so the mountain peoples who surrendered
were spared the humiliating obligations of compulsory labor. They were
required to pay very few taxes and were granted a certain amount of
autonomy. The details of these written agreements varied, but the spirit
in which they were contracted was everywhere the same.42 One common
provision, for example, was that Turkish armies and military detachments
were not allowed to billet in, or even to enter, the places concerned.
However, military exigencies constrained the Turks to proceed cautiously
in some districts. Trikkala, therefore, in fact became the seat of a large
sancak comprising in 1466-1467, as we have seen, no fewer than twenty-
three districts (nahiye).43
In regard to the Armatoles, only one further consideration remains:
that perhaps, after all, they did not appear for the first time during the
reign of Murad II and that what seemed to be the institution of Arma-
toles in that period was merely a revival of the old system of frontier
guards, which stretched back beyond the Byzantine era to Roman times-
even, as some at least would say, to the period of the Macedonian kings.44
There is no simple answer to this suggestion, though the continuous exist-
ence of the old system of frontier guards into the Turkish period would
appear to be ruled out by the fact that the Armatoles first appeared in
Greece in the Agrafa. Since it was here that the Turks first encountered a
serious obstacle to their conquest, it is reasonable to suppose that they
attempted to surmount it by founding the institution of Armatoles. But
precisely what the position of the Armatoles in the Ottoman Empire was
160 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

cannot be ascertained. Nor is it possible to determine the nature and

extent of their responsibilities and regional jurisdiction. Hitherto, the
practice has been merely to ascribe to the past the image of the Armatoles
which the institution had on the eve of the revolution of 1821. But this
approach is patently inadequate. Even in the most isolated districts
where the institution survived in a form which was perhaps closest to
its original type, it was subject to change and it must have assumed
forms which varied not only from time to time but from place to place.
The task of the historian is to project himself into these places and times.
Only in this way will he have any hope of tracing the evolution of the
Armatoli themselves and defining the boundaries of their armatolikia.
рр|ЩРІР1ШШР1ШШМІМІШШІШ1ІШІШ11Ш11ІШШІ1ІШІШІШ

12

TURKISH COLONIZATION
AND ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION

While on the one hand the sultans pacified the Greeks and other Balkan
peoples by a series of wise concessions, on the other the akincis con­
tinued to spread destruction and devastation from Thrace to the Adri­
atic. 1 Joseph Bryennios observed, in an account of the ecclesiastical
provinces of the Oecumenical Patriarchate at the beginning of the fif­
teenth century, that, five hundred years before, almost every province
had a hundred flourishing cities, whereas in his own time scarcely more
than two or three, and those poverty-stricken, survived. Three hundred
years before, each archbishopric had within its jurisdiction a thousand
villages, but now there were no more than twenty. Two hundred years
before, villages were healthily populated by as many as a hundred or
more prosperous families, whereas in his day there were never more than
ten, and these reduced to penury. 2
This description, which has gone unnoticed until now, may be exag­
gerated, but it does contain a lot of information which accurately depicts
prevailing conditions. It is incontrovertibly true that the vitality of urban
life throughout the Byzantine Empire had been slowly sapped. City
populations had thinned out and homes were everywhere abandoned.
Formerly populous villages fared no better.
The rate of urban and rural decline was due not only to decrease in
trade with the East and the steady accretion of land by big landowners
at the expense of small ones, but above all to repeated invasion by the
Turks. As we have seen, the Turkish rulers rewarded their military com­
manders and heroes with fiefs in Christian lands. In order to secure their
conquests, they also adopted the practice of settling their own colonists
162 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

in fertile areas and establishing villages exclusively inhabited by Turks.

Turkish colonization in Thrace was begun in the middle of the four­
teenth century during the reign of Orchan. By the end of that century,
that is to say during the reigns of Murad I and Bayezid I, it had been
extended into Macedonia, Thessaly, and the northern regions of the
Balkan peninsula. 3 In northern Greece, mass colonization by the Turcoman
peoples began at the end of the fourteenth century, usually following
peaceful infiltration and settlement by individual families or small groups.
The invasion of Tamerlane may well have swollen this stream of Turkish
immigrants into Europe. 4 It ought to be stressed, however, that the fact
that acculturation took place in certain districts where no organized
colonization ever occurred was a consequence not so much of the ingress
of Turkish peoples as of the religious conversion of the local inhabitants.
Although it is difficult to determine the exact numbers of Turks who
settled in the north of Greece, an early sixteenth-century census provides
us with a probably fairly reliable guide. A hundred or so years after the
initial colonization took place, this census listed in Macedonia and Thes­
saly 4,574 Yuruk families, who were broken up into groups and organized
after a military fashion.6
The center of Yuruk settlement, for which a separate legal code, the
ѣеЫпік Yürükler Kanunname, was later promulgated, was Thessalonica.
From the official Register of Titles for the year 1543, we are able to
present for the first time an accurate analysis of the distribution of the
companies (ortas) of Yuruk colonists: 36 in Phlorina, 33 in Servia, 23 in
Phanarion, 5 in Hypate (Neopatras), 60 in Pharsala, 117 in Larissa, 35 in
Kalamaria, 8 in Pournar Dağı, 2 in Genitsa ( now Giannitsa ), 47 in Avret
Hisar, 28 in Strumica, and 8 in Siderokastron. The number of ortas in
the more northern districts, apart from 13 in Přilep, 10 in Philippopolis
(Plovdiv) and 26 in Silistra, was less significant. The largest concentra­
tion of Yuruks was in Phlorina, Servia, Phanarion, Larissa, and Pharsala—
precisely those places close to mountain districts which were the rallying
points of resistance to the Turk.6
Turkish colonization in Thrace really got under way on the initiative
of Suleiman, son of Orchan. Here, it was the Gallipoli peninsula which
was first settled by Arab nomads brought in from Karasi in Asia Minor.
There settlements eventually spread out from Gallipoli and survived for
a very long time. A number of prominent Christian families in the area,
chiefly those engaged in military pursuits, were obliged to leave the pen­
insula fortresses of Tzympe and Aya Silonya and move to Karasi. This
expulsion was undoubtedly caused by considerations of military secu­
rity. According to the testimony of the Grand Mufti, HăirouÎlah efendi
(a much later source, and probably exaggerated), the number of Moslems
TURKISH COLONIZATION AND ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION 163

who moved into Thrace from Biga, Karasi, and Aydin during Orchan's
reign amounted to no fewer than ten thousand souls.7 From Gallipoli, the
Turkish settlers colonized the fertile valley of the middle and lower
Hebrus, where a number of Turkish warlords were known to have been
granted extensive fiefs.8 In this district, soldiers, yaya and müsellem, con­
tinued thereafter to comprise a high percentage of the Turkish popula­
tion. Nesri records that in 1387 Sarutza Bey, in his capacity as comman­
der of Rumelia's yayas, led an expedition against Karaman. He played
an important part in the Bulgarian campaign of 1388 and in the battles
of Kosovo Polje (1389) and Ankara (1402). No less prominent a military
figure was Sarutza's son, Umer Bey, who bore the honorific titles, iftihar
ül-mucâhidîn ( Pride of the Warriors of Islam ) and Şeref ül-guzzât ( Glory
of the Ghazis ), both of which were customarily bestowed upon the ghazi
beys of the marches of the Empire. Sarutza is also remembered for the
mosque which he built in Çirmen. His son followed this example by
building a refuge for paupers. 9
The colonization of present-day Greek Macedonia occurred during the
reigns of Murad I and Bayezid I, when a large number of Yuruk farmers
and shepherds settled around Serrai (1385), 10 Thessalonica, and the
Axios. These people occupied the mountainous region north of Lake
Koroneia, extending from Serrai to Drama, and formed the largest Yuruk
community in the Balkans.11 They brought to the north of Greece the
simple and primitive customs of their Turcoman ancestors.12 In the six­
teenth-century census rolls, these Yuruks of central Macedonia were re­
ferred to as the "Yuruks of Evrenos," probably because they had accom­
panied Evrenos, Burak, and Umur (father, son, and grandson) on their
conquests and indeed belonged to the same tribe of the district of Saruhan
(now Manisa), whence they had originally set out. By all accounts these
nomads (who considered Yenice Vardar—Genitsa—a holy place, since it
was there that Evrenos' tomb and other Yuruk monuments were to be
found) settled in Macedonia after 1385.13 Local tradition names six Turk­
ish villages as being settled by the "men of Evrenos": Asıklar, Kısalar,
Asarbey, Nidir, Yayakioï, and Karamtza.14 At least in the case of Yayakioï
("Village of the Yaya"), the tradition would appear to be an authentic
one.
The census rolls 15 also disclose that other Yuruk nomads, whom Boue
believed to be Konyar Yuruks (from Konya, Latin Iconium) 16 settled
in northwestern Macedonia in 1390, principally in the districts of Kozane,
Sarıgöl, and Kailar ( Ptolemais ). These were probably kin to the warlord
Pasha Yiğit Bey, father of Turahan Bey of Thessaly, and were probably
also moved there from Saruhan.17 When Evliya Tschelebi visited them
in the latter part of the seventeenth century, they still retained their old
164 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

military duties, which were to serve as reservists (eşkinci) and to support

military operations.18 By the twentieth century, their descendants had
become peaceable farmers and carpetmakers, with Ioannina, apart from
a few neighboring small towns, their only trading center.19 Very soon
these nomadic people accustomed themselves to a settled agricultural
existence and eventually adopted it entirely.
Turcoman peoples remained in Macedonia until the population ex­
change of 1923 returned them to Turkey. Up to the very moment of their
departure, they recalled keenly and with pride that they were the "chil­
dren of the conquerors" (Evlâd-ı Fatihan).
It is known that Turkish colonization of Thessaly took place at the time
of Bayezid I.20 However, Urquhart has advanced apparently conflicting
evidence, based on an Arabic manuscript on the life of Turahan, which
was reported to him by a descendant of Turahan, the Turkish comman­
dant ( Kaymakam ) of Tyrnavos ( see page 158 above ). This suggested that
around 1423 Murad II settled in the northern part of Thessaly five or six
thousand industrious peasants from Konya, all of them skilled in the arts
of war. There he built for them twelve villages: Tatar, Kazaklar, Çayır,
Misalar, Koufala, Karatsoğlan, Delir, Ligara, Rantgoun, Karademilli,
Derili, and Balamout, of which only three or four were still standing at
the beginning of the nineteenth century.21 The rest had disappeared,
according to tradition, because of successive epidemics, particularly a
plague in the middle of the eighteenth century.22 Urquharťs informant
also said that Murad II originally established these settlements as a shield
against the Bulgarians who inhabited neighboring mountain districts.
When Turahan took Larissa with five thousand men, the Bulgarians re­
treated before him, and their ruler retired to Meteora, where he founded
a monastery.23
Now it is quite apparent that the Turkish commandant (if indeed
Urquhart himself recounted the conversation faithfully) was guilty of
gross inaccuracies in his reportage of names and events from 1381 to
1423. The facts are that in 1381 the hellenized Serbian (not Bulgarian)
ruler, John Ouroš Palaeologus, abdicated and withdrew to Meteora; and
that in 1393 the Turkish invasion of Thessaly commenced, and fighting
immediately broke out, as we have previously noticed, between the Turks
and the conglomerate mountain population of Thessaly, mainly Vlachs.24
However, other information, such as the names of the original Turkish
villages, the reference to Murad II and his purpose in effecting the
colonization, would appear to be sound. It is therefore likely that Turkish
settlement was not systematized until the time of Murad II, though it
began in the reign of Bayezid I.
When the bulk of Larissa's inhabitants abandoned the city in the
TURKISH COLONIZATION AND ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION 165

shock of the Turkish advance, it was probably Bayezid I who repopu-

lated it. This would explain the official Turkish name of the city—"Yeni
Sehir" (New City). Yet it must also be noted that the Turkish settlers
in Thessaly were not recorded in the census rolls as Konyars, but simply
as "Yuruks of Yeni Sehir" or Yuruk Tatars. 25 These were the militant
nomads who, with the passing of time and under the influence of a more
settled Turkish farming population, were eventually transformed into
industrious farmers.
Oral tradition also mentions Turkish settlement in the district of
Almyros, centered upon the village of Yenitzek in the northwestern part
of the plain of Krokion at the foot of Mount Othrys. Here, the Turks
chased off the local inhabitants and took over their village, whose original
Christian name has been lost.26
With the Turkish capture of Trikkala in 1395,27 the former capital of
the Greco-Serbian state of western Thessaly acquired even greater im-
portance as a forward military base and the most advanced stronghold
from which the unsubjugated people of Agrafa and the Pindus could be
contained.
The conquest of the plains of Thessaly and their subsequent settlement
by Turkish colonists was accomplished peacefully and with the compli-
ance of lay and ecclesiastical nobility, who were extensive landowners
there. There is consequently no mention by any of the Byzantine histo-
rians of resistance encountered in these areas. But this was in any case
subject to easy conquest. Unstable conditions prevailed throughout the
whole of the fourteenth century, when a succession of rulers—Greek,
Serbian, and Albanian—exercised dominion there. Various forms of op-
pression, including heavy taxation, afflicted the free farmers and serfs.
Large areas of common land, together with derelict property (mahlûl)
formerly belonging to big landowners who had fled to free or to Frankish-
controlled territory, either reverted with their serfs to the Turkish public
domain or were usurped outright by Turahan and other lesser feudal
lords. By these means, the first Turkish estates (çiftliks) were founded.
Even those lords who chose to remain behind soon succumbed to the
harsh and exigent conditions of life and were forced to relinquish their
properties or acknowledge Islam. A good deal of monastic property was
similarly confiscated. The property of Turkish feudal lords was increased
further by the appropriation of many small holdings and villages, Christian
and Turkish, which had become derelict as a result of poverty, disease,
famine, or debt. 28 Such conditions could only have led to the flight of
many of the people of Thessaly to the mountain wildernesses of the
Pindus 29 and Olympus,30 and even perhaps to the Péloponnèse, where a
remarkable confluence of peoples could be observed at this time. Never-
166 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

theless, small, free peasant holdings continued to exist in certain moun­

tainous and infertile places of Thessaly throughout the Turkish occupa­
tion. These constituted the kephalophoria (villages of free peasants) as
opposed to the çiftliks of the Turkish period.31 But the survival of these
villages was due not so much to Turkish respect for the rights of Chris­
tians to hold property as to their sheer geographical isolation and the
stubborn hostility with which their inhabitants resisted Turkish encroach­
ments.
The sultans were determined to prevent the mass flight of their sub­
jects. They realized the need to stabilize economic activity after a pro­
tracted period of chaos and decomposition. Accordingly, the capture of
cities and provinces was invariably followed by reconstruction. Encour­
agement was given to those who had survived the Turkish onslaught,
and enticements were held out to lure back those inhabitants who had
fled. New settlers, Greek and Turkish, were also invited (or compelled)
to change abode in order to complete the task of repopulation. The
sultans clearly saw that the raias, peasants, craftsmen, and laborers alike,
were indispensable to economic life everywhere and therefore to the
maintenance of imperial viability.
It was also natural that the great Turkish provincial governors, once
having acquired vast estates by the dispossession of the raias, should
nevertheless wish to enhance the productivity of their properties with a
view to organizing and strengthening the economies of their various
governances. Typical of these were Lala Şahin Paşa in the province of
Philippopolis ( to whom is accredited the introduction of rice in that dis­
trict), 32 Ghazi Evrenos Bey in Macedonia, and Turahan in Thessaly. The
achievements of these men and their descendants fixed their families'
names in the memories of local inhabitants until the very end of the
Turkish occupation.
Evrenos, for example, whose properties stretched across the fertile
plains of Macedonia to the very foothills of the ridge of Mount Vermion,
resettled the unruly inhabitants of that district (probably from Pali-
onaousta on the lower summits of that range ) in present-day Naousa and
promptly conciliated them by gaining the Sultan's agreement to the grant
of various immunities. These included the payment of limited taxes only
and the exclusion of all Turks from the town except the judge and mili­
tary commandant. They permitted the establishment of various handi­
crafts, industrial arts, weapons' manufacture, and weaving and dyeing
industries. Some of these crafts have survived down to the present. 33
Similarly, Turahan, who had appropriated to his own use a vast amount
of property in the urban and rural centers of Thessaly,34 devoted himself
unstintingly to the economic stability and growth of his province. He
TURKISH COLONIZATION AND ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION 167

first established a military cordon of Turkish villages; inside it he repopu-

lated Tyrnavos,35 which possessed unrivalled geographical advantages,
especially in regard to its lines of communication with Larissa and Saran-
taporos. His efforts to obtain immunities for the town were successful
and Tyrnavos was declared a wakf (a religious foundation) belonging,
that is, through the Kızlar ağa to the Sherif of Mecca and therefore out­
side the jurisdiction of the provincial governor. The inhabitants of the
town were thus exempt from all taxes save the haraç (which all non-
Moslems were obliged to pay) and the tithe (a compulsory levy of one-
tenth of every person's income or produce ). In addition, there were the
usual privileges of exemption from compulsory labor, the prohibition of
any Turkish military presence, and the like.36 All were preserved almost
inviolate until as late as the Greek revolution and the reforms of Mahmud
II ( 1808-1839).37 Turahan was notably munificent with his public bene­
factions. In Trikkala, Yenişehir (Larissa), Chatalja (Pharsala) and many
nearby villages he endowed mosques, monasteries, theological seminaries,
schools, caravanseries, poorhouses, bridges, baths, bazaars, and other in­
stitutions for the welfare of the public.38
To Turahan has also been attributed the introduction of the art of dye­
ing, as well as the development of the silk, cotton, and woollen industries,
wThich were the mainstays of Thessaly's economy under Turkish occupa­
tion. If the attribution is correct, the Turks also introduced into Tyrnavos
at the same time yellow berries and madder as well as the kali plant,
from which potash was made. These then came into general use in the
dye industry throughout European Turkey and many parts of Western
Europe. An inscription on a reservoir in the village of Makrynitsa on
Mount Pelion which was used for the washing of dyed fabrics and which
remained in use until 1830 reveals that it too was the work of Turahan. 39
Unfortunately, the trustworthiness of some of these sources is doubtful.
The exaggerated praise which Fallmerayer, for example, has lavished
upon Turahan (with whom Byzantine statesmen are invidiously com­
pared as no more than "silly prattlers") 40 is surely inflated; Fallmerayer
seems also to have put inordinate trust in every word that reflects hand­
somely upon the peaceful accomplishments of Turahan. It is, however,
a verifiable fact that economic development was well begun in Byzantine
times. We have already seen, for example, that Thessaly was famous for
its weaving and silk-making as early as the middle of the thirteenth
century (see p. 39 above). Even then, thousands of liters of silk were
being exported to Apulia by the "Duke" of Neopatras. 41 Indeed, the tech­
nique of weaving and silk-making in Thessaly may have had its origins
in antiquity. Only in this way does it seem possible to explain the incom­
parable skill in spinning of the people of Thessaly, their traditional pro-
168 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

ficiency in tending silk-worms, and their meticulous care for the softness
and perfection of their product—which even Fallmerayer recognized as
unsurpassed anywhere else.42 Turahan, we may presume, merely found
these industries in a flourishing state, preserved them, and encouraged
them.
Thus, from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation, economic
development was sustained, the more smoothly no doubt because con-
quest was effected peacefully. The centuries'-old roots of a vigorous
economy were only more deeply cultivated and continued to bring forth
their fruit until the very end of Turkish rule. Even in so modest a way,
we have yet another illustration of the continuity of Hellenic history.
щ^щщ|щщрщщщрщщіщрщщщщіЦ[[11ЛШ^

13

THE LAST PROTAGONISTS

OF NEO-HELLENISM

The Morea under Constantine Talaeologus

Murad II, as we have seen, accomplished and consolidated his conquests
by a dexterous combination of military and political means. In doing so,
however, he raised up two new champions of Neo-Hellenism—Constantine
Palaeologus, Despot of the Morea (1443-1449), and Cardinal Bessarion
of Trebizond. Dismayed at the continuing spread of Turkish power and
fired by the reforming zeal of Gemistos, both attempted to remodel the
Despotate into a dynamic new Hellenic state.
Constantine personified the spirit of the nation. Having inflicted final
defeat on the Franks in the Péloponnèse, he then overcame successive
obstacles in his path. Gemistos' statement that the Péloponnèse was the
strategical pivot of the Hellenic world and the source of its élan rang
constantly in his ears. It was in his court, as we have seen, that the Athe-
nian, George Chalcocondyles, took refuge after his abortive move to
detach Athens from Turkish rule (see p. 45 above).
Although formidable difficulties at first prevented him from bringing
his plans to fruition—strife with his brother, Theodore II, Despot of
Morea, the unending struggles with Frankish rulers, and, most impor-
tantly, the efforts of Turahan Bey to frustrate him—his reputation as a
brilliant military leader was already established when he assumed the
Despotate of the Morea. By 1437 his reputation in Constantinople was
that of an "exceptional, prudent, wise, sensible, and courageous man." 1
The years 1437-1443 found him in Constantinople and the Greek cities
along the west coast of the Black Sea; then, in 1443, by arrangement with
his brother, Theodore II, he assumed control over the latter's dominions
170 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

in the Péloponnèse and its capital Mistra, while Theodore was installed
in the cities of the Black Sea and Selymbria on the Propontis.2
The intellectual life of the Morea at this time is described by Francesco
Filelfo, a Hellenist. In a letter in 1441, he advised a friend, whom he
addresses simply as Saxolo, to pursue his studies in Constantinople and
not in the Péloponnèse, because "the repeated invasions of the barbarians
and the apathy of the people have left the country destitute of anything
good; save for one person, George Gemistos, truly a wise man, in whose
words and decorum we find our only consolation, you will find no one
here worthy of the faintest praise. The Palaeologi themselves have become
stricken by their needs and consequently behave towards one another in
the most reprehensible and selfish of ways. The language of the people
has become vulgar, and their customs 'more barbaric than those of the
barbarians/ In Constantinople, on the other hand, there are still educated
people whose language is pure and whose mores are above reproach." 3
This account was not completely accurate, for the Morea, small and
isolated though it was, still retained some vital elements of its former
high civilization. In 1444, to give just one example, the classicist Cyriacus
of Ancona discovered a large library in Kalavryta owned by George
Cantacuzenus, from which he borrowed Herodotus' history.4 Scholars and
librarians had not vanished completely.5 And of course Gemistos was still
there, a figure of singular intellectual prominence. While research has
bridged a number of gaps in our knowledge, it is still not possible to plot
the full progress of his thought or to discern what its goal was and
whether it was reached. If Gemistos' ultimate philosophical position re-
mains hidden from us, so, too, do many of its links with the thought of
his various disciples. We do know that at the time of the Council of
Florence (1439), Gemistos wrote an essay, Peri hon Aristoteles pros Platona
diapheretai (How Aristotle Differs from РШо), in which he attempted
to liberate the thought of his contemporaries, the humanists of the West
in particular, from the static philosophical and ideological conceptions
of the Middle Ages. These of course were based on Aristotle's system,
which, however, had suffered frequent mutilation in the process of Arabic
translation and annotation. By elevating Plato to a higher plane than that
of Aristotle, he awakened, as we shall see, a new interest in Platonic
studies and thereby exercised a profound influence on human thought.
Thoroughly disenchanted by the situation in his homeland and despair­
ing of the ability of either the Orthodox Church or the Byzantine state
to do anything about it, he cast around for some new force in the free
firmament of his own philosophizing. He gradually became absorbed in
a form of Neo-Platonism which was both ideal and mystical and which
therefore segregated him from the realities of contemporary Greek life.
T H E LAST PROTAGONISTS O F NEO-HELLENISM 171

Gemistos possessed an inordinate faith in the power of the ancient

Hellenic culture and especially in the system of Platonism which he
revived in a new guise. "For him/' writes Knös, "Platonism or Neo-
platonism was a declaration of independence not only for his people
but for the whole of mankind; it was at once Neo-Hellenism and human-
ism." 6 He probably made the first public declaration of his mystical
Neo-Platonism at the time of the Council of Florence.7 In his Nomoi
(Laws), which he was then composing, he moved beyond traditional
belief and the tenets of the Church to a new kind of polytheism, pan-
theism perhaps—to a new religion, in effect, which reflected the influence
of ancient Greek mythology and Platonic conceptions of the universe.
Moslem ideas also exerted a deep influence upon him. He sought to
impress on Christians the need for a vital faith in providence and fate,
the kind of faith, that is, that so impelled the Turks.8 While Gemistos'
profound concern for the problems of his time and his people was at-
tributable in part to the influence of his old Jewish teacher, Elissaeus,
nevertheless his awareness of Moslem religion and society, apparent
in the Nomoi, was also plain. To be sure, the precise identification of
these influences still presents many problems for research.9 But such
evidence as we already have clearly establishes Gemistos as a visionary,
if perplexed, figure, who represents the awakening of a new and modern
spirit, as much European as Hellenic.10
While he was still alive, however, Gemistos' philosophy remained
almost obscure to contemporary scholars. This was due in the main to
the fact that Gemistos himself made no attempt to put his Nomoi into
circulation. Only a limited currency was given to his ideas by the pub-
lication separately of the first three chapters and, it would seem, their
relatively widespread dissemination by his students. It was not until
later, with his Pros tas hyper ton Aristotelom Georgiem Scholariou an-
tilepseis (The Views of George Schohrios in His Defense of Aristotle),
a disquisition against Aristotle's most ardent defender, George Scholarios,
and with the Pros to hyper tou latinikou dogmatos biblion (Concerning
the Book in Favor of the Latin Dogma ) addressed to Johannes Bessarion,
that Gemistos revealed at least some facets of his intellectual inclination
to the theological elements of ancient Greek thought. At any rate by
about 1450 George Scholarios felt that he knew enough of Gemistos'
philosophy to make a specific riposte to the philosopher's recent criti-
cisms. In a tract entitled Kata Hellenon (Against the Hellenes) he ac-
cused Gemistos of pagan inclinations and warned darkly that the author
of such ideas "was deserving only of fire." He then pleaded with Gemistos
to return to the bosom of the Church or at least to cease propagating
his ideas. 11
172 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Later, when George Scholarios was patriarch, he called the then-

deceased Gemistos a "new Julian" and again excoriated that particular
work for its unsupported arguments, its obscurantism, and its disorderly
arrangement of ideas.12 History must find it difficult to express an opinion
on such charges since they were made by Gemistos' most violent ideolog-
ical opponent, who took care to destroy the manuscript on which they
were based. Only fragments of it are still extant.
Meanwhile, Constantine succeeded in reorganizing his state both mili-
tarily and politically. His reign was distinguished by a definite Hellenic
style, which was early revealed by his enclosure in stone of space for
annual athletic competitions, held in emulation of the ancient Hellenic
spirit, with money prizes awarded to the champions. According to the
traveller Cyriacus of Ancona in 1447, the plains and valleys of the realm
were cultivated with fruit-bearing trees, vineyards, and olive-trees, which
suggests a practical concern on the part of Constantine for the encourage-
ment of agriculture and the welfare of his farmers.13
In March 1444, Constantine built a wall across the Isthmus of Corinth. 14
Was he the "fortunate" one who would fortify the Isthmus for the "fourth
time" and bring about the destruction of the Turks? After all, were there
not many who were predicting that 1451 was the year when the oracle
would be fulfilled 15 and the Turks annihilated? And did not the rumors
of actual military preparations by powerful rulers in the West who would
soon confront the implacable foe of Christendom actually presage his
overthrow?

Bessarion
There was one whose enthusiasm for the fortification of the Isthmus was
unlimited—George Bessarion, one of Gemistos' former students. In a letter
which has been brought to light by Lambros, Bessarion, in Italy, congrat-
ulated Constantine, as well as "the nation and all Greeks." As a virtual
blueprint for the social and political development of the nation, the letter
is a landmark in the awakening of the Greek national consciousness. It
was the third letter Bessarion wrote to Constantine after the fortifica-
tion of the Isthmus, an event which had gratified him immensely. The
first two letters have never been found, but the contents of all three,
in the words of Bessarion himself, were substantially the same. Accord-
ing to Lambros, the third letter was written sometime between 1443 and
1446. However, if we take into account the actual date of the fortification
of the Isthmus, together with a reference in the letter to the crusade
which was known to have ended in the battle of Varna, 10 November
1444, it can probably be dated in the year 1444 (p. 17). 16
Moved by a strong national awareness (p. 27), 17 Bessarion expatiated
T H E LAST PROTAGONISTS O F NEO-HELLENISM 173

at length on conditions in society. He exposed mercilessly the existing

state of affairs in the Byzantine Empire, especially the Péloponnèse. He
spared the nobility least of all, castigating them for their incompetence
and for oppressing the people. His views on the nobility derived from
the time when he had first studied under Gemistos and discussed the
philosopher's ideas with his circle of students. Bessarion realized that
the problem of the nobility was most acute in the Péloponnèse and that
urgent action was needed there. For him, as for his mentor, the problem
was not only social but political; he therefore appealed to Constantine
to institute significant reforms. The reorganization of the Despotate would
provide the key to the recapture of occupied Greek lands and the restora-
tion of the Byzantine imperium.
Bessarion's proposals were rather more specific than those of Gemistos,
no doubt partly because they came later and matters had grown steadily
worse since the time of Gemistos' memoranda. Also, Bessarion had a
more reasoned and temperate outlook. Since he had had considerable
experience in other European countries, his proposals benefitted from a
thorough knowledge of their social and economic organization. And
because he was actually Jiving in Italy when he wrote, he could express
his ideas without prejudice or self-interest and free from any interference
or restraint by the nobility, whereas Gemistos was to a large extent the
prisoner of his environment. Bessarion put Greece's problems in sharp
focus and felt it his duty to expose them with complete candor.
It is apparent from the very beginning of the letter that Bessarion, like
all Greeks then, saw in Constantine the only hope for the salvation of
the nation. The completion of the wall across the Isthmus had further
enhanced the Despot's repute. Constantine is the unquestioned leader
of the nation: "not only have you not disappointed our expectations,
but in truth you have exceeded them; and for this I congratulate you."
( P. 15. ) He went on to praise Constantine for his attachment to the ideals
of ancient Greece and the vigor with which he pursued his enterprise:
"I know only too well how eagerly your heart is set upon imitating our
forebears, who accomplished so much with so little." And again: "Do
not think I am ignorant of those things which exercise your mind each
da/, that I do not know what you want, what you are thinking, all the
ideas you have and how you devise every possible way of putting them
into effect." (Pp. 15-16.) Bessarion evidently was well informed about
events in the Péloponnèse and at Constantine's court in Mistra, in view
of his claim that he knew "each day" what the Despot was thinking.
He must have had an informant living in close proximity to Constantine,
and that person may well have been either Gemistos himself or one of
his close disciples. Perhaps Gemistos had ascertained Constantine's in-
174 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

tentions in discussion with him and thought it judicious to have those

intentions reinforced by some respected outside authority, a function
Bessarion was obviously well qualified to perform. It is therefore prob-
ably unreal to consider Bessarion's letter apart from Gemistos' mem-
oranda.
Bessarion next urged Constantine to build a city at the Isthmus, to
garrison it, and reside in it. Such a city would come to "preside over all
others." Following earlier precedents, he should also increase the popu-
lation by allowing any who wished to do so to take up residence in the
Péloponnèse. Even prisoners of war should be treated not as slaves but
as immigrants and settlers possessing the same rights as other citizens.
(Pp. 16-17.)
The present inhabitants of the Péloponnèse, he said, were robust and
courageous, though untrained and unarmed. If their morale was low,
this was because of the oppressive conduct of the nobility, the burden
of taxation, and the malevolence of the tax collectors as well as the
"flabby indifference and crassness which everywhere prevails." Thus he
castigated the arch stupidity of nobles and despots, who did not seem
to realize that the present external danger threatened their own interests
first. He reiterated Gemistos' plea that the military should be separated
from the peasantry and that each class should confine itself solely to its
respective concerns. Only by total release from economic obligations
could morale be restored to the military; only by this means could the
"ancient nobility of soul" (an expression redolent of the attachment to
antiquity which characterized Greek leaders ) be recaptured. ( Pp. 17-18. )
In the meantime, however, it behooved Constantine to train the men
and instruct them in the tactics of war. He reminded Constantine that
the great military exploits of Spartan generals offered innumerable exam-
ples of what could be done. If his soldiers were properly trained, he
would succeed in that greatest of all enterprises—the liberation of the
Greek lands of Europe. After that, like Agesilaos at the head of the new
Lacedemonians, he will reform them and then cross into Asia and take
back the entire national patrimony. (Pp. 18-19.)
This exhortation reveals the same spirit that animates all the popular
traditions and oracles with which the Greeks tried to console themselves
during the long and difficult years of occupation. It is the recurrent na-
tional dream, an expression of the popular yearning for "restoration."
On the whole, we must agree with H. G. Beck that Constantine's own
politics was based on the European politics of the period, 18 while empha-
sizing, however, that Reichspolitik at this time and also in subsequent
centuries corresponded with the growth of a national political conscious-
ness among the Greeks aimed at the liberation of the entire Greek terri-
THE LAST PROTAGONISTS OF NEO-HELLENISM 175

torial inheritance, not only in Europe but in Asia Minor. A "national

policy" aimed at the creation of a separate Greek state in the southern
Greek lands not only never existed but was unthinkable to the Greeks.
What happened was simply this, that the consciousness of being "Roman"
gradually faded and was supplanted by a sense of "Greekness," though
without any obvious break with historical tradition or the immediate past.
The Hellenes merely adopted the political and cultural heritage of both
ancient Greece and the Eastern Roman Empire (in ways already at-
tempted by John III Ducas Vatatzes, as we have seen above, pp. 63-64),
which over the centuries a Greek tradition eventually encompassed.
Bessarion's many references to Greek antiquity signified more than a
sentimental attachment to the classical past: they also revealed a keen
national pride. Thus Constantine, he wrote, ought not to despair at the
limited size of his forces in the Péloponnèse. On the contrary, the diverse
examples of Alexander the Great, Cyrus, Rome, Sparta, Tamerlane, and,
most recently, the Turks themselves (whose numbers were so small at
first but whose power and extensive authority were now evident), all
showed what greatness might flow from the most inauspicious of begin-
nings—of course given sound and determined organization.
There were, he went on, a number of great nobles who deplored con-
ditions within the state and even felt a sense of contrition at the part they
themselves might have played in contributing to this decline; but more
to blame, they said, were appalling conditions within the state which
obliged them to do what they did not really want to do (p. 23). In other
words, there were those who saw a need for reform and might even have
supported it—except that they found it more convenient to regard them-
selves as prisoners of the regime than actively to participate in its reform.
Bessarion saw scant cause to trust the intentions and motives of such
men. There was no panacea for overcoming the state's ills, but the essen-
tial prerequisite was the thorough overhaul of government and law in
the light of actual circumstances and pressing social and political needs.
(This became Bessarion's dominant idea.) There were illuminating ex-
amples of what could be accomplished in the cities of ancient Greece
and contemporary Italy. Ancient Lacedemonian society was a vital model.
(Pp. 20, 23.)
There was also a need, Bessarion continued, for the honors of public
office to be distributed on the basis of personal distinction rather than
personal means. The nobility ought to be constituted "in accordance with
merit," not "according to wealth." Neither money nor position should be
permitted to determine social differences and inequalities. Certain per-
nicious habits which threatened to erode public morality should be got
rid of. For example, expensive jewelry, luxurious gilded fabrics, silken
174 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

tentions in discussion with him and thought it judicious to have those

intentions reinforced by some respected outside authority, a function
Bessarion was obviously well qualified to perform. It is therefore prob-
ably unreal to consider Bessarion's letter apart from Gemistos' mem-
oranda.
Bessarion next urged Constantine to build a city at the Isthmus, to
garrison it, and reside in it. Such a city would come to "preside over all
others." Following earlier precedents, he should also increase the popu-
lation by allowing any who wished to do so to take up residence in the
Péloponnèse. Even prisoners of war should be treated not as slaves but
as immigrants and settlers possessing the same rights as other citizens.
(Pp. 16-17.)
The present inhabitants of the Péloponnèse, he said, were robust and
courageous, though untrained and unarmed. If their morale was low,
this was because of the oppressive conduct of the nobility, the burden
of taxation, and the malevolence of the tax collectors as well as the
"flabby indifference and crassness which everywhere prevails." Thus he
castigated the arch stupidity of nobles and despots, who did not seem
to realize that the present external danger threatened their own interests
first. He reiterated Gemistos' plea that the military should be separated
from the peasantry and that each class should confine itself solely to its
respective concerns. Only by total release from economic obligations
could morale be restored to the military; only by this means could the
"ancient nobility of soul" (an expression redolent of the attachment to
antiquity which characterized Greek leaders ) be recaptured. ( Pp. 17-18. )
In the meantime, however, it behooved Constantine to train the men
and instruct them in the tactics of war. He reminded Constantine that
the great military exploits of Spartan generals offered innumerable exam-
ples of what could be done. If his soldiers were properly trained, he
would succeed in that greatest of all enterprises—the liberation of the
Greek lands of Europe. After that, like Agesilaos at the head of the new
Lacedemonians, he will reform them and then cross into Asia and take
back the entire national patrimony. (Pp. 18-19.)
This exhortation reveals the same spirit that animates all the popular
traditions and oracles with which the Greeks tried to console themselves
during the long and difficult years of occupation. It is the recurrent na-
tional dream, an expression of the popular yearning for "restoration."
On the whole, we must agree with H. G. Beck that Constantine's own
politics was based on the European politics of the period,18 while empha-
sizing, however, that Reichspolitik at this time and also in subsequent
centuries corresponded with the growth of a national political conscious-
ness among the Greeks aimed at the liberation of the entire Greek terri-
THE LAST PROTAGONISTS OF NEO-HELLENISM 175

torial inheritance, not only in Europe but in Asia Minor. A "national

policy" aimed at the creation of a separate Greek state in the southern
Greek lands not only never existed but was unthinkable to the Greeks.
What happened was simply this, that the consciousness of being "Roman"
gradually faded and was supplanted by a sense of "Greekness," though
without any obvious break with historical tradition or the immediate past.
The Hellenes merely adopted the political and cultural heritage of both
ancient Greece and the Eastern Roman Empire (in ways already at-
tempted by John III Ducas Vatatzes, as we have seen above, pp. 63-64),
which over the centuries a Greek tradition eventually encompassed.
Bessarion's many references to Greek antiquity signified more than a
sentimental attachment to the classical past: they also revealed a keen
national pride. Thus Constantine, he wrote, ought not to despair at the
limited size of his forces in the Péloponnèse. On the contrary, the diverse
examples of Alexander the Great, Cyrus, Rome, Sparta, Tamerlane, and,
most recently, the Turks themselves (whose numbers were so small at
first but whose power and extensive authority were now evident), all
showed what greatness might flow from the most inauspicious of begin-
nings—of course given sound and determined organization.
There were, he went on, a number of great nobles who deplored con-
ditions within the state and even felt a sense of contrition at the part they
themselves might have played in contributing to this decline; but more
to blame, they said, were appalling conditions within the state which
obliged them to do what they did not really want to do (p. 23). In other
words, there were those who saw a need for reform and might even have
supported it—except that they found it more convenient to regard them-
selves as prisoners of the regime than actively to participate in its reform.
Bessarion saw scant cause to trust the intentions and motives of such
men. There was no panacea for overcoming the state's ills, but the essen-
tial prerequisite was the thorough overhaul of government and law in
the light of actual circumstances and pressing social and political needs.
(This became Bessarion's dominant idea.) There were illuminating ex-
amples of what could be accomplished in the cities of ancient Greece
and contemporary Italy. Ancient Lacedemonian society was a vital model.
(Pp. 20, 23.)
There was also a need, Bessarion continued, for the honors of public
office to be distributed on the basis of personal distinction rather than
personal means. The nobility ought to be constituted "in accordance with
merit," not "according to wealth." Neither money nor position should be
permitted to determine social differences and inequalities. Certain per-
nicious habits which threatened to erode public morality should be got
rid of. For example, expensive jewelry, luxurious gilded fabrics, silken
176 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

finery imported for feasts, and undue expenditures on marriages, funerals,

and the adornment of "servant girls" represented conspicuous extrava-
gance which could no longer be afforded. The voracious appetites of the
avaricious led to injustice, deprivation, and want. Even when the people
are scarcely distinguishable from slaves in their poverty, the avaricious
continue on their greedy and stupid ways. It was Constantinei duty to
see that the multitude was freed from penury and public morality re-
stored. (Pp. 20-22.) 19
Bessarion's comment that those bowed down by poverty were "scarcely
distinguishable from slaves" showed that a distinction between peasant
and slave could still be made in the Péloponnèse. But nothing less was
needed, he said, than a reorganization of the entire economy. It was
absurd, for instance, to permit the exportation of grain when large seg-
ments of the population were starving. (P. 24.)
There were a number of pertinent lessons which Constantine could
learn from the ancient law-givers Solon, Lycurgus, and Numa. "You know
what they are better than I do. They are a veritable treasure locked in
your mind. Draw upon this treasure. Do not hesitate to copy that which
you esteem nor to apply that which you admire." ( P. 22. )
Even if Constantine should fail in the end to build a disciplined and
real state, a sustained effort would result at least in the partial fulfill-
ment of his aims. For the Greeks would be behind him. And although
as a race (to ton Hellenon genos) they are by nature easy-going, proud,
courageous, concerned about virtue and morality, and lovers of knowl-
edge, they nevertheless need good leaders and governors like Constantine.
If, on the other hand, the people have lost their probity and behave in
ways which belie their true nature, it is because some evil has insinuated
itself into the life and social organization of the state, thereby debasing
the "nation" to the level of this evil. (Pp. 22-23.)
Despite the seemingly inevitable retrogression which characterizes this
period, what emerges from Bessarion's letter, even more unmistakably
than from Gemistos' letters, is a genuine confidence in the qualities and
capabilities of the people and a pervasive note of optimism. Whereas
Gemistos' inspiration derived from a profound faith in the revivifying
influence of the spirit of ancient Greece, Bessarion was no less moved by
the example of contemporary Western Europe. Bessarion is the archetype
of the modern Hellene who feels as much bound by the intellectual tradi-
tion of the West as by that of ancient Greece. The superiority of the West
wounded his national amour-propre. Who were these foreigners who
looked upon the Greeks as their mental servitors when it was they who
had learned the very rudiments of civilization from the ancestors of the
present-day Greeks? (Pp. 24-25.)
THE LAST PROTAGONISTS O F NEO-HELLENISM 177

His advice to Constantine was to have young Peloponnesians—"youth

neither too young nor too old"—trained in Italy, not merely in classical
studies, which were almost moribund in Greece, but also in the mechani-
cal arts, which had all but disappeared. In this way science and the arts
could be restored to Greece, for there was no doubt that the young people
of the day possessed ample resources of intelligence and wit. A sense of
shame was no good reason for the Greeks to turn their backs on "the
pursuit of the good" because, if the Franks had been slow in taking that
which was not even properly theirs, they would never have attained their
present level of knowledge. After all, the Greeks would be merely re-
possessing what really belonged to them.
Bessarion especially urged the advancement of practical education.
He was convinced of the need to strike a rational balance between
theory and practice and therefore of the importance in education of
developing a parallel stream of technical training—a concern all the more
interesting because only today is it at last fully appreciated by the Greeks.
It was not sufficient merely to adopt a worshipful attitude towards the
accomplishments of one's forebears. Some of the young Greeks sent to
Italy should be trained in iron-working especially ( since there were many
iron mines in the Péloponnèse, even around Mistra itself), in the manu-
facture of arms, and in ship-building. Four other crafts in which Italy
excelled were glass-making (the splendid tradition of Murano, of course,
surviving to this day ), the manufacture of silk, once a flourishing industry
around Corinth, the woollen industry, and dyeing. These were no longer
indispensable in Greece. (Pp. 25-27.)
These remarks, like those made by Gemistos some thirty years before,
showed that the Péloponnèse had lost a significant part of its industry.20
Indeed, for several centuries afterwards, the Greeks had to rely on the
handicrafts and industrial manufactures of the West. On the whole,
Bessarion placed far greater emphasis than Gemistos had done on the
need for technical education and specialization, whether of craftsmen,
farmers, or soldiers. The call for "more specialized knowledge by leaders
and manufacturers" recurs throughout his letter.
Finally, Bessarion maintained that the application of his ideas would
usher in a period of happiness for the Greek people. He added that he
felt a sense of profound obligation towards Constantine ( for what reason
or reasons can only remain a subject of conjecture) and dared only to
hope that the advice tendered might serve to repay part of his debt. He
doubted that it would, for he was also aware not only that Constantine
had held the same ideas "for a very long time," but that he had reflected
upon them a great deal, had found them unexceptionable, and would put
them into effect as soon as the right opportunity presented itself. Beyond
178 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

that, Bessarion could only wish Constantine power and long life in order
to bring them to fruition. (P. 27.) 21
What was the precise nature of Constantinei relationship with Gemistos
and with the circle of Gemistos' followers? To what extent was Constan-
tine influenced by Gemistos' general philosophy and by his specific pro-
posals for social and political reform? Perhaps these questions will never
be answered or perhaps some future discovery of Bessarion's first two
letters to Constantine and a careful sifting of the contents of all three
will at last throw light on this problem of Greek history. Any full under-
standing of the nature of Mistra's social and intellectual impact must
await its solution.
But this much at least can be said: that Gemistos, Constantine, and
Bessarion were in unanimous accord on the question of instituting sub-
stantial reforms and on the need for fearless action in surmounting the
grave perils of their time. All three struggled to light the way through
the thickening darkness. The glow thus shed shines like a beacon in the
history of the Hellenic nation. For the spirit of freedom which it sym-
bolized was the same which ultimately led to the dispersal of external
enemies, deliverance from internal petty tyrants, and the redemption of
the Greek nation.

Constantine and the Turkish Peril

In his effort to realize the aspirations of Bessarion, Constantine sought
to agitate the Christian conscience and to take advantage of actual war
preparations in the West against the Turk. Like his brother, John VIII,
he was in continual touch with some of the most powerful forces in
Europe, among them Pope Eugenius IV, the Hungarian King Ladislaus,
and the government of Venice. In April 1444, emissaries of John VIII
passed through Ragusa (now Dubrovnik) on their way to Hungary. 22
With the winds of crusade again blowing strong in Europe, Constantine
was inspired to renewed confidence and optimism. He believed that the
right moment had at last arrived to carry his plans to a favorable con-
clusion. Exactly as Bessarion had advised, the Byzantine territories would
be liberated and his rightful patrimony restored. So even before the
armies of the King of Hungary and John Corvinus Hunyadi of Transyl-
vania began to move (the latter to be destroyed at the battle of Varna
in November 1444), Constantine had gathered together an army, invaded
Attica, and exacted tribute from Nerio II Acciajuoli. Afterwards, he
advanced to the north, conquering Thebes and all of Boeotia. Meanwhile,
too, the Vlachs of the Pindus, mostly from the highland fastnesses of
Agrafa (who, as we have seen, had their own leaders and maintained a
semi-independent existence), watched Constantine's progress with more
THE LAST PROTAGONISTS O F NEO-HELLENISM 179

than casual interest. Envoys were in fact dispatched to swear Vlach

allegiance to his cause. In return, Constantine provided them with a
military commander and they promptly undertook military operations
against the warlike Yuruks of Thessaly. No doubt the Greek-speaking
population of Thessaly and western central Hellas also actively partici-
pated in this campaign. Lidorikion received one of Constantinei lieuten-
ants and thereby pledged its loyalty to him. Finally, even the Albanians
(Arabaioi Albanoi) who lived in the mountains north of Naupactos and
who possessed a privileged autonomy accorded by the Sultan also went
over to the Greek side.23 Thus, Constantinei first attempts to organize a
national resistance movement were generally aimed at the unsubdued
peoples of the Pindus and its spurs. It is also very likely that he had
concluded an alliance with his brother-in-law, Carlo II Tocco (1429-
1448 ), who rebelled against the Turks in 1443. Although initially success-
ful, the rebellion collapsed in 1444 when Carlo was captured in battle
and had to buy his life with vassalage.24 Greek and Turkish sources in
this and the period immediately subsequent are scarce and unreliable, 25
but it would seem to be about 1443 that Constantine formally requested
aid from his powerful contacts in the West. In 1444 a detachment of
three hundred men was dispatched from Burgundy; it arrived in the
Péloponnèse in March or April of the following year, after the battle of
Varna.26
Constantine meanwhile attempted to hold the Turk at the wall of
Hexamilion on the Isthmus. However, in 1446 the torrent could no longer
be contained. His defenders on that occasion, according to Ducas, were
both Albanians and Greeks.27 These, still poorly organized as they were,
eventually took off in panic-stricken flight. The ensuing pillage, cruelty,
and destruction throughout the entire Péloponnèse were fearful.28 A later
source placed the number of people killed at twenty-two thousand,29 and
more than sixty thousand people were enslaved by the invader.30 It was
largely as a result of this defeat that George Scholarios again accused
the Peloponnesiuns of cowardice,31 an accusation that Bessarion had re-
jected two or three years previously.
After the defeat of the Peloponnesians at the Isthmus, all of the lands
north of the Hexamilion that had previously adhered to Constantine were
compelled to revert to the Sultan's suzerainty. Even the district of the
Pindus followed suit, no doubt in order to retain its semi-independent
status. The Despotate of Morea similarly capitulated and became tribu-
tary to the Sultan.32 How Constantine, Gemistos, and Bessarion reacted
to this series of disasters and how, if at all, their relationships were
affected by it are not known. Only this much seems reasonably certain:
that Gemistos withdrew more closely into himself and into his circle of
180 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

students and that his thought tended more strongly towards Neo-Plato-
nism and pantheism. Constantine, for his part, merely bided his time.
Evidently unsympathetic towards the kind of mystical solutions in which
Gemistos found increasing solace, he merely held on to his plans and
awaited the time when conditions would again seem ripe for their imple­
mentation.
The situation in the Pindus was confused, though it was probably at
this time that the Vlachs finally submitted. According to Aravantinos,
however, Vlach resistance did not come to an end until 1479. His claim
is based on a vague oral tradition which asserts that the Vlachs who
inhabited the mountainous marches of Epirus and Thessaly lost their
autonomy then because they saw that continued resistance would end
only in annihilation. They therefore acknowledged the nominal sover­
eignty of the Sultan after first extracting the guarantee of specified rights
of self-government. Their lowland neighbors suffered untold hardships.
And this was the political situation which obtained in the Vlach villages
until the time of AH Pasha of Ioannina at the end of the eighteenth and
the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, when the introduction of a
rigorous centralized system of government eventually put an end to all
Vlach privileges.38

Constantine as Emperor
The Turks meanwhile were strengthening their position throughout the
conquered territories. On 19 October 1448, they crushed a new army
which had been raised by Hunyadi. A few days later, on 31 October,
John VIII Palaeologus died. Murad II immediately seized this opportu­
nity to demand the cession of Herakleia, the most important port on the
Sea of Marmara. The Byzantines could only yield to the force majeure.3*
The universal dismay caused by this new crisis was portrayed by the
contemporary Unionist scholar, John Argyropoulos. In a panegyric to the
late "Sun King of Greece," he said: "With this death, Time, ruler of us
all, has dealt the deadliest blow . . . there can be now no deliverance
. . . he who was glory and perfection to the Greeks is no more. . . .
Hope has fled. Aidos and Nemesis have departed for Olympus. Only the
bitter cup remains to be quaffed. Our enemies and all barbarians rejoice,
while we are enshrouded in gloom and shriveled up by fear. . . . The
walls of our Grecian cities quake and seem about to fall and admit the
barbarians." 8б
Immediately on the death of John VIII, the capital was thrown into
confusion by a dispute over the imperial succession. Taking advantage
of the absence of the lawful successor Constantine, his ambitious brother
Demetrius schemed to seize the throne. His designs were foiled only by
THE LAST PROTAGONISTS OF NEO-HELLENISM 181

the combined opposition of his mother, the chancellors (mesazontes)

Cantacuzenus and Lucas Notaras—the latter in particular—and other pow-
erful members of the court.30 Those who abetted Demetrius were most
likely fanatical anti-Unionists, egged on by their leader, George Scho-
larios, who distrusted Constantinei Unionist propensities, as indeed he
confessed later on.37
Meanwhile, Constantine, who had been crowned Emperor in Mistra
( 6 January 1449 ), arrived in Constantinople on board a foreign vessel 38
and at once saw the extent of the Turkish danger for the capital. There
was even less freedom of movement and action than in the Péloponnèse.
Thereupon he divided the Despotate of Morea between his two brothers,
Thomas and Demetrius. After protracted negotiations, the new bound-
aries were defined so as to rule out, it was hoped, the possibility of fric-
tion between them of a kind which might provoke Turkish intervention.
Thomas' domain took in the northwestern part of the Péloponnèse, with
his capital probably in Glarentza (now Kyllene); Demetrius held sway
in the southeast and in Mistra. However, the two brothers possessed none
of the strategic acumen of Constantine and also seemed totally oblivious
of the social and political problems which beset them. Where they might
have been expected at least to master the situation in their respective
states, they were content to become the puppets of powerful nobles.
Otherwise, each acted as though his only concern was to dislodge the
other and thereby control the entire Péloponnèse. It was therefore not
long before they came into conflict with each other, as well as with Venice,
which produced disastrous consequences for the economy and internal
stability of the region.39
Gemistos died on 26 July 1452.40 His student and protege, the monk
Gregory, described him in his funeral peroration as: "this transcendent
mind, so fertile . . . the most brilliant and precious jewel in the crown
of ill-starred Greece." 41 The panegyric of yet another of his students,
Jerome Charitonymos of Mistra, was equally filled with economiums.
Above all, he praised the breadth of Gemistos' knowledge and referred
to him as "the greatest, the noblest, the pride of the nation." With his
death, "Sparta can no longer be famous, or Lacedemonia fortunate, or
the Péloponnèse enviable." 42 Referring to Gemistos' polemic against
Aristotle, he said: "By exhaustive analysis he showed the philosophy of
Aristotle, which some in olden times had revered as though divine, to be
insubstantial." His death was a greater loss by far than that of emperors,
for most of them were beneath contempt and often "more responsible
than anyone else for the many miseries of their subjects who, for that
reason, only wanted their deaths." Gemistos' courage and forbearance
towards others was always remarkable, and he had become noticeably
 AÍJÍÍÚS
Figure 14. Constantine XI Palaeologus.
T H E LAST PROTAGONISTS O F NEO-HELLENISM 183

even more restrained towards the end, though he never stopped advocat-
ing certain of his ideas. Of course the reason for this reticence might
have been advancing age, but—and here the panegyrist makes plain his
own interpretation of Gemistos' changed attitude—it might also have been
due to "the strictures of those who bore ill will towards him." This com-
ment, which has gone unnoticed until now, suggests that powerful landed
magnates coerced Gemistos into remaining silent on some subjects. These
probably include many of his plans for reform as well as his religious
views. 43
Charitonymos also spoke of the special duty incumbent on Gemistos'
disciples to bear their grief with fortitude. Since it was they who most
valued his wisdom, who had found happiness each day merely in convers-
ing with him, who were therefore "men of true learning, righteous nature,
and resolute conviction," it was also they who should continue to work
for the rebirth of the nation. These were the enlightened and reform-
minded men who, with the loss of their spiritual leader, would now go
out to the ends of the earth and perhaps know manifold sorrows "in
spreading their gospel of truth." 44
This might be construed as a warning of probable persecution, such
as occurred in the case of the monk, Juvenal, a follower of Gemistos.
(See page 184.)
The new emperor did not abandon his plans of reconstruction and
expansion. He was "Constantine the Hellene" of the demotic song, who
is seen as the first emperor of the Hellenes to incarnate the new spirit of
the nation. 45
It is unfortunately not possible today to trace the various ways in which
the new national consciousness became diffused throughout the Hellenic
world. Its features still remained amorphous; and even the assimilation
of alien races ( notably the Albanians ) was not yet complete. Nevertheless
there is one certain element in the picture. From the beginning of the
fifteenth century, and certainly by the middle of the century during the
reign of Constantine XI Palaeologus, the use of the word Hellene in
place of Roman became not only general but almost official. And this
was no mere coincidence. Scholars, those of Unionist sentiment in par-
ticular, responded eagerly to the new ideas of their emperor.46 John
Argyropoulos, for instance, who referred to Constantine as "Emperor of
the Hellenes," considered him the defender of "the freedom of the
Hellenes." That time of freedom, he hoped, would shortly arrive.47 Con-
stantine was obviously the sort of person who could arouse the hopes
of his people—at any rate the Unionists among them.
To the followers of Gemistos it seemed that the only solution to the
problems of the time lay in a change of existing political and religious
184 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

attitudes, and upon just such a course as this they determinedly em­
barked. The monk Gennadius (George Scholarios) later made this com­
ment on the results of their efforts: "unhappily, in the process of becom­
ing lost, the faith was also deliberately scorned; there was a terrible un­
godliness on all sides; some became pagan worshippers of ancient Greek
culture, others were either ignorant of the faith or indifferent towards it,
and everywhere there was a tergiversation from traditional institutions
and religion."
Gemistos' views on the failure of Church and state to deal with the
vital issues of the time made headway in the north, in the capital itself,
and in Thracian Ainos. There they were made public by the monk
Juvenal, among others, one of Gemistos' foremost protagonists; and when
he continued to propagate them just as earnestly on his return to the
Péloponnèse, he was apprehended and put to death by a local lord,
Manuel Raul Oises. That event gladdened the heart of Gemistos' most
uncompromising opponent, Gennadius. Although Juvenal died a martyr
for his beliefs he was probably the first and last of Gemistos' disciples
to do so: his execution had the intended effect of intimidating Gemistos'
followers. Gennadius praised Oises' action and deemed it worthy of imi­
tation by other nobles, great and small; he added the warning that failure
to take concrete steps against the spread of Gemistos' ideas could only
be regarded as actual connivance. "Either they are trying to conceal the
fact that they are indeed worshippers of ancient Greek culture or they
should be judged as such by God and men."48
It is easy to understand the fear and haste with which one young
initiate into Gemistos' circle, the scholar Michael Apostolis, addressed
himself to Constantine Palaeologus, imploring his intervention. He had
been accused by the Church, by Gennadius principally, of course, of
adherence "to the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and of other pagan and
ungodly worship." He believed in Zeus, Poseidon, and Hercules, wor­
shipped before their statues and idols—so the accusation ran—and was
therefore a follower of Gemis tos. Apostolis was at pains to impress upon
the Emperor (who of course was well acquainted with Gemistos and his
movement, and perhaps also with Apostolis' place in it) the genuineness
of his Orthodox profession. He denounced vigorously what was being
said against him.49
What in particular had Apostolis done to incur the wrath and hostility
of the Church? Some light is thrown on the matter by a letter Apostolis
had written to Gemistos. In this, after first introducing himself, Apostolis
declared his admiration and devotion, begging Gemistos to regard him
as one of his followers. Apostolis then identified himself as the one who
had secured a copy of Gennadius' Aristotelian polemic, Kata tou Ple-
T H E LAST PROTAGONISTS O F NEO-HELLENISM 185

thonos aporion ep Aristotelei (Against the Doubts of Plethon about

Aristotle), and sent Darius the Cretan with it to Gemistos.50 This sug­
gests that the literary dispute between Aristotelians and Platonists which
took so many Byzantine scholars to the West was already raging in Con­
stantinople. Obviously, it was this action which Gennadius never forgave,
quite apart from Apostolis' ideas. The Church's accusation against Apos-
tolis is explicable in terms of an identification in the minds of the clergy
of those of Gemistos' circle, whose pagan inclinations were plain, with
those who were merely devotees of ancient Greek culture. The Church
had never forgotten Julian the Apostate's attempted revival of paganism.
That there were admirers of Julian among Gemistos' followers who
lapsed into pagan heresy cannot be denied. For instance, there is the
commentary (full of misspellings) on Julian's oration, On the Sovereign
Sun (Oratio IV), written by Gemistos' devoted student and friend,
Demetrius Ralles Kavakes. In it Kavakes confessed to the same venera­
tion for the sun as the Emperor Julian; his adoration, which had begun
when he was seventeen years old, continued to grow though he was then
seventy-four years old.51
Despite the unrelenting opposition of the Church, the use of the word
Hellene was increasingly adopted, even by some of the most distin­
guished apologists of Orthodoxy and those who remained anti-Unionist
in outlook. These were men like Joseph Bryennios and George Scholarios,
the latter of course none other than Gennadius himself.52 Thus, in 1450,
in a speech of "condolence" to Constantine, later written down "in com­
memoration of the death" of the Emperor's mother, Helen, Gennadius
used the words Hellene and Roman more or less interchangeably. In
addressing Demetrius Palaeologus, he used Hellene and Hellenic ex­
clusively.Г)3 In this light, Voyatzidis is probably mistaken when he says
that Scholarios intended the word Roman to apply only to the people of
Constantinople and those who still remained under imperial rule, while
by the word Hellene he referred to the Peloponnesians.
We can only conclude that the presence of Constantine Palaeologus in
the capital, his commanding stature, his love of Greek culture, his con­
stancy in regard to policies both pursued and projected, all conspired to
bring about a change in attitude towards the use of the term Hellene, even
to the extent that the leaders of the anti-Unionist party came generally
to accept it. The word had come to signify the Greek people wherever
they lived. It is clear from a letter George Scholarios wrote to the Em­
peror of Trebizond, John IV, in 1449 or 1450 that Scholarios used it with
this meaning only. Here he referred to the brilliance and nobility of
John IV's reign, which embellished "the whole nation of the Hellenes." 54
It was also clear from this letter that the name Hellene was known and
186 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

understood in the region of the Pontus, a point we will refer to again.

And it was clear finally that the clergy had adopted the word Hellene,
however hesitantly, as an alternative to Roman.
It was during this period that the word seems to have acquired in the
popular mind the additional connotation, preserved in contemporary tra-
dition, of a supernatural being with a gigantic body and tremendous
strength.55 Merely to have survived the dark centuries of Turkish rule,56
these local traditions of the courageous Greeks and popular memories
of old Greek castles 57 must have been extraordinarily deep-seated.
Is there perhaps some connection between the flowering of such tra-
ditions at the popular level and the revival of the word Hellene among
scholars? Were there, that is to say, at least some scholars and statesmen
cognizant of those traditions who then deliberately employed them for a
purpose—using the word Hellene, for example, as a means of reinforc-
ing the morale of the people? The probability that they did is a strong
one, though it is admittedly beyond proof. Only for the Pontus, through
the evidence of popular songs which have survived, is it possible to
offer some verification of this assumption identifying the Greeks of that
region with the race of "courageous" Greeks of old.58
^|^РЈШШРЈШШЈРРЈРРШ^1ШЈШЈШ@ШЈМ1ШЈШММ1ШР1М1

14

THE TURKS AT THE GATES

OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Preparations for War and the Union Controversy

Constantine's vigorous pursuit of his religious policies had resulted in
intensification of the religious controversy. The anti-Unionists had made
definite gains at their opponents' expense as a result of the Turkish suc­
cess at the battle of Varna in 1444 and the follow-up victory at Kosovo
Polje on 19 October 1448.г Constantine and the Unionist Patriarch Greg­
ory III Mammas found themselves in an uncomfortable position. In the
same year as Kosovo Polje, Jonah, the Metropolitan of Moscow, distrust­
ful of the Patriarch and fearful lest the Orthodox faith become tainted,
proclaimed the autonomy of the Russian Church. Gregory was dethroned
in 1450, no successor was elected in his place, and a Church synod of
1450-1451 denounced the Union dictum of the Council of Florence.2
It seems that George Scholarios was an active participant in these
events. Therefore, Constantine, who apparently had not forgotten Scho­
larios' attempts to prevent his ascending the throne, had banished him
from the court. So the Emperor was still surrounded at court by the
pro-Unionist enemies of Scholarios. Bitterly disappointed, Scholarios had
retired to the monastery of Charsianeites as the monk Gennadius. 3
There were echoes of the conflict even as far away as Rome. The
Unionist scholar, T. Gazes, evinced thorough disgust with his compatriots
in Constantinople, who, he said, spent all their time bickering with Ital­
ians about theological issues. "I am afraid," he remarked, "they will still
be engaged in religious arguments and penning diatribes against the
Roman Church while the few cities that are left are being taken and their
wives and children sold into slavery." 4
188 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

These developments in the controversy prompted Pope Nicholas V to

write to Constantine in the autumn of 1451 urging him to take the sort
of resolute action once and for all that would bring about the Union of
the Churches. The Pope pointed to the misfortune of the once great and
glorious Greek people and suggested, in line with the opinion prevalent
throughout the West, that the Photian Schism was its cause. Union was
the only hope of salvation. The Greeks, he went on, always deferred the
issue with the same pretexts and excuses, but they should not think that
the Pope and the Western Church could go on forever suffering this
vacillation. On the contrary, there was already in Rome a large group
of Catholics vehemently opposed to the dispatch of any assistance at all
to Constantinople.5
In addition to the religious quarrel, Constantine also had to contend
with economic difficulties. He was in constant need of money and as a
consequence tried to restrict the privileges which the mercantile republics
sought or enjoyed. In negotiations with the emissary from Ragusa (Du-
brovnik), Vuk Bobaljevic, in 1451, he refused to exempt its citizens from
payment of all taxes in Constantinople, but agreed to a 2 per cent impost.6
His attempts to increase the taxes payable by Venetian merchants and
brokers failed, however, because of outright threats that they would leave
the capital altogether.7 On another occasion he agreed to an arranged
marriage with the daughter of the King of Iberia, whose dowry would
consist of 56,000 gold pieces and an additional 3,000 per annum for
charities for the poor.8
This was the situation in Constantinople when, in February 1451, Mo-
hammed II came to the Ottoman throne for the second time. He was
barely nineteen years of age.9 He was convinced that the Turkish con-
quests could only be secured by the conquest of Constantinople. His
father, Murad II, had felt a similar need when Turkish armies had to be
ferried across from Asia Minor to Europe in order to meet the Hungarians
in 1444. With the young Sultan it became an obsession.10 None of the
Greek rulers, however—neither Constantine XI nor John IV of Trebi-
zond 11—had yet had occasion to notice this ambition of Mohammed's or
his military ability and relentless determination.
The first year of his reign was marked by frenetic activity. He readied
his army, put his finances in order, swore to live in peace with Constan-
tine (and even restored Herakleia to him), maintained friendly relations
with the Despot of Serbia, George Brankovic, extended the terms of his
treaty of peace with Hunyadi, and reaffirmed peaceful relations with
Venice.12
It was actually Constantine who gave the signal for the beginning of
hostilities. When Ibrahim Bey, ruler of Karaman, invaded Turkish soil,
 ^. JL X
Ш'
* *
**.-
Че* vù

' «¿«pniowa j

ЈЗП

Figure 15. Mohammed II the Conqueror.

190 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Constantine was quick to perceive his advantage. Ambassadors were sent

to Mohammed's encampment demanding a double ransom for the Sultan's
relative, Prince Orchan, who had sought asylum in Constantinople. Unless
the ransom were paid, Orchan would be set free to harass the Sultan.
This feint was reminiscent of Constantine's moves ten years before, when
he had sought to exploit the central-European Crusade and had advanced
victoriously, though only temporarily, as far as Thessaly. He now saw
Ibrahim Bey's incursion (and no doubt the extreme youth of the Sultan)
as providing him with a unique opportunity to strengthen his position
vis-à-vis Mohammed. But his hopes were dashed. Mohammed accepted
the challenge, hurriedly made peace with the ruler of Karaman, and
turned on Constantine. 13
This unexpected reversal forced Constantine to request immediate as-
sistance from his brothers as well as from Hunyadi and the West.14 But
the times could scarcely have been less propitious for the organization
of a crusade in the West or for the dispatch of any significant aid to the
dying Byzantine Empire. The only positive indications of interest came
from Pope Nicholas V, Alfonso V, the ambitious King of Aragon and
Naples, and the cities of Venice and Genoa, who saw Turkish domination
as a manifest threat to their substantial economic interests in Constan-
tinople and the Black Sea. But, by the time this concern was translated
into proposals for effective action, it was too late. 15
Mohammed instituted systematic military operations. The fortress of
Rumeli Hisar was built on the European coast 1β opposite that of Anadolu
Hisar on the Asia Minor side, and the narrow straits of the Bosphorus
were thus expertly controlled. He ordered Ak-Tsaïrli Oğlu Mohammed
Bey to lay waste the environs of Constantinople and, having achieved
that, to proceed to Adrianople.17 In the winter of 1452-1453, Turahan
and the other Yuruk Beys of Thessaly and Macedonia led a large force of
the army of European Turkey against the Palaeologus brothers and put
them hors de combat. Bayezid I had followed the same strategy once
before.18
But Constantine was not found unprepared. Several months before he
had had the foresight to make sure that the fields were harvested, the
grain threshed, and the castles in the vicinity of the capital thoroughly
provisioned; peasants from the city's surrounding districts had been
brought to safety inside the wall.19 Constantine had taken one further
precaution: he had purchased oil, wheat, legumes, and other foods from
the Aegean islands as well as from the republics of Genoa and Venice
and the Kingdom of Naples. When the supplies from these countries
came, small military detachments arrived with them, led by exemplary
officers—John Longo Giustiniani, the Genoese (who arrived in January
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 191
1453), and John Grant, the German engineer, figuring most prominently
among them. The Greek cardinal Isidore, formerly Archbishop of Kiev,
also came in November 1452. As a representative of the Pope, his task
was to reconcile the opposing religious factions and to ensure Greek
observance of the Florentine dictum.20
In Constantinople the controversy had grown worse, with the monk,
Gennadius, inciting anti-Unionist mobs to riot.21 Threats against Gen-
nadius' life were being made openly by the Unionist faction, which con-
sisted chiefly of palace officials, who considered that the monk's leader-
ship and fiery harangues were alone responsible for the increasingly
fanatical attitude of the hyper-orthodox masses. On 1 November Gen-
nadius nailed this fervent declamation to the door of his cell: "Ah, be-
nighted souls, not only have you lost everything, but you now infamously
and perfidiously turn your backs on that which is most holy. Instead of
finding solace in God during these iniquitous times, is it rather separation
from God that you seek? As for me, I have right on my side; as God,
the saints, and you yourselves are my witnesses, I have been negligent
in nothing. Now I bear witness before God that this Union of yours is
evil; you are finished. Do you curse me and threaten me? Kill me if you
will, for I am ready even for that . . . No, dear Orthodoxy, cherished
faith of our fathers, I shall neither forswear you nor betray you while
there remains breath in my body." 22
The arrival of Isidore that same month was the signal for renewed
outbursts of theological disputation and a sharpening of religious ten-
sions.23 Gennadius remained quite unconvinced and determined to main-
tain his stand against Union. He did not take part in the first official
discussions following Isidore's arrival at the Xylalas Palace. On 15 No-
vember 1452, he merely reaffirmed in a letter to the "ecclesiastics and
others" assembled there that he would not change his mind. At the same
time, Gennadius was sensible of the menace which grew greater each
day and of the heavy burden of responsibility which he bore towards his
country, his compatriots, and his emperor. Since the intensity of the
Unionist tirade against him lessened not a whit, he finally bent before
the storm and on 27 November declared his intention at least to desist
from further polemics. These were "insidious" times and although "there
are many who believe in what I have so often and in so many words
shown to be disadvantageous . . . nevertheless faith is free and un-
forced, and either you must therefore restrain me or I you; but I have
failed to restrain you even though I have tried to place every obstacle
in your path, and that is why I will no longer embarrass you. Yet I will
no more take part in your Union now than I could have in the past—nor
will I in the future." 24 It was in this atmosphere that Cardinal Isidore
192 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

officiated on 12 December at the first Catholic and Orthodox concelebra-

tion of Mass ever held in Hagia Sophia. Pope Nicholas and the exiled
Patriarch Gregory were commemorated in the "diptychs" of that Mass.25
If Gennadius had shown himself less intransigent in this exchange than
formerly, his views regarding the outcome of the siege remained un­
alterably pessimistic. The morale of the defenders could not have been
helped by the utterance of these views. Everyone, he wrote after the fall
of the city, who had watched the inexorable growth of the enemy's forces
and the simultaneous paralysis of the city, had long before arrived at the
conclusion that freedom would soon be lost. Most people, however, lulled
both by false hopes and the very staleness of their fears, were reluctant
to believe even in their most fearful imaginings that the end would come
within a year. Then he made the following comment, which obviously
included a reference to himself: "There were a few, though, who foresaw
it clearly and said so with unshrinking frankness, even to the unfortunate
Emperor himself2e and the Notables of the city. And these few, having
searched for reasons, pointed to certain divine portents which foretold
(and also explained) 'God's judgment'; they also discovered, paradoxi­
cally enough, what could have been done to prevent it and obtain the
city's reprieve."27 These were strange remarks, and one wonders what
purpose he hoped to serve by making them, especially to the Emperor.
After all, predictions of imminent catastrophe would seem hardly a re­
storative tonic to a people already tortured by fear, hardship, privation,
and religious conflict. In view of the injurious effects they must have had,
it was ironic that Gennadius, after the capture of the city, should accuse
his compatriots of showing less courage than the magnitude of the danger
required; or that he should criticize them for committing a gross blunder
in entrusting the defense of the wall to foreigners.28 What had he him­
self done to meet the Turkish threat more effectively?
The one other leader of the anti-Unionist faction whose name stood
out was the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, more powerful than anyone else
in Constantinople save only the Emperor himself. Early in life his sensi­
bility and intellectual acuity had attracted the attention, first, it would
seem, of Manuel II, then later of John VIII. In the last years of John
VIII's reign it was largely Notaras who had shaped the Empire's external
relations.29 The Grand Duke's religious views were not nearly as inflexible
as they were usually made out to be. It is necessary to revise previous
opinions about Notaras' attitude in the religious dispute.30 The celebrated
remark usually attributed to him—"better to see the Moslem turban in
the city than the Latin miter"31—was in fact an imputation by his
Unionist rivals.82 Notaras was above all a realist who well understood
the dire peril the Empire faced; and only if the populace maintained
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 193
the pretense of upholding papal primacy and supporting Union could
it possibly be averted. Gennadius, who usually reserved for him only
the most adulatory expressions of esteem, yet found this fault: "He
proposes what has been put forward many times before, that, for in­
stance, if we wish to show real reverence towards God, we should
proclaim in our churches that the Pope does not err but that we are still
Orthodox, even though we believe precisely the opposite of that which
the Pope believes and could never believe otherwise." 33 Notaras' ideas
nevertheless gained ground. There were even some extreme Unionists
and a few in the West who believed that Constantine himself harbored
anti-Unionist views of this sort. Be that as it may, they were views which
signified the emergence of an anti-Unionist splinter group that was pre­
pared to be conciliatory in its attitudes and opportunist in its aims:
"Let's see first," they said, "whether God will deliver us from this enemy
who stands before us, this ugly serpent that boasts it will swallow Con­
stantinople. Then you will see whether we will have Union with the
Latins." 34 Of course these views disappeared with the capture of the city.

Siege of the City

The religious dissensions continued even when the Turkish armies were
outside the very walls of the city. At the beginning of 1453, the Turkish
vanguard under the generalship of Rumeli Valesi Karatza Bey, com­
mander of the European army, on the Sultan's orders moved from Adri-
anople, conquered the last free strongholds in Thrace and its neighboring
districts, and carried the invasion to the gates of the capital. St. Stephanos,
Epivatae, and Herakleia (Ereğli) on the Sea of Marmara were the first
to fall; Vizye, Pyrgos, Anchialus, and Mesembria along the Black Sea
coast followed soon afterwards.35 At the beginning of April, the Sultan
arrived before Constantinople with his main force, pitched his tent fac­
ing the St. Romanos Gate, and commenced siege operations.36 A large
number of Greeks, Franks, Germans, Hungarians, and others 37 in the
Turkish army contributed in no small part to the ultimate success of the
besieging force.38 Descriptions of the first encounters suggest that the
initial size of this force was not large. At first there were the regular
levies only, all exceedingly well equipped and supplied; 39 but their ranks
were swollen daily by large numbers of irregulars, young and old,40 for
whom the promise of plunder proved even more alluring than the Holy
War. Ever since the first Arab invasions the riches of Constantinople
had been fabled throughout Islam.
The defenders numbered about eight thousand Greeks and two thou­
sand foreigners; and they eventually faced a host of 250,000.41 The entire
hopes of the city therefore rested on the impregnability of the land walls,
194 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

which stretched from the Sea of Marmara to the Golden Horn. There
were in fact two walls, originally built by the Emperor Theodosius II
(the Little) (408-450); the Emperor Heraclius (610-641) pulled down
part of the fortification from the Palace of Evdomon to the Golden Horn
so as to take in the quarter of Blachernae; he replaced it by a single
rampart. Theodosius' walls were about 4,950 meters long and were
capped by ninety-four large towers and eighty smaller ones. The inner
Hne of defense, known as the Great Wall, was from 10 to 20 meters high
and about 2г/2 meters in width. It stood about 17.8 meters from the
Outer Wall, which subtended the plain outside the city. Since any enemy
faced virtually insurmountable difficulties in gaining access to the area
between the walls, and since the area itself was unconscionably exposed
to any attacking force, this enclosure was an equally vital part of the
city's defenses. In normal circumstances, however, the defense would
have been conducted from behind the lower and narrower Outer Wall.
Towers were spaced at intervals of 48 meters along the Great Wall, but
each was a self-contained structure without any communication with
the wall itself. Together with the enclosure, the inner wall formed the
last line of defense. The single wall built by Heraclius was thicker than
the Great Wall—3.7 meters wide and 20 meters high. Since its fortified
towers were integrated with the wall in a single defensive system, the
defenders generally had greater mobility here than on the Great Wall.
Finally, at a distance of 17.2 meters from the Outer Wall there was a
moat, which also ran, though with occasional breaks, from the Sea of
Marmara almost to the Golden Horn. Its width varied from 19.2 meters
to 21.15 meters; its depth was nearly a uniform 10 meters. The sides of
the moat were properly constructed, and a low wall of breastwork sur­
mounted the inside rim of the moat. This outwork, built in 1341 by the
Grand Duke Alexius Apocaucus,42 formed with the moat itself the first
line of defense.
On 7 April, the Sultan began the deployment of his batteries—a task
which occupied several days.43 Bombardments and successive assaults at
various points along the wall immediately followed, and considerable
damage was inflicted on the palace and the houses of nobles which
abutted the wall. The defenders retaliated as best they could, and so
continuous salvos from both sides, emitted by small guns, big guns, bows,
and other engines of war, steadily decimated the opposing ranks. Though
Turkish superiority in artillery had already determined the outcome of
the siege, the inhabitants of the city resisted with singular courage and
devised a thousand stratagems to ward off the inevitable. They repaired
breaches in the wall with earth, caissons, and fascines. The Turks would
fill in the moat in order to get closer to the wall; under cover of night
Figure 16. View of Walls of Constantinople.
196 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

the defenders would clear it.44 The Genoese found themselves in an al­
most untenable position in Galata and could easily have turned into un­
reliable allies, but they defiantly cast in their lot with the Greeks and
brought them what assistance they could by secretly crossing the Golden
Horn Bay.45 The Sultan concentrated his attacks on the St. Romanos Gate,
where the Emperor himself fought shoulder to shoulder with the valiant
John Giustiniani.46
On 20 April a naval battle in front of the sea wall between the Turkish
fleet and four Christian ships which had arrived from Chios (three Gen­
oese and one Byzantine under the command of Captain Flandanelas ),
provided a stirring spectacle. Leaving considerable damage in their wake,
the four ships ran the gauntlet of the Turkish fleet and fought their way
inside the boom which guarded the entrance to the Golden Horn Bay.
The Turkish admiral, Balta Oğlu, found himself discredited; his entire
fortune was confiscated by the irate Sultan and distributed among the
janissaries.47 Two days later, however, under cover of night, the Turkish
fleet gained entry to the Golden Horn by means of a slipway of wooden
rollers leading from a point near present-day Tophane to the naval
caserns.48 The besieged garrison then had to be thinned out along the
single wall facing the Bay, which had previously been left undefended.49
A Venetian attempt on 28 April to set fire to the Turkish fleet riding in
the Golden Horn failed dismally.60
By dint of fanatical persistence the invading force succeeded in filling
in the moat, thus forcing the defenders at last to abandon the breastwork
and retreat behind the Outer Wall. Simultaneously, a furious bombard­
ment was concentrated on the most vulnerable section of the wall and a
length stretching through four towers was practically demolished. The
Great Wall was thereby exposed, and it, too, sustained serious damage.
However, Turkish attempts to storm the wall were repeatedly repulsed
by the defenders under Giustinianťs command.51 On 18 May the Sultan
was disappointed by the failure of an assault—an "immense battering
ram" on wheels surmounted by "towers and escutcheons."52 In vain the
Turks attempted to force an entry into the city by a network of under­
ground mines; the last of these was destroyed on 25 May by countermin­
ing activity directed by the German engineer, John Grant.58 By 24 May
there had been rumors in the city that the Turk would launch his final
attack on 29 May.54 Outside the walls, ladders and wooden towers were
being placed in position.55 The Sultan demanded the surrender of the
city and received a characteristic reply from Constantine: "It were better
that you do not count on myself or on any of the inhabitants of the city
to deliver Constantinople into your hands, for we are all of like mind in
preferring to die rather than do so, without so much as a single regret."
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 197
In the meantime continuous artillery bombardment had performed its
task with such devastating effect that by 27 May the Sultan was able to
suspend all ancillary operations. In the vicinity of the St. Romanos Gate
the damage was appalling: its tower had collapsed and the adversaries
were visible to one another through the gaping breach.δβ The way was
then open for a final massive assault by land and sea.67
During these last days, the forces of the defenders were redeployed,
each man being assigned his final defensive position on the wall.58 The
beleaguered garrison withdrew finally to the Great Wall; that this oc­
curred is evident from the fact that small parties began to infiltrate the
enclosure between the Outer Wall and the Great Wall. The purpose of
these sorties was not, as Ducas suggests, to harass the Turk, but to effect
repairs to the Great Wall and to dig ditches in front of its most indefensi­
ble sections. But, when the presence of these parties was detected, the
besieged requested that they be allowed egress through a small gate, the
Kercoporta. Apparently the Turks had not yet stationed themselves in
the enclosure, presumably because its narrow confines inhibited proper
deployment and freedom of movement.59
The failure of the Venetian attempt to set fire to the Turkish fleet in
the Golden Horn, the disagreements between the Venetians and the
Genoese, the continuing religious dispute, the fatigue and the inferior
discipline of the Greek defenders, continual desertions, the paucity of
food and spiralling prices, and the refusal of the wealthy to lend financial
aid to the Emperor,60 all served to undermine the morale of the besieged.
These woes seemed the more terrible amid the persistent circulation of
old oracles, divinations, and rumors 61 to the sporadic accompaniment of
flashes in the sky, earthquakes, dark clouds, spring downpours, "horrific"
thunder, and other coincidental phenomena of nature. The nerves of a
superstitious and overcredulous populace were strained almost to the
breaking point. Thus, during the course of a solemn litany three or four
days before the final assault, an icon of the Madonna slipped out of the
hands of priests and fell to the ground; whereupon, instantaneously, a
quasi-biblical deluge poured from the heavens and flash torrents swept
through the streets with such force as almost to carry away small children.
At this, there were hysterical outbursts on all sides because it was feared
that "a flood of waters would carry away everything that is in the earth." 62
By now the Emperor had lost all touch with the multitude and their
priests. The anti-Unionists openly rebuked him since it seemed that he
could no longer protect Orthodoxy. Although Sphrantzes was generally
reticent in his history about the religious dispute (perhaps because his
pro-Unionist sympathies at the time of the siege could not easily be recon­
ciled with his monastic vocation when the history was written), neverthe-
198 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

less he spoke circumspectly about everyday attitudes characterized by

"oaths and abuse in the squares and streets of the city against the un-
fortunate Emperor and noblemen. But thrice blessed Constantine was a
second David; I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that
openeth not his mouth." 63
The Emperor continually sought the advice of the noblemen and did
everything possible to save the city. But the wealthy still refused to place
their wealth at his disposal.64 Constantine was forced to melt down eccle-
siastical plate to obtain money; he promised to repay to the institutions
concerned after the city was saved an amount four times as great as that
borrowed. He also ordered his prefects to register all men, clergy and
laymen alike, who wished to fight and were capable of doing so and took
various other steps to strengthen the defenses of the city and to secure
food for his soldiers and their families.65

Capture of the City

In vain the Constantinopolitans had waited for help from the West. Their
ranks had been continually depleted by defections during the course of
the siege; 6e probably not more than about fifty thousand people re-
mained in the city.67 God was now their only hope. 68 As Critobulus says,
Constantinople survived in name only: "as for the rest, it seemed to be
little more than an enclosure containing cultivable earth, plants, vines,
and disused buildings and walls which were not only uninhabited but in
ruins." Each tower was manned by no more than two or three men, with
about the same number between towers; and almost without exception
they were inexperienced fighters and pitifully armed.69 The Great Wall
had taken a terrific pounding. There were now three complete sections
which had been practically razed and which offered no serious obstacle
even to cavalry charges. Ducas affirms that many of the defenders were
standing quite exposed on the ruins of the walls.70
On the night of Sunday, 27 May, the Sultan ordered his men to make
the necessary religious observances, light fires and festive lanterns, and
prepare themselves for the final assault and pillage of the city. On the
"grievous evening of Monday," after a moving litany for the people in
the streets of the city, Constantine took communion in Hagia Sophia,
returned to the palace, and begged forgiveness of all. "How to describe
at that hour," writes Sphrantzes, "the weeping and lamentation in the
palace? If a man had been made of wood or stone, he must have wept
at the scene." 71 The attack was launched by sea and land about two
hours before dawn on Tuesday, 29 May. Wave after wave of the attackers
were swept back by the defenders. As the day drew on, the battle raged
back and forth in the enclosure before the Great Wall. Between 8 a.m.
and 9 a.m.72 John Giustiniani was wounded in the chest by an arrow and
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 199
retired to one of the ships. Immediately, the line of defense near the
St. Romanos Gate from which he withdrew showed signs of wavering.
Quickly perceiving his advantage the Sultan sent in his janissaries. Lad-
ders were thrown up and the attackers began to scale the wall. A huge
janissary from Olubad ( Lopadion ) named Hassan was the first to reach the
battlements and cut down the defenders. Others followed him, and a sav-
age fight ensued on the Wall. At that moment, the Turks broke into the city
by way of the Kercoporta—Critobulus' "Gate of Giustinus [Giustiniani]" 73
—and other breaches in the Wall threw the entire defensive line facing the
enclosure into utter confusion. While trying to stem the torrent of in-
vaders in one of these breaches, on a ruined section of the Great Wall
facing the Church of St. Romanos, Constantine met his death. 74 "And
the whole life of this memorable and dignified martyr-emperor counted
but forty-nine years, three months and twenty days." John Dalmates,
Theophilus Palaeologus, and several other elite officers died by his side.75
The initial breaches immediately paralyzed the defense along the remain-
ing parts of the wall. And so, with the enemy behind them and fearful
of the fate which might befall their wives and children, the defenders
laid down their arms. Some, rather than surrender, threw themselves to
their deaths from the top of the wall.76 Then the pillage began. All who
continued to resist were slaughtered. Old people were butchered and
infants thrown outside their homes, which were then sacked; women
were raped and many made captive. The resplendent capital had become
a purgatory. 77 A few hours were enough to transform it into "a field of
destruction," just as Joseph Bryennios had foreseen in a vision almost
half a century before. Everything was lost: "Church, Empire, state and
all that was noble and worthy, purity, charity, sanctity, tradition, free-
dom, the honor and glory of our race, all that was good was gone for-
ever." 78 A large group of men, women and children that had taken
refuge in Hagia Sophia surrendered conditionally,79 perhaps after putting
up at least a token resistance. Evliya Tshelebi has preserved some recol-
lections of that particular pocket of resistance.80 Even more memorable
was the resistance offered by a defiant contingent of Cretans in the
towers of Basil, Leo, and Alexius; they abandoned their positions only
after the Sultan offered certain terms of surrender and then only with
the greatest reluctance. 81 It was probably from such isolated incidents
as these that the legend grew, supported by latter-day testimony ( if it is
not totally false) that as much as half the city surrendered only condi-
tionally. According to the patriarchs Theoleptos I (in 1519) and Jeremiah
I (in 1539) during the reigns of Selim I and Suleiman I respectively,
these conditions were to ensure the inviolability of the Christian
churches.82
At about 2 p.m. on the afternoon of the capture, the Sultan entered
200 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

Constantinople in the company of a large escort and went straight to

Hagia Sophia to pray. Immediately afterwards, he inquired about Con­
stantine and ascertained with some relief that the Emperor had met his
end. 83 The evidence concerning the fate of Constantine's body is con­
flicting. Paspatis believes that the body was never found.84 Evliya
Tschelebi says that it was found and eventually buried in the monastery
of Peribleptos (Sulu Manastır) in Hypsomatheia. 85 X. A. Siderides sug­
gests that Tschelebi really meant the Turkish Balıklı (Zoödochos Pege)
and not the Sulu Manastır; he then goes on to develop an interesting
thesis which rejects various opinions and supports the view that Constan­
tinei body was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Later, Sideri­
des insists, when the architect, Christodoulos, built the Mosque of the
Conqueror on the site of the Church of the Holy Apostles, he took care
to see that the remains were disinterred and transferred to the Church
of St. Theodosia.86
The Turkish prince, Orchan, tried to escape from the city disguised as
a monk but was betrayed and immediately done to death. 87 Others cap­
tured were the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, his wife and two sons; a
certain Cantacuzenus, identified only as the son of the sometime chancel­
lor 88 and fiancé of the Duke's eldest daughter, Anna; and nine other
Notables and their families. At first, Mohammed II treated them with due
deference, but a few days later all except the women and children were
killed. The comelier of these boys and girls he gave into the custody
of his chief eunuch. At the same time the officials among the Venetian
prisoners were also put to death. Especially tragic was the execution of
Lucas Notaras. His eldest son and son-in-law were beheaded before his
very eyes "so that he himself might see that their faith remained stronger
than their fear of death." His own execution followed. Notaras, who
displayed great nobility during the whole terrible ordeal, may be con­
sidered as the first of the martyrs of Neo-Hellenism after the capture of
the city. His youngest son, Jacob, was confined in the Sultan's palace in
Adrianople. One reason for this mass execution was Notaras' staunch
refusal to deliver up his son to the debauched Sultan. Another reason was
that the Sultan bowed to the wishes of powerful Turkish nobles, who
insisted that the Byzantine nobility could never be trusted and would
therefore have to be exterminated to a man.89 No doubt they expected
to benefit from the forfeiture of Byzantine property.
Notaras saved his daughters, Anna, Theodora, and Euphrosyne, by
sending them to Italy with a large fortune before the fall of the city.
A few years later (some time between 1458 and 1464, though exactly
when is not known), these daughters were reunited with their younger
brother Jacob, who had succeeded in escaping ( how is not known ) from
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 201
the Sultan's seraglio.90 Jacob found his way to Rome and was sheltered
by Bessarion and Pope Pius II. 91 In 1475, Anna Notaras was in Venice
and patroness of a large Greek community, not of scholars only, which
had gravitated towards that city. The port of Venice became a sort of
"window on the East," through which the survivors of the Greek nation
looked towards their Turkish-dominated homeland. In Venice, Anna
Notaras and Evdokia Cantacuzenus, 92 another noblewoman, were granted
the privilege of worshipping in their own chapel according to the rites
of Orthodoxy.93 Anna, a bereaved fiancée, remained Orthodox and un­
married up to her death in 1507.94
Following ancient Turkish custom, Mohammed confined in his seraglio
not only Notaras' son Jacob but the sons of other Byzantine noblemen.
Some of these were destined to attain the highest offices in the Ottoman
Empire and to wield enormous power. Among these were Murad of the
house of Palaeologus and Mohammed, son of Mandrominos, who became
Bey of the sancak of Ankara.95 While still children their future careers
in the civil service were mapped out. Known as iç oğlan, they were sub­
jected to a rigorous regimen of training and instruction in a special school
of the seraglio and eventually filled some of the most important posts in
the Sultan's government. Together with the janissaries they comprised
the separate class of kapı kulları, slaves of the Porte. Mohammed II used
them to reinforce his own position as sultan and, contrary to previous
custom, increasingly appointed men from this class to the office of Grand
Vizier. In consequence, the power of the old Turkish noble families under­
went a progressive diminution.90 Mohammed II gradually took over the
reins of power until he became absolute monarch.
It used to be believed, mistakenly, that none of the Greek military
dignitaries survived the capture of Constantinople.97 But there are a great
many Hellenic traditions, as well as documentary proof, testifying to the
escape of many Byzantine officials and their families to the islands of the
Aegean and other Greek lands.98 A Venetian source, for instance, records
that a galley belonging to a Genoese, Zorzi Doria, slipped away from the
tormented city on the very night of the capture. Besides Genoese, there
were a number of Greek families on board: Theodore and Andronicus
Palaeologus; Emmanuel, Thomas, and Demetrius Palaeologus; John and
Demetrius Cantacuzenus; Theodore and Emmanuel Lascaris; Constantine
and Isaac Comnenus; Vlasios and Matthew Notaras; Michael and Jacob
Kalaphatis; Jacob, John, and George Katallactis; Stamatis, Emmanuel,
Leo, and John Vardas; Leo and Andrea Thalassinos; Andronicus and
Emmanuel Phocas; Philippe Scarlatos; Leo and Antony Mousouros; Ser-
gius, Antony, and Nicholas Metaxas; one Marianos; and the Achilles
family, Demetrius and Theodore Bozikis of Albanian descent. These
202 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

nobles and their families initially took refuge on Chios and later moved
to Canea, Crete. Some of them remained permanently in Crete—the
Kalaphatis, Mousouros, and Vardas families, for instance—and subse-
quently scattered throughout the towns of the island; others went to the
Despotate of Morea and to Zacynthus; the Metaxas and Phocas families
settled in Cephalonia; the Lascaris family found its way to Corfu; and
still others went to Rome, where they sought the protection of the Pope.
It is extremely likely that many present-day families of the same name
are descended from these Byzantine officials, especially those from places
to which their forebears had fled. A few of these nobles—some from the
Lascaris and Palaeologus families—later enlisted as officers in the Vene-
tian corps of light horse known as Stradioti."
Besides the foreign ships, four Cretan vessels and their crews also
escaped from the city. Sorrowfully they put out into the Aegean and took
their melancholy news from island to island. This struck terror into the
hearts of the island people: surely their turn was next. What else to do
but flee? 10°
On 1 June, the Genoese governor of Galata surrendered the keys of
the castle to Mohammed. 101 This voluntary submission predisposed the
Sultan towards granting the Genoese community a number of significant
privileges: they would have self-government, their religious observances
would be respected, free trade concessions throughout the Ottoman Em-
pire would be granted, and their children would be exempt from the
customary military impressment of Christians.102 According to Amantos,
the treaty thus framed was used as a model for the subsequent extension
of similar rights to other Christian communities under Ottoman do-
minion.103
The siege, capture, and three days' pillage of Constantinople cost the
lives of about four thousand men, women, and children, both Greek and
foreign. About fifty thousand captives were enslaved.104 Not a soul was
permitted to remain in the city, whether Greek, Frank, Armenian, or
Jew.105 On the fourth day, Mohammed allowed his soldiers to return
to their provinces with captives and booty. Immediately after the fall of
the capital, Selymbria, the last oasis of freedom in Thrace, also sur-
rendered. 106 Scyrus and other islands of the northern Sporades were
occupied by the Venetians in the following year.107
Echoes of the Fall in Legend and, Tradition
Thus was effaced "the hearth of all the Greeks, the home of the muses,
the seat of all learning, the queen of cities." 108 Its fall had world-wide
historical significance because Constantinople was regarded as the com-
mon property of Christianity and European civilization. All European
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 203
peoples—Slavs, Rumanians, Hungarians, Germans, French, Italians, Span-
iards, and the rest—were acutely conscious of the loss, and of course
from that time to this a concourse of poets, artists, and savants has been
moved by the tragedy. But although at the time its end produced genuine
reactions of sorrow, pessimism, and concern, these were not sufficient to
submerge the conflicting interests of powerful forces which might other-
wise have launched a crusade for reconquest.109
The event gave rise to harrowing inquests. Generally speaking, clerical
circles and the super-orthodox masses in West and East adhered rigidly
to the traditional explanations of the fall: in the West, the capture was
no more than divine retribution for the sins of the Orthodox, particularly
the Photian Schism; in the East, this was no question of schismatic "ille-
gality ," but rather of a "certain torment" which God had visited upon the
Orthodox and which ennobled them because the saints had suffered the
same "agony." 110
Many Greeks had had sure presentiments of the capture, though nat-
urally they had tried to shut such thoughts out of their minds and secretly
hoped that something would happen at the last moment to avert it.
Prophecies circulated which held out some hope for reprieve; and where
no comfort was taken in these there was a belief in ultimate intervention
by God, Who surely would never allow the "queen of cities" to fall
defenseless into the hands of the infidel. Thus fear and impotence only
made the masses more blind in their faith than before. As long as Con-
stantinople held out, it was felt, there was always some hope that one
day their enslaved brothers would be free. But of course with the fall of
the city the last glimmer of hope disappeared. The event was so shocking
that the Orthodox were driven to ask themselves whether or not it could
indeed be God's retribution as the Catholics claimed. Could the Orthodox
really be heretics? Was Islam, perhaps, the only true religion? The crisis
shook the beliefs of the faithful and the Orthodox Church to their foun-
dations.
The severity of the blow and the great depths of despondency into
which the Greeks were plunged can only be gauged from the large num-
ber of prose and verse laments,111 both erudite and popular, and the
even more numerous oracles, legends, and traditions which have remained
part of the popular heritage to this day.112
The heroic figure of Constantine and the conflicting evidence as to
the disposition of his body obsessed the imagination of the Greeks.113
Some of the rumors and legends that sprang up and later spread to every
corner of the Greek world had their origin in those first hours of con-
fusion and uncertainty after his death. Some of the older traditions were
also modified or distorted later on by the interpolation of additional ma-
204 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

terial. There was one, for example, that "The Turks would enter Con­
stantinople in great force and slaughter the 'Romans' until they got as
far as the column of Constantine the Great. Then an angel of the Lord
would descend from heaven and present a mighty sword, and with it the
Empire, to a simple and poorly dressed stranger who would be standing
near the column. [Here, the words 'poorly dressed' recall that most per­
sistent of Byzantine traditions regarding the 'unfortunate Emperor.']
The angel would then say to him, 'take this sword and avenge God's
people,' whereupon the 'Romans' would turn upon the Turks, put them
to flight and cast them out of Constantinople; nor would pursuit end
until the very boundaries of Persia had been reached—at Kokkini Melia
[Red Apple Tree] in the place called Monodendrion [Only One Tree]." 114
(These were legendary places in Asia Minor.) In essence, the tradition
was in circulation many years before the capture, but the reference to
Kokkini Melia was an embellishment added by later Hellenic tradition.
Its significance and that of its Turkish equivalent, kızıl elma ( red apple ),
however, remain uncertain. 115
Another of the older oracles prophesying the downfall of the Turks
concerned a "fair-haired race" 116 and was commonly attributed to Em­
peror Leo the Wise. The oracle was later amended to conform to the
reality of the capture, and it appeared as a consoling appendage to the
Russian "Narrative concerning the Fall of Constantinople." The original
text was written before 1460,117 probably by a Greek from somewhere
outside the capital. In the Russian version, the "fair-haired race" was
identified as the Franks; 118 and these, with the assistance of the former
inhabitants of Constantinople, would defeat the "Ishmaelites," the Turks,
and reconquer New Rome. By the sixteenth century, however, the "fair-
haired race" had for the Greeks come to signify the Russians, probably
through a copyist's error in transcribing the Russian text: the addition
of the single letter к to the phrase rusij rod (fair-haired race) changed
it into ruskij rod (Russian race). 119
The Byzantine legend of the angel who would present a mighty sword
to a stranger, interwoven, it would seem, with the rumors that Constan­
tinei body was not found, apparently also gave rise to two further
legends: the first told of the dead Emperor, who would be awakened
after a long sleep and again take up his scepter. The second told of the
"Emperor who had been turned into marble" and of an angel of the
Lord who would "change him back into a living person" and restore to
him the sword he had used during the battle, a sword with which he
would then smite the Turks and chase them as far as Kokkini Melia.120
This is the most poetic and moving of all the Greek national legends.
Just as Bessarion and all those who still remained in what was left of
THE TURKS AT THE GATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE 205
the Byzantine Empire had anticipated great deeds from Constantine
during his lifetime, so throughout the long years of Turkish rule Con-
stantine was expected miraculously to restore freedom to the Greeks.
Thus, Constantine became a symbol of the national will to be free. There
was really a prophetic tone in Bessarion's letter to Constantine: "and
your immortal name will be handed down by posterity; and death, which
extinguishes the fame of most kings and nobles, will in your case only
glorify it." 121
Other legends which later spread throughout Christendom concerned
the rape of Constantine's empress and her daughters by Mohammed II
and their death (the Empress, of course, had died long before the city's
capture); 1 2 2 the Emperor's murder while trying to escape; and the
mockery made of his severed head.123
All of these traditions emanating from the capture, in particular those
nebulous oracles predicting the downfall of the Turks and the recapture
of Constantinople, which were mainly attributed to Leo the Wise, gen-
erally had widespread currency. Many extant manuscripts attest their
circulation throughout Russia and Western Europe. 124 This oracular lit-
erature conveys a sense of the profound disquiet which afflicted Christian
consciences everywhere after the fall, while at the same time marking
the persistence of Greek faith in the ultimate restoration of their nation.
We shall remark elsewhere on the appearance and influence of these
oracles.
The capture of Constantinople, of course, predetermined the fate of
the remaining fragments of the medieval Greek Empire. Yet a few rem-
nants managed to survive unconquered by the Turks for a few more
years, the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond, to take the
two most notable examples. And there were other Greek lands which
remained under the dominion of individual Frankish rulers or Western
states—for instance Crete under the Venetians.
But Constantinople was no longer the pre-eminent center of civiliza-
tion and cultural diffusion in Europe, East or West. Its cultural and eco-
nomic ties even with neighboring Orthodox peoples such as Georgians
and Russians 125 were effectively severed.
Its capture also led to a deterioration of the plight of Greek raias in
lands already occupied by the Turks. They were treated as a people
without a country and therefore powerless and of no account. An exam-
ination of their predicament and the changing attitude of the Turks has
to rely on posterior sources, the only ones available, or on the evidence
of oral tradition and legend.126
ШМШРІШШМІШІШМІШРШШШММІ^ІШІШШРІШШІШРШІ

15

COMPLETION OF THE
TURKISH CONQUEST

Structure of Ottoman Empire after 1453

With the capture of Constantinople the Ottoman Empire acquired a cen­
tral capital which was the natural pivot of all those countries stretching
from the Euphrates to the Adriatic Sea—"the key to all Romania," in the
words of an anonymous post-Byzantine poet.1
Laonicos Chalcocondyles' description of the imperial structure at this
time discloses that the European territory was divided into thirty-six
sancaks, and that of Asia Minor forty. The sancak chiefs were paid direct
from the Sultan's treasury, and their salaries ranged from various levels
to a maximum of twenty thousand gold pieces. Some of the larger cities
such as Thessalonica, Skoplje (Uskiib) and Philippopolis were governed
by pashas, but these were still required to follow the sancak chiefs in
time of war. Both the pashas and the sancak chiefs in Europe were
responsible to the beylerbey, or governor-general of Europe (Rumeli
Valesi); those of Asia Minor and rulers with varying degrees of au­
tonomy in the Ottoman Empire were responsible to the beylerbey of
Asia. However, great power became concentrated in the hands of the
chief palace officials, who were not only paid huge salaries from the
Sultan's purse> but also received gifts from the sancak chiefs and pashas
of particular districts. Other palace retainers were also powerful—couriers,
advisers, financial administrators, the treasurer, and a multitude of
clerks responsible for the compilation of the Sultan's decrees and other
official documents.
The Sultan's revenue was derived from a variety of sources. A total
of 900,000 gold pieces per annum came from the tax on European raias,
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 207

the tithe (which, from the time of Mohammed II, was also levied on
Turks) and a tax on sheep. Other revenue which found its way into the
Sultan's treasury included taxes on horses, camels, mules, and cattle
(approximately 300,000 gold pieces), rents (250,000), and income from
the forage of camels and mules (50,000). There were also customs duties,
as well as taxes on mines, rice, copper, alum, and an extensive array of
other products and activities. The overall income of the Sultan and his
palace officials from all sources in the Empire was estimated at 14,000,000
Venetian gold pieces. The salaries of the janissaries and other "slaves of
the Porte" were paid every three months and depleted the Sultan's treas-
ury7 by nine million gold pieces annually.2
After the fall of Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire thus acquired
cohesion as well as strength. If a new period of conquest were inaugu-
rated, it would clearly be only a matter of time before the remaining
Greek lands also fell.

Fall of the Despoiate of Morea

The capture of the city was preceded in October 1452 by Turahan's in-
vasion of the Péloponnèse as far as the Gulf of Messenia, and because
of the rapidity with which the one event followed the other the Palaeo-
logus brothers, Thomas and Demetrius, and their nobles were already
preparing to leave for Italy. For the time being, however, reassured by
the pacific disposition of the Sultan, they elected instead to remain as
his tributaries. But the Despots' fears did not go unnoticed by the local
Albanian settlers, who immediately sought to exploit these weaknesses
by means of a rebellion under the leadership of the unscrupulous but
clever Peter Cholos (the Crippled).* They were no doubt goaded into
doing so by the onerous taxation and numberless other economic griev-
ances with which they were burdened. 4 An additional incitement may
well have been the very powerlessness of the Greek population of the
Péloponnèse. Successive invasions by Turahan Bey in Thessaly and the
Péloponnèse during 1423, 1431, 1446, and 1452 5 were attended by wide-
spread devastation and chaos and had thinned out the population, espe-
cially in those cities and villages which lay across the path of the invaders;
Corinth, for example, was virtually a city without people in 1436.6 The
Albanians, on the other hand, suffered much less, since they lived a
nomadic life and nowhere maintained permanent settlements.7
Chalcocondyles suggests that the rebellion had certain nationalistic
overtones. If the rebel leaders did make a nationalist appeal of sorts, the
eagerness of the majority to reach an understanding with the Despots
shows that it remained largely ineffectual. Nonetheless, the rebellion
spread because the Albanian leaders and Greek noblemen had no interest
208 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

in finding such an accommodation and did everything possible to prevent

it. Greek nobles, ever eager to assert their independence and shake off
the sovereignty of the Palaeologi, actually brought in Manuel Cantacu-
zenus to be their ruler. The insurrection caused great havoc throughout
the country.8
In a short while, the Albanians and the unruly Greek nobles controlled
the greater part of the Péloponnèse. The Palaeologus brothers thus found
themselves in a mortifying position, which was not alleviated by the
Sultan's intervention. Undoubtedly fearing that Albanian ascendancy
would only create fresh problems—similar perhaps to those which Mo-
hammed's father had faced when fighting Scanderbeg, otherwise known
as George Castriota, the famous Albanian leader who carried on an
heroic war against the Turks—Mohammed chose to aid the weaker party.
In December 1453, Ömer, son of Turahan, was sent to the Péloponnèse
and was followed a year later by the old bey himself. There they
co-operated with the forces of the Palaeologi and after hard fighting
succeeded in re-establishing the sovereignty of the Despots. 9 In Decem-
ber 1454, the Sultan, anxious to restore peace in the Péloponnèse, pre-
vailed upon certain Greek and Albanian noblemen who had taken refuge
in the Venetian colonies to return to their homes, where he promised
them a better life. Among these were Manuel Raul, one Sophianos, Deme-
trius Lascaris, members of the Diplovatatzes, Kavakes, Pagomenos, and
Petrobouas families, and others.10
But the peace was evanescent. Insufficient evidence prevents us from
knowing exactly what happened, but it is clear that political and eco-
nomic confusion continued to reign. The invasions had exacerbated the
already miserable plight of the Greek and Albanian populace, and the
nobles continued to brawl with one another. The people announced that
they would henceforth refuse to pay taxes unless "a certain person" (by
whom they undoubtedly meant the Sultan) agreed to divide the coun-
try between the Greeks and Albanians and ratify such division by formal
rescript. However, these protests were of no avail.11
The behavior of the Palaeologus brothers did nothing to improve mat-
ters. Each continued to win over (or to try to win over) by flattery indi-
vidual Greek and Albanian nobles, and also to cajole certain refugees
from Constantinople into joining him.12 Each aimed at becoming supreme
in the Péloponnèse, if necessary by seeking assistance from the West.
Accordingly, in 1455 each of the brothers separately sent envoys to the
courts of Pope Callixtus III, Duke Francesco Sforza of Milan, and King
Charles VII of France. Thomas' emissary was the celebrated scholar and
votary of Church Union, John Argyropoulous, while Demetrius sent
Frangoulios Servopoulos. Their mission was to inveigle the Western rulers
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 209

into organizing a crusade.13 As we shall see, Cardinal Bessarion had

already aroused the keen interest of the Pope in such a project.
The Despots' reluctance to honor their obligations as vassals, the in-
ternal disturbances in the Péloponnèse, and the diplomatic rapproche-
ment with the West at first perturbed the Sultan, then enraged him.
Accordingly, in the winter of 1457 he made overt military preparations
to invade the Péloponnèse.14
In the spring of 1458 the Sultan set out from Adrianople, crossed the
Greek peninsula, and on 15 May arrived at the Péloponnèse. He encoun-
tered his first resistance at Acrocorinth, which was defended by Lucanis
Nicephorus. Leaving there his cannon and the army of the East, he ad-
vanced into the interior, pillaging as he went, and everywhere crushing
the Greeks and Albanians, who had finally united in order to confront
the common danger. Within two months he had conquered the mighty
fortresses of Polyphengon, Tarsos, and Mouchlion, which were strategi-
cally situated between the Parthenion and Artemision ranges straddling
the present-day road from Argos to Tripolis; then, turning to the north-
west and skirting the mountainous and virtually impenetrable district of
Mainalon and the Erymanthos Mountains, he arrived by a series of
forced marches at the Gulf of Patras. The inhabitants of Patras had
already fled either to the Venetian colonies or to Naupactus, and only the
citadel was garrisoned. After plundering the city, he laid siege to the
fortress, which surrendered conditionally after a few days. The Sultan
was enormously impressed by both the strategic advantages which the
city offered and the general fertility of the district, and he lingered there
for a while. Indeed, he made it his business to repopulate Patras and sent
couriers to those who had fled, offering them substantial inducements to
return: they would be permitted to live unmolested; they would receive
land and would be exempt from taxes for several years. Mohammed
then resumed his march along the shore of the Gulf of Corinth, accepted
the conditional surrender of Aigion (Vostitsa) and sweeping aside every-
thing that stood in his way returned to Acrocorinth after an absence of
four months.15 Since the citadel there had still not fallen, he immediately
suspended further operations until it could be taken. His army was re-
deployed in more advantageous positions around the castle to wait until
hunger and privation should force the defenders to surrender. However,
Demetrius dispatched his brother-in-law, Asanes Matthew, to recon-
noiter the situation, gain entry to the citadel, attempt to boost the morale
of the defenders, and negotiate with the Sultan terms of surrender, which,
if possible, would not sacrifice the Greek position in Corinth. Under cover
of night Asanes Matthew and seventy men, all carrying supplies of grain,
succeeded in slipping through the Turkish lines and entering the fortress
Figure 17. Acrocorinth.
COMPLETION OF THE TURKISH CONQUEST 211

of Acrocorinth. No sooner had he accomplished this much than he came

to the conclusion that the defenders' position was hopeless and accepted
the Sultan's harsh conditions of surrender. These stipulated the surren-
der of all that territory previously conquered by the Sultan which was
bounded by a rough triangle whose apex was Mouchlion and whose base
was the northern shore of the Péloponnèse. Most of this territory be-
longed to Thomas Palaeologus and comprised about one-third of the
total area of the Péloponnèse. Thomas and Demetrius Palaeologus were
restricted to the remainder, and in addition were obliged to pay an annual
tribute of three thousand gold pieces and request aid from the Sultan if
ever they were attacked.16
It was remarkable of course that, in acceding to these terms, Asanes
and the commander of the Acrocorinth garrison, Lucanis Nicephorus,
had completely discounted the wishes of Thomas. When Thomas even-
tually met them—"The architects of such meritorious deeds," as Sphrantzes
sarcastically called them—he found himself presented with a fait accompli;
however, he seemed convinced that the only practicable course had been
taken, and hastily confirming the action of his subordinates gave away
his territory "as though it were a vegetable plot." These precipitate and
ill-considered moves aroused universal indignation—at least so we infer
from Sphrantzes' derisory comments, as well as from additional evidence
supplied by Critobulus. What was specially condemned was the sur-
render of Acrocorinth to the Turks: no castle in the entire Péloponnèse
was more strategically placed, and since whoever occupied it controlled
the Péloponnèse the Sultan had now an established bridgehead from
which future operations against the Palaeologus brothers could be con-
ducted. As governor of bis newly acquired territories the Sultan ap-
pointed Ömer, son of Turahan, the governor of Thessaly.17 Thus ended
Mohammeďs first campaign in the Péloponnèse.
Mohammed interrupted his return journey to Adrianople the following
autumn with a four-day visit to Athens. The city had previously been
delivered over to Ömer by the last of the Frankish rulers in Attica,
Francesco Acciajuoli.18 The Sultan, a great admirer of antiquity, doted
on the ancient monuments which still stood, particularly those of the
Acropolis; and moved by their former glory he acted in a most generous
manner towards the inhabitants of the city, bestowing many privileges
and acceding to most of their requests.19 Athens retained these privileges
throughout the entire period of Turkish domination.
Immediately after their arrival in Athens, the Turks began construction
of the Mosque of the Conqueror in the middle of the city, as it then was—
the part which was later known as the Marketplace (Pazar).20
In the Péloponnèse Demetrius continued to strengthen his rapport with
212 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

the Turks, while Thomas was leaning more and more towards association
with the West. In order to consolidate his position in the Péloponnèse and
simultaneously neutralize the opposing forces of the Despots, the Sultan
made overtures to Demetrius to marry his daughter. However, in January
1459, the Peloponnesian nobility, believing that any situation in which
intrigue and suspicion were fostered could only enhance their inde-
pendence, urged Thomas to move against his brother and the Sultan's
dependencies. Among these nobles there were some who had disavowed
the sovereignty of both Despots and were already indiscriminately loot-
ing and destroying property. Moreover, Turkish garrisons in the Pelopon-
nesian castles instituted military operations against Thomas.
The inhabitants were finally so appalled at the extent of destruction
and so disgusted with the misgovernment inflicted on them that they at
last bestirred themselves. The Palaeologus brothers were, of course, pri-
marily responsible for this state of affairs and were accordingly despised
by the Turks. An outburst of unfavorable public opinion forced the
brothers to meet in Kastritsi, a fortress in central Peloponnesus, in an
attempt to settle their differences. But the respite was a brief one: the
following winter Demetrius violated the terms of their agreement and
recommenced hostilities. However, he was eventually forced to take
refuge in Monemvasia, whence he requested direct intervention by the
Sultan.21
The Sultan, angered by the anarchy which continued to rend the
Péloponnèse and fearful that others might cast covetous eyes on so
tempting a prey, decided to incorporate the Péloponnèse in the Ottoman
Empire. So in April 1460, for the second time, he set out from Adrianople
with a large army; he reached Corinth in twenty-seven days. From there,
instead of moving, as expected, against Thomas, he turned south and
marched into Demetrius' territory without encountering any resistance.22
It may have been at this time (though according to the oral tradition of
a much later period, it was earlier) that the Sultan granted the inhabi-
tants of the Dervenochoria, mountain villages south of Corinth, a num-
ber of privileges in return for their acceptance of responsibility for the
security of the Turkish mails.23 These included payment of nominal taxes
only, exemption from forced labor and from the requisitioning and bil-
leting of Turkish troops. Continuing his march, Mohammed went around
Argos towards the center of the Péloponnèse and Mistra. By a quirk of
fate, that city fell on 29 May, the anniversary of the capture of Constanti-
nople. Demetrius offered no resistance: his reward was the Sultan's
promise of a princely living in the future. Indeed, after his return to
Adrianople and his marriage to Demetrius' daughter, Mohammed be-
stowed on his father-in-law the entire revenues of the islands of the
COMPLETION OF T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 213
northeastern Aegean (Imbros, Lemnos, Thasos, and Samothrace), to­
gether with those of Thracian Ainos, which had recently belonged to the
Genoese house of Gattilusi.24
Mohammed next turned against certain strongholds held by Thomas
in the central and southwestern Péloponnèse—against Kastritsi and later
against Gardiki near Leondari. He gave no quarter to the gallant Greek
and Albanian defenders, seeking to quell all resistance by terrorizing his
opponents.25 The garrisons were slaughtered to a man. The memory of
this massacre is still preserved in the traditions of the people of Gardiki
and in the toponym Kokkala (bones), signifying the place of martyrdom. 26
With the fall of these two castles the way was open for an invasion of
Messenia and the end of the war was in sight. Resistance simply melted
away on all sides. Thomas' lieutenants abandoned their posts in towns
and castles, and, followed by the local nobles, fled to the Venetian colo­
nies of Korone, Methone, and Pylos (then Navarino). The various for­
tresses were occupied one after the other. Those the Sultan judged un­
suitable were pulled down to preclude their use as future pockets of
resistance. Local residents were generally permitted to remain in their
homes, though some were removed in order to assist in the repopulation
of Constantinople. By the time he reached Pylos, Mohammed was un­
disputed master of Messenia: to escape battle, Thomas Palaeologus, last
Despot of Morea, and a few nobles had already sailed away to Corfu.
Thomas had finally abandoned all hope that some castles would hold
out and that refuge might be found somewhere in the Péloponnèse.27
Simultaneously, the fortresses of Chlomoutsi and Santameri in the
northwestern Péloponnèse capitulated, and they were soon followed by
the remaining castles in Achaia and Elis. The last scene of this drama
was set in Achaia, where by a strange coincidence the curtain would go
up in the Greek war of independence in 1821. After an heroic defense,
the last castle, Salmenico, accepted honorable terms of surrender late
in July 1461. According to Mahmud, Master of the Sułtanie Household,28
its defender, Constantine Palaeologus, known as Graetzas, was the only
man left in the entire Péloponnèse.20 Isolated and sporadic resistance by
elements of Thomas Palaeologus' army was probably all that remained—
at least so Thomas himself claimed in one of his communications to the
Venetian Senate the following year.30
All of the Péloponnèse except the Venetian colonies and Monemvasia
had by then passed into Mohammeďs hands. It is likely, too, that Maina
accepted terms of surrender at this time, though its inhospitable shores
and mountainous hinterland no doubt continued to provide shelter for
large numbers of refugees. Indeed, an early seventeenth-century source
suggests that the Turks had still not forced Maina 31 and that many noble
Figure 18. Castle of Modon (Methone).
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 215

families, among them the hellenized descendants of the Florentine Med-

iéis, who had settled in Athens at the time of the Acciajuoli Duchy,32
lived there in perfect security alongside the Greek inhabitants and the
Albanian settlers.33 Thus, the district of Maina was one of the wellsprings
of Greek nationalism—the Peloponnesian counterpart of the Pindus dis-
trict in western Greece. Both of them appear to have preserved the same
autonomous privileges and semi-independence that they had enjoyed
during the Byzantine period, and both remained the most restive parts of
Hellas under Turkish dominion. Maina's form of government and the
precise nature of its privileges, at least during the first centuries of Turk-
ish domination, remain unknown.
Mohammed brought with him on his return to Adrianople not only
Demetrius himself but his courtiers and various nobles and officials from
Achaia, Laconia, and the other provinces. He killed any Albanian nota-
bles who did not manage to escape.34 This reflected Mohammed's Draco-
nian treatment of the Albanians in general. A later legend told of
Albanians who fled to the desolate islands of Hydra and Spetsai in order
to escape the Sultan's unrelenting persecution and whose descendants
in 1821 burst out of their islands to avenge their ancestors.35 However,
since the traveller André Thevet reported in 1550 that Hydra was un-
inhabited, the legend was probably a highly romanticized version of
actual events.86
In November 1460, after leaving his family in Corfu, Thomas set out
for Rome in the hope of finding new resources and inciting the powerful
forces of the West against the Turks. As a gift to the Pope he took the
head of St. Andrew, which had previously reposed in Patras. (Pope
Paul VI returned the head to Patras in September 1964. ) The Pope, the
cardinals, and Venice each granted Thomas annual subsidies of three
hundred, two hundred, and five hundred ducats respectively.37 Although
there were insuperable obstacles in the way of successfully organizing a
crusade, Thomas' hopes were raised in 1463 by the beginning of pro-
tracted hostilities between Venice and the Ottoman Empire. He died,
however, in May 1465 while negotiating with the princely courts of
Europe for an extension of that war.38 Cardinal Bessarion assumed the
guardianship of his children, Andrew, Emmanuel, and Zoë, and had them
brought up in accordance with the provisions of the Florentine agree-
ment. 39
Meanwhile the nobles, assembled in Corfu, had been awaiting the out-
come of Thomas' representations. When the failure of his first attempts
dashed their hopes of obtaining any kind of aid from the West, they
regretfully dispersed.40 A Venetian document of 27 April 1461 notes the
presence of many Greek noblemen and clerics in Crete, which would
216 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

seem to indicate that some at least took refuge in Candia and other
towns and villages on the island. Venice, discovering evidence of a con­
spiracy against her, became alarmed at the persistent congregation of
these Greeks and instructed the local authorities to exercise extreme
caution in dealing with them and to banish those engaged in suspicious
activities.41 On the other hand, some of the nobles appear to have re­
mained permanently in Corfu—among them Constantine XI Palaeologus'
chamberlain, George Sphrantzes, who spent his last days as a monk.
Here, in 1486, moved by his memories and inspired by discussions with
the nobles of Corfu (and begged by them to set down all that he had
seen, heard, and lived), the aging Sphrantzes set about the writing of
his Chronicle.42 Tradition has it that he was buried in front of the ancient
Church of the Prophet Elijah.43
The fate of Demetrius Palaeologus was bound up with that of the
islands of the northeastern Aegean, as will be seen below.

Seizure of the Gattilusi Possessions

The islands of the northeastern Aegean (Thasos, Samothrace, Imbros,
Lemnos, and Lesbos) had been attached as fiefs to the house of Gatti­
lusi by the Emperors Manuel II ( 1391-1425 ) and John VIII Palaeologus
(1425-1448). Although they continued to acknowledge the suzerainty
of the Emperors, the imperial functionaries on the islands, who were
descended from aristocratic families, were in fact no more than ineffec­
tual figureheads.44 By the time of the fall of Constantinople virtually full
authority had devolved upon members of the house of Gattilusi, in
particular on Dorino I, who ruled in Lesbos, and his younger brother
Palamedes, who ruled in Thracian Amos. Dorino Гѕ fief also included
Lemnos and Thasos, and that of his brother Imbros and Samothrace.
When Genoese ships brought the news of the city's capture, Constantine
XI Palaeologus' governors on Lemnos and Imbros, believing that all
was lost, departed on the very ships that carried the news, leaving their
territories ungoverned.
The likelihood of imminent invasion by a Turkish fleet was uppermost
in the minds of the islanders. Consequently their chief concern was to
escape. Two hundred men from Lemnos, among them most of the
wealthy and prominent citizens, sailed away with their families to Crete,
Chios, and Euboea.
In the midst of this turmoil, Critobulus of Imbros, one of the most
powerful landowners there and later renowned as an historian of the
Byzantine Empire's last years, appeared on the scene for the first time.
He attempted to hold the invader at bay by opening negotiations with the
Sultan, an initiative which he took on behalf of the neighboring islands
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 217

of Lemnos and Thasos, as well as of his own Imbros. Critobulus suc-

ceeded in restoring the courage of the island inhabitants and in stopping
their headlong flight. He had quietly sent a trusted envoy to Hamza, the
admiral of the Turkish fleet and the governor of Gallipoli, and this official,
having had gifts lavished upon him, was persuaded to hold off his fleet.
Soon afterwards, Hamza interceded with the Sultan on Critobulus' be-
half, and Mohammed received another deputation, again laden with gifts,
in Adrianople. On this occasion, Critobulus offered to place the islands
under the Sultan's sovereignty, though at the same time entreating him
to grant them their previous status and to "allow them to pay the annual
tribute which is your due and to have a governor if you so order."
At the same time, Palamedes of Ainos also sent a "paramount and
trusty" noble to the Sultan's court with the request that he be allowed
to retain Imbros and that his authority over the island already enfeoffed
to him be legally vouchsafed. Similarly, his elder brother Dorino I, the
aging ruler of Lesbos, had dispatched his own eldest son and co-ruler,
Domenico, to press the same suit on behalf of the islands of Lemnos and
Thasos. The envoys of these petty Genoese rulers met Critobulus' deputa-
tion in Adrianople, and since all were in complete accord as to what the
future of the islands should be, they decided to act in concert before
the Sultan in order to ensure the preservation of the political and social
status quo. Their joint efforts were crowned with success when Mo-
hammed, as Critobulus wrote, "set aside the islands under the same con-
ditions which obtained at the time of the late Emperor [Constantine]."
Lemnos and Thasos went to Dorino and Imbros and Palamedes, and an
annual tribute from the former was fixed at 3,000 gold pieces for Lesbos
and 2,325 for Lemnos. Palamedes was required to furnish 1,200 gold
pieces for Imbros.
This solution was satisfactory to the Sultan because of considerations
of political expediency, not because his generosity and magnanimity got
the better of him, as Critobulus would have us believe. The Genoese
rulers maintained close ties with their compatriots in the Christian West
and the danger still existed that their incessant pleas for the organization
of a crusade might not always fall on deaf ears. By refraining from the
immediate incorporation of these islands in his vast empire, Mohammed
hoped to avoid unnecessary provocation.
Nevertheless, Mohammed's conciliatory attitude did not long suffice
those Christian rulers whose propinquity to the Turkish might made them
most vulnerable. After recovering from the initial shock of the capture
of Constantinople, they began to look to the defense of their territories
and lost little time in establishing close contact with the West. Their
chief protagonist was Jean de Lastiq, the Commander of the Knights of
218 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK N A T I O N

Rhodes, who began to send letters to all rulers in the West, adjuring
them to avenge the Christian blood which had flowed in Constantinople
and especially to support Christianity's strongest bastion in the E a s t -
Rhodes itself. These appeals struck some chords of sympathetic response
in the West and aroused a degree of indignation against the "infidels,"
but not enough to induce Pope Nicholas V to launch a new crusade.
The Pope died in March 1455, however, and his successor, Callixtus III,
reacting more favorably to Bessarion's persuasions, worked tirelessly for
a common understanding among all Christian rulers and for a united
front against the Turk. Europe was crisscrossed by an army of preachers
appealing to Christian consciences and offering indulgences to those who
provided money or personal services for the success of the cause. But
the West was torn by the rivalries and disputes of individual European
rulers, and only scant interest was kindled. Pope Callixtus raised a force
of but twenty-five ships, five thousand soldiers, and one thousand sailors,
at the head of which he placed Lodovico Scarampi, Patriarch of Aquileia
in Italy.45
In the face of the Crusade, the Sultan obviously could no longer ignore
the Frankish rulers of the Aegean, whose territories formed potential
naval bases. He therefore abruptly reversed his Aegean policies. First,
he demanded that Rhodes pay tribute as Chios, Lesbos, Lemnos, and
Imbros did. "From now on," envoys of the Knights Hospitalers were
brusquely informed by the viziers, "the Sultan is master of all the islands
of the Aegean/' When the Knights refused to comply with the Sultan's
demand, hostilities began, but the Sultan's forces found the island's for-
tifications impregnable.
Mohammed was therefore obliged to adopt an alternative ploy. The
small Genoese possessions of the Gattilusi at the entrance to the Helles-
pont were easier prey. The death on 30 June 1455 of Dorino I of Lesbos
and the succession of his son and heir, Domenico, provided a favorable
opportunity. On 1 August, Domenico's emissary, Michael Ducas, later
noted as an historian, arrived in Adrianople with the annual tribute and
found himself in an atmosphere of grim foreboding. The Sultan's viziers,
Mahmoud and Sei'di Ahmet, icily informed him that Domenico would not
be recognized as ruler unless he appeared in person to receive that author-
ity from the Sultan. Accordingly, Domenico started out from Mytilene
with an escort composed of Ducas and some Greek and Frankish nobles
and in due course arrived in Adrianople, only to find that a pestilence
which had killed many people in Thrace was still raging and that the
Sultan had left the city. Domenico went in search of the Sultan first to
Philippopolis, then to Sofia, and at length found him in the Bulgarian
village of Izlati. After leaving Domenico to cool his heels for three days,
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 219

two of the Sultan's viziers told him that the Sultan wanted Thasos as a
gift. The Frankish ruler acceded to the Sultan's demand. Domenico left
Izlati wearing a golden robe and with his entourage attired in silken
raiments, all gifts from the Sultan, and reached Mytilene in thirteen days.
There he thanked God for having delivered him out of the clutches of the
"Knave"; for despite the Sultan's presents, Domenico suspected that the
Sultan's demands were a foretaste of worse to come.
And so they were. All of the Gattilusi possessions fell one by one to
the Turk. On Christmas Eve, 1455, Mohammed captured Palaea Phocaea,
Domenico's possession in Asia Minor.46 Then, on 24 January 1456, pro-
voked by suspicious undertakings on the part of Dorino II, the new ruler
of the fiefdom of Ainos (who had succeeded his father, Palamedes),
Mohammed captured Ainos. The last trace of Frankish rule in Thrace
thus disappeared. Samothrace and Imbros, which formed part of the fief-
dom of Ainos, were similarly taken over. Finally, he captured Lemnos at
the invitation of its inhabitants, who were discontented with their gov-
ernor, Nicholas, Domenico's brother. The first phase of Mohammed's op-
erations in the northeastern Aegean thus ended in his absolute dominion.
The final phase of the Sultan's Aegean campaign involving the Crusade
organized by Pope Callixtus was inaugurated at the beginning of 1457.
The Christian fleet anchored first in Rhodes and then proceeded to Chios
and Lesbos. However, the Genoese rulers of these islands, members of
the Giustiniani and Gattilusi families, respectively, refused to take part
in the Crusade against the Sultan. Of course they had learned to respect
the Turk, but perhaps more importantly they were reluctant to assist the
spread of Venetian influence in the Aegean: it had not escaped their
notice that of all the West Europeans it was the Venetians who com-
manded the fleet. The Venetians had already cast covetous eyes on the
Gattilusi possessions of Ainos, Lemnos, and Imbros. In November 1456,
they had entered into secret negotiations with George Palaeologus, also
known as Dromakaïtis or Comnenus, a powerful landholder on Lemnos,
who offered to capture them in Venice's name on condition that they be
recognized as his fiefs. Possibly these surreptitious moves became known
to the Genoese rulers of Chios and Lesbos; and, if so, they were no doubt
sufficient to predispose the Genoese against participation in the Venetian
venture. On the other hand, the fleet itself looked completely inadequate
to protect the Frankish possessions in the East, and this, too, may have
been a factor in persuading the Genoese to adopt a policy of benevolent
neutrality.
The Crusaders therefore put in to Mytilene for provisions and began
to use Domenico's harbors as bases for armed forays against Turkish
merchantmen and the opposite shores of Asia Minor. Presently, the Cru-
220 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

saders' fleet of forty ships—privateers and other assorted vessels, some

Venetian, some Catalan—sallied forth from Mytilene and carried the inva-
sion to the islands of the northeast Aegean. Lemnos, the first to be singled
out, fell quickly: at the very approach of the fleet the inhabitants sur-
rendered the island, and the Turkish garrison of one hundred men capitu-
lated. Thasos was next, but this time the garrison put up a fight; in a
spirited assault, however, a landing party overwhelmed the defenders and
the "fortress of the harbor" was taken. This operation was accomplished
with such speed that the remaining castles on the island quickly surren-
dered. Within fifteen days the Christian force had taken the whole island,
and their leaders had installed a new regime. Samothrace also fell after
a brief skirmish.
After returning to Lemnos for four days, Lodovico Scarampi, the com-
mander of the fleet, left for Rhodes with the Turkish prisoners taken at
Lemnos, Thasos, and Samothrace. While in Lemnos, he dispatched ten
ships, probably under the command of a Count Anguillara of Rome, to
offer terms of surrender to Critobulus' islands. With diplomatic guile,
Critobulus extended the Count the warmest of welcomes and convinced
him that he was really dealing with a friend and ally. Anguillara was so
disarmed that he almost forgot the purpose of his mission—at least he
seemed loath to recall it. Still, the islands of the northeast Aegean were
again in the hands of the Christians, mainly of course in the hands of
the Venetians.
Only money, however, could properly secure these newly acquired in-
terests, and in Venice at the time no other commodity was in shorter
supply. Accordingly, in May 1457, the Venetians left Scarampi to defend
this area as best he could with whatever assistance the Knights of Rhodes
might give him. For the remainder of 1457 the Crusaders continued to
dominate the Aegean and even defeated a Turkish naval force near Myti-
lene in August. Twenty-five Turkish ships were captured in the battle. 47
But by the spring of 1458 and especially after the Pope died in early
August 1458, the crusading frenzy whipped up by Pope Callixtus III had
definitely died down. The good will of the new Pope, Pius II, was not
in itself sufficient to revive flagging interests,48 and the protection offered
by the Christian fleet was virtually nonexistent.
In this situation the Notables of Lemnos, fearful that the Turkish fleet
would launch a surprise attack to castigate them for surrendering to the
Crusaders, found themselves in complete agreement with Critobulus that
they should again come to terms with the Turk. The astute Critobulus saw
only too clearly that the balance of power in the Aegean had tipped in
favor of the Turks and that the time was never more opportune to dem-
onstrate his loyalty to the Sultan. He therefore interceded with the Sultan
and persuaded him to transfer Lemnos and Imbros to the jurisdiction of
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 221

Demetrius Palaeologus, the pro-Turkish Despot of the Morea. An annual

tribute of three thousand gold pieces sealed the bargain.
As soon as these negotiations at the Sultan's court in Adrianople were
concluded, Critobulus returned to Imbros, where he stayed only one day
before leaving for Lemnos to ensure that island's adherence to the terms
of the new agreement. The nobles and people of the island rallied to
Critobulus' side. Italian captives were apparently allowed to remain as
permanent settlers or to leave the island in peace. Immediately afterwards,
he sent two Notables from Lemnos to inform Demetrius of the new
arrangements and to request that governors be installed in the islands.
Whether or not these actually took up residence at this time has never
been definitely ascertained.
Since these events followed hard upon Mohammed's first expedition
to the Péloponnèse ( spring-autumn 1458 ), they may be presumed to have
taken place in the winter of 1458-1459 and the spring of 1459. Shortly
after that, the new admiral of the Turkish fleet, Ismail, officially took
possession of the islands. Ismail's part in this operation ceased when he
sent the unfortunate Italian prisoners to the Sultan in Philippopolis, where
they were forthwith executed. In October 1459, his successor, the assidu­
ous Zağanos, led an expedition of forty ships to the other islands of the
northeast Aegean, Samothrace and Thasos, where Frankish garrisons were
still entrenched. Zağanos crushed all resistance and, probably in pursu­
ance of Mohammed's orders, transferred most of the inhabitants of the
islands to Constantinople.
During the autumn of 1460, after the second Turkish invasion of the
Péloponnèse and the overthrow of the Despotate of Morea, the Sultan
returned to Adrianople with Demetrius, whose family and entourage were
virtual prisoners. He nevertheless offered Demetrius the islands of Imbros,
Lemnos, Thasos, and Samothrace as well as Thracian Ainos. Demetrius'
revenues from these territories amounted in all to 700,000 silver pieces,
including 100,000 that he received from the mint in Adrianople.
Demetrius resided in Adrianople and governed Ainos and the islands
through his plenipotentiaries, but he lived to enjoy the income from his
territories for only a few years. Shortly after the death of his wife's
brother, Asanes Matthew, in 1467, he fell out of favor with the Sultan
and was exiled to Didymoteikhon. He died as a monk in Adrianople in
1470, a rather more fortunate fate than that which befell the royal family
of David Comnenus in the Empire of Trebizond.

Overthrow of the Empire of Trebizond (1461)

Although the early history of the Empire of Trebizond is shrouded in
mystery, it is known that it was founded by Alexius Comnenus, grandson
of the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus I Comnenus. In the anarchy which
222 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

attended the Frankish rape of the Byzantine Empire in 1204, Alexius, at

the head of an army of Georgian mercenaries placed at his disposal by
his aunt, Thamar of Georgia, captured the city of Trebizond and its adja-
cent region. The new Greek state of Trebizond, taking its name from the
capital city, thereafter maintained an independent existence analogous to
that of the other remaining states of the Empire and, after 1261, of the
restored Byzantine Empire under the Palaeologian dynasty.49 From the
time of its inception, the Empire of Trebizond preserved close intellectual
and artistic links with Constantinople. Byzantine art, the most pervasive
influence, strikingly affected the ecclesiastical architecture of Trebizond
until its fall in 1461.50
At the time of the capture of Constantinople, the spruce and elegant
town of Trebizond had four thousand inhabitants 51 and was an important
center of trade for the whole of the East. This population was soon swol-
len by a flood of refugees from Constantinople. Moreover, Trebizond, the
seat of the "Grand Comnenus," was the only independent polity which
still remained legally Greek, and it therefore assumed the status of a sec-
ond Constantinople.52 Mohammed II perfectly understood its attraction
for all Greeks as a free enclave of Hellenism; and he was also aware of its
key location on the trade routes between Europe and the Far East.53
The dominion of the "Grand Comnenus" hugged the southern shore of
the Black Sea. According to the description of the traveller Clavijo at the
beginning of the fifteenth century, its terrain was rugged and densely
forested, and the trees were choked with wild vines and climbing plants.
Until the exchange of population between Greece and Turkey in 1923, the
Greek population mostly lived in small settlements called choria, consist-
ing of a sprinkling of solidly constructed peasant houses. The countryside
could be traversed via a network of paths, but these were so rough and
precipitous as to cost Clavijo the lives of all his pack animals. The interior,
known as the Mesochaldion, was mountainous and barren, dotted with
castles, and inhabited by a poverty-stricken population. These people,
under the leadership of a member of the Kavazitis family, were constantly
defending themselves against the attacks of Turks from across the border.
Apparently their indigence also drove them into predatory attacks on
their foes and into exacting tolls and tribute from merchants who passed
through their strongholds.54 No environment could have been better
suited to guerrilla operations.
Mohammed therefore had a number of reasons for proceeding against
the Trapezuntines. Three years after the capture of Constantinople and
as soon as Turkish hegemony in the Péloponnèse and the northern Aegean
had been successfully established, he accordingly ordered Hitir, Pasha
of Amasya, to reduce this last independent outpost of Hellenism. Hitir
COMPLETION OF THE TURKISH CONQUEST 223

marched through the undefended passes of the Pontic Alps and de­
scended on Trebizond with such extraordinary expedition that Emperor
John IV ("the Good") was unaware of his approach almost until he
began setting up his encampment on the outskirts of the city. In the
meantime, a Turkish fleet had set out from Samsun ( Amisus ) to plunder
the coast of Trebizond. Since John found himself faced with a critical
food shortage and a plague which had already taken a huge human toll
both inside and outside the capital, he felt impelled to come to immedi­
ate terms with Hitir. For his part, the Turkish commander was only too
pleased to accommodate John: he had no wish to have his forces pinned
down outside the heavily fortified town while the Sultan was fighting
the Hungarians before Belgrade in 1456. Hitir offered to let Trebizond
alone as soon as John agreed to pay an annual tribute of two thousand
gold pieces to the Sultan. These terms were substantially confirmed by
the Sultan on his return from his first expedition to the Péloponnèse in
the autumn of 1458, though he raised the tribute to three thousand gold
pieces.
In an attempt to avert complete political subjugation 55 John made
overtures of friendship towards the ruler of the Ak Koyunlu (White
Shepherds ) Turcomans of Mesopotamia, Uzun Hassan, whose capital was
in Diyarbakır. In consideration of an arranged marriage with John's
daughter Catherine, who was famed for her beauty throughout the entire
East, and with Cappadocia—which nominally belonged to the Grand
Comnenus—as dowry, Uzun Hassan agreed to enter into a defensive
alliance with John.
John signed a treaty embodying acceptance of Uzun Hassan's condi­
tions and then turned to the fulfillment of a much larger ambition, the
extension of the treaty to include the Christian princes of Georgia and
Mingrelia, as well as the Moslem prince of Kastamonu, Isfendiaroglou
Ismail Bey, the Sultan's brother-in-law, and the Moslem prince, Ibrahim
Bey, of Karaman. For many years the last two princes had nursed hostile
feelings towards the Ottoman state: in the case of Ibrahim Bey, because
Mohammed II's father, Murad II, had confiscated part of his lands. It
was intended that the treaty serve not only as a guarantee of the terri­
torial integrity of those countries that subscribed to it, but also as a
means of effecting the expulsion of the Ottoman Turks from the whole
of Anatolia. However, John died in 1458 without realizing his scheme.56
Since the legal heir, John V, was only four years old, he was at once
brushed aside by his uncle, David Comnenus, with the support of the
noble Kavazitis family from the Mesochaldion.57 Nonetheless, David
Comnenus sought to implement and expand his brother's plans. On 22
April 1459 he wrote to Philip, Duke of Burgundy, outlining the action
224 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

he had taken to form an aggressive alliance against the Turks and

deliberately exaggerating the size of the combined forces of Georgia,
Mingrelia, and Armenia. Michael Alighieri, the bearer of the letter, called
on Pope Pius II, who gave him another letter for the Duke (13 January
1460). In this, Pius pointed out that he had already sent a delegation to
Trebizond and the other courts of the East for the specific purpose of
organizing a holy alliance against the Turks; and he urged Philip of
Burgundy to follow the example of the Eastern princes. However, the
leader of this delegation, Fra Lodovico da Bologna, was a treacherous
Franciscan monk, who had prevailed upon the Pope to allow him to take
charge of the negotiations.58 As a consequence, the only result of Daviďs
diplomatic initiative was that Mohammed learned of the plans. 59
At a critical stage in these proceedings, David made an imprudent
move that angered the Sultan even more. He asked Uzun Hassan, his
niece's husband, to request exemption from the tribute Trebizond was
then paying the Sultan. With singular lack of diplomatic finesse, Uzun
Hassan hastened the dissolution of the Anatolian alliance by agreeing to
intercede and making an importunate request of his own. He instructed
his envoys to ask for the restitution of the annual subsidy which Moham­
med's grandfather had formerly paid him but which had been suspended
some fifty years before. The Sultan's reply was charged with an ominous
double meaning: "Go in peace and I will come next year myself and
settle this debt." 60
Mohammed spent the whole of that winter preparing for an expedition
against the states of northeast Asia Minor. By the following spring of
1461, three hundred warships with auxiliary transports were ready. Indi­
vidual crew members were specially selected for physical size and season­
ing in battle, and each was well armed. Two highly competent admirals
were placed in charge of the expedition, Kassim, governor of Gallipoli,
and Yakoub, "a man who was not only a sailor of vast experience but a
superlative naval commander as well." This superb fleet put out from the
shores of the Bosphorus in an almost jocund mood, the martial roars of
its crews echoing the exultant slapping of the oars.61 It was an impressive
array of Turkish naval might.
Soon afterwards, in June 1461, the Sultan crossed the Straits with his
European army and arrived at Bursa (then Prusa), where he had given
orders for the Asian army to assemble. It was a formidable host by the
standards of the day—sixty thousand cavalry and eighty thousand infan­
try, all eagerly awaiting news of the purpose of the Sultan's expedition.62
The inhabitants of the Aegean islands and the free cities of the Black Sea
—Kaffa (now Feodosiya), Trebizond, and Sinope—were overawed by the
assemblage. The Sultan's first objective, which so far he had not disclosed
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 225

to anyone, was Sinope/'4 This rich and lovely city, especially famous as a
port for the export of copper from the mines of its hinterland, was an
"important entrepôt not only for its adjacent regions, but also for a large
part of Asia Minor." °4
To fool his enemies, however, the Sultan made a feint towards the
southeast and camped at Ankara. From there he announced to Isfendi-
aroglu Ismail Bey that if Sinope were surrendered, he would gladly, by
way of exchange, recognize Ismail's authority in Philippopolis and its
suburbs. Mohammed then marched straight towards Sinope and secured
the narrow isthmus of the peninsula on which the city was built. Simulta-
neously, the Turkish fleet blockaded its shores. Although Ismail com-
manded an ideal defensive position and both the size of his garrison and
the number of his cannon were more than adequate to repulse the com-
bined attacks of the Turkish land and naval forces for a protracted period,
not a single clash took place. Ismail left the city to pay homage to the
Sultan. Then, after accepting the exchange which Mohammed had previ-
ously offered, he surrendered Sinope.65
The Turkish fleet was ordered to Trebizond, and Mohammed led his
army into the interior of Armenia. By a forced march, which was remark-
able for the endurance of his troops, Mohammed brought his entire army
over the undefended tracks of the Anti-Taurus Mountains through wild,
dangerous terrain covered with dense forest and thicket.er> His descent
followed the road leading from Amasya and Sivas (ancient Sebastia) to
Erzurum; along the way a stop was made to reduce the castle of Koinlu,
or Koyunlu Hisar. This castle was situated east of Tokat and was Uzun
Hassan's westernmost stronghold. Continuing in an easterly direction,
Mohammed presently encountered Sara Hatun, the mother of Uzun
Hassan, who had come to meet him, bearing gifts, to assure him of the
friendship and loyalty of her son. The Sultan was inclined to accept her
protestations, but requested as proof of their sincerity that Uzun Hassan
immediately cease his hostile operations against Turkish territory and
abrogate his alliance with David Comnenus. As additional insurance
against the future disposition of Uzun Hassan, Mohammed also insisted
that Sara Hatun accompany him on his expedition. Only the forbidding
Pontic Alps separated him from his prize; and, setting an example to
his troops,67 who were exhausted by the rigors of the march and depleted
food supplies,68 Mohammed, on foot most of the time, led them on the
climb over this last formidable obstacle.
Meanwhile, the Turkish fleet from Sinope had arrived suddenly before
Trebizond. David Comnenus, taken thoroughly by surprise, found him-
self with harvest not gathered from the fields and the full complement
of his garrison inside the walls. The Turks were able to land about ten
226 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

thousand well-armed men virtually without opposition, and these pro-

ceeded to burn and loot in the suburbs and lay waste the fields.69 At
first, the Trapezuntines tried to put up some resistance outside the walls,
but the superiority of the Turkish force compelled them to immure them-
selves in the city. The capital was cut off from all communication with
the outside. Still, for twenty-eight consecutive days the besieged resorted
to surprise sorties against the enemy. "In these forays," says Critobulus,
"they showed themselves in no way inferior to the enemy." 70 All the
while, too, Pontic peasants from the surrounding heights descended on
the enemy, and their attacks resulted in significant Turkish losses. Since
the people of Trebizond still believed that the main Turkish force was
engaged against the Ak Koyunlu Turcomans, they by no means regarded
their fortune as irretrievable. 71
Their hopes were abruptly dashed, however, by the appearance of
the Sultan and his army on the Trapezuntine side of the Pontic Alps.
The news of his successful crossing spread alarm, confusion, and de-
featism in the town. Mahmud, the Grand Vizier of Greco-Serbian de-
scent, who commanded the vanguard of the Turkish army, demanded,
as soon as he arrived outside its walls, the surrender of the city and set
up camp in a place known as Skylolimni. Since destruction and pillage
were the only other alternatives offered, David Comnenus capitulated.
This sudden volte-face on the part of David can only be explained in
terms of a defeatist state of mind, the seeds of which were apparently
sown in no small measure by his own chamberlain, the philosopher
George Amiroukes or Amiroutses. A man of handsome and imposing
aspect, Amiroukes was yet another of the opportunists who appeared in
these unsettled times—men who preferred to appease the Sultan rather
than to oppose him. It was Amiroukes who took charge of the negotia-
tions for the surrender of Trebizond. A little later, he attempted to vin-
dicate his actions in a feeble explanation to Bessarion, his compatriot:
the people were already demoralized by the sight of the enemy's huge
war machines and by lack of food and water, "which had never before
been known to occur." All resistance was thus paralyzed and the people
were bent upon surrender.72 And so, in the middle of August 1461 the last
independent outpost of Hellenism ceased to exist: 73 in the words of the
melancholy Pontic folk song, "Romania is gone, Romania was taken." 74
News of the success of Mohammed's campaign reached Venice in Octo-
ber, whence it rapidly spread to other major European countries. As usual,
the feelings of anger and sorrow it aroused did not last long.75
It was Amiroukes who pointed out that, despite the voluntary capitu-
lation of the city, its royal house and inhabitants were subjected to the
same reprisals, pillaging, and attendant sufferings as if there had been a
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 227

forcible conquest.76 David Comnenus and the royal family, together

with a few servants and some of the more prominent officials and wealthy
families, were ordered aboard Turkish galleys and transported to Con-
stantinople. David Comnenus, stripped of all wealth and honors except
the few personal treasures that he had been able to take with him, after
a brief but difficult sojourn in the city, was moved to Adrianople, where
that other fallen ruler, Demetrius Palaeologus, also had his residence.
While there, however, the Sultan granted David the income from certain
estates in the vicinity of the Strymon, near Serrai, amounting to 300,000
pieces of silver annually.
But the life of the Grand Comnenus was cut short within two years
of the capture of Trebizond. On 23 March 1463, he and other members
of the royal family were incarcerated in the "tower" of Adrianople and
then transferred to the Fortress of Heptapyrgion ( Seven Towers ) in Con-
stantinople. There, during the night of 1 November 1463, Comnenus,
three of his children, and his nephew Alexius were beheaded and their
bodies cast outside the walls. The only members of his family spared
were his wife, Helen, his youngest son, three-year-old George, and his
daughter, Anna. Anna went to the Sultan's harem, and George was
brought up a Moslem. The widowed queen, like Antigone, to prevent
the corpses of her family from being devoured by scavenging dogs and
birds of prey, buried them in graves she scraped in the earth with her
bare hands. She became a nun and spent the rest of her days in a cottage
made of straw.
The explanation for these murders is to be found in a letter allegedly
written by Catherine, the wife of Uzun Hassan, in which she requested
David Comnenus to send her one of his sons or his nephew Alexius, son
of Alexander Comnenus, to be brought up in her court. This letter was
entrusted to George Amiroukes, who, out of fear of the Sultan, delivered
it instead to Mohammed. Infuriated at the time by the failure of his
Bosnian campaign, Mohammed gave vent to his rage upon seeing the
letter by ordering the execution of David Comnenus and his family.77
Mohammed evidently did not want any of the Comneni to be brought
up in another court and later prove to be troublesome. Thus, the very
man who, less than a year and a half befc<e, had been mainly responsible
for his country's downfall was now instrumental in the betrayal of his
emperor. It was probably this event which led many Trapezuntine noble-
men finally to leave Adrianople for Constantinople, where they later
figured prominently in the internal affairs of the patriarchate and the
development of post-Byzantine society.
According to certain oral traditions, some Comneni managed to escape
to Maina. This has never been proven, although there is some evidence
228 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

to suggest that a number of nobles from Trebizond dispersed throughout

the islands of the Aegean, the Péloponnèse, Italy, and several other
places.78 Indeed, as early as 1414, 880 Trapezuntine families, seeking to
escape Turkish enslavement, were permitted by the Venetians to settle
in Crete. 79
Immediately after the capture of Trebizond, some fifteen hundred of
the strongest and most handsome young men of the town and adjacent
areas, principally from noble and wealthy families, were impressed for
service in the corps of janissaries and in the palaces of the Sultan and
other grandees. Amiroukes bewailed the temporary conscription of his
own son and young son-in-law. In addition, large numbers were trans-
ported to Constantinople as "colonists"—as elements in the repopulation
of the city.80 As for those who remained behind, the Turks allowed them
to live only outside the walls of the city in suburbs which had been re-
duced to ashes.81 A source in the Turkish archives records that Kassim
and Umur Bey were responsible for the removal of many inhabitants of
the new sancak of Trebizond to Rumelia (that is, the European regions
of the Ottoman Empire ) and for the conversion of their former vineyards
into Turkish fiefs.82
Mohammed stayed only a few days in Trebizond while the necessary
arrangements were effected. His admiral, Kassim, was appointed gover-
nor of the region as a sancak chief. Four hundred elite janissaries from
the Sultan's personal guard were selected to garrison the citadel and
azaps (irregular infantry) were assigned as guards in the rest of the city.
Since only the city itself and its immediate environs had thus far sur-
rendered, Hitir was charged with the task of subjugating the remainder
of the Empire of Trebizond. Mohammed then left for Constantinople,
almost exactly retracing his steps 83 through the wild and mountainous
district of Tzapnides. 84 Nearing the territory of Uzun Hassan, he released
Sara Hatun, giving her great honors and valuable gifts plundered from
the House of Comnenus. Emissaries were also dispatched to assure Uzun
Hassan of the Sultan's desire to renew their friendship and alliance. By
a forced march which "took him safely across the Taurus mountains," he
reached Bursa in twenty-eight days and crossed to Constantinople. 85 The
word "safely" in this context suggests that the Empire of Trebizond had
not yet been entirely subjugated. This assumption is further supported
by the fact that he had deliberately bypassed numerous Greek castles
and strongholds during his rapid advance against David Comnenus. 86
Chalcocondyles states that Hitir did not have to resort to force in the
pacification of certain districts around Trebizond and the Mesochaldion
(variously known as Ardasa or Torul). The two strategic fortresses of
Trebizond and Ardasa, together with several others anchored by these
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 229

two, capitulated voluntarily. These latter, along with Ardasa itself, be­
longed to the Kavazitis family—the "most honorable" father and his son—
though they were erstwhile supporters of David Comnenus and his claims
to the throne. 87 Merne(?), 88 surely a member of the Kavazitis family,
surrendered his castle in Ardasa (the ruins of which can be seen today
above Ardasa), 89 apparently on the condition that he be allowed to retain
his estates in fief. Barkan, who discovered the name "Merne" some five
hundred years later in a book of land titles from the official registry of
the sancak of Trebizond, expresses some doubt as to whether it is a cor­
rect transcription. From this source we learn that nine out of twelve
"soldiers," that is, pronoiarioi, of David Comnenus betrayed him so that
they might keep their fiefs.90 At least the popular muse was not prepared
to overlook this betrayal: there is a Pontic folk song which refers to the
treasonable surrender of a castle, no doubt a particular castle, since both
the name of the traitor and the universal opprobrium which his actions
incurred are vividly recalled:
О fortress, my fortress, my Palaeocastron so solid:
Old and strong were you—then how were you surrendered?
You had a cunning guard, a cowardly master:
Marthas the dog was the traitor within your walls.91
It is likely that "Palaeocastron" refers to the principal fortress in the
interior, the castle of Ardasa, and that the name "Marthas" is the same
"Merne" concerning whose correct spelling Barkan expressed some doubt.
The latter conclusion is based on an assumption that the similarity
between the Arabic letters corresponding to t and η could easily have
led to the confusion of the two characters. Thus, the word could be read
as either "Merne" (as Barkan read it) or "Merte"; but equally, too, it
might be "Marna" or "Marta." Since this last form resembles the Greek
name "Marthas" it may be presumed to be the correct one.
The Kavazitises were probably successful in securing a measure of inde­
pendence for their region in return for some payment of tribute. Virtual
freedom was also assured by the inaccessibility and mountainous nature
of this region. The fact that Christian monuments in the area survived
the usual ravages of war suggests that this was the case.92
Other traditions and folk songs, Greek and Turkish, attest that a num­
ber of key fortresses along the coast and in the interior refused to follow
the example of David Comnenus and the Kavazitises. According to these
traditions, the Turks turned first to the capture of fortresses along the
coast such as Kordyle (Aldja Kale) and Plątana; these were taken only
after the most heroic defense on the part of the inhabitants. Others sur­
rendered willingly or succumbed to treachery.
230 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Thus, the coastal areas and parts of the interior were gradually sub-
dued. Most villages were destroyed and the castles themselves razed.
Their skeletal outlines are still to be seen today, mute witnesses of their
past. Of the inhabitants, some were killed outright, some apostatized to
Islam in order to escape their sufferings, some fled to Iberia and Georgia,
and others found temporary refuge in remote inland fastnesses where
privation and hardship seemed lesser enemies. Many nobles from the
coastal regions, suddenly bereft of wealth, honors, and office, took refuge
in the mountainous interior of "Romania" and resumed their struggle
against the Turk.93 A Pontic song tells of the resistance the Turks en-
countered there :
The evil Turk came and occupied the land
And overflowed the plains,
But the mountains—these were filled with
Brave and handsome men.94
These "brave and handsome men" (leventcd) were Hellenes (drakoi
Hellenoi, "brave Hellenes") in "Hellenic castles" who grasped their
"Hellenic spears" and fought gallantly on mountain peaks and in narrow
ravines until the earth was soaked with their own and the enemy's blood.
The invaders were too numerous to be counted; it was as though God
had rained them upon the earth. So the last of the heroes eventually fell
and each died with a tragic question on his lips: "Why, O God, hast thou
painted the earth with our blood?" The castles themselves, the song goes
on, reverberated with the noise of battle until they, too, no longer stood
and only the plaintive singing of birds disturbed the silence of their
lonely ruins.95
Just when these flickering flames of resistance in the Pontus finally
died down is not known,96 though they cannot have lasted very long. All
that can be said with any certainty is that, as the Turks penetrated fur-
ther and further inland, more villages were levelled, more killings took
place, more conversions to Islam followed, and more escapes were made
to havens even more remote and wild. The destruction of life was such
as to leave an indelible imprint on the memories of the people, which
not even the passing of centuries has been able to expunge:
Woe unto us! Romania has fallen
The churches grieve, the monasteries lament,
St. John Chrysostom weeps and tears his hair.97
At length the entire country was conquered and divided up into fiefs,
which were distributed among the Turkish spahis. Only then was a modi-
cum of order restored and the sufferings of the inhabitants partially
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 231

alleviated. The spahis issued new land titles (hocet and tapı), which
recognized small tenant holdings, and then proceeded to collect the rents
from their estates.98
The decimation of the Greek population in the Pontus resulted in the
atrophy of the Church there. Where once sixteen bishoprics had flourished,
only two, Ophis (Chaldia) and Kanis (Cheroiana) remained; and Ophis
had become defunct by the middle of the seventeenth century. Many
churches were converted into mosques, among them the cathedral of
Panagia Chrysokephalos, which was called the Mosque of Fatih (the Con­
queror) in honor of Mohammed II. Archbishop Dorotheos was forced to
transfer his seat outside the walls of Trebizond to the Church of St. Philip,
which remained in Christian hands till 1665."
All the Greek lands except Cyprus, the Ionian islands, and the Aegean
islands south of Lemnos were united under the dominion of the Sultan
in 1461. They were also united by the common bond of Orthodoxy. This
situation was by no means wholly inimical to the Greeks: not only was
economic and intellectual intercourse among them facilitated, but a con­
sciousness of national unity was thereby able to develop. Resentment
against the common oppressor was nurtured and eventually expressed in
common action.100
However, the economic, cultural, and social development of the Hel­
lenes did not proceed in any uniform manner. The years of Frankish and
Turkish domination prevented that, and economic, political, cultural, and
geographical disparities characterized every stage of growth.
A Greek Historian Looks to the Restoration of His Nation
With the fall of Trebizond, the last independent Greek polity had van­
ished, and the development of the Hellenic nation can thereafter be traced
only through its Church and small separate communities in cities, towns,
and villages. The centuries-old tradition of Greek historical writing link­
ing antiquity with the current era also came to an abrupt end. Virtually
all that remained was the Greek people's thirst for knowledge of past and
contemporary events. Of course, there were Greek chroniclers of the Otto­
man Empire, but since their chronicles or narrations have not yet been
subjected to systematic study, particularly in regard to their consistency
with one another and the reliability of their sources, they are of indeter­
minate value. In addition to these, a number of valuable "Brief Chroni­
cles" or memoirs and a corpus of hagiographical and other religious litera­
ture provide a modicum of historical information. But all these are outside
the mainstream of traditional historiography. More and more, the his­
torical consciousness of the Greek raias was expressed in the form of oral
traditions, legends, folk songs, and other lore; these are what mirror the
232 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

lives of the people and provide an outlet for their feelings and aspirations.
The last traditional historian was Laonicos Chalcocondyles. Born after
1430, Chalcocondyles spent his youth in Mistra, but later, after the fall
of the Duchy of Athens, he returned to his native city and there wrote
his history of the origins and evolution of the Greek nation.101 Chalcocon-
dyles viewed the events of his time from the same philosophical vantage
point as his father George, as Bessarion, Constantine XI Palaeologus,
and Gemistos and his circle had done.
Chalcocondyles demonstrated a surer knowledge of history than any
other scholar of his time. The Hellenes and Romans (the names them-
selves are always differentiated with scrupulous exactness ) were different
peoples; the Romans conquered the East and thereby came into contact
with the Greeks who, however, being far more numerous than their
conquerors, preserved their language, manners and customs, though not
their name, because the Byzantine Emperors were proud to call them-
selves "Emperors of the Romans" rather than "Emperors of the Hel-
lenes." 102 Similar assertions have been made here and there throughout
this work and may be asserted as historical fact. The Greeks, that is,
retained the title "King and Emperor of the Romans" out of respect for
the great Roman tradition. The converse of this tradition might also be
affirmed (in the same unequivocal manner in which John III Ducas
Vatatzes had once addressed Pope Gregory IX): that the inheritance of
Constantine the Great's empire gradually passed over into the "nation"
of the Greeks (see pages 37-38 above). If Greek emperors not only
adopted the official title but never abandoned it, this was because they
were loath to reject a brilliant inheritance.
Unlike Gemistos, Chalcocondyles was not rigidly attached to the idea
that the Hellenes of his day were descended exclusively from the ancient
Greeks: on the contrary, his explanation that the Byzantine Emperors
adopted the title "Roman" instead of "Greek" is made precisely in order
to stress in the most positive terms the existence of a palpable Greco-
Roman affinity. At the same time, there was no doubt in his mind as to
the essential differences between Romans and Greeks: the former were
Latins and Franks or Westerners in general. Having established to his
own satisfaction the predominant stock of the inhabitants of mainland
Greece and Asia Minor, he did not hesitate to substitute the word Hel-
lene for Roman where appropriate, or even to call the last Byzantine
Emperors "Emperors of the Hellenes." Since it was no especial venera-
tion of antiquity which led him to make this distinction, one may assume
that it was due to a recognition of the actual growth of Hellenism dur-
ing that period.
C O M P L E T I O N O F T H E TURKISH CONQUEST 233

Chalcocondyles also seems to have diagnosed the social malaise which

led to the demise of the Byzantine Empire. At least he hints at this
while speculating upon the future of the nation: the Greeks would even-
tually form themselves into a state which mainly lack of cohesion had
hitherto prevented. His confidence in the future resurrection of a king-
dom in which Greeks would govern themselves "very happily" according
to their customs remained unshakable. 103
Chalcocondyles was in part merely reflecting the popular faith in na-
tional rehabilitation, and his optimism was partly based on the renais-
sance of Greek studies. Chalcocondyles watched delightedly as Greek
language and culture spread throughout the West. Prominent among its
torchbearers was his cousin, the renowned Hellenist, Demetrius Chal-
cocondyles. Would the humanist revival lead to a hellenization of the
European spirit or at least arouse Hellenist sympathies on the part of
powerful forces in the West?
ШМІМІШІШІШМІШМІМШІЕІШШиШШШШМІМІМІШІШІМІШРІ

16

GREEK SCHOLARS IN THE WEST

Italy as a Greek Refuge

Escape, escape: the same monotonous refrain was taken up by the people
of Constantinople again and again from the time of the fall of Gallipoli
in 1354. "Everyone wished to leave hurriedly for Italy and Cádiz and for
the ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules, thinking that only there would
they be safe from enslavement." x That safety could only be found in
flight was an idea made more palatable by the knowledge that death
through hunger or the like was possibly the only alternative. 2 Scholars in
particular found the situation in Greece the more insufferable since "edu-
cation and the pursuit of letters could only with difficulty be cultivated
in the absence of freedom." Thus, scholars too gave themselves up to
thoughts of escape. But where could refuge be found? There were in fact
a number of places readily accessible by ship, wrote Demetrius Kydones
in 1387, any of which would provide safe haven for those who did not
care to live through the last tragic moments of the Byzantine capital.
"From afar, they will then see those who stay and drown; while if they
stay themselves and attempt to go to the aid of those who are drowning,
not only will their efforts be futile, but they too will drown." 3
Of course philo-Latin scholars frequently exhibited a yearning for the
West,4 and Rome, especially, had a considerable attraction for men of
letters. Ever since Kydones had accompanied Emperor John V on his
trip to Italy ( 1369-1371 ) and visited Venice, Milan, Florence, and Rome,
he had strongly urged collaboration with the scholars of the West. Only
the West could possibly aid the Byzantine Empire. 5 Therefore, the peo-
ple ought to re-establish their former connections with Rome—with their
own metropolis in fact—for "who are closer allies of the 'Romans' than
the Romans themselves? Who more trustworthy as allies than those who
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E W E S T 235

are Roman? In truth, their metropolis is just as much ours." This expressed
need for a closer relationship with Rome appears to have been prompted
in part by an oracle ( probably attributable to the Unionists ) which pre-
dicted that allies would indeed come to the assistance of Constantinople
and they would come from across the sea and over the Alps.6
The new effulgence of the European spirit also served as a magnet to
many scholars. As scholars, their search for new centers of learning where
the intellect could be stimulated and enriched in secure and liberal sur-
roundings never ceased. A steady stream of such travellers, making their
way through the southern and western parts of Greece, the Péloponnèse,
Crete, and the Ionian islands (especially Corfu, which also served as a
stepping-stone for the rest), went via Ragusa 7 (Dubrovnik) to Ancona
and Venice. Venice, the first major city in the West they encountered,
was where most of them stayed. Its commercial dealings with the Byzan-
tines were of long standing, and its people, its situation, even its build-
ings, were by no means unfamiliar to them. The ties between Venice
and Crete were particularly close, Crete having been under Venetian
domination since 1211.
When these Greeks began to arrive in the West, the Renaissance was
flowering and the study of ancient Greek and Latin writers (humanitatis
studia) was thought of as the only ideal education for men.
Classical learning in Italy had not entirely died out during the Middle
Ages, but had been chiefly limited to a number of Greek monasteries in
Apulia and Calabria, as well as in Sicily. Nardo was perhaps the most
outstanding center of Greek studies. The monastery of San Nicola di
Casóla possessed a rich library of Greek manuscripts and also became a
mecca of Greek ecclesiastics, many of them well educated, who sought
to perpetuate the Greek literary and cultural tradition.8 We are indebted
to the work of early researchers, supplemented more recently by that of
Rohlfs and Caratzas, for the knowledge that this region was inhabited
not only by Byzantine colonists, but also by Greek-speaking settlers who
were descended from the original inhabitants of Magna Graecia. Even
today, no fewer than thirty thousand Greek-speaking villagers live in the
south.9
It is therefore not surprising that a revival of Greek learning in Italy
should be inspired by two scholars from the south. They were the monk
Barlaam (Bernardo), of Greek descent, from Seminara in Calabria (the
same Barlaam who was the chief rival of Gregory Palamas, Archbishop
of Thessalonica, during the Hesychast controversy ), who gave lessons to
Petrarch; and the uncouth and mulish Leonzio Pilato who, like his teacher
Barlaam, had lived for many years in Greece. In 1360, Pilato was in
Florence at the invitation of Boccaccio, who created for him a special
236 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

chair of ancient Greek literature in the university there—the first such

chair in the West—and extended to him the hospitality of his home.
Pilato's translations gave two of his students, Boccaccio and Petrarch,
access to the works of Homer and Plato and thus to the fountainhead
of the classical spirit. Petrarch, though continuing to honor Aristotle,
became a disciple of Plato.10
Two fourteenth-century Greeks, Paul, Archbishop of Smyrna, and
Simon Atoumanos, Archbishop of Thebes, both Roman Catholic converts,
may also be said to have made a contribution of sorts to the develop-
ment of humanistic studies. On their visits to Italy they established con-
tacts with other ecclesiastics and humanists, and gave Greek lessons to
various prominent personages, thereby helping to effect a reconciliation
between the Eastern and Western worlds. Unfortunately, however, very
little else is known about the activities of these two. 11
By the end of the fourteenth century, the evidence of intellectual fer-
ment in the West was unmistakable. In the autumn of 1375, Kydones
wrote that there were many in Italy from whom a great deal could profit-
ably be learned. Whereas in Thessalonica, he went on, there was no place
at all for philosophers (he refers here, of course, to the period after the
triumph of Hesychasm), in Rome they were not only welcomed but
showered with laurels and honors. Indeed, it was the very warmth of
the welcome that made them think seriously of taking up permanent
residence there.12
Still, the cultivation of Greek studies in the West was only beginning.
Petrarch's comment that in all Italy there hardly existed ten people who
could understand Homer in Latin, let alone in Greek,13 was probably not
a great exaggeration. At the very end of the fourteenth century and in
the beginning of the fifteenth, Italy drew to her shores a small group
of Byzantine scholars, chief among whom were the ageing Demetrius
Kydones himself, Manuel Calecas, and Manuel Chrysoloras,14 all of philo-
Latin sentiment. To these must also be added the three scholarly brothers,
Theodore, Andrew, and Maximus Chrysoberges, all Roman Catholic con-
verts in the Dominican Order. 15
The political situation in Italy was anything but auspicious: petty
states everywhere warred with one another, and widespread banditry
made any journey a most hazardous undertaking. 16 Notwithstanding this,
the Greek scholars sought to establish contacts with humanists and with
Italian society in general in the hope of imparting a thorough knowledge
of the ancient Greek language—a task in which they met with some
success, at least among the more ardent lovers of antiquity. The letters
of the Greek scholars are filled with admiration for the attainments of
the Western world. Without exception, they decried the Byzantines'
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E WEST 237
amour propre, which led them to underestimate the quality of Western
erudition; 17 and whenever they returned to Constantinople, or "New
Rome," they took with them the most vivid memories of the "older"
Rome. Kydones, for example, felt equally at home in both places.18
Although the publication of a variety of special and general studies
has thrown considerable light on the renaissance of humanistic studies
in the West,19 there has been no complete study of the Greek contribu-
tion to this movement. As yet, the number of detailed monographs based
on published and unpublished material is deficient.20 But according
to Martinus Crusius there were four scholars to whom the Latins and
Germans owed the origin of Greek studies in their countries during the
Renaissance: Manuel Chrysoloras, John Argyropoulos, Demetrius Chal-
cocondyles, and Janus Lascaris.21 To these we must add George Gemistos
and Cardinal Bessarion, who, though not teachers of Greek, contributed
a great deal to its dissemination.

Manuel Chrysoloras
It was Chrysoloras who gave the first serious impetus to the growth of
Greek studies in Italy. As the Turkish siege at the end of the fourteenth
century and the continual and growing animosity of the inhabitants
towards the Unionists made life in Constantinople more unbearable,
Chrysoloras reluctantly accepted, on 23 February 1396, an invitation from
Coluccio Salutati,22 a patron of the arts, to take the honorary post of
Professor of Greek at the University of Florence. A man of medium height,
with a ruddy complexion set off by a ginger beard, this foreigner in Italy
was by all accounts a man of dignified bearing with a calm, amiable, and
kindly disposition, deeply religious, knowledgeable, magnanimous, wise,
and just. Though he held his chair only until the end of 1399, he capti-
vated the citizens of Florence and exercised a profound influence on its
youth.
Soon after he came to Italy, Chrysoloras began to represent his country
in a diplomatic capacity. In 1404, 1406, from 1408 till the middle of 1410,
and from the end of 1410 till 1415, he was sent by Emperor Manuel II
Palaeologus on missions to secure and expedite aid from the West.
Guarino da Verona studied under him during the intervening periods in
Constantinople.23
Chrysoloras worked indefatigably for a rapprochement between East
and West. His frequent advocacy of Greek studies for Italians was in-
tended to make the point that through such studies they would become
better versed in philosophy and better scholars in general.24 In Constanti-
nople he talked about the Italian scholars he had met, the beauty of Ital-
ian cities, the warmth of welcome and hospitality that had been extended
Figure 19. Manuel Chrysoloras.
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E W E S T 239

to him, and the honors that had been bestowed upon him. The picture
he drew no doubt differed considerably from that familiar to the haughty
and tradition-minded Byzantines. Unlike so many others, Chrysoloras
refused to look upon the East as the religious, cultural, and commercial
antithesis of the West. As another Unionist, Kydones, had done before
him, he tried to stress those elements which the peoples and civilizations
of Rome and Constantinople had in common.25 It was therefore not only
personal religious conviction, but also the facts of history which led him
to believe in the uniqueness of the Romano-Byzantine tradition and the
need for a resumption of contacts between the two worlds.
His Old and New Romes: A Comparison, written in the form of a letter
to John VIII Palaeologus, underlines these similarities. He described the
relationship between the two civilizations as being as intimate as that
between a mother and her daughter. The contributions which each had
made to humanity were homologous. His prime purpose in expressing
these ideas was to strengthen the ideological bonds between the two
peoples. 26 Chrysoloras erected a signpost, as it were, whose directions
Byzantine scholars were soon to follow, when all other roads led only to
enslavement.27
During his final sojourn in Italy, Chrysoloras identified himself closely
with Roman Catholicism.28 His absorption in Roman Catholic doctrine
apparently proceeded from an increasing preoccupation with religion as
a whole. By the middle of 1413, Chrysoloras, along with two cardinals,
was entrusted by the Pope with the preparatory work for the convocation
of the Council of Constance.29 This was the first time the Germans had
an opportunity to meet the noted Byzantine scholar and such Italian hu-
manists as Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and Pier-Paolo Vergerlo.30
Scholars of renown like Leonardo Bruni, Ambrogio Traversari, and
Carlo Marsuppini were in the same literary tradition that Chrysoloras
established in Florence. Greek culture was a vital element in Florentine
humanism and the Florentine Renaissance in general.31 The fame of Flor-
ence soon spread to Constantinople, and her admirers there, Nicholas
Calecas, for instance, hoped that Florence would continue to sponsor
Greek as well as Latin learning. "And in this respect fortune smiled upon
you, sending you the literary treasures of our ancestors so that they might
be preserved for us all. Life-giving waters thus continue to flow from the
fountainhead of all literature." 32 Indeed, the brilliance of the humanists,
poets, and artists of Florence assured that city's place in the forefront of
the Renaissance movement at a time when Rome, for example, was only
just beginning to stir.33
Even in Florence, however, Chrysoloras had to surmount the difficulties
inherent in teaching foreigners quite ignorant of ancient Greek, and he
240 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

had to serve rather as a patient school-teacher than as a professor. He

taught elementary grammar, syntax, and vocabulary and led his students
through simple exercises in translation. He prepared a basic grammar
and translated ancient Greek authors specifically to serve the needs of
these students. The grammar, entitled Questions (Erotemata) because of
its question-and-answer technique, proved to be an invaluable aid to all
students of ancient Greek in Italy and elsewhere. Originally published in
Venice in 1484, it was subsequently used by such men as Erasmus and
Reuchlin.
Chrysoloras' approach to the problem of translation was summed up
by him in the prescribed method: transferre ad sententiam. His advice to
students was that they should first study the text with love and attention,
discuss its precise meaning, and then try faithfully to render the sense of
the text in their own words.34 They should eschew a literal translation
except when this best conveyed the sense. This approach, of course, was
in tune with new humanistic conceptions and humanist opposition to the
earlier methods of translating word by word.35
Chrysoloras can scarcely be regarded as a great man of letters accord­
ing to modern standards of scholarship, but he exerted an immense influ­
ence on his students. Guarino da Verona called him "a supernatural being,
a divine messenger, an instrument of Providence who was sent from
Heaven out of divine compassion for Italy's pitiable condition in order to
dispel the darkness of her ignorance." The extant letters of Guarino are
replete with recollections of his wise and beneficent teacher. 36
On 15 April 1415, while the Council of Constance was in session,
Chrysoloras died of a malignant fever. He was buried in the chapel of a
Dominican monastery which ceased to function in 1784 and was converted
towards the end of the nineteenth century into the spacious Hôtel de l'Ile.
The visitor may still read today his epitaph in the dome of the chapel. 37
A year after Chrysoloras' death Guarino da Verona saluted his teacher in
these words : quidquid graecorum hodie studiorum ad nostrates derivátům
est homines ( "whatever our scholars possess of Greek studies today comes
from him"). 88
At the time of Chrysoloras' death, Constantinople, despite continued
economic and intellectual decline, was still the principal center of civiliza­
tion in the world. In Guarino's words, orbis terrarum Europa, Europae
Graecia, Graeciae regina urbs Byzantii est ("Europe is the orb of the
world; Greece of Europe; the city of Byzantium the queen of Greece"). 39
But in the period following Chrysoloras' death Constantinople's former
"centers of letters," her so-called Museums—the superior schools where
once the teaching of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and theology had
flourished—preserved little more than their names, or else they had truly
GREEK SCHOLARS ΓΝ T H E WEST 241

become museums in which only the fossilized remains of classical studies

were displayed. Italy had by now become the new center for classical
studies. 40

Gemistos and Bessarion

The arrival in Italy of Greek delegates, mainly clerics, to the Councils of
Ferrara and Florence in 1439 brought about a vigorous confrontation of
the Byzantine spirit with that of Western Europe and stimulated and
enriched Greek scholarship in Italy. The progress in Western thought
and philosophy was undeniable. George Scholarios remarked that "those
with whom we contested [at the Councils] were true savants, which is
why they returned polemic for polemic." 41 The Greeks were not worsted
in these debates at Florence, but they were forced into an area of final
agreement with the Italians; "there were good reasons, which we all
know," Gemistos pointedly observed, "why they should have so agreed." 42
This was, then, a tactical retreat. Despite the overall debasement of the
Byzantine intellect, a number of Greek savants made an impression on
the Italian humanists, particularly because of their eagerness and energy
in arguing for a revival of ancient Greek studies. One Italian humanist,
Lapo da Castiglionchio, compared them with the ancient Greeks and
added that in his discussions with a few he felt as though he were in the
Academy or the Lyceum. These Greek scholars had with them numerous
copies of ancient texts, notably those of the Church Fathers, many of
which thus became known in Italy for the very first time.43
Among the more brilliant in this company were George Gemistos and
his disciple, Ioannis Bessarion, then Archbishop of Nicaea. In his discus­
sions with the Florentine humanists, Gemistos expatiated on his reasons
for placing Plato on a higher plane than Aristotle. It was the doubts and
queries of his audience which prompted his treatise, Peri hon Aristoteles
pros Platona diaphere tai, and its publication stimulated further interest
in Platonist studies.44
Gemistos' ideas were the more readily received because the Italians
had already been introduced to Plato's works by the translations of Palla
Strozzi, Manuel Chrysoloras, and Leonardo Bruni. These Platonic studies
later led Marsiglio Ficino to establish the Academia Platonica.
Platonists turned to Gemistos' treatise for ideas and arguments with
which to attack the Aristotelians. Around 1462, the mild and scholarly
Theodore Gazes of Thessalonica wrote his Rebuttal (Antirretikos) in
order to defend Aristotle against Gemistos, which provided the occasion
for bitter philosophical warfare and the polarization of scholarly alle­
giances, including an acrimonious response from Michael Apostolis, the
young and noisy Platonist.45
Figure 20. Cardinal Bessarion, Kneeling before a Reliquary of the Holy Cross.
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E WEST 243

Gemistos' ideas found another opponent in the testy and irascible

George Trapezountios. His treatise, Comparationes philosophorum Aris-
totelis et РШопгѕ ( Comparison of the Philosophies of Aristotle and Plato ),
again drew an eloquent reply from Bessarion, In calumniator em Platonis
(Against Plato's Calumniator, 1469). This work is a lengthy and dispas­
sionate analysis of the life, work, and philosophy of Plato with a balanced
appraisal of Plato's ideal world. Bessarion's analysis made a profound
impression on Greek, Italian, and other scholars, among whom it was
generally treated as a justification of Plato's philosophy.46 Bessarion exer­
cised a stabilizing influence in the development of intellectual affinity
between the West and the Byzantine East.
Bessarion's personal reasons for conversion to Roman Catholicism are
not known, but it is probable that he found that the extreme unpopularity
of the Florentine accords among the Byzantine masses made his position
as an Orthodox prelate untenable. Whatever the case, he was elected to
the cardinalate of the Catholic Church on 18 December 1439, and about
a year later settled permanently in Italy. There he gathered around him
a circle of scholars—the so-called Bessarion Academy—where they pro­
duced a number of literary works. He translated into Latin Xenophon's
Memorabilia, Aristotle's Metaphysics, and Theophrastus's work of the
same title; after 1455, he occupied himself with problems of Platonist
literary exegesis. He tried to reconcile the teachings of both Aristotle and
Plato, just as he did the two worlds of East and West. For a time, after
1457, as Permanent Trustee of the monastery of San Salvatore in Messina,
he became interested in the teaching of Greek; he installed there as teacher
Andronicus Galesiotes (1461-1467) and, following the latter's death,
Constantine Lascaris ( 1468-1501 ) . n According to Apostolis' encomium,4*
Bessarion's encouragement was responsible for the founding of a number
of schools of Greek all over Italy. In one of Bessarion's letters, probably
to Michael Apostolis, he exhorted his correspondent to search for manu­
scripts in Adrianople, Athens, Thessalonica. Ainos. Gallipoli, and various
other places,49 and he sent the humanist Niccolò Perotti, his secretary, to
Trebizond to gather Greek manuscripts for the Pope.50 Particularly after
the capture, Bessarion interested himself more and more in the purchase
and collection of literary treasures and their preservation: "as long as
there are Greeks somewhere, they are capable of achieving greatness in
the future. Many things can happen over a long period, and the Greeks
will be aided in attaining their goal if they can find in a safe place every-
thing that has been written in their language—at least what has been
written until now. For having found it, they will augment it." This was
the consideration which led him shortly before his death to bequeath his
personal library to Venice.51 When Pope Nicholas V died in 1455, he left
244 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

824 Latin manuscripts, all beautifully bound, which came to form the
nucleus of the Vatican Library; Bessarion at the end of his life gave Venice
a collection of from eight to nine hundred manuscripts, more than six
hundred of them in Greek, which became the most substantial intellectual
resource of the La Marciana Library. A few years later, Bessarion's manu-
scripts were put to good use by the Hellenist Aldus Manutius, the noted
publisher of ancient texts.52
Among those in Bessarion's circle were George Trapezountios, whose
reputation was tarnished by the misguided literary quarrels in which he
persistently engaged in Constantinople and Italy and by his hasty and
maladroit translations; 53 Theodore Gazes, a member of the Greek delega-
tion in 1438 to the Councils of Ferrara and Florence, 54 professor in Ferrara
from 1441 to 1450,55 and translator of Greek writers at the court of Pope
Nicholas V; 5 6 and Andronicus Callistus of Constantinople.57 In 1452 Tra-
pezountios and in 1455 Gazes were invited by King Alfonso I of Naples
to become translators of certain ancient Greek works at his court, where
he had assembled a number of Italian humanists. In 1444, Alfonso had
inaugurated the teaching of Greek at Catania in Sicily and had attracted
the attention of Pope Eugenius IV, who wanted to bring educated Greeks
to Orthodox monasteries in Calabria, Apulia, and Sicily.58
If the Italians at the Councils of Ferrara and Florence became ac-
quainted at first hand with some of the most distinguished exemplars of
the Hellenic spirit, the Greeks for their part can have been no less dazzled
by the civilization with which they were suddenly confronted and the
excellence of the Italians' attainments in all fields of science and the arts.
Increasingly the Greek intellectuals looked upon the West as the true heir
of ancient Greece and the preceptor of mankind. As we have already ob-
served, Bessarion suggested that young Greeks of talent be sent to Italy
from the Péloponnèse to learn the latest techniques in engineering, ship-
building, and the like, and even to study ancient Greek literature under
Italian Hellenists. They would then return to impart the newly acquired
knowledge to their own compatriots.59 This was indeed a complete rever-
sal: no Westerner previously was thought to have received a sound classi-
cal education unless he had studied for a time in Constantinople. 60
Thus the Byzantine intellectual inheritance passed into the safekeeping
of worthy foreign successors. Contemplating this bouleversement, the anti-
Unionist George Scholarios had the grace to acknowledge that "the Ital-
ian race, which we once ranked among the barbarians, now not only turns
its attention to the arts but creates new intellectual edifices beside the old
ones." Before long, the Italians were cultivating scholarship in ancient
Greek while the Byzantines could scarcely understand it.61 The Greeks
GREEK SCHOLARS IN THE WEST 245

had frittered away their great inheritance until it was they who were in
danger of becoming barbarians.

Argyropoulos and Chalcocondyles

The capture of Constantinople caused the rapid dispersion of the few
intellectual nuclei that remained in Greece. Some scholars journeyed to
the West by sea; others followed an overland route, despite generally un­
settled conditions which prevailed throughout the interior.62 Some passed
through Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and even stayed there for varying lengths
of time.63 Manuel Maroullos, the physician, for instance—undoubtedly the
father of the poet, Michael Maroullos Tarhaniotes, who had spent his
childhood days in that city 64 -stayed from 1465 to 1470.65 The fall of the
city was lamented by those who had already migrated: "What will you do
now, miserable one," cried Andronicus Callistus, "where will you go, to
which city, under which ruler, among which of your relatives and friends?
Who now would you have as your teacher? О unhappy life, О bitter exile,
О fickle times, to what abyss have you brought me and then cast me in?
О beloved family and friends who have guided me, how can you bear to
abandon one of your own? Take me, take me with you quickly. Do not
delay, for I can no longer endure the light, the air, even life itself. О
death, death, I await your visitation . . ." 6β
Among the refugee scholars who came to Italy after the fall of Con­
stantinople, the most important was John Argyropoulos (c. 1415-1487),
of a distinguished Byzantine family. Argyropoulos was a participant at
the Councils of Ferrara and Florence, where he made the acquaintance
of various Italian scholars, one of whom, Francesco Filelfo, entrusted his
son, Gian Mario, to Argyropoulos' tutelage when the latter returned to
Constantinople. In 1441, he was in Italy again, this time at Padua, where
Chrysoloras' student, Pier-Paolo Vergerlo, had inaugurated Greek studies
at the beginning of the century. Apparently, Argyropoulos gave private
lessons in Padua while studying Latin in the university there. A degree
from an Italian university could have proved useful if the Turkish storm
had forced him to find shelter in the West. Exactly when he returned to
Constantinople from this visit is not known, though he immediately began
to revive the city's educational facilities. With the support of John VIII
Palaeologus, he founded a school which was housed in the guest chambers
(xenon) of Stephen II Uroš (1282-1320). Both Constantine Lascaris and
Michael Apostolis were among his students.
In October 1456, with the backing of a group of young Florentine
humanists, especially Donato Acciajuoli, Argyropoulos was appointed
Professor of Ancient Greek at the University of Florence, where he
worked productively for fourteen years. Although he devoted most of
 ÄnVv

№?£$

Figure 21. John Argyropoulos.

GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E W E S T 247

his time to the exposition of Aristotle's works, Argyropoulos, like Bes-

sarion, tried to synthesize the intellectual contributions of both Aristotle
and Plato.67
Following a pedagogical method that had also been used by Chryso-
loras, Argyropoulos supplemented his university lectures with lively dis-
cussions in his own home. The only difference in their approaches was
that Chrysoloras relied exclusively on the technique of the seminar, as
we would call it today, in which both instruction and discussion were
integrated within the formal hour of teaching; Argyropoulos' students
were expected to take notes from a piece of pure academic exposition and
to discuss the material of the lecture afterwards in his home. Argyro-
poulos' fame as a teacher brought many new students to the old Floren-
tine Academy, and he received numerous honors and privileges from the
Medici. The deaths of two or three of his children between 1467 and
1469 drove him from the city sometime before July 1471, and his life after
that was disoriented. At first, it appeared that he would accept the invita-
tion of Matthew Corvinus, the King of Hungary, a noted patron of the
arts, to settle in that country; but he turned instead towards Rome and
the company of his good friend Bessarion and the new Pope Sixtus IV,
his former fellow student at the University of Padua. But since his
stipend in Rome was too small ( the needs of war had forced the Pope to
reduce professorial salaries and increase taxes), and the troubles of the
papal curia and the work of translation he had been engaged to do
drained both the time and energy he wished to expend on teaching, he
returned to Florence. At the time the chair in ancient Greek at the uni-
versity there was occupied by Andronicus Callistus, after 1475, by De-
metrius Chalcocondyles. Argyropoulos probably resorted to private teach-
ing; at least he was doing that in August 1477. Having returned to Rome
in 1481, he died in that city on 26 July 1487 in straitened circumstances.
The economies which reasons of state had forced Sixtus IV to introduce
brought about a decline of letters in Rome that was not arrested until the
pontificate of Leo X (1513-1521). Argyropoulos' renown, like that of
Chrysoloras, rested more on his teaching than his writing, the latter con-
sisting mainly of translations of Aristotle, the introductory remarks to
Argyropoulos' lectures, his letters, and sundry theological studies.68
Demetrius Chalcocondyles taught from the chair in Florence longer
than Argyropoulos or any other Greek incumbent. Member of an old
Athenian family and cousin of the historian Laonicos Chalcocondyles,
Demetrius was born in Athens in August 1423 and came to Rome in 1449.
When Theodore Gazes arrived from Ferrara early in 1450, Demetrius
Chalcocondyles became his student and eventually his intimate and de-
voted friend. Later, Chalcocondyles taught at the University of Padua,
248 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

Figure 22. Demetrius Chalcocondyles.

where Janus Lascaris was one of his students, and in 1475, on the recom-
mendation of his friend, Francesco Filelfo, he was appointed to a chair
at the University of Florence. Both Aristotelian and Platonist studies had
been pursued in Florence at the same time—the former in the old Acad-
emy, the latter in the Platonist Academy more recently established by
Marsiglio Ficino. The appointment of the Platonist Chalcocondyles to
succeed the Aristotelians Chrysoloras and Argyropoulos, apparently led
to the rapid advancement and eventual ascendancy of the Platonist view-
point. Lorenzo de' Medici himself, ruler of Florence, while maintaining
his support of the old Academy, eagerly encouraged the new studies.
Chalcocondyles' students included two Englishmen, William Grocin and
Thomas Linacre, who instituted Greek studies in England, as well as the
German, Johann Reuchlin, in 1490.
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E W E S T 249

In December 1488, towards the end of his stay in Florence, Chalco-

condyles' fame was enhanced by his edition of the texts of the Iliad and
the Odyssey. Those last years were spoiled, however, by personal rancor
and professional friction involving Angelo Poliziano, a colleague and
erstwhile student in the University, who, in addition to teaching Latin
literature, which was his special competence, began to interpret the
works of Hesiod, Homer, and finally in 1490 Aristotle. Chalcocondyles
felt himself to have been placed in a most invidious position in the
University and accordingly accepted a proposition put to him by
Lodovico Sforza (Il Moro, "The Moor") that he come to teach in Milan.
A number of distinguished Hellenists had preceded him there as teachers,
Manuel Chrysoloras, Demetrius Kastrinos, Andronicus Callistus, and Con-
stantine Lascaris, though none had stayed long, and their influence, conse-
quently, was not overly apparent. Therefore, classical studies were no-
where near as well advanced in Milan as they were in Florence.
Nevertheless, Chalcocondyles' students in Milan were numerous and
distinguished. Among the best were the Italians, Baldassar Castiglione
and Gian Giorgio Trissino; the German, Johann Reuchlin, who followed
Chalcocondyles there from Florence; and the Frenchman, Guillaume
Bude, who had previously studied under Janus Lascaris in France. Chal-
cocondyles throve amid the economic security and intellectual tranquility
of so civilized a community as Milan, whither, incidentally, so many other
notable men of the period—Leonardo da Vinci and Donato Bramante, for
example—had also been attracted by the generosity of the Grand Duke.
His teaching flourished as did his writing. In 1493 came his edition of the
works of Isocrates, in the following year his grammar, and in 1499 his
edition of Suidas (Suda). The sudden deaths of his three children, how-
ever—in particular that of Theophilus, his last, who was extremely gifted-
brought him to his grave on 9 January 1511. His library eventually wound
up in the monastery of San Giovanni di Carbonara in Naples. Chalcocon-
dyles had taught in the various universities of Italy longer than any other
Greek scholar—at least nine years in Padua, sixteen in Florence, and
almost twenty in Milan.00
Greek scholarship did not thrive in meridional Italy, though it is true
that the Greco-Byzantine tradition there never completely disappeared.
Until the arrival of Constantine Lascaris in Naples in 1465, humanistic
studies were generally limited to Latin studies in the grammar schools.
Even after Lascaris settled in Naples, most young people showed a far
greater interest in the study of law than in the study of Greek. After only
a year in that city, disillusioned, no doubt, by the political and intellec-
tual climate which prevailed in Naples, Lascaris went to Rome to be at
Bessarion's side. A little later, in 1466, he left for Messina with the inten-
250 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

tion of returning to Greece, though on encountering a friendly reception

at Messina he decided to stay. At the beginning of 1468, he succeeded
Andronicus Galesiotes as teacher of ancient Greek in the monastery of
San Salvatore and successfully taught many students until his death in
August 1501.70

Greek Scholars outside Italy

Little is known of the activities of Greek scholars in Western countries
outside Italy. A number of refugees from Constantinople and the Pélopon-
nèse seem to have crossed the Alps in search of better fortunes in France,
but few of them were scholars.
One scholar who went to France was Andronicus Callistus of Con-
stantinople, who had received a fine education in literature and philoso-
phy. Hoping to improve his condition in life, he went from Padua to
Bologna; then to Rome; to Florence, where he stayed from 1471 to 1475;
and finally to Milan, where he sold his folios, celebrated for their elegant
calligraphy; and on the proceeds made the long journey to France. The
very brief nature of his stay there, however, suggests that he never be-
came a teacher of Greek at the University of Paris; for by March 1476
he was already in London, where he eventually died. 71 Nicholas Secun-
dums of Euboea, who served Venice as a diplomatic emissary on various
occasions from 1434 till his death in 1464,72 said, speaking of Callistus'
classical erudition: "Thanks to you, the glory of Greece lives on and the
children of the Greeks continue to emulate their fathers; through your
voice, something which is supernally beautiful and infinitely precious to
myself continues to be preserved in its pristine form." 78
There was also George Hermonymos, a Spartan, who taught at the
Sorbonne in 1476. A man whose knowledge of Greek deserved no acclaim
whatever, this rather pedestrian Hellenist nevertheless had the good for-
tune to count among his students three who served as heralds of Greek
letters among their own peoples—the German, Johann Reuchlin (or
Kapnion, as Ermolao Barbaro, the Venetian, hellenized his name); the
Dutchman, Erasmus; and the Frenchman, Guillaume Bude, who became
for France what Aldus Manutius was for Italy.74 George Hermonymos
copied a large number of books, and many of his manuscripts are still
extant; they consist of grammars, dictionaries, texts of Hesiod, Phocylides,
Aeschylus, Euripides, Thucydides, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aeschines,
Aristotle, Plutarch, the Church Fathers, and the Gospels.75
In France, the work of Hermonymos was completely outdistanced in
terms of importance by that of Janus Lascaris (1445-1535), the last of
the great Greek scholars and a tireless advocate of ancient Greek studies
in the West. After a period of study in Padua, he supported himself by
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E W E S T 251
giving private lessons in ancient Greek literature in Florence; finally,
upon the recommendation of his former teacher, Demetrius Chalcocon-
dyles, he became librarian to Lorenzo de' Medici. At his patron's behest,
he made two trips to Greece between 1489 and 1492 to track down Greek
manuscripts. A record of the places and peoples he visited on these trav-
els is preserved in his notebook. His first stop was Corfu, where a kins-
man, George Eparchos, lent him considerable assistance. From there he
went to Arta, then through Acarnania and Thessaly to Meteora and
Thessalonica. In Thessalonica, he purchased manuscripts from relatives
of the recently deceased Matthew Lascaris, as well as from Manuel
Lascaris (both probably his own distant relatives), Demetrius Sgouro-
poulos, and others. Resuming his journey across plains burned bare by the
summer sun, Lascaris experienced the same emotions as all those pilgrims
from afar when the walls, towers, and palaces of Constantinople gradu-
ally came into sight. He arrived too late to see Matthew Kamariotes, first
director of the Patriarchate School (whose death had occurred a year
before), but he was fortunate to meet such other prominent scholars as
Manuel Corinthios and Demetrius Kastrinos—the latter Lascaris described
as "a philosopher in words and deeds." The ravaged state of Constanti-
nople's libraries appalled him. He extended his search to Adrianople,
Sozopolis, Serrai, Mt. Athos (where some rare and valuable finds were
made ), and Crete. He returned to Florence with no fewer than two hun-
dred manuscripts. It was at this time that Aldus Manutius first began to
publish the works of ancient authors in Venice.76
On 3 September 1492, upon his return to Italy from this undertaking,
Lascaris recounted the fruits of his mission to Sergio Stiso: "I have come
back from lengthy travels in Greece and thereabouts, having survived
with God's help no little danger and hardship. I have brought back many
useful books, among them a few of whose very existence until now we
have been unaware. I will send you the names of the most rare of these—
it would be difficult to send them all—so that you too can rejoice at the
incalculable profit which this trip has yielded. Not, God forbid, monetary
profit or any profit in base and worthless things, but genuine profit of the
kind that is most needed—by which of course I mean knowledge and
wisdom, those two noble things of the Greeks, the superior and only
virtues upon which all others, indeed all good, are dependent." 77
Lascaris succeeded Chalcocondyles in his chair on 2 October 1492.78
It was at this time, apparently, that his most distinguished student, Marcos
Mousouros ( 1470-1517 ) of Candía, came to him for instruction. Between
1494 and 1496, Lascaris edited the hymns of Callimachus, the tragedies
of Euripides, the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes, and various other
works.
252 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

These literary pursuits were interrupted towards the end of 1494, when
Charles VIII of France, among whose aims was the destruction of the
Ottoman Empire, invaded Italy at the head of a large army. No under-
taking could have been better calculated to capture Lascaris' imagination.
Accordingly, when Charles VIII passed through Florence, we may pre-
sume that this fervent Greek patriot gave the French king the full
benefit of the knowledge he had obtained from his recent experiences
in the East. Charles' venture was abortive, but it occasioned Lascaris'
departure for France, where his close association with the French royal
court continued throughout the reigns of Louis XII and Francis I.
The French capital, with its splendid university, was renowned for its
intellectual prowess in humanistic studies. Lascaris could not have arrived
at a more propitious time. Unlike George Hermonymos, however, he did
not exert his influence in a formal academic way, but rather as a librarian
and intellectual adviser to French kings. In this capacity, he came in
touch with various coteries of noted humanists, including Guillaume
Bude, and thus contributed to the advancement of learning through in-
formal discussion.
From time to time, the French kings entrusted him with various diplo-
matic missions to Venice, Rome, and other Italian cities. He was Louis
XH's ambassador to Venice from July 1503 to January 1509. Humanism
was still flourishing in Venice because of the city's continuing economic
prosperity, the presence there of many Greek refugees, and the salutary
influence of various printing establishments like that of Manutius. The
perquisites of his office enabled Lascaris to offer economic help to many
of his compatriots and to assist young people in the purchase of books
or payment of fees. While in Venice he became a member of the Aldus
Academy and met many Italian, French, and other foreign Hellenists,
Erasmus among them.79
No less rewarding in terms of acquaintances made and work accom-
plished was his sojourn in Rome (April 1513-autumn 1518), where the
election of Pope Leo X, a descendant of the Medicis and an enthusiastic
philhellene, had taken place a month before his arrival. Lascaris per-
suaded the Pope to found a Greek college on the Quirinal, where young
people from all European countries, but especially from Greece, could
study Greek and Latin. Classes began in February 1514. Very little is
known about the organization and operation of the college except that
it had its own printing press. Its first professor was a Cretan of the noble
family of Kallierges or Kallerges named Zachary, who was formerly a
calligrapher and publisher of Greek books in Venice. Kallierges continued
to work as a publisher while he was in Rome. Both Lascaris and Marcos
GREEK SCHOLARS IN THE WEST 253

Mousouros ( 1515-1517 ) later taught Greek at the college, and Lampridio

di Cremona Latin. 80
Lascaris also continued to publish new editions of ancient texts.
Mousouros described him as the "ambassador of the Greeks": "to those
recently arrived he often gave assistance far beyond his means; to those
who were not there he gave his every solicitude; he introduced all his
friends to the ruling circle." When Lascaris left Rome at the end of 1518,
the college, which had drawn so much inspiration from him, began to
decline. It came to an end with the death of its original founder, Leo X,
in 1521. 81
Lascaris, revered as a patriarch of Greek letters, divided his last years
between Paris, where he lived from 1525 to 1529 or 1530, and Rome,
where he died on 7 December 1534. A large part of his library can be
found today in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris. His burial in the
Church of Sant'Agata di Goti extinguished "the last flickering flame of
ancient Greece." 82
The foundation of the Greek college in Rome made a considerable
impression on Western Europe. It may very well have been with this
model in mind that Erasmus gave his moral support to the foundation
in 1518 at Louvain in Flanders of the Busleiden College des Trois Langues
for the study of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The Flemish example led the
advisers of Francis I to urge upon their king the foundation of the Col-
lege de France in honor of his people.83
It would be a mistake to assume from the prominence of some of the
more notable Greek scholars and the praise heaped upon them by both
contemporary and later admirers that all Greek scholars in the West were
equally fortunate. Most of them, even those who found it expedient to
acknowledge papal primacy 84 and to profess the Roman Catholic faith,
toiled long and hard as teachers, copyists, and translators, except perhaps
during the pontificate of Nicholas V, the great patron of the litterae
humaniores, a period generally remembered as a heyday for scholars.
"His death," wrote Filelfo to Theodore Gazes, "was the death of all
savants." 85 Neither Callixtus III nor even Pius II showed an equivalent
interest in scholarly activity.86 The death of Bessarion deprived the schol-
ars of yet another patron and friend. "From whom else now," lamented
Demetrius Kas trinos, "can we draw courage and inspiration; in whom
else take pride—we who have suffered so much? He was for all of us the
voice of our nation—nay, more than that, its life-blood." 87 In the south
of Italy, after the death of Alfonso I of Naples, scholars suffered under a
reign of frugality.88 There (according to Constantine Lascaris,89 in a
letter he wrote from Messina sometime after 1478 to Giovanni Pardo in
254 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

Milan, the Spanish philosopher and poet ), the Greco-Byzantine tradition

was still alive, but only barely. Calling his friend's attention to the fate
which had befallen many distinguished scholars, the letter continued:
"The spirit of parsimony which prevails among the rulers has driven
Theodore, a man who had arrived at the very summit of wisdom, to
Calabria, where, alas, at Policastro he lies in a common grave; Andronicus
Callistus died friendless in the British Isles; Frangoulios [Servopoulos],
a true scholar, has gone to some other place in Italy, I know not where;
Demetrius has been forced to return to the homeland and there serves
the barbarians. My own great teacher, John Argyropoulos, wanders the
streets of the city destitute and poor, each day having to sell more of his
books." 90
The consciousness of exile, the daily struggle for bread and other ma-
terial hardships, memories of their country and its past, pride of back-
ground, all tended to make these scholars oversensitive, hypercritical, and
generally incapable of adjusting to new conditions or settling down in
one place, like the uprooted of every age. They quarrelled with the Italian
humanists on fundamental grounds, and this conflict resulted in a kind of
competition between Italian and Greek intellectuals. The Italians felt
that they had hewn a rough and steep path to the summit of knowledge,
that they had reached their goal, and that the vista was theirs to enjoy.91
Thus, Giovanni Pontano, humanist and founder of the Academy Pontaniana
in Naples, pointed out that he had learned Greek from Gregorio da
Tiferno in Italy, because now in Greece one learned Turkish rather than
Greek.92 Conversely, Constantine Lascaris, noting in the preface to his
grammar the flourishing state of Greek studies in Italy, had to apologize
for their decline in Greece.93 Apostolis, who claimed rather vaingloriously
just after the capture that "everywhere in Italy now, as before, the Greeks
teach the Westerners about Romans [Byzantines]," was finally forced to
admit that the Italians, equally with others in the West, had become
"heirs not only to the achievements of Greece, but also to those of
Rome." 94
What was the connection between the work of Greek scholars and the
Renaissance? What was the nature of the Greek scholars' contribution
to it? These questions have of course been endlessly discussed. Some
have so overestimated the Greek contribution as to judge it the principal
cause of the Renaissance, while some have gone to the other extreme of
all but disregarding it.95 Much still remains to be learned before the
extent of this contribution can be measured, and there is much to be
learned from a systematic study of the literary and philosophical works
of the Greek scholars and their successors. However, it can be said with
certainty that the fifteenth-century Greek scholars preserved the Greco-
GREEK SCHOLARS IN T H E W E S T 255

Byzantine heritage and transmitted it to the West at the most auspicious

moment for its reception. The point is not that the Renaissance would
not have occurred without this transmission, but that it would not have
assumed the aspect of a universal intellectual movement that it did.
Cammelli has acutely observed that a successful grafting of Greek and
Roman cultures had already occurred in Italy in ancient times. After
that, "it was destined to flourish again in the same soil, cultivated by the
same people who were awakening brisk and refreshed after one thousand
years of the Middle Ages, which, however, was not given over entirely
to slumber. The soil was the same and the miracle was accomplished by
the hard work and inexhaustible energy of the same Italian people. And
the seed, too, was the same, for we know that it had been carefully hus-
banded for those one thousand years in the soil of Greece. When at last
the West awoke out of her long torpor, she immediately perceived its
life-sustaining properties, and for the second time received it back grate-
fully as a gift/' 9e
Such was the contribution of the Byzantine scholars to mankind. Were
they able to do as much for their own unfortunate country?
Ш^^ШМШЈМ^ШШРММЈМЈШШШМЈММММШМШШШ

17

THE QUESTION OF
NATIONAL LIBERATION

Since these wandering Greek scholars no longer had a country they could
call their own, it was important to their pride that they at least be known
throughout the West as "remnants of the Greeks," as they were generally
acknowledged to be. 1 They were keenly aware of their nationality at a
time when national consciousness in Europe was still inchoate. An im­
portant element in that awareness, of course, was their implacable hatred
of the Turk.
Charitonymos Hermonymos, the bibliographer, who had studied under
Gemistos, when completing a codex to the works of Aristotle in Rome
in 1467 (Biblioteca Marciana, Cod. No. CCVI), remarked: "My country,
once happy but now downtrodden, is still Lacedemonia." Demetrius
Trivolis sedulously recorded in his manuscripts not only the places he
visited on his perambulations but also the years that had passed since
his "country's capture." Demetrius Ralles Kavakes, also one of Gemistos'
former students and his close friend, possessed the same sentiments.
"Though no scribe," he "came from the aristocratic senatorial class" and
considered himself a "Spartan and Byzantine" or, as he also wrote, "a
Greek and a Thracian." 2 Kavakes was a devoted disciple of Gemistos and
apparently shared the philosopher's pagan propensities. Despite the threat
of excommunication, he once dared to collate a series of extracts from
Gemistos' On Law (Peri потоп), which Gennadius, the first Patriarch
after the capture of Constantinople, had once consigned to flames.3 His
every moment seemed to be consumed by Gemistos' vision for Greece.4
At the end of the fifteenth century, Michael Souliardos of Argos said
that he copied "not for reward but for nation." 5 Theodore Gazes seized
every opportunity to give vent to his patriotic feelings.6
THE QUESTION OF NATIONAL LIBERATION 257

Very few of the exiled scholars besides Demetrius Kastrinos were so

overcome by privation or nostalgia for their homeland as actually to
return to it and attempt to find some manner of accommodation with the
conqueror. George Trapezountios provides an interesting case in point
for, although he sought to conciliate the conqueror of the Greek lands,
he had a clear motive for doing so—the desire to mitigate his country's
plight. Barely two months after the capture he sent a tract to Mohammed
II, The Truth of the Christian Faith, which praised the Sultan fulsomely
and suggested a closer and more fraternal relationship between the two
peoples. The only obstacle to this was religious division, which, he said,
had been brought about mainly by the Jews. The difference between
Greek and Turk would be seen as unreal if only the truth about their
respective religions were properly understood. Hostility would then be
replaced by amity.7
Much later, when he was seventy years old, Trapezountios again ac-
claimed Mohammed and his conquests. On this occasion, he had been
sent to Greece and the East by Pope Paul II (November 1465—18 March
1466) to observe and report on the condition of the inhabitants and the
situation which generally obtained throughout the area. He secretly sent
two letters to the Sultan, one from Galata (25 February 1466) and the
other from Rome, which were replete with unctuous salutations (re-
ferring to the Sultan as "unique," "self-made," "greater than Caesar and
Alexander the Great") and which provided the Sultan with valuable
information about the West. Finally, he called Mohammed "Emperor of
the Romans" and of the world, and urged him to lose no time in launch-
ing his projected enterprise against Italy. "The august throne of Con-
stantine the Great has been given to you, which is a sure sign that the
Almighty has chosen Your Majesty for this task." Trapezountios' machina-
tions almost cost him his life in Rome; he was saved only by the inter-
vention of the Pope himself, who had once studied under him.8
Although Bessarion had managed to fire with crusading zeal the old
but mettlesome Pope Callixtus III, and later Pius II, 9 who convened the
Congress of Mantua in order that the Christian rulers of the West might
be brought to commit themselves at last to a definite course of action,
both Pius II and Bessarion became thoroughly disheartened at what
appeared to be the insuperable barrier of political discord in the West.
After Mantua, Germany seemed the last remaining hope. Accordingly,
in February 1460, despite inclement weather and his failing health, Bes-
sarion set out as legate at large to visit Nuremberg, Worms, and Vienna.
Any participation by the German rulers in a future crusade proved to be
contingent on the peaceful resolution of a multiplicity of conflicting in-
terests and raging antagonisms which then rent the German states. The
258 ORIGINS OF THE GREEK NATION

failure of Bessarion's mission was further preordained by the beginnings

of ideological ferment which ended in the Reformation. He returned to
Rome on 20 November 1461,10 a disappointed man.
Meanwhile, the overthrow of the Despotate of Morea and the Empire
of Trebizond increased his despair. As we have seen, he assumed the
guardianship of the children of Thomas Palaeologus, the last despot of
Morea, and brought them up in the Catholic faith; he was likewise solici-
tous of the welfare of the Greek scholars still flocking to Italy, one of
whom was Constantine Lascaris.11
Bessarion's hopes were raised when relations between the Venetians
and the Turks became strained and a war party came to the fore in
Venice. On 22 July 1463, he arrived in Venice as a papal legate, and on
the night of 28 July, after six days of negotiations, "the most serene re-
public" declared war on the Porte. However, the Pope's death on 15
August 1464 and the subsequent dislocation which preceded the election
of his successor frustrated Bessarion's efforts for the extension of the
war. The new Pope, Paul II, was a man whose indifference towards
humanistic studies was entirely consistent with his general indolence of
disposition, and he was totally unsuited to the task of arousing the
Christian world for a crusade against the Turks, even if the overall situa-
tion at the time had been more favorable, which, of course, was not the
case. Bessarion's mission therefore miscarried, as did his final one in
France during the pontificate of Sixtus IV.12
After the fall of Euboea in 1470, Bessarion tried in a succession of
impassioned speeches to convince the rulers of the West that the military
might of the Turks was not nearly so overwhelming as was generally be-
lieved in the West. Except for the permanent corps of janissaries, which
was in any case a substantial burden on the Ottoman economy, the re-
mainder of the Ottoman army was hardly more than an undisciplined
horde of irregulars. Bessarion was puzzled, he said, as to how the Turks
had managed to become masters of Asia Minor and the Balkans and
even to threaten central and Western Europe. The disconsolate Bessarion
eventually died in Ravenna on 18 November 1472—"not only the glory
of Greece, but a pillar of the Roman Church and a lustrous star in the
Italian firmament"—at least in the estimation of the Bishop of Parma. 13
A patriot and protege of Bessarion's was Janus Lascaris, whose travels
in the East were motivated at least as much by his eagerness to gather
information about the military disposition of the Turks and Ottoman
imperial organization generally as by his desire to collect Greek manu-
scripts. He was the first person to make any study in depth of the new
situation in the East. Not only did he visit and carefully observe all the
provinces of European Turkey, but he endeavored to establish contacts
T H E QUESTION OF NATIONAL LIBERATION 259

with many Greeks and came to realize the assistance they would be able
to offer the rulers of the West if ever an attack were launched on the
Turks. He made many appeals to the rulers of the West—Charles VIII of
France, Maximilian I of Germany, Pope Julius II, Pope Leo X—for the
organization of a crusade against the Turks. At the age of eighty, as an
emissary of Pope Clement VII, he renewed that appeal to the powerful
Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, after Charles' victory over Francis I
of France at Pavia ( 24 February 1525 ). His exhortation began by empha­
sizing that his one concern in life had been the freedom of Greece, and it
concluded with the plea: "Those who represent the last remnants of
ancient Greece fall at your feet and beg you to free them from the misery
which now oppresses them, a misery which consists in their having to
watch children torn from mothers' breasts and in being forced to re­
nounce their religion, in being used for God knows what nefarious pur­
poses, and in being obliged to take up arms against their own families.
These aggrieved people, though with scarcely the opportunity to do
so, have secretly sent messages imploring you to sympathize with the
predicament of a Christian people, promising to expose themselves to
every kind of danger in the interests of winning your support. Their lot
is not so desperate as to prevent them from assisting you significantly
with arms and provisions, which they possess, in the execution and com­
pletion of any enterprise you might be pleased to undertake on their
behalf. These are the proposals, Your Majesty, which Greece has charged
me with placing before you. Speaking now for the faithful as a whole,
I can assure you that the disputes which rage among your vassal kings
and the other monarchs of the West can only lead ultimately to the mis­
fortune of your subjects and the discord of your Church."
Lascaris' efforts, however, were in vain. His epitaph, composed by
himself, reads: "Lascaris lies buried here in an alien land, though with
not a single complaint, О foreigner, against that land. He found it
friendly. But what pain that there was no longer any free earth in his
homeland where an Achaian could be buried." 14
There were other trustees of Hellenism, of course, who, though lacking
the personal contacts of Bessarion and Lascaris, tried to sway the leaders
of European nations with "laments," prefaces to their literary works,
other addresses and appeals, and poems.15 In his Ode on Constantinople's
Misfortune, for example, Andronicus Callistus entreated both the Pope
and Venice for assistance: Ό divine Rome, what will you do now that
your daughter is a helot? О Holy Father [to the Pope] can you bear to
behold such a terrible thing? And you Blessed Father [to the Patriarch],
white-haired, infinitely wise, shepherd of a stolen flock, what will you do?
О great and peerless Venice, will you accept the loss of your sister and
260 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

friends? Where will your galleys go now when they venture to the
Black Sea? Who will receive them in a fit and proper manner? Will
you be chased from Constantinople, even caught between Scylla and
Charybdis?" 1G
Michael Apostolis, having settled in Crete after the capture, was urged
by two obscure Greeks, Aristonymos Byzantios and John Stavrakios, to
turn to the Emperor of Germany, Frederick III. 17 Apostolis became con­
vinced that Frederick could defeat the Sultan and reconquer all the
lands that had formerly belonged to the Byzantine Empire: the fluctu­
ating fortunes of mankind told him so.18 Also, the oracles themselves
provided grounds even more substantial for such a belief. Indeed, accord­
ing to these, the moment had already arrived when speeches would be
replaced by action and war; that is, according to prophecies delivered by
those "who possessed an esoteric knowledge vouchsafed by God," "the
legendary year" had come and a "sleeping serpent" [Frederick] would
bestir himself, "strike at the youthful one" [the Sultan], free the Greeks,
and subdue the barbarians. (This consultation of oracles was to be a
feature of the entire period of Turkish occupation.) Apostolis therefore
beseeched Frederick to appoint his son, Maximilian, as Emperor of
Byzantium, and to restore Greece to the Greek race, "once proud and
learned, but now weak and humiliated and scattered all over the earth."
It was not just the Byzantine people who made this appeal; the spirit of
the Emperor Constantine itself called upon Frederick to avenge all those
who had died in war. Exactly when Apostolis made this entreaty is un­
certain, but it was probably written around 1470, when Frederick's son,
Maximilian, was only eleven years old! 19
Standing before the ancient monuments of the Hierapetra, Apostolis
wrote ecstatically to his student, Emmanuel Atramyttenos, Ό Greek
race, О hands of Daedalus and Phidias and Praxiteles and all who
shaped and sculpted this marble, I think that they were not born like to
us mortals. I think only divine beings could have fashioned the like of
those men who could create such wondrous things. О my son, I swear
by my faith and on the Bible itself that it seemed to me I was looking
not so much at stones and statues as at men who talked, and that it was
not so much stone my fingers touched as flesh! О what exquisite statuary
depicting all manner of divine creatures; О how straight and slender the
columns; О how symmetrical and luminous this marble; О what mar­
vellous art and handiwork . . ." 20
Michael Maroullos Tarhaniotes (1453/54-1500), a poet and a soldier,
was another exile well known in Greek and Italian humanist circles dur­
ing the Renaissance. 21 His descriptions of the expatriates' feelings were
especially sensitive. As a small child with his refugee parents in Ragusa
T H E QUESTION OF NATIONAL LIBERATION 261

( Dubrovnik )—his "sweet former friend"—he experienced the first pangs

of grief. In a poem dedicated to Charles VIII of France, he wrote that,
as "the erstwhile homeland of heroes and the arts, the true hearth of
religion and the gods, now mortified by her shame as a ravished and dis-
honored Christian land," Greece calls for him. And he continues, "If you
remain unmoved by Greece's glory, her fame and her magnificent works,
which belong to all people for all time, will you be moved by the piteous
condition of so many exiles who throw themselves at your feet, or by
the bleaching bones and devout tears of so many Christians, or by the
plight of Christ's religion polluted in so many shameful ways . . ." 22
In a poem dedicated to Greece, a country he never saw, Maroullos
called her the "light of all countries, star of all nations." Yet she had be-
come a "pathetic corpse," "an atrocity perpetrated against Heaven." "O
miserable and unhappy race," he wrote, "where was your happiness lost?"
In another poem, "On the Bravery of a Constantinopolitan Woman,"
he evoked an image of the Constantinopolitan mother as a celestial being,
a symbol not only of the nation but of freedom itself.23
His aimless travels with all the attendant troubles and hardships re-
inforced his longing for Greece, as indicated in his poem, "On His Exile"—
"although absent from my homeland in a Scythian country, I have still to
endure the haughty dictates of Bessus and tolerate the arbitrary exercise
of power by a tyrannical ruler, and my freedom is no more than sham.
. . . It is surely better to be among the ashes and relics of one's own
people, even though the authority of one's forebears has been supplanted
by a new authority; it is surely better to enjoy one's own country while
one has air to breathe than to be a mere nothing in a foreign land. All
honor, both of race and family, vanishes once one steps in exile onto an
unknown shore . . ."
Tarhaniotes reflected how different his reputation abroad would have
been had he only come from a country that was free. How much more
preferable was death in battle than slavery, a truth he professed to have
learned from bitter experience: "Then we should have died, youngsters
and elders, not surviving only to suffer such manifold and great misfor-
tunes. We ought to have remembered the courage of our fathers, the
ancestral virtue which made men run with noble wounds to meet their
death, or else to preserve their freedom by fighting. There lies the only
certain road to freedom. . . .
"O, let us put out of our minds forever that we must first count those
who will stand up," he said; "the number will never be inadequate if
confidence is there. If the soldier wields his ancestral arms with ardor;
if he charges intrepidly into the thick of the fray; if he receives encour-
agement, now from his wife, now from his family, now from his relatives,
262 ORIGINS O F T H E GREEK NATION

now from his father who remains behind to take care of the house—then
that is enough. What kind of madness is it to fortify one's country against
hostile attack and then to entrust its defense to foreigners? To have the
standards of one's country held aloft by unknown hands is to bring
contempt on Greeks as lacking confidence in the success of their own
arms." 24
Occasionally, Tarhaniotes sought forgetfulness in hedonism. He ad-
vised another exile, Manuel Ralles, to do the same: "turn your back on
these senseless cares, my good Ralles, you have already shown enough
concern for what remains of your country . . . Why should we unfor-
tunate ones grieve each day and fritter away the little time we have?
. . . Come, child Hyllus, bring the jar of wine, let us banish sadness and
despair . . ." In another poem addressed to Ralles, he appears to have
entertained the hope that the Emperor of Germany would come to
Greece's aid: "We, Manuel, have had our time of family greatness in our
native land. What could be more noble now than to accept the vicissi-
tudes of exile with all its cruel exactions? Thus inexorable fate destroyed
Croesus; thus old Priam was reduced to a supplicant for the body of
Hector; but thus, too, the Shepherd of Latium [Romulus] overthrew
emperors. The years, of course, which triumph over all, in time brought
to perdition the Shepherd, for whom at least a similar threnody can be
sung. Who knows if a better fate does not await us? True, we must live
among whatever lares the gods please; but for myself, I do not worry
about the paternal care they can provide as long as Caesar [the Emperor
of Germany] is my augur." 25
Tarhaniotes' hymns were often dedicated to the sun, the moon, the air,
and sundry ancient divinities, and are imbued with the pagan spirit of
ancient Greece. His ideas were even more daring than those of the Italian
Renaissance scholars, among whom they were well known, but they seem
to be self-conscious literary expressions rather than manifestations of
religious belief,26 just as the Italian scholars on the whole remained
faithful to the Christian tradition while their pagan literary inclinations
sprang mainly from a veneration of antiquity. Yet Erasmus, himself an
ardent lover of antiquity, found Tarhaniotes' poems unconscionably idola-
trous. Professor D. Zakythinos has noted that Tarhaniotes "did not praise
the beautiful symbols of Olympus and ancient religion merely for their
beauty and serenity, which was usual, but rather as living symbols of a
force in whose renewal he apparently believed." In ancient religion, "he
could find not so much religion itself as a means of the rebirth of his
occupied homeland." 27 Thus, Tarhaniotes went beyond the conventional
forms of classical adulation, identifying ancient Greek religion and the
Greek spirit in general with the political renascence of Hellenism. His
T H E QUESTION O F NATIONAL LIBERATION 263

work has not yet been subjected to sufficient critical scrutiny, but his
views will probably be found to come closest to those of Gemistos and
his circle.
An exhaustive treatment of the ideas and activities of the Greek scholars
concerning the question of national liberation cannot be given in a single
chapter, especially since all the relevant material is not available. It is
evident that their literary and political earnestness, as well as the impact
of their everyday discussions with foreigners, contributed to the gradual
growth of a philhellenic sentiment in the West, notably from the begin­
ning of the sixteenth century.
The lessons of enslavement, though painful, were most salutary for the
scholars and ultimately for the entire nation. Through all the vicissitudes
of a difficult and turbulent life, these scholars clung to the belief that
freedom was a supreme and transcendental good. Those who had it were
blessed: "there is nothing better or sweeter than freedom," wrote Con­
stantine Lascaris to his Italian friend Andrea of Cremona, "so rejoice now
that you live amongst your own." 28
Another truth the Greeks had learned most dearly was the pernicious
consequences of discord and civil war. Urging the rulers of Italy to bury
their quarrels and unite against the Turks, Bessarion had counselled:
"Believe one who has had the experience and suffered. There is one thing,
and one thing only, that has destroyed unfortunate Greece and that is
discord. Not only in recent years, but in ancient times as well, civil war
has brought the downfall of the Greeks."
Anxious that his words should carry conviction, he continued: "When
the Greeks were persuaded by the benefits of entente, they defeated
Xerxes though their forces were vastly inferior. What could you not
achieve, with the help of Divine Providence, when in numbers you are
on a par with the enemy and in valor you outstrip him—if only you acted
in amity among yourselves and in concert against the enemy? О would
that that day could dawn when, having quashed all hatreds, you will
strike the enemy in unison! I would have no doubt about the outcome:
the battle would already have been won." 29
щір)щі|щщщіІШЩ|1|ЩЩ|Ш1І1І1ІШ@ШІ1ІШ1ІШ1ШиШ

NOTES

Every reference is given in full the first time it appears in a chapter of the
Notes. Because so many languages are involved, foreign language titles, unless
the meaning is generally obvious, have also been given in translation the first
time the title appears in the Notes. The number in parentheses immediately
following the title is the number of the note in the same chapter where the full
citation occurs; in the case of translated titles, if there is an additional number
preceding a colon, that is the number of the chapter where both the translation
and a full citation may be found.

Chapter 1
1. Regarding the man and his work, see the recent monograph, Herbert
Seidler, Jakob Philipp Fallmerayers geistige Entwicklung: Ein Beitrag zur
deutschen Geistesgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts [Jakob Philipp Fallmerayers
Intellectual Development: A Contribution to German Intellectual History of the
Nineteenth Century] (Munich, 1947). For an analysis of his theory, see pp. 28,
43-48, 94-95. Fallmerayer has made some general comments on this theory in
Schriften und Tagebücher [Writings and Diaries] (Munich-Leipzig, 1913), n ,
196-203. A certain animus against the modern Greeks can be detected in these
writings.
2. The Viennese Slavist Bartholomäus Kopitar was apparently the father of
Fallmerayers theory (Alexander Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire
[Madison, Wis., 1961], i, 179), though he does not accept the extreme views
propounded by the latter: "Die Griechen also, die nicht nur griechisch glauben,
sondern auch neugriechisch sprechen, können wir mit gutem Gewissen auch
ferner für Nachkommen der Griechen gelten lassen [Therefore, the Greeks who
not only have Greek beliefs but also speak modern Greek we might with good
conscience allow to pass, moreover, as descendants of the Greeks]" (Polychronis
Enepekides, "Kopitar und die Griechen [Kopitar and the Greeks]," Wiener
Shvistisches Jahrbuch, in [1953], 67).
266 NOTES—CHAPTER 1

3. See Denis Zakythinos, Οι Σλάβοι εν Ελλάδι [The Slavs in Greece]

(Athens, 1945), pp. 22 ff.; Max Vasmer, Die Steven in Griechenland (Berlin,
1941), pp. 1 ff., for a brief critical survey of the works written before 1940;
and Antoine Bon, he Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu'en 1204 (Paris, 1951), pp.
27 ff., which also annotates the basic bibliography on this subject. Besides
objective observations, the study offers a brief, critical survey of the problem
as a whole, and presents the texts of the known Byzantine sources. A recent
study of the Chronicle of Monemvasia is that of Paul Lemerle, "La Chronique
improprement dite de Monemvasie: Le Contexte historique et légendaire,"
REB, xxi (1963), 5-49.
4. See Franjo Barišió, The Miracles of Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica as a
Historical Source (Serbocroatian) (Belgrade, 1953), which contains the older
bibliography; Paul Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis
la fin de l'époque romaine jusqu'au VIII e siècle/' Revue historique, ccxi
(1954), 265-308; and Peter Charanis, "Ethnie Changes in the Byzantine Em-
pire in the Seventh Century," DOP, XIII (1959), 13 ff., for the most recent
bibliography.
5. See Demetrios Pallas, "Τά αρχαιολογικά τεκμήρια της καθόδου των
βαρβάρων εις την Ελλάδα [The Archaeological Evidence for the Descent of
the Barbarians into Greece]," Ελληνικά, xiv (1955), 87-105, for the relevant
bibliography.
6. George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 2nd Eng. ed. (New
Brunswick, N.J., 1969), pp. 80-81. See Epaminondas Chrysanthopoulos, "Τά
βιβλία των θαυμάτων του 'Αγίου Δημητρίου, τό Χρονικόν της Μονεμβασίας
και αί σλαβικαί έπιδρομαί εις τήν Ελλάδα [The Books of the Miracles of
Saint Demetrius, the Chronicle of Monemvasia, and the Slavic Incursions into
Greece]," Θεολογία, xxvi (1955), 106 ff.
7. See Wilhelm Ensslin, "Slaveneinfälle [Slavic Invasions]," in RE, Zweite
Reihe [R-Z] Fünfter Halbband (Stuttgart, 1927), cols, 697-706,
8. Peter Charanis is of the opinion that the Avaro-Slav invaders of 578 not
only penetrated as far as, but also settled in, the western and central Pélopon-
nèse. Thus, only the eastern Péloponnèse and Corinth managed to maintain
their communications with the Byzantine Emprre ("On the Slavic Settlement
in the Péloponnèse," BZ, XLVI (1953), 100),
9. See A. Pertusi, ed., Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus (Vatican,
1952), p. 91. Denis Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée (Athens, 1953),
π, 20-21; Stilpon Kyriakidis, " O í Σλάβοι εν Πελοποννήσου [The Slavs in the
Péloponnèse]," Βυζαντιναί Μελέται (Thessalonica, 1947), vi, 95; and Epam­
inondas Chrysanthopoulos, "Τά βιβλία [The Books]," Θεολογία, xxvii (1956),
87 ff. Regarding the peaceful penetration of the Slavs and the explanation of
many Slav toponyms, see Constantine Amantos, 'Ιστορία του Βυζαντινού
κράτους [History of the Byzantine Rule], 2nd ed. (Athens, 1939), i, 348-349.
See also Kirsten's attempt to trace the route of the Slavs and Vlachs from
Epirus to Thessaly and Achaia, and from Olympus to Pelion (Alfred Philipp-
son and Ernst Kirsten, Die griechischen Landschaften [The Greek Territories]
[Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1950], i, 1. 277-278).
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 267
10. See Georg Stadtmüller, "Τα προβλήματα της ιστορικής διερευνήσεως
της 'Ηπείρου [The Problems of the Historical Investigation of Epirus]," HX,
LX (1934), 160, 161; and Vasmer, Die Slaven (3), pp. 322-324.
11. Charanis, "On the Slavic Settlement" ( 8 ) , p. 42.
12. Francis Dvornik, The Shvs: Their Early History and Civilization (Bos­
ton, 1956), pp. 116-117, which contains the relevant bibliography.
13. Ibid., p. 117.
14. For the relevant bibliography, see Zakythinos, Οι Σλάβοι ( 3 ) , pp. 4 8 -
51.
15. See Spyridon Lambros, " 'Ολίγαι λέξεις περί Σλάβων εν Πελοπόννησο)
και περί των κληθέντων σλαβικών κτιρίων της Όλυμπίας [A Few Words
concerning Slavs in the Péloponnèse and the So-Called Slavic Buildings of
Olympia];' "Ωρα, May 5, 1874, pp. 5-6; in Zakythinos, Οι Σλάβοι (3), p. 95.
16. Vasmer, Die Slaven ( 3 ) , pp. 324-325. Antoine Bon mentions two large
centers in particular, Athens and Corinth, and extols Corinth's role after 783
in the reconquest and hellenization of the Péloponnèse (see his report to the
Xe Congrès international des études byzantines, Tebliğleri-Actes (istanbul,
1957), p. 207).
17. Nikos Bees, "Zum macedonischen Bistum Kaesareia [On the Macedo­
nian Diocese of Caesarea]," BNJ, χ (1934), 346-348. Antonios Keramopoul-
los saw the remains of such castles in western Macedonia; his Τί είναι oí
Κουτσόβλαχοι; [Who Are the Koutsovlachs?] (Athens, 1939), pp. 141-142,
contains much interesting information.
18. For some interesting findings about the origins and bases of Hellenism
in eastern Thessaly, see Philippson and Kirsten, Die griechischen Landschaften
(9), ι, 1. 278, 279, 280, 293, 295. One such castle in western Sterea Hellas
must have been Naupactus (ibid., и, 2, 616: "Danach ist anzunehmen, dass
vom Altertum her in dem verödeten Festlandsraum West-Mittelgriechenlands
nur die Festung Naupaktos bestand, als die Slaven einwanderten. Von ihr
ging dann die Graecisierung dieser Gebirgsbevölkerung aus, die offenbar ihre
Herden zu den Seen und Sümpfen auf Winterweide trieb wie heute die
Aromunen und daher den Seen die Namen gab [Wherefore we might assume
that from antiquity only the stronghold of Naupactus existed in the deserted
land of west middle Greece when the Slavs came in. From this point spread
out the hellenization of this mountain people, which openly drove its herds to
the lakes and marshes for winter pasture, as do today the Aromuni, and thereby
gave to the lakes their names]." See also Charanis, "On the Slavic Settlement"
(8), pp. 40—41, where some other, older works are mentioned).
19. G. Da Costa-Louillet, "Saints de Grèce aux VIII e , IX e , et Xe siècles,"
Byzantion, xxxi (1961), 331.
20. See George Kremos, Φωκικά (Athens, 1874), ι, 38, 148, 165.
21. Esprit Cousinéry, Voyage dans la Macédoine (Paris, 1831), и, 140; i,
53; cf. p. 68: "Il est à remarquer que les Bulgares n'ont jamais pénétré dans
ces bois. La population y est toute grecque, ainsi que dans la Piérie, jusqu'à
Caraféria et à Gniaousta. Il paraît que c'est dans l'épaisseur de ces remparts
naturels que les Grecs, pendant l'invasion des Bulgares, trouvèrent un refuge
268 NOTES—CHAPTER 1

[One must observe that the Bulgars never penetrated into these forests. The pop­
ulation there is entirely Greek, just as in Pieria, up to Caraveria and Gniaousta.
It seems that it is in the denseness of these natural bulwarks that the Greeks,
during the invasions of the Bulgars, found a refuge]." This refuge became both
more extensive and more permanent at the time of the Turkish invasions.
22. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, Θεσσαλονικιά μελετήματα [Thessalonian Studies]
(Thessalonica, 1939), pp. 9, 11, 12, 15.
23. See Epaminondas Chrysanthopoulos, Τά βιβλία ( 6 ) , in Θεολογία, ххѵи
(1956), 115-117, 132-133.
24. See Constantine Sathas, Χρονικόν άνέκδοτον Γαλαξειδίου [Chronicle of
Gakxidi] (Athens, 1865), pp. 192 ff., and pp. 122 ff. For the chronology of
the Bulgar invasions given in the Chronicle, see Nikos Bees, "Αι έπιδρομαί
των Βουλγάρων υπό τόν τζάρον Συμεών και τά σχετικά σχόλια του Άρέθα
Καισαρείας [The Incursions of the Bulgars under the Tsar Symeos and the
Relevant Comments of Arethas of Caesarea]," Ελληνικά, ι (1928), 350 ff. On
the reliability of the manuscript, see Bees's "To χειρόγραφον του Χρονικού του
Γαλαξειδίου καί νέαι αυτού αναγνώσεις [The Manuscript of the Chronicle of
Galaxidi and New Readings of I t ] / ' Π Α Α , xix (1944), 347-356.
25. See Kyriakidis, Θεσσαλονικιά (22), pp. 94-95.
26. See Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée ( 9 ) , и, 29.
27. Spyridon Lambros, "Κανανός Λάσκαρις καί Βασίλειος Βατατζής. Δύο
Έλληνες περιηγηταί του ΙΕ' καί I H ' αιώνος [Kananos Laskaris and Basileios
Vatatzes. Two Greek Travellers of the Fifteenth and Eighteenth Centuries]/'
Παρνασσός, ν (1881), 707, 710-713.
28. See Zakythinos, Οι Σλάβοι ( 3 ) , p. 65.
29. Socrates Kougeas, Περί των Μελιγκών του Ταϋγέτου εξ αφορμής ανεκ­
δότου βυζαντινής επιγραφής εκ Λακωνίας [Concerning the Melingi of Tayge-
tuSy from an Unpublished Byzantine Inscription from Laconid] (Athens, 1950),
pp. 30-31.
30. See J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall
of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (802-867) (London, 1912), pp. 379-380,
and Bon, Le Péloponnèse byzantin ( 3 ) , pp. 31 ff., which contains the relevant
bibliography.
31. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Thasos, son histoire, son administration de
1453 à 1912 (Paris, 1953), pp. 59, 60. This book contains the relevant bibli­
ography.
32. See Keramopoullos, Τί είναι oí Κουτσόβλαχοι ; (17), p. 56, and Stilpon
Kyriakidis, The Northern Ethnological Boundaries of Hellenism (Thessalonica,
1955), pp. 46, 51 ff., 54 ff. Cf. also the recent case of the Greek-speaking
Kataphygion Macedonians who, after settling in Klisura (between 56 and 66
miles from Thessalonica on the international railway), subsequently lost their
mother tongue and became Bulgar-speaking (see Α. Κ. Ο., "Κλεισούρα," in
Μακεδονικόν *ημερολόγιον, π [1909], 261).
33. See Demetrius Georgakas, "Beiträge zur Deutung als slavisch erklärter
Ortsnamen [Contributions to the Interpretation of Place-Names Said to Be
Slavic]/' BZ, XLI (1941), 353, for the opinions of the specialists.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 269

34. Gustav Meyer, Neugriechische Studien [Studies in Modern Greek], и

(Vienna, 1894), 6 ff. Cf. Franz Miklosich, "Die slavischen Elemente des Neu­
griechischen [The Slavic Elements of Modern Greek]," Wiener Sitzungsberichte,
LXIII (1869), 529-566.
35. Veselin Beshevliev, "Βούλγαροι και 'Έλληνες στις αμοιβαίες τους επι­
δράσεις ανάμεσα στους αιώνες [The Bulgars and Greeks in Their Mutual In­
fluences through the Centuries]," tr. Nikolaos Andriotis, Εστία, XXVIII (1940),
1072 ff.; and Andriotis, "Τά ελληνικά στοιχεία της βουλγαρικής γλώσσης [The
Greek Elements of the Bulgarian Language]," ΑΘΓΛΘ, XVII (1952), 3 3 -
100.
36. See Vasmer, Die Slaven ( 3 ) , p. 316.
37. See Alexander Vasiliev, Justin the First (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), pp.
303-304, for the most recent historical bibliography.
38. Ares Poulianos, Ή προέλευση τών Ελλήνων [The Ońgin of the Greeks]
(Athens, 1960), pp. 16, 18. See also pp. 109-110, 111.
39. Thomas Gordon, History of the Greek Revolution (London, 1844), i,
34n.
40. Léon Heuzey, Excursion dans la Thessalie turque en 1858 (Paris, 1927),
pp. 171-172: "il ne faut pas voir en eux de véritables Albanais, mais des
Arvanito-vlaques comme ils sont encore appelés dans la Grèce du nord, c'est-à-
dire des populations roumaines émigrées anciennement de l'Albanie et parlant
couramment la langue albanaise en même temps que leur langue maternelle
[It is not necessary to see in them real Albanians, but Arvanito-Vlachs (as they
are still called in the north of Greece), that is to say Rumanian populations
which emigrated in ancient times from Albania and speak fluently both the
Albanian language and their mother tongue]."
41. See the opinion of Peter Kanellidis ("Μάνη και Μανιάται [Maina and
Maniotes]," Έβδομάς, iv [1887], nos. 37-38) that the Albanians of the
Péloponnèse had settled there since at least the eighth century. This theory is
also advanced by Constantine Biris, 'Αρβανίτες, οί Δωριείς του νεωτέρου
ελληνισμού [Albanians, the Dorians of Modern Greece] (Athens, 1960), p p .
63 ff.
42. The opinion that the Albanians settled in Thessaly in the twelfth cen­
tury is put forward by Ioannis K. Voyatzidis in his study, "To χρονικόν τών
Μετεώρων [The Chronicle of Meteora]," Ε Ε Β Σ , и (1925), 155. Peter A.
Phourikis is also of the opinion that the Albanians came into Greece several
centuries before 1300 ("Γάμος και γαμήλια σύμβολα παρά τοις άλβανοφώνοις
της Σαλαμίνος [Marriage Wedding Symbols among the Albanian-Speaking
Population of Salamis]" [Athens, 1927], reprinted from Λαογραφία, ix, 3.
See his other studies, "Παρατηρήσεις εις τά τοπωνύμια τών Χρονικών του
Μορέως [Observations on the Place-Names of the Chronicles of Morea]"
'Αθηνά, XL [1928], 59, and "Συμβολή είς τό τοπωνυμικόν της 'Αττικής [Α
Contribution to the Toponymy of Attica]" [Athens, 1929], p p . 128-129),
though he was not able to develop his theory. For other similar theories, see
Ioannis K. Poulos, " Ή έποίκησις τών 'Αλβανών εις Κορινθίαν [The Settle­
ment of the Albanians in the Area of Corinth]," EMA, ш (1950), 40-42.
270 NOTES—CHAPTER 1

43. See Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana [Greek Acts and Documents, Sacred and Secular, of the
Middle Ages] (Vienna, 1860-1887), v, 260-261.
44. See Antonio Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs de Matheu de Moneada y
Roger de Lluria en la Grecia catalana (1359-1370)," Anuari de l'Institut
ďestudis cataos (Barcelona, 1901, 1912), pp. 19-20; also the same author's
"La Poblado dels Ducats de Grecia [The Population of the Dukedoms of
Greece]," Institut ďestudis catalans (Mémoires de la seccia histórico-arqueo-
lógica), iv (Barcelona, 1933), 26. I was able to consult the works of Rubio
y Lluch in a handwritten French version by my friend, G. P. Tzitzelis, who
kindly placed it at my disposal. See also Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée
(9), ι, 103; 11,30-31.
45. See Athanase Gegaj, L'Albanie et l'invasion turque au XVe siècle
[Albania and the Turkish Invasion of the Fifteenth Century] (Paris, 1937),
pp. 25-30, and George Soulis, "Περί των μεσαιωνικών αλβανικών φυλών
των Μαλακασίων, Μπουίων και Μεσαριτών [Concerning the Medieval Alba­
nian Tribes of the Malakasioi, the Bouïoi, and the Mesaritai]," ΕΕΒΣ, XXIII
(1953), 213-216. Contrary to the opinion of many scholars, Soulis believes
these to have been Albanian tribes.
46. Regarding the Karagounides, see G. Μ., "Περί Καραγυούνιδων [On
the Karagounides]," Πανδώρα, XVIII (1868), 140-142, and Panagiotes
Aravantinos, Χρονογραφία της Ηπείρου [The Annals of Epirus] (Athens,
1856), p. 147. On the Arvanito-Vlachs of Acarnania, see Léon Heuzey, Le
Mont Olympe et XAcamante (Paris, 1860), pp. 267-268. The descent of
the Arvanito-Vlachs is traced in Apostólos Vacalopoulos, " Ίστορικαί ερευναι
εν Σαμαρίνη της Δυτ. Μακεδονίας [Historical Investigations in Şamarına in
Western Macedonia]," Γρηγόριος ό Παλαμάς, xxi (1937), 13 (of the re­
print).
47. See John Cantacuzenus, Historiarum libri TV [Ιστοριών βιβλία Δ, Four
Books of Histories], ed. L. Schopen, 3 vols. (Bonn, 1828-1832), ι, 474. See
also Ioannis K. Voyatzidis, "To χρονικόν των Μετεώρων" (42), ΕΕΒΣ, ι
(1924), 155.
48. See George Soulis, " Ή πρώτη περίοδος της Σερβοκρατίας εν Θεσσαλία
(1348-1356) [The First Period of Serbian Rule in Thessaly (1348-1356)],"
Ε Ε Β Σ , xx (1950), 56-73.
49. Cantacuzenus, Historiarum (47), in, 147.
50. Constantin Jireček, Geschichte der Serben [History of the Serbs] (Gotha,
Germ., 1911), ι, 394.
51. Constantin Jireček, "Die Witwe und die Söhne des Despoten Esau von
Epirus [The Widow and Sons of the Despot Esau of Epirus]," BN J, ι (1920),
1-2; and Karl Hopf, Griechenland im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit [Greece
in the Middle Ages and in Modern Times] (Leipzig, 1867-1868), и, 32 ff.
See also Poulos, Ή έποίκησις (42), pp. 36, 45, where the relevant bibliography
will be found. For mention of the Albanians, Serbs, and Bulgars, see Andreas
Moustoxydis, ed., " 'Ιστορικόν Κομνηνού μονάχου και Π ρόκλου μονάχου [The
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 271

History of the Monks Comnenus and Proclus]," Έλληνομνήμων, ι ( 1 8 4 3 -

1853), passim, and a recent work, edited by Sebastian Cirác Estopañán, entitled
Bizancio y España (Barcelona, 1943), vols. 1-2. As to the incorrect title
Ιστορικόν, see Leander Vranoussis, "Deux Historiens qui n'ont jamais existes:
Comnenos et Proclos," EMA, хи (1962), 23-29.
52. Note the fourteenth-century expression, "της άγιωτάτης επισκοπής της
εν τη 'Ακαρνανία "Αρτης [the most holy bishopric of Arta in Acarnania]."
(See Germanos, Archbishop of Sardes, "Επισκοπικοί κατάλογοι των εν
Ή π ε ί ρ ω και 'Αλβανία επαρχιών του πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Epis­
copal Catalogues of the Epirote and Albanian Districts of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople]," HX, хи [1937], 12.) See Laonicos Chalcocondyles, His-
toriarum demonstrationes [Άπόδειξις ιστοριών], ed. Eugene Darkó, 2 vols.
(Budapest, 1922-1927), ι, 197.
53. See Moustoxydis, "Ιστορικόν" (51), p. 496. (This document is also
published in Cirác Estopañán, Bizancio y España, π, 37 ff. )
54. See Moustoxydis, "Ιστορικόν" (51), pp. 491-492. Moustoxydis de­
duces that Achelous is the ancient Ambracia (p. 504, n. 24). More likely is
the view held by Philippson and Kirsten, Die gńechischen Landschaften ( 9 ) ,
ι, 1. 616, 617. See also George E. Papatrechas, " Επισκοπή 'Αχελώου και ή
ομώνυμη βυζαντινή πόλη [The Diocese of Achelous and the Byzantine city of
the same name]," Α Ε Α Σ , ι (1958), 173-177. On the date of Nicephorus II
Ducas Orsinťs death, see Raymond Loenertz, "Notes sur le regne de Manuel II
à Thessalonique, 1381/82-1387," BZ, L (1957), 393.
55. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (44), p. 20.
56. On the extent of Vagenitia, see Michael Lascaris, "Vagenitia," Revue
historique du Sud-Est Européen, xix (1942), и, 423-437. See also the map
of northern Epirus and Albania in Halil inalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli sûret-i defteri
Sancak-i Arvanid [A Copy of the Notebooks of the Province of Arvanid, Dated
Hegira 835] (Ankara, 1954).
57. See Moustoxydis, "Ιστορικόν" (51), pp. 504-505.
58. See George P. Anagnostopoulos, "Γλωσσικά ανάλεκτα [Linguistic Ana­
lects]," 'Αθηνά, xxxvi (1924), 62-63.
59. Note Symeon Uroš Palaeologus' edict regarding Thessaly: "καί πάντα
μεν τά μοναστήρια καί τάς αγίας του Θεού εκκλησίας εύροΰσα ερημωμένας
από της του καιρού επιθέσεως [and having found all of the monasteries and
the holy churches of God ruined by the adversary circumstances]." (Nikos Bees,
"Σερβικά καί βυζαντιακά γράμματα Μετεώρου [The Serbian and Byzantine
Documents of Meteora]," Βυζαντίς, и (1911-1912), 81.
60. Ibid., pp. 80, 84, for titles.
61. On the date of Symeon's death, see the observations of Michael Lascaris,
"Byzantinoserbica saeculi XIV [Byzantine-Serbian Affairs of the Fourteenth
Century]," Byzantion, xxv-xxvn (1955-1957), 278 ff.
62. See Moustoxydis, "Ιστορικόν" (51), pp. 503-505; and William Miller,
The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566) (New
York-Cambridge, Eng., 1964), p. 294.
272 NOTES—CHAPTER 1

63. Hopf, Griechenland (16), и, 40.

64. See Moustoxydis, "Ιστορικόν" (51), pp. 526, 532 ff.
65. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (44), p. 23. See Poulos, Ή έποίκησις (42),
which contains the relevant bibliography; Frederick Hasluck, "Albanian Settle­
ments in the Aegean Islands," BS A, xv (1908-1909), 224-225; and Biris,
'Αρβανίτες (41), pp. 240-245.
66. Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά [Palaeologian
and Peloponnesian Affairs] (Athens, 1926), ш, 41; and Zakythinos, Le Des­
poiat grec de Morée (9), и, 31-32. Poulos correctly mentions a second colo­
nization of the Péloponnèse by the Albanians after 1418, that is, after Albanian
domination in Aetolia and Acarnania was brought to an end by Carlo I Tocco
( Ή έποίκησις (42), pp. 52 ff., especially pp. 76, 78-79, and elsewhere). On
Albanian penetration into Greece, see also Jakob Fallmerayer, Das Albanesische
Element in Griechenland [The Albanian Element in Greece], vols. 1-3 (Mu­
nich, 1857-1860); and Eulogios Kourilas, Πανεπιστημιακά. Τό κράτος της
αληθείας [University Affairs. The Power of Truth] (Athens, 1944). On the
colonization, see especially pp. 294-304; and Biris, 'Αρβανίτες (41), pp. 2 7 3 -
285.
67. Cousinéry, Voyage (21), i, 18. See also the important evidence of Peter
Kanellidis, "Αι σλαβικαί εποικίσεις [The Slavic Colonizations]," Έβδομάς, iv
(1887), no. 39, 1.
68. See Ioannis K. Voyatzidis, "Συμβολή εις τήν μεσαιωνικήν ίστορίαν της
Ηπείρου [A Contribution to the History of Epirus in the Middle Ages]," HX,
ι (1926), 74.
69. See Hopf, Griechenland (16), и, 105; and Philippson and Kirsten, Die
griechischen Landschaften ( 9 ) , i i , 2. 596.
70. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (66), m, 194-195.
71. See Voyatzidis, "Συμβολή" (68), pp. 77-78.
72. See Heuzey, Le Mont Olympe ( 4 6 ) , passim. He says on p. 241, "Tout ce
pays, depuis le golfe d'Arta jusqu'aux bouches de TAspropotamo, est entièrement
peuplé de Grecs. La race grecque est restée ici plus libre et, par conséquent,
plus pure que partout ailleurs; mais elle ne Га pu qu'à la condition de se faire
barbare et misérable. [All of this land, from the bay of Arta to the estuary of
the Aspropotamos, is populated entirely with Greeks. The Greek race has there
been left freer and, consequently, purer than anywhere else. But it has been
able to remain so only by making itself uncivilized and wretched]."
73. See Spyridon Lambros, " Ή ονοματολογία της 'Αττικής και ή εις τήν
χώρα εποίκησις των 'Αλβανών [The Nomenclature of Attica and the Albani­
ans' Settlement in the Country]," Έπετηρίς Παρνασσού, ι (1897), 167-192,
which contains also the relevant bibliography. See Giuseppe Schirò, "Una
Cronaca in versi inedita del secolo XV; 'Sui Duchi e I Conti di Cefalonia' [An
Unpublished Chronicle in Verse from the Fifteenth Century, O n the Dukes
and Counts of Cephalonia']," XI e Congrès international des études byzantines,
Munich, 1958, Akten (1966), p. 535.
74. See Constantine Mertzios, "Μία ανέκδοτος επιστολή του Καρόλου Α '
του Τόκκου προς τόν δόγην Βενετίας γραφεΐσα εξ 'Ιωαννίνων τό 1425 [One
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 273
Unpublished Letter from Carlo I Tocco to the Doge of Venice Written at
Ioannina in 1425]," in Πεπραγμένα του Θ ' Διεθνούς Βυζαντινολογικοΰ Συνε­
δρίου, π (Thessalonica, 1956) ( Περιοδικό ν " Έλλη νικά," Παράρτημα, Αριθ.
9 ) , 556-559, and Hopf, Griechenland (16), и, 106.
75. In Demetrius G. Kambouroglou, Μνημεία της ιστορίας των 'Αθηναίων,
Τουρκοκρατία [Monuments of the History of the Athenians; Turkish Domina­
tion] (Athens, 1891), i, 338. For the communication of Tassos D. Neroutsos,
" Π ε ρ ί της εν Ελλάδι έποικήσεως των 'Αλβανών ύπερμεσοΰντος Ι Δ ' αιώνος
[Concerning the Settlement of the Albanians in Greece in the Latter Half of
the Fourteenth Century]/' see pp. 341-345. Cf. Biris, 'Αρβανίτες (41), p.
107. On the Albanianization which took place in the district of Karystia and
on the same process in Attica, see pp. 107, 109, 322-326.
76. See Vasmer, Die Slaven (3), pp. 5-7, 9, 313-315.
77. See Constantine Amantos, Μακεδονία. Συμβολή εις τήν μεσαιωνικήν
ίστορίαν και εθνολογίαν της Μακεδονίας [Macedonia; A Contribution to the
Medieval History and Ethnology of Macedonia] (Athens, 1920), p. 23.
78. See the rare and bizarre book which George C. Rozias wrote in Greek
and German on alternate pages. Its Greek title is 'Εξετάσεις περί τών Ρωμαίων
ή τών ονομαζόμενων Βλάχων δσοι κατοικοΰσιν άντιπέραν του Δουνάβεως, επί
παλαιών μαρτυριών τεθεμελιωμέναι [Investigations, Founded on Ancient Tes­
timonies, concerning the Romans, or So-called Vlachs, Who Dwell on the
Other Side of the Danube] (Pesth, Hung., 1808), pp. 81-89.
79. Ibid., p. 99.
80. Constantine Koumas, Ίστορίαι τών ανθρωπίνων πράξεων [Histories of
Human Deeds] (Vienna, 1832), XII, 520-521. The eighteenth-century Vlach
scholar Nikolaos Tzartzoulis believed that his countrymen were descended from
the ancient Greeks. See Μετέωρα, March 12, 1951, p. 68. See also the interest­
ing study (which, however, must be used with caution) by the poet Constan­
tine Krys tallis, in his {t Απαντα [Complete Works], ed. George Valetas (Athens,
1959), и, 457-657. In the development of his final theory regarding the
essential "Greekness" of the Vlachs of Greece, Keramopoullos (Τί είναι oí
Κουτσόβλαχοι ; [17]) owes a great deal to Michael Chrysochoou, Βλάχοι και
Κουτσόβλαχοι [Vlachs and Koutsovlachs] (Athens, 1909). According to Kera-
mopoullos' theory, the Vlachs are the latinized descendants of poor indigenous
Greek peoples who, following Macedonia's submission to the Romans in 168
B.C., served in the Roman army as frontier guards or as guards of the mountain
passes which bordered on their homelands.
81. See John Lydus, Π ε ρ ί αρχών της Ρωμαίων πολιτείας [Concerning the
Offices of the Roman State], ed. Richard Wuensch (Leipzig, 1903), in, 68.
On the process of latinization by Diocletian, see Ernst Stein, Geschichte des
spätrömischen Reiches [History of the Late Roman Empire] (Vienna, 1928-
1949), i, 113-114. There were other similar tendencies much later, during
the third and fourth centuries A.D. (ibid., pp. 443-444).
82. See the relevant extract in the Acta of St. Demetrius (PG, cxvi, col.
1337); and Oreste Tafralı, Thessalonique des origines au XIVe siècle (Paris,
274 NOTES—CHAPTER 1

1919), pp. 128 ff., where the relevant bibliography will be found; also Chry-
santhopoulos, "Τά βιβλία" (16), pp. 617-619.
83. Nicephoros Moschopoulos, " Ή Ελλάς κατά τόν Έλβιά Τσελεμπή
[Greece according to Evliya Tshelebi]," ΕΕΒΣ, xiv (1938), 503.
84. It would seem that the following characteristic comment belongs to the
tenth century, at the time of the great Bulgarian conquests of Symeon and
Samuel: "Και νυν δε πάσαν "Ηπειρον και Ελλάδα σχεδόν και Π ελοπόννησον
και Μακεδονίαν Σκύθαι Σκλάβοι νέμονται [And now Scythian Slavs enjoy the
land of all Epirus and nearly all of Greece, and the Péloponnèse and Mace­
donia]" (Geographi graeci minores [The Lesser Greek Geographers], ed. Karl
Müller, и (Paris, 1882), 574 [ = Στράβωνος Χρηστομάθεια, vu, 47]). See
William Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, Eng., 1921), p. 39.
In this extract from an abridged geography of his, Strabo means that the exist­
ence of a Greek population was not precluded since the Slavs came to enjoy
the lands through which they wandered.
85. See Stadtmüller, "Τά προβλήματα" (10), p. 162.
86. See Nikolaos Kasomoulis, Ενθυμήματα στρατιωτικά της επαναστάσεως
των Ελλήνων, 1821-1833 [Military Reminiscences of the Greek Revolution,
1821-1833] (Athens, 1939), i, 104 ff.; and Koumas, Ίστορίαι (80), XII, 530,
531.
87. See Demetrius Georgakas, "Περί της καταγωγής των Σαρακατσαναίων
και του ονόματος αυτών [Concerning the Origin of the Sarakatsans and of
Their Name]," ΑΘΓΛΘ, хи (1945-1946), 65-128; xiv (1948-1949), 6 5 -
151, which has the relevant bibliography. On their art and culture, see
Angeliki Chazimichali, Σαρακατσάνοι [The Sarakatsans], vol. i, parts A-B
(Athens, 1957).
88. See Ioannis K. Voyatzidis, "Οι 'Έλληνες καθολικοί [The Catholic
Greeks]," HME, 1924, pp. 175-176, and "Γλώσσα και λαογραφία της νήσου
'Άνδρου [The Language and the Folklore of the Island of Andros]," AX, ix
(1960), 131-132, 136-139. See also Antonios Sígalas, "Die griechische Insel
Syros in ethnischer und religiöser Hinsicht in der byzantinischen und neueren
Zeit [The Ethnic and Religious Aspects of the Greek Island of Syros in the
Byzantine and Modern Periods]," Ostkirchliche Studien, vu (1958), 85-92.
The same article was published in Greek in greater detail and in a more popular
vein under the title " Ή Ελληνική καταγωγή των καθολικών της Σύρου [The
Greek Origin of the Catholics of Syros]," Κυκλάδες, ι (1956), 293-299.
89. For cases of the christianization of young Turks (in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries) and the Gagauz in general, their settlement in the Do-
bruja and the districts of Veroia and Zichna, and the obscure historical prob­
lems connected with these events, see Paul Wittek, "Yazijioghlu 'Alî on the
Christian Turks of the Dobruja," BSOAS, xiv (1952), 639-688, where the
relevant bibliography will be found. Missing from this bibliography, however,
is the study by Athanasios Manof, "Ποίοι είναι οι Γκαγκαοΰζοι [Who the
Gagauz Are]," ΕΕΒΣ, χ (1933), 383-400. For the descent of the Gagauz
from the district of Varna in western Thrace after the anti-Greek persecutions
of 1906, see Máximos Maravelakis and Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Αι προσφυγικαι
NOTES—CHAPTER 2 275

εγκαταστάσεις εν τη περιοχή θεσσαλονίκης [The Refugee Settlements in the

Area of Thessalonica] (Thessalonica, 1953), p. 13.
90. See, for instance, Gordon, History of the Greek Revolution (39), i, 32;
and the elementary, but probably first, comparative study of the relationship
between ancient and modern Greece, that of Friedrich Kruse, Fragen über
mehrere für das höhere Alterthum wichtige Verhältnisse im heutigen Griechen­
land beantwortet von einem Philhellenen [Questions on Several Conditions of
Modern Greece Important for Antiquity, Answered by a Philhellene] (Berlin,
1827). The subject is approached in a systematic way by Bernard Schmidt,
Das Volksleben der Neugriechen und das hellenische Altertum [The Life of
the Modern Greeks and Greek Antiquity], vol. ι (Leipzig, 1871). See also
William Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, Eng., 1921), p. 35:
"No one who has been in Greece can fail to have been struck by the similarity
between the character of the modern and ancient Greeks."
91. See Guillaume Lejean, Ethnographie de la Turquie dfEurope, Peter-
manns geographische Mitteilungen, Ergänzungsheft 4 (Gotha, Germ., 1861),
pp. 13-14.
92. See Stadtmüller, "Τά προβλήματα" (10), pp. 140-169.

Chapter 2
1. See Ioannis K. Voyatzidis, " Ή θέσις της κυρίως Ελλάδος εντός του
βυζαντινού κράτους [The Position of Greece Proper within the Byzantine
State]," Ε Ε Β Σ , xix (1949), 252-258.
2. See Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter,
von der Zeit Justinians bis zur türkischen Eroberung [History of the City of
Athens in the Middle Ages, from the Time of Justinian to the Turkish Conquest]
(Stuttgart, 1889), Greek translation (with emendations and additions) by
Spyridon Lambros (Athens, 1904-1906), i, 89.
3. Ibid., 91 ff.
4. See Procopius' use of the word, in Kilian Lechner, Hellenen und Barbaren
im Weltbild der Byzantiner [Greeks and Barbarians in the View of the Byzan­
tines] (Munich, 1955), pp. 5, 10.
5. Peter Charanis, "The Term Helladikoi in Byzantine Texts of the Sixth,
Seventh, and Eighth Centuries," Ε Ε Β Σ , XXIII (1953), 619.
6. See Nikolaos Poli tis, Μελέται περί του βίου και της γλώσσης του ελλη­
νικού λαοΰ, Παραδόσεις [Studies in the Life and Language of the Hellenic
People; Traditions], ι (Athens, 1904), 52 ff., 729 ff. For those traditions re­
lating to the ancient Greeks, see Léon Heuzey, Le Mont Olympe et Γ Acamante
(Paris, 1860), passim, his Excursion dans la Thessalie turque en 1858 (Paris,
1927), passim, and Alexander Chatzigakis, *Όί Έλληνοι [The Greeks],"
Μετέωρα, March 12, 1951, pp. 28-30. .
7. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, Αι ίστορικαι άρχαί της δημώδους νεοελληνικής
ποιήσεως [The Historical Origins of Popular Neohellenic Poetry], 2nd ed.
(Thessalonica, 1934), pp. 10-19, 27 ff.; and George I. Theocharidis, Beiträge
zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Profantheaters im TV. und V. Jahrhundert,
hauptsächlich auf Grund der Predigten des Johannes Chrysostomos, Patriarchen
276 NOTES—CHAPTER 2

von Konstantinopel [Contributions to the History of the Byzantine Profane

Theater in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, Principally on the Basis of the
Sermons of John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople] (Thessalonica,
1940).
8. See Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen ( 2 ) , Greek tr., ι, 97 ff.
9. Ibid., 98-121, 126.
10. I say "almost" because most of the place-names mentioned by Max
Vasmer remain doubtful (Die Shven in Griechenland (Berlin, 1941), pp. 120-
123). See Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen ( 2 ) , Greek tr., ι, 184-
191, 218.
11. Ibid., и, 478. Cf. also ι, 165, η. 3 and 4. Gregorovius believes the evi­
dence regarding St. Gislenus* studies in Athens to be of dubious worth.
12. Karl Hopf, Griechenland im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (1:51)
(Leipzig, 1867-1868), i, 113.
13. See Kenneth Setton, "The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renais­
sance," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, C, no. 1, February,
1956, p. 5, for the relevant bibliography.
14. Vasily Vasilevsky, Russovizantijskija isledovanija [Russian-Byzantine
Studies], и (St. Petersburg, 1893), 75. I borrowed this information from Peter
Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century/'
DOP, XIII (1959), 41.
15. Georgius Cedrenus, Σύνοψις ιστοριών [A Summary of Histories], ed.
Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1838-1839), и, 170. On the point that Leo's teacher
was in fact called Michael Psellus, see Demetrios Paschalis, Ή "Ανδρος
(Athens, 1925-1927), ι, 654-663. Compare this, however, with Ioannis K.
Voyatzidis' persuasive view ("Γλώσσα και λαογραφία της νήσου "Ανδρου"
[1:88], ΑΧ, ix (1960), pp. 108 ff.) that a philosopher named Michael Psellus
in Andros who was born before the known Michael Psellus of Constantinople
never existed.
16. See Charles Diehl, Byzantium: Greatness and Decline, tr. Naomi Wal-
ford (New Brunswick, N.J., 1957), pp. 112-121, and Charanis, "Ethnic
Changes" (14), pp. 25-36, 42, where the relevant bibliography will be found.
17. See Ernst Stein, Geschichte das spatrömischen Reiches (1:81) (Vienna,
1928-1949), ι, 5. In connection with the composition of the population, see
Peter Charanis, "On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the
Thirteenth Century," Προσφορά εις Στιλπ. Κυριακίδην (Thessalonica, 1953),
pp. 140-147.
18. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, Ελληνικά λαογραφία, Μερ. Α ' Μνημεία του
λόγου [Greek Folklore, Part I, Records of the Speech] (Athens, 1923), pp. 20 ff.
and Two Studies on Modern Greek Folklore, tr. by Robert A. Georges and
Aristotle A. Katzanides (Thessalonica, 1968), pp. 56 ff.
19. For this point of view, see the monumental work by Phaidon Koukoules,
Βυζαντινών βίος και πολιτισμός [The Life and Civilization of the Byzan­
tines], i-v (Athens, 1952), and especially that part of volume ν which is
entitled " Ή νέα ελληνική γλώσσα και τα βυζαντινά και τα μεταβυζαντινά
NOTES—CHAPTER 2 277
έθιμα [The Modern Greek Language and the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine
Customs]." See also Demetrius Petropoulos, "Συμβολή είς την ερευναν των
λαϊκών μέτρων και σταθμών [Contribution to the Investigation of the People's
Weights and Measures]," ΛΑ, VII (1952), 101.
20. See Demetrius Petropoulos, "Θεόκριτου ειδύλλια υπό λαογραφικήν
εποψιν έρμηνευόμενα [The Idylls of Theocritus Interpreted from the Point of
View of Folklore]," Λαογραφία, XVIII (1959), 90-91.
21. For some characteristic examples, see Phaidon Koukoules, Θεσσαλονίκης
Ευσταθίου τά λαογραφικά [Folklore Elements in the Works of Eustathius of
Thessalonica], I - I I (Athens, 1950).
22. Some of the superstitions and beliefs which have survived over the
centuries, for example, include those concerning fairies, ghosts, the fires of
St. John, as well as the attributions of good or evil which accompany itching
palms, itching noses, or twitching eyelids. Christmas carols are of similarly
ancient lineage. (Ibid., vol. и.) See Joseph Bryennios, Τά παραλειπόμενα
[The Remaining Works], ed. Thomas Mandakasis (Leipzig, 1784), in, 120-
122; and George Megas, Έλληνικαί εορταί καί έθιμα της λαϊκής λατρείας
[Greek Festivals and Customs of the Popular Religion] (Athens, 1956). On
the continuity between ancient and modern Hellenism, see John Lawson,
Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: a Study in SurvivaL·
(Cambridge, Eng., 1910; Photostatic Reprint, 1964).
23. See Constantine Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη [Library of the Middle
Ages] (Venice, 1872-1874), vii, x, xi-xiii.
24. See Spyridon Lambros, " Π ε ρ ί τής βιβλιοθήκης του μητροπολίτου
'Αθηνών Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου (1182-1205) [Concerning the Library of
Michael Akominatos, Archbishop of Athens (1182-1205)]," 'Αθήναιον, vi
(1887), 354-367; and Nikolaos Tomadakis, " Ή σ α ν βάρβαροι αί 'Αθήναι επί
Μιχαήλ Χωνιάτου; [Was Athens Barbarian at the Time of Michael Chôm-
âtes?]," Ε Ε Φ Σ Π Α , Period 2, vu (1956-1957), 88-109, where the relevant
bibliography will be found.
25. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athens ( 2 ) , Greek гг., ι, 302 ff., и,
506, 599 ff., believes this to be mere legend, while both William Miller (Essays
on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, Eng., 1921), p. 66) and, more recently,
Setton (The Byzantine Background [13], pp. 61-62) have found a certain
significance in it.
26. Kyrkiakidis, Αι ίστορικαί άρχαί ( 7 ) , pp. 6 ff.
27. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (23), p. xiii. In connection with the
Danishmend dynasty, see J. Laurent, "Sur les Émirs Danischmendites jusqu'en
1104," Melanges à Nicolae Jorga (Paris, 1933), pp. 503-504, and p. 499 for
the relevant bibliography. There is a more recent study by Irène Mélikoff, La
Geste de Melik Danişmend [The Acts of Melik Danishmend] (Paris, 1960),
i, 71-101.
28. The song of Armouris will be found in Stilpon Kyriakidis, Ό Διγενής
'Ακρίτας [Digenis Akritas] (Athens, 1926), p. 121.
29. Mélikoff, La Geste (27), pp. 46 ff.
278 NOTES—CHAPTER 2

30. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, Αι ιστορικού άρχαί (7), p. 5, and his For­
schungsbericht zum Akritas-epos [Researches on the Akritas Epic] (Munich,
1958), p. 8.
31. See Kyriakidis, Forschungsbericht (30), pp. 17, 19, 21-22, where vari­
ous problems associated with the song are examined and the relevant bibli­
ography is given.
32. See Demetrius Petropoulos, "'Ακριτικά τραγούδια στην Πελοπόννησο
[The Akritic Songs in the Péloponnèse]," Πελοποννησιακά, и (1957), 358,
where the relevant bibliography will be found; and Nikos Bees, "To Άνδρονι-
κόπουλλο του ακριτικού κύκλου εκ Μονεμβασιακού χειρογράφου [The Song
of Andronikos of the Akritic Cycle, from a Manuscript in Monemvasia],"
,
Ακρίτας, ι (1904), 23-26. Cf. Nikolaos Politis, "To άσμα των υιών του
'Ανδρόνικου [The Song of the Sons of Andronikos]," 'Ακρίτας, ι (1904),
98-103.
33. See Demetrius G. Kambouroglou, "Περί του ελληνικού κωδικός 202
της βιβλιοθήκης Πετρουπόλεως [On Greek Codex 202 of the Leningrad Li­
brary] ," Π AA, ѵп (1932), part III, 285-286. This entry contains an unknown
versicle of Armouris. See also Samuel Baud-Bovy, "Le Chant ďArmouris et sa
tradition," Byzantion, XIII (1938), 249-251.
34. See their songs in Demetrius Petropoulos, Ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια
[Greek Topular Songs] (Athens, 1958), ι, 3-65.
35. See Hubert Pernot, Chansons populaires grecques des XVe et XVIe
siècles (Paris, 1931), 8, where he writes: "Il y'a des chances pour que, sous
ce qui se présente ainsi à nous, se trouve une couche plus ancienne, que
malheureusement nous sommes dans l'impossibilité de sonder [There is a
chance that, underneath that which presents itself to us in this way, there is a
more ancient layer, which, unhappily, we are unable to fathom]." See also
Spyridon Lambros, "Ein Byzantinisches Volklied [A Byzantine Folksong]," BZ,
m (1894), 165-166.
36. Antoine Gidel, Etudes sur L· littérature grecque moderne (Paris, 1866),
pp. 123-124. See Constantine Sathas, "La Tradition hellénique et la légende
de Phidias, de Praxitèle et de la fille d'Hippocrate au moyen âge," AAEEG,
xvi (1882), 123; also his "Le Roman d'Achille. Texte inédit en grec vulgaire,"
AAEEG, xni (1879), 129, n. 2.
37. See the extract from the criticism of Gidel's Etudes (36), p. v.
38. See the Alexander the Great Romance, ed. Alexander Pallis (Athens,
1935), p. 21. For the various Byzantine and post-Byzantine publications, see
p. 70. On Pseudo-Callisthenes, see Karl Müller, Arriani Anabasis et Indica (Paris,
1846). For the demotic version in metric verse, see Wilhelm Wagner, Trois
Poèmes grecs du moyen âge (Berlin, 1881), pp. 56-241. For the Armenian
translation, see P. N. Akinian, "Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der armenis-
chen Übersetzung des Alexanderromans von Pseudokallisthenes [The Manu-
script Tradition of the Armenian Translation of the Alexander Romance of
Pseudo-Callisthenes]," Byzantion, XIII (1938), 201-206. On the Byzantines'
knowledge of history and the Alexander Romance, see the specialized study
NOTES—CHAPTER 3 279
of Friedrich Pfister, "Alexander der Grosse in der byzantinischen Literatur
und in neugriechischen Volksbüchern [Alexander the Great in Byzantine Lit-
erature and in Modern Greek Popular Books]," Probleme der neugriechischen
Literatur, ш, Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten, xvi (1960), 112-130.
39. See Pallis, Alexander the Great (38), p. 32, for the relevant bibli­
ography.
40. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, " Ό Μ. 'Αλέξανδρος εις τους μύθους και τάς
παραδόσεις [Alexander the Great in Myth and Tradition]," MEE, in, 660-
664, which contains also the relevant bibliography. Cf. also George Spyridakis,
"Συμβολή εις τήν μελέτην των δημωδών παραδόσεων και δοξασιών περί του
Μεγάλου 'Αλεξάνδρου [A Contribution to the Study of the Popular Traditions
and Beliefs Concerning Alexander the Great]," Γέρας Αντ. Κεραμοπούλλου
(Athens, 1953), pp. 385-419, where there is a supplemental bibliography.
41. See Andreas Xyngopoulos, " Ό Μ. 'Αλέξανδρος εν τη βυζαντινή αγ­
γειογραφία [Alexander the Great in Byzantine Pottery Painting]," ΕΕΒΣ, xiv
(1938), 275-276; and Pallis, Alexander the Great (38), p. 32.
42. Sathas, La Tradition hellénique (36), p. 123, on Vinsauf's Itinerarium
regis Anglorum Ricardi [The Itinerary of Richard, King of Engfond] (Ox-
ford, 1687), p. 261.
43. Michael Glykas, Βίβλος χρονική [Chronicle], ed. Immanuel Bekker
(Bonn, 1836), p. 599.
44. Kurt Weitzmann, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton, 1951),
p. 194.
45. See Andreas Xyngopoulos, "Παραστάσεις εκ του μυθιστορήματος του
Μ. 'Αλεξάνδρου επί βυζαντινών αγγείων [Representations from the Alex­
ander Romance on Byzantine Vases]," AE, 1937, pp. 192-202; and " Ό Μ.
Αλέξανδρος" (41), pp. 267-276. Cf. also Weitzmann, Greek Mythology (44),
especially pp. 104, 186-188, 194, 197-198.
46. Anastasios Orlandos, "Νέον άνάγλυφον της αναλήψεως του 'Αλεξάν­
δρου [A New Bas-Relief of the Ascension of Alexander]," ΕΕΦΣΠ А, и (1954-
1955), 281-289, where there is an excellent bibliography; and "Γλυπτά του
μουσείου Θηβών [Sculptures in the Museum at Thebes]," Άρχεΐον των βυζαν­
τινών μνημείων της Ελλάδος, ν (1939-1940), 134-136; also with a bibli­
ography.
47. See Tomadakis, " Ήσαν βάρβαροι ai 'Αθήναι" (24), pp. 88-109. On
the relationship between Eustathius and Michael Chômâtes, see Spyridon
Lambros, Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου τά σωζόμενα [What Remains of Michael Ако-
minatos] (Athens, 1879), i, xvi, xxxvi-xxxvii, xxxviii, 283-306.
48. Lambros, Μιχαήλ Ακομινάτου (47), p. xxxviii.
Chapter 3
1. Spyridon Zambelios, "Ασματα δημοτικά της Ελλάδος εκδοθέντα μετά
μελέτης ιστορικής περί μεσαιωνικού ελληνισμού [Popular Songs of Greece,
Published with an Historical Study of Medieval Hellenism] (Athens, 1852).
See especially pp. 462 ff., and the same author's Βυζαντιναί μελέται. Περί
280 NOTES—CHAPTER 3

πηγών ελληνικής εθνότητος από η ' άχρι ι' εκατονταετή ρ ίδος [Byzantine
Studies. Concerning the Sources of Greek Nationality, from the Eighth to the
Tenth Century] (Athens, 1857).
2. Constantine Paparrhegopoulos, Ιστορία του ελληνικοί έθνους [History
of the Greek Nation] (Athens, 1932), v. part 1, v, 3, 5, 8-9, 15.
3. Constantine Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23) (Venice, 1872-
1874), vu (1894), xff.
4. Constantine Amantos, 'Ιστορία του βυζαντινού κράτους (1:9) (Athens,
1939), ι, 7-8.
5. Ioannis К. Voyatzidis, " Ίστορικαί μελέται [Historical Studies],"
ΕΕΦΣΠΘ, π (1932), 302. See also Ioannis Mamalabs, "Προβλήματα της
νεοελληνικής ιστορίας [Problems of Modern Greek History]," Χρονικά του
Πειραματικού Σχολείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης, ν (1951), 72 ff.
6. For descriptive information, see Constantine Dyovouniotis, "Αι ανέκδοτοι
κατηχήσεις του μητροπολίτου 'Αθηνών Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου [The Unpub­
lished Catechisms of Michael Akominatos, Metropolite of Athens]," Π Α Α , ш
(1928), 312-314.
7. See Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La Conquête de Constantinople, ed. Ed­
mond Farai (Paris, 1939), и (1203-1204), 88-89; and Oreste Tafralı, Thes-
salonique au quatorzième siècle (Paris, 1913), p. 67, where the relevant bibli­
ography will be found. The tendency on the part of Greek cities and countries
to hang on to their autonomy was pronounced. However, I am not aware of
the sources on which Neroutsos based his assertion that the inhabitants of
Athens, Megara, Thebes, Levadia, and Atalante submitted to the Franks in
exchange for the retention of their local independence (Tassos Neroutsos,
"Χριστιανικοί 'Αθήναι [Christian Athens]," ΔΙΕΕ, iv (1892-1895), 53.
8. On the question of the voluntary servitude of certain nobles, see Sathas,
Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 109-110.
9. Nicetas Chômâtes, Χρονική διήγησις [Historical Narration], ed. Imman­
uel Bekker (Bonn, 1835), pp. 840-844.
10. See Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 104; Athanasios Papa-
dopoulos-Kerameus, "Περί συνοικισμού των 'Ιωαννίνων μετά τήν φραγκικήν
κατακτησιν της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Concerning the Settlement of loannina
after the Frankish Capture of Constantinople]," ΔΙΕΕ, ш (1889), 454; the de­
scription in Choniates, Χρονική διήγησις ( 9 ) , pp. 837 ff.; and Spyridon Lam-
bros, Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου τα σωζόμενα (2:47), π (1880), 292.
11. See Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Περί συνοικισμού (10), pp. 451-455.
For the correct name of Michael I, see Lucien Stiernon, "Les Origines du
despotat d'Epire. À propos d'un livre récent," REB, XVII (1959), 91-126. Cf.
the communication to the XII e Congrès international des études byzantines,
Ochrida, 1961: "Les Origines du despotat ďEpire—problèmes de titulature et
de chronologie," Résumés des communications ( Belgrade-Ochrida, 1961), pp.
100-101.
12. See Donald Nicol, The Despotate of Epirus (Oxford, 1957), p. 16.
13. Choniates, Χρονική διήγησις ( 9 ) , pp. 767-768. After the fall of Con­
stantinople (1204), Bishop Theodore of Alania wrote his younger brother:
NOTES—CHAPTER 3 281

" Έάλω μεν ή πατρίς, αλλ' άνδρί σοφώ πάς τόπος Ελλάς [Our country has
been taken, but to the wise man any place is Greece]" (PG, CXL, col. 414).
14. See Louis Halphen, "Le Rôle des 'Latins' dans l'histoire intérieure de
Constantinople à la fin du XII e siècle," Mélanges Charles Diehl (1930), i,
140-145.
15. See loannis В. Papadopoulos, "Γρηγορίου Χιονιάδου του αστρονόμου
έπιστολαι [The Letters of Gregorios Chioniades the Astronomer]," Ε Ε Φ Σ Π Θ ,
ι (1927), 151-203.
16. See William Miller, Trebizond. The Last Greek Empire (London, 1926),
pp. 15 ff.
17. See Nicol, The Despotate of Epirus (12), p. x.
18. See Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), vu, 460-461, 468-469.
19. See Mathias Wellnhofer, Johannes Apokaukos, Metropolit von Naupak-
tos in Aetolien (c. 1155-1223) [loannis Apocaucus, Metropolite of Naupactus
in Aetolia (ca. 1155-1223)] (Freising, Germ., 1913), pp. 31 ff.
20. Parthenios Polakis, 'Ιωάννης 'Απόκαυκος, μητροπολίτης Ναυπάκτου
[loannis Apocaucus, Metropolite of Naupactus] (Jerusalem, 1923), pp. 5,
21 ff., 37 ff. On the opposition between the churches of Epirus and Nicaea and
the attendant controversies, see Wellnhofer's comments in Johannes Apokaukos
( 1 9 ) , pp. 46-64, 67-68. Cf. also Nicol, The Despotate of Epirus (12), pp.
76-102.
21. Vasily Vasilevsky, "Epirotica saeculi XIII [Affairs of Epirus in the
Thirteenth Century]," Viz. Vrem., in (1896), 246, 265. See also Wellnhofer,
Johannes Apokaukos (19), pp. 6-30, and, for Apocaucus' position in the
hierarchy of the Church of Epirus, pp. 44-45. On the actual date of the cap­
ture of Thessalonica, see Jean Longnon, "La Reprise de Salonique par les
Grecs en 1224 [The Recapture of Thessalonica by the Greeks in 1224]," VI e
Congrès international des études byzantines, Paris, 1948, Actes, ι (1950), 1 4 1 -
146; and Β. Sinogowitz, "Zur Eroberung Thessalonikes im Herbst 1224 [On
the Conquest of Thessalonica in the Autumn of 1224]," BZ, XLV (1952), 28.
22. See Nikolaos Tomadakis, "Οι λόγιοι του δεσποτάτου της Η π ε ί ρ ο υ [The
Intellectuals of the Despotate of Epirus]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XXVII (1957), 13. See also
Wellnhofer, Johannes Apokaukos (19), p. 47; Polakis, 'Ιωάννης 'Απόκαυκος
(20), p. 36.
23. See Polakis, 'Ιωάννης 'Απόκαυκος (20), p. 66.
24. Tomadakis, Οι λόγιοι (22), pp. 24-25.
25. See Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, "Συνοδικά γράμματα Ιωάννου
του Άποκαύκου μητροπολίτου Ναυπάκτου [The Synodic Letters of loannis
Apocaucus, Metropolite of Naupactus]," Βυζαντίς, ι (1909), 10.
26. See Eduard Kurtz, "Georgios Bardanes, Metropolit von Kerkyra [George
Vardanis, Metropolite of Corcyra]," BZ, xv (1906), 603-613. Cf. also Welln­
hofer, Johannes Apokaukos (19), pp. 38-39.
27. See Lambros, Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου (2:47), и, 350.
28. See Panagiotis Aravantinos, Χρονογραφία της Ηπείρου (1:46) (Athens,
1856-1857), и, 34-35.
282 NOTES—CHAPTER 3

29. Vasilevsky, Epirotica (21), p. 252. Cf. also Wellnhofer, Johannes Apo-
kaukos (19), pp. 41-42.
30. See Apocaucus'letter to Vardanis (Vasilevsky, Epirotica [21], pp. 250-
252). Cf. Tomadakis, Οι λόγιοι (22), p. 18, and Polakis, 'Ιωάννης 'Απόκαυκος
(20), p. 29.
31. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Συνοδικά γράμματα (25), p. 21.
32. The monograph announced by Michael Dendias more than forty years
ago, on Michael II Comnenus Ducas and his contribution to the renascence
of the Greek nation (see "Ελένη Άγγελίνα Δούκαινα, βασίλισσα Σικελίας
και Νεαπόλεως [Helene Angelina Ducaina, Queen of Sicily and Naples]," HX,
ι [1926], 219-220) has not yet been published.
33. See Demetrius Mavrophrydis, 'Εκλογή μνημείων της νεωτέρας ελλη­
νικής γλώσσης [A Selection of the Monuments of the Modern Greek Lan­
guage] (Athens, 1866), i, vii-x, 73-182, and Karl Hopf, Griechenland im
Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (1:51) (Leipzig, 1867-1868), i, 429.
34. Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana (1:43) (Vienna, 1860-1887), v, 260-261.
35. Regarding the brief reign of Constantine Lascaris, see B. Sinogowitz,
"Über das byzantinische Kaisertum nach dem IV Kreuzzuge (1204-1205)
[Concerning the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade (1204-1205)],"
BZ, XLV (1952), 353-356.
36. See Jean Pappadopoulos, Théodore II Lascaris, empereur de Nicée
(Paris, 1908), p. 24, fn.
37. See Villehardouin, La Conquête (7), π, 267 ff.
38. See Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 112.
39. Ibid., ѵп, xxi. On Nicaea as a focal point of Greek studies, see Pappado­
poulos, Théodore (36), pp. 9-14.
40. An expression which would seem to correspond with that used by the
Metropolitan of Neopatras, Euthymios Malakis: "λαοσυναξιαι τε και συσκευαι
[gatherings and assemblies of the people]" (Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kera­
meus, 'Ευθύμιος Μαλακής, μητροπολίτης Νέων Πατρών [Euthymios Malakis,
Metropolite of Nea Patras]," Έπετηρίς Παρνασσού, VII [1903], 22).
41. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 110.
42. See Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, "La Politique agraire des empereurs de
Nicée," Byzantion, XXVIII (1958), 51-66.
43. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 106-107, 110, 112, 113, 115,
122, 129, 131 ff.
44. See Stilpon Kyriakidis, Forschungsbericht zum Akritas-epos (2:30)
(Munich, 1958), p. 23, also p. 9; and Nicephoros Gregoras, Ρωμαϊκή ιστορία
[Roman History], ed. Ludwig Schopen, i (Bonn, 1829), 377.
45. See Kyriakidis, Forschungsbericht (230), p. 25.
46. Herbert Hunger, "Von Wissenschaft und Kunst der frühen Palaiolo-
genzeit [On Science and Art in Early Palaeologian Times]," JÖBG, viii (1959),
126-127.
47. See Pappadopoulos, Theodore (36), p. 23.
NOTES—CHAPTER 3 283
48. Stephanos Xanthoudidis, Ή ενετοκρατία εν Κρήτη και ol κατά των
Ενετών αγώνες των Κρητών [Venetian Rule in Crete and the Struggles of
the Cretans against the Venetians] (Athens, 1939), pp. 37-43. Cf. also Freddy
Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge (Paris, 1959), pp. 97-99.
49. και ή βάτος από πέρα
ήπλωσεν κ' έπιασε ν τόπον
το λεγόμενον Σκουτάριν
έχων ρόδον λασκαράτον
με τ' άρμένικον άκάνθιν.
["And the bramble from afar spread and pressed upon the place called
Scutari, having a scarlet rose and Armenian thorn/*] In August Heisenberg,
"Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Burmherzige. Eine mittelgriechische Legende
[Emperor Johannes Batatzes the Charitable. A Middle-Greek Legend]/' BZ,
xiv (1905), 176; see also Cyril Mango, "The Legend of Leo the Wise,"
Zbornik Radova (Recueil de travaux of the Institute of Byzantine Studies of
Belgrade), LXV (1960), no. 6, 66-67.
50. Mango, "The Legend of Leo" (49), pp. 71-72.
51. Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Batatzes" (49), p. 160.
52. See Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, "La Politique" (42), p. 66.
53. Only Jean Pappadopoulos, in various parts of his monograph Theodore
(36), speaks about the cultivation of Greek studies in Nicaea and Theodore
1Гѕ love of antiquity. See Nicetas Choniates, Ρωμαϊκή Ιστορία [Roman His­
tory], ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1835), p. 794: "και Λαρίσης αυτής
έπιβήναι και δι' Ελλάδος έλάσαι και χειρώσασθαι τήν τοΰ Πέλοπος [to attack
Larissa itself and to march through Greece and seize the Péloponnèse]." Cf.
p. 860: "εν 'Ακτίω, δ εστίν ή καθ' Ελλάδα Νικόπολις [in Actium, which the
Greeks call Nikopolis]." See also Spyridon Lambros, Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου τά
σωζόμενα (2:47) (Athens, 1879), I - I I , passim.
54. See Ioannis Sakellion, " 'Ανέκδοτος επιστολή του αύτοκράτορος Ιωάννου
Δούκα Βατάτση προς τον πάπαν Γρηγόριον, ανευρεθείσα εν Π ά τ μ ω [An
Unpublished Letter from the Emperor Ioannis Ducas Vatatzes to Pope
Gregory, Discovered in Patmos]," 'Αθήναιον, ι (1872), 369-378 (wrongly
numbered).
55. Pappadopoulos, Théodore (36), p. 13.
56. Nicola Festa, Theodoři Ducae Lascaris epistulae CCXVII [217 Letters
of Theodore Ducas Lascaris] (Florence, 1898), pp. 165, 176: "οπόταν δέ ό
πανιερώτατος μητροπολίτης Σάρδεων εκ της Ευρώπης έπανέλθη προς το
έλληνικόν [when the most reverend metropolite of Sardes comes from
Europe to Greece]." See his letter to Phocas, the metropolitan of Sardes: "Συ
δέ ποτ' civ εκ της Ευρώπης άνέλθης εις τήν Ελλάδα* ποτ' αν δέ και τήν
Θρφίην διελθών τόν Έλλήσποντον διαπεράσης και τήν εσω Ά σ ί α ν κατίδης ;
[And when will you come to Greece from Europe, and when, passing through
Thrace and crossing the Hellespont, will you look upon Asia on the opposite
side?]"
57. On the extent of Theodore IFs state, see Pappadopoulos, Theodore
(36), pp. 56-57.
284 NOTES—CHAPTER 3

58. Festa, Theodoři (56), pp. 58, 62-63, 252-253: "προς την Φιλίππου
κεκατηντήκαμεν και γήν εθεασάμεθα, άριστε, τήν 'Αλεξάνδρου ποτέ σκυλευο-
μένην και παιζομένην παρά Βουλγάρων όλιγοστών ασθενών [we came to the
land of Philip and Alexander and looked upon it, О noblest, that which
was ravished from very few and powerless Bulgarians]," and p. 268.
59. Ibid., p. 107. For some literary reflections on his letter to George Acro-
politis, see Sophie Antoniadis, "Sur une lettre de Theodore II Lascaris," Hell,
contemp., 1954, pp. 356-361.
60. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), vu, 507, 535-536.
61. For details, see Pappadopoulos, Théodore (36), pp. 85-89. For Theo-
dore 1Гѕ avowal, see Festa, Theodoři (56), p. 272.
62. For extracts from Theodore IFs praise, see Pappadopoulos, Theodore
(36), p. 86. On the question of the reconciliation between classical learning
and Christian theology, see Hunger, "Von Wissenschafť , (46), pp. 136-138.
Theodore's encomium was published by Ludwig Bachmann in Theodoři Ducae
Lascaris imperatoris in laudem Nicaeae urbis oratio [The Emperor Theodore
Ducas Lascaris' Speech in Praise of the City of Nicaea] (Rostock, 1847).
63. See Hunger, "Von Wissenschaft" (46), p. 137, where the relevant ex­
tracts will be found.
64. See Johannes Dräseke, "Theodoros Lascaris," BZ, ш (1894), 500.
65. Festa, Theodoři (56), p. 8.
66. Ibid., pp. 201-211, for his letters to Pope Alexander IV and the car­
dinals Ricardo, Octaviano, and Peter the Capuzzo.
67. Ibid., p. 52, for his letter to his teacher, Blemmydes.
68. See Pappadopoulos, Theodore (36), pp. 79-89, and Festa, Theodoři
(56), p. 58.
69. George Pachymeres, Συγγραφικά! ίστορίαι [Histories], ed. Immanuel
Bekker (Bonn, 1835), ι, 37-38. Cf. pp. 24, 33; and George Acropolitis, Opera,
ed. August Heisenberg (Leipzig, 1903), i, 123-124; and Pappadopoulos,
Theodore ( 3 6 ) , pp. 79, 81.
70. See Ioannis K. Voyatzidis, " Ή Μεγάλη Ι δ έ α [The Great Idea],"
Hell, contemp., commemorative volumes, 1453-1953 (Athens, 1953), pp.
307 ff.; and his older study, " Ή αρχή και ή εξέλιξις της Μεγάλης Ι δ έ α ς
[The Origin and Evolution of the Great Idea]," HME, 1923, pp. 161-171.
In connection with the double-headed eagle, see Giuseppe Gerola, "L'Aquila
bizantina imperiale a due teste [The Byzantine Imperial Eagle with Two
Heads]," Felix Ravenna, 1943, fase, i, pp. 7-36, where the early bibliography
will also be found.
71. After a while, the liberated part of the Péloponnèse with its capital at
Mistra became an important center of Greek resistance against the Frankish
conquerors and a bright beacon of civilization. The Church of Sts. Theodore
was built there between 1290 and 1295 (see Anastasios Orlandos, "Δανιήλ
ό πρώτος κτίτωρ των 'Αγ. Θεοδώρων του Μυστρά [Daniel, the First Founder
of the Church of Sts. Theodore of Mistra]," Ε Ε Β Σ , xn [1936], 443-448).
In 1291-1292 the Church of St. Demetrios was built by Nicephoros Mos-
chopoulos, Metropolitan of Lacedemonia (see Manoussos Manoussacas, " Ή
NOTES—CHAPTER 3 285

χρονολογία τής κτιτορικής επιγραφής του 'Αγ. Δημητρίου του Μυστρά [The
Date of the Dedicatory Inscription of the Church of Saint Demetrios of Mistra],"
ΔΧΑΕ, iv, 1 [1959], 72-79). While in Mistra at the end of the thirteenth
century and the beginning of the fourteenth century, this latter Church hiër-
arch and scholar, Metropolitan of Lacedemonia and πρόεδρος of Crete, also
made artistic copies of ancient Greek and Christian manuscripts or commis­
sioned their copying by others. His annotated codices, which have survived
to this day, bear witness to the richness of his own library (Manoussacas,
"Νικηφόρου Μοσχοπούλου επιγράμματα σε χειρόγραφα τής βιβλιοθήκης του
[The Epigrams of Nicephoros Moschopoulos in the Manuscripts of His Li­
brary]," Ελληνικά, xv [1957], 232-246). In 1310 the Church of Panagia
Hodegetria ('Αφεντικού) was also built (see Manolis Chatzidakis, Μυστράς
[Athens, 1948], p. 15).
72. See Thiriet, La Romanie (48), pp. 145-146, for the relevant bibliogra­
phy.
73. Ibid., pp. 152-153. For details, see Stephanos Xanthoudidis, Ή ενετο­
κρατία εν Κρήτη (48), pp. 45-74.
74. Ibid., pp. 134, 149-150, 152. Of course, Venice relinquished her plans
to re-establish the Latin control of the Near East only after a long time (see
pp. 155 ff.).
75. See Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαι ίστορίαι (69), и, 209: "ους Κρήτηθεν
προσχωρήσαντας βασιλεΐ ώς μή καταδεχομένους τήν εκ των 'Ιταλών έπικρά-
τειαν [who, going over to the king, from Crete, as if not accepting the dominion
of the Italians]." Regarding their leader, George Chortatzes, see pp. 221 ff.
76. See Karl Hopf, Griechenland im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (1:51)
(Leipzig, 1867-1868), i, 464; and Thiriet, La Romanie (48), p. 161. On
Sañudo, see the article by Giovanni B. Picotti, "Sañudo, Marin, il vecchio,"
in Enciclopedia italiana, xxx (Rome, 1936), 801-802.
77. See Steven Runeiman, "Byzantine and Hellene in the Fourteenth Cen-
tury," Τόμος Κωνσταντίνου 'Αρμενοπούλου επί τη έξακοσιετηρίδι τής Έ ξ α -
βίβλου αυτού, vi (Thessalonica, 1952) ( = Νομ. Σχ. Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσα­
λονικιάς, επιστημονική επετηρίς, τόμος ς ' ) , 29; and Tafrali, Thessalonique
(7), p. 157. Since he meant Lesbos when he wrote to Manuel Chrysoloras in
1404, Manuel Calecas used the word Hellas with its present-day connotation
(Raymond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas [Rome, 1950], p.
300). Cf. Kilian Lechner, Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild der Byzantiner
(2:4) (Munich, 1955), pp. 64-72.
78. See Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican
City, 1956), ι, 3, 12, 20, 96, 100, 115; и (1960), 56, 57, 62, 66 if., passim.
79. Giovanni Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele
Caleca e Theodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e
della letteratura bizantina del secolo ХГѴ [Notes concerning Procorus, Deme­
trius Kydones, Manuel Calecas, Theodore Meliteniota, and Other Remarks on
the History of Byzantine Theology and Literature in the Fourteenth Century]
(Vatican City, 1931), p. 365: "Οι γαρ ημέτεροι πρότερον μεν τής παλαιάς
διαιρέσεως εϊχοντο καί πάντας ανθρώπους εις 'Έλληνας και βαρβάρους
286 NOTES—CHAPTER 3

διχοτόμου ντε ς το παρ' αυτούς παν άνόητον ωοντο και σκαιόν, όνων ή βοών
τους λοιπούς ουδαμη βελτίους ηγούμενοι [Since formerly our people held to
the ancient division and, separating all men into Hellenes and barbarians,
considered everything beyond themselves senseless and rude, thinking the rest
no better than donkeys or oxen]."
80. See, for example, Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La Conquête ( 7 ) , passim.
According to an old tradition, the word Γραικός was used in the Greek lan­
guage at that time (Vasily Vasilevsky, "Epirotica saeculi XIII [3:21]," Viz.
Vrem., in (1896), p. 252). See also Joseph Bryennios, Τα παραλειπόμενα
(2:22), ed. Thomas Mandakassis (Leipzig, 1784), in, 148, and passim. Cf.
Panagiotis Christou, Αι περιπέτειαι των έ-θνικών ονομάτων των Ελλήνων [The
Vicissitudes of the National Names of the Greeks] (Thessalonica, 1960), pp.
37-39.
81. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage ďoutremer et retour de Jérusalem
en France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433, éd.
Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, in Mémoires de l'Institut national des sciences et arts;
sciences morales et politiques, v (Paris, fructidor an XII), p. 569: (An-
drenoply) . . . la plus forte de toutes celles que le Turc possède dans la
Grèce [the strongest of all those which the Turk possesses in Greece]." See
Pero Tafur, Travels and Adventures, 1435-1439, tr. Malcolm Letts (New York-
London, 1926), p. 128.
82. See Giannis Tozis, " Ό ελληνικός κόσμος κατά τόν Ι Δ ' αΙώνα, δπως
τόν είδεν £νας Ισπανός περιηγητής [The Greek World in the Fourteenth Cen­
tury; How a Spanish Traveler Viewed It]," ΑΘΓΛΘ, xxu (1957), p. 150:
"ήρθα στή Μεσημβρία κι' από κει στή Βάρνα. Έδώ είναι ή αληθινή Ελλάδα
[I went to Mesembria, and from there to Varna. Here is the real Greece]."
83. Festa, Theodorí (56), p. 176. This use of Hellas was retained from the
time of the church historian, Evagrius, in the sixth century, which circum­
stance, as Tozis attempts to convince us, at least helps to explain the obscure
sentence, "οι "Αραβες . . . Άγχίαλον τε και τήν Έλλάδαν πάσαν [The Arabs
. . . Anchialos and all of Hellas]" (Tozis, " Ό Ελληνικός ( 8 2 ) , p. 150, n. 2 ) .
See also Constantine Amantos, "Παρατηρήσεις εις τήν μεσαιωνικήν γεω-
γραφίαν [Observations on Medieval Geography]," Ε Ε Β Σ , ι (1924), 42. Did
Theodore's love of Greece lead to its revival?
84. Chronicle of M orea, ed. John Schmitt (London, 1904), verse 794 ff.;
and ed. Peter P. Kalonaros (Athens, 1940), verse 794 ff.
85. See Nikolaos Tomadalcis, Ό 'Ιωσήφ Βρυέννιος και ή Κρήτη κατά τό
1400 [Joseph Bryennios and Crete around 1400] (Athens, 1947), pp. 73-74.
86. Karl Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes (Berlin, 1873), p. 143. See also
Michael Dendias, "Sur les rapports entre les Grecs et les Francs en Orient
après 1204," ΕΕΒΣ, XXIII (1953), p. 377. This study, as the author says
(p. 371), is extracted from the introduction to his unpublished monograph on
the Greek despotate of Epirus.
87. See Mavrophrydis, Εκλογή μνημείων (33), ι, 183-211; and Antoine
Gidel, Études sur L· littérature grecque moderne (Paris, 1866), pp. 63-64,
197-229.
NOTES—CHAPTER 4 287
88. See Dirk Hesseling, VAchilléide byzantine (Amsterdam, 1919), p. 15.
89. Constantine Sathas, "Le Roman d'Achille," AAEEG, XIII (1879); and
Paolo Stomeo, "Achilleide, poema bizantino anonimo," Studi salentini, Lecce-
Galatina, VII (1959), 156-157. Stomeo places its origins somewhere between
the twelfth century and the beginning of the fifteenth. See also Börje Knös,
L'Histoire de la littérature néogrecque (Stockholm-Göteborg-Uppsala, 1962),
pp. 133-137.
90. See Hesseling, VAchilléide (88), pp. 9, 11.
91. Paolo Stomeo, Osservazioni suli'Achilléide bizantina (Lecce-Galatina,
1958), pp. 5-6.
92. See Manoussos Manoussacas, "Les Romans byzantines de chevalerie et
l'état présent des études les concernant," REB, χ (1952), pp. 70-83; and
Emmanuel Kriaras, "Die zeitliche Einreihung des 'Phlorios und Platzia-Phlora'
Romans im Hinblick auf den Tmberios und Margarona' Roman [The Chrono­
logical Place of the 'Phlorios and Platzia-Phlora' Romance in regard to the
Imberios and Margarona Romance]," XIe Congrès international des études
byzantines, Munich, 1958, Akten (Munich, 1960), pp. 269-272. For an op­
posing view, see Hugo Schreiner, "Der älteste Imberiostext [The Oldest Im­
berios Text]," XI e Congrès international des études byzantines, Munich, 1958,
Akten (Munich, 1960), pp. 556-562. A more comprehensive analysis of the
novels and the various problems associated with them will be found in Knös,
L'Histoire (89), ι, 104 ff.
93. See Ioannis Romanos, Ιστορικά έ'ργα [Historical Works] (Corfu, 1959),
pp. 173-175, where the relevant bibliography will also be found.

Chapter 4
1. See Herbert Hunger's comments in "Von Wissenschaft und Kunst in der
frühen Palaiologenzeit" (3:46), JÖBG, VIII (1959), 139-144.
2. Ibid., pp. 145, 147. See Wilamowitz' comparison: "D.T. ist in der
Wahrheit eher als der erste moderne Tragiker-kritiker zu führen [D.T. is,
indeed, to be considered rather the first modern tragedian-critic]."
3. See Basileios Laourdas, "Βυζαντινά και μεταβυζαντινά εγκώμια εις τόν
' Ά γ . Δημήτριον [Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Encomia of St. Demetrius],"
Μακεδόνικα, iv (1955-1960), 84 ff., 142-143.
4. See Poly chroniš Enepekides, "Der Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos
Kabasilas [The Correspondence of the Mystic Nicholas Kavasilas]," BZ, XLVI
(1953), 31.
5. See Basileios Laourdas, Ή κλασσική φιλολογία εις τήν Θεσσαλονίκην
κατά τόν δέκατον τέταρτον αιώνα [Classical Philology in Thessalonica in the
Fourteenth Century] (Thessalonica, 1960), 13-15, where there is also a special
bibliography.
6. Hunger, "Von Wissenschaft" (3:46), pp. 148-149, 150-151.
7. For the date of his birth, his life, and his education, see Herbert Hunger,
"Theodoros Metochites als Vorläufer des Humanismus in Byzanz [Theodore
Metochites as the Forerunner of Humanism in Byzantium]," BZ, XLV (1952),
4-19. See also Hans-Georg Beck, Theodoros Metochites (Munich, 1952), 1 ff.
288 NOTES—CHAPTER 4

8. Beck, Theodoros ( 7 ) , pp. 92-95, 100-114, especially p. 116: "das ererbte,

klassische byzantinische Weltbild ist bei Metochites in eine deutlich wahr­
nehmbare Krise getreten [the inherited, classical Byzantine world-outlook has
in Metochites clearly come to a noticeable crisis]"; and Herbert Hunger, "Der
Ηθικός des Theodoros Metochites [The 'Ethic' of Theodore Metochites],"
IXe Congres international des études byzantines, Thessalonica, 1953, Π ε ­
πραγμένα (Athens, 1955-1958), m, 157.
9. See S. Radojčié, "Die Entstehung des Paläologenstils in der Malerei
[The Origin of the Palaeologian Style in Painting]," in the Korreferate of the
XI e Congrès international des études byzantines (Munich, 1958), pp. 29 ff.
and 32.
10. See George Sotiriou, "Die byzantinische Malerei des XIV. Jahrhunderts
in Griechenland [Byzantine Painting of the Fourteenth Century in Greece],"
Ελληνικά, ι (1928), 95-117. A concise exposition of the subject and various
associated problems appear in Otto Demus, Die Entstehung des Paläologenstih
in der Malerei [The Origin of the Palaeologian Style in Painting] (Munich,
1958), also the relevant bibliography.
11. Demus, Die Entstehung (10), p. 59.
12. Ibid., p. 54. Ioannis K. Voyatzidis expressed the opinion that the
Greek racial consciousness, that is, the sense of Greek nationality, contributed
to the Renaissance ("To ιστορικόν φαινόμενον 'ή άνάκτησις του απολεσθέντος*
[The Historical Phenomenon 'the Recovery of the Lost']," Π Α Α , XXXIII
[1958], 372).
13. Constantine Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23) (Venice, 1872-
1874), ι, 151, 152.
14. Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Συμβολή στην ιστορία της Θεσσαλονίκης επί
Βενετοκρατίας (1423-1430) [A Contribution to the History of Thessalonica
under Venetian Rule (1423-1430)]," in Τόμος 'Αρμενοπούλου (Thessalonica,
1952), pp. 128-130. This article contains the relevant bibliography.
15. See Oreste Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle (Paris, 1913),
pp. 157-161, 165-168.
16. See Andreas Xyngopoulos, "Die Entstehung des Paläologenstils in der
Malerie [The Origin of the Palaeologian Style in Painting]," XI e Congrès in­
ternational des études byzantines, Korreferate (Munich, 1958), p. 34.
17. See Andreas Xyngopoulos, Thessalonique et L· peinture macédonienne
(Athens, 1965); and George I. Theocharidis, " Ό βυζαντινός ζωγράφος
Καλλιέργης [The Byzantine painter Kallierges]," Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 5 4 1 -
543. For Yugoslavian points of view, see the publication, D. Boskovic-K.
Tomorski, "L'Architecture médiévale dOchrid," Recueil de Travaux, Edition
spéciale du Musée national dOchrid, publiée de l'occasion du Xe anniversaire
de le fondation du Musée et dédiée au XII e Congres internationale des études
byzantines (Ochrida, 1961), pp. 71-100, 101-148; and Vojislav Djurié, Icônes
de Yougoslavie (Belgrade, 1961), pp. 23-24, 27, 34, 36, which also contains
the relevant Slav bibliography. Cf. Demus, Die Entstehung (10), p. 51; and
Xyngopoulos, "Nouveau témoignages de l'activité des peintres macédoniens
NOTES—CHAPTER 4 289

au Mont-Athos [New Evidence of the Activity of Macedonian Painters at

Mount Athos]," BZ, LII (1959), 61-67.
18. See Bariša Kreide, Dubrovnik (Ragusę) et le Levant au moyen âge
(Paris, 1961), pp. 128, 137, 150.
19. See Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle (15), p. 156; and
Theodore Metochites' " Π ρεσβευτικόν [The Embassy]," in Sathas, Μεσαιωνική
βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 163-164.
20. Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican City,
1956), и, 60.
21. Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle (15), pp. 150, n. 1, 157.
22. See Constantine Triantaphyllopoulos, Ή Έξάβιβλος του 'Αρμενοπούλου
και ή νομική σκέψις εν Θεσσαλονίκη κατά τον δέκατον τέταρτον αιώνα
[Armenopoulos' Hexabibios and Thessalonian Legal Thought in the Fourteenth
Century] (Thessalonica, 1960).
23. Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle (15), pp. 149-152, 1 6 1 -
165.
24. See S. Salaville, "Quelques Précisions sur la biographie de Nicolas
Cabasilas," IX e International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thessalonica,
1953, Πεπραγμένα (Athens, 1955-1958), m, 215-226.
25. See the lecture by Laourdas, Ή κλασσική φιλολογία ( 5 ) , pp. 6, 8.
26. See Alexander Solov'ev, "L'Oeuvre juridique de Mathieu Blastarès,"
Studi bizantini e neoellenici, ν (1939), 698-707; and "Der Einfluss des byzan­
tinischen Rechts auf die Völker Osteuropas [The Influence of Byzantine Law
on the Peoples of East Europe]," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechts­
geschichte, LXXVI (1959), Romantische Abteilung, 432-479.
27. Raymond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (Rome, 1950),
p. 233.
28. See Rodolphe Guilland, "Le Traité inédit 'Sur l'usure' de Nicolas Caba-
silas [The Unpublished Treatise O n Usury' by Nicholas Kavasilas]," in ΕΙς
μνήμην Σπυρίδωνος Λάμπρου (Athens, 1935), pp. 269-277, which also refers
to the works of other contemporary scholars on the bad social situation.
29. Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle (15), pp. 157-161.
30. Loenertz, Démétrius Су dones (20), ι, 23. See pp. 14-20, where the
influence of ancient Greek writers is obvious.
31. See Peter Charanis, "On the Social Structure and Economic Organiza­
tion of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth Century and Later," Byz.-Sl.,
хи (1951), 97; and George Ostrogorsky, Tour Vhistoire de la féodalité byzan­
tine (Brussels, 1954), pp. 9, 16, 26 ff.
32. Β. Τ. Gorianov, "Крупное феодальное землевладение в Византии в
ХІІІ-ХѴ вв. [Great Feudal Landownership in Byzantium from the Thirteenth
to the Fifteenth Centuries]," Viz. Vrem., x (1956), 116. The main Russian
works (A. P. Každan, Zinaida Vladimirova Udalcova, et al.) and those of
Bulgarian historians (Dimitar Angelov, et al) may be found in the journals
Viz. Vrem. and Istoriceski Pregled.
33. Gorianov, "Great Feudal Landownership" (32), p. 116.
290 NOTES—CHAPTER 4

34. Nicetas Chômâtes, Χρονική διήγησις (3:9), ed. Immanuel Bekker

(Bonn, 1835), pp. 272-274.
35. See Franz Dölger, "Politische und geistige Strömungen im sterbendem
Byzanz [Political and Intellectual Currents in Declining Byzantium]," JÖBG,
πι (1954), 5 ff.; and his "Der Feudalismus in Byzanz," Vorträge und For­
schungen, ν (1960), 186, 191-192.
36. See E. Frances, "La Féodalité et les villes byzantines au XIII e et au
XIV e siècles," Byz.-Sl., xvi (1955), 85-86, 87: "la ville apparaît comme le
centre nécessaire qui polarise toute la vie économique de la féodalité dans la
région." For an interpretation of Balkan feudalism in Marxist terms, see Dimitar
Angelov, "Zur Frage des Feudalismus auf dem Balkan im XIII, bis zum XIV.
Jahrhundert [On the Question of Feudalism in the Balkans in the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Centuries]," Études historiques à ΐoccasion du XIe Congrès
international des sciences historiques, Stockholm, 1960 (Sofia, 1960), pp. 107-
131.
37. See Germaine Rouillard, La Vie rurale dans Vempire byzantin (Paris,
1953), p . 147: "Plus d'un grand propriétaire a bien pu adopter les modes
occidentales déjà en vogue à la cour des Comnènes, mais les paysans qui
cultivent ses terres ou celles de quelque grand seigneur latin n'en ont point
été touchés. Bien plus, ce sont au contraire les conquérants qui adoptent les
termes même usités par les Byzantines à propos de l'organisation agraire [More
than one great overlord could adopt the Western manners already in fashion
at the court of the Comneni, but the peasants who tilled their lands or those
of some great Latin lord were not touched by them. On the contrary, the
conquerors adopted the same terms used by the Byzantines in the matter of
agrarian organization]." Cf. Panagiotis Zepos, "To δίκαιον εις τό Χρονικόν
του Μορέως [Law in the Chronicle of Morea]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XVIII (1948), 212 ff.
See also the observations of Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen
âge (Paris, 1959), pp. 110-113.
38. See John Danstrup, "The State and Landed Property to с. 1250,"
Classica et Mediaevalia, VIII (1946), 229.
39. See Charanis, "On the Social Structure" ( 3 1 ) , pp. 94 ff., 105 ff.; Ostro-
gorsky, Pour l'histoire ( 3 1 ) , pp. 93 ff.; and Rouillard, La Vie rurale ( 3 7 ) ,
pp. 155-156.
40. George Ostrogorsky, "Mémoires et documents pour l'histoire de Гіт-
munité à Byzance [Reports and Documents on the History of the Exemption
at Byzantium]," Byzantion, XXVIII (1958), 205 ff.
41. Charanis, "On the Social Structure" (31), p. 108.
42. See Alexander Diomedis, Βυζαντινοί μελέται [Byzantine Studies] (Ath­
ens, 1951), i, 88-102.
43. Rouillard, La Vie rurale ( 3 7 ) , p. 170. This writer considers a certain
Theodore Karavaş, vineyard-owner and proprietor in Macedonia, as a charac­
teristic representative of this rural middle class.
44. See Chronicle of Aşik paşa Zade, tr. Richard Kreutel (Vienna, (1959),
pp. 39, 40.
NOTES—CHAPTER 4 291
45. See Charanis, "On the Social Structure" (31), p. 131, and pp. 132-133
for this writer's views on the differences between the old and new classes of
military landowners.
46. The following are interesting studies of the situation of tenants: Franz
Dölger, Sechs byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhunderts für das Athoskloster
Iberon [Six Byzantine Records of the Fourteenth Century for the Athos-mon-
astery of Iberon] (Munich, 1949). On the difficulty of defining the position
of these tenants, see Charanis, "On the Social Structure" (31), pp. 134 ff. For
Dolger's interpretation of their position, see his Ein Fall slavischer Einsiedlung
im Hinterland von Thessaloniki im 10. Jahrhundert [The Case of a Slavic Set­
tlement in the Hinterland of Thessalonica in the Tenth Century] (Munich,
1952), p. 27. The latter may be contrasted with the views of George Ostro-
gorsky, Quelques Problèmes d'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine [Certain
Problems concerning the History of the Byzantine Peasantry] (Brussels, 1956),
which are summarized on pp. 66-74.
47. See Rouillard, La Vie rurale (37), pp. 156-157, 158, 159-160, 163 ff.;
Charanis, "On the Social Structure" (31), pp. 119 ff., 122-126, and "The
Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire," DOP, iv (1948),
97-118.
48. See Charanis, "The Monastic Properties" (47), pp. 108 ff.
49. For an interpretation of the condition, see Denis Zakythinos, Le Despotat
grec de Morée (Athens, 1953), π, 185-187.
50. See Constantine G. Zisiou, " Έπιγραφαί χριστιανικών χρόνων της
Ελλάδος. Α ' Λακεδαίμονος [Greek Inscriptions of the Christian Period. 1.
From Sparta]," Βυζαντίς, ι (1909), 433, 435.
51. See Nikos Bees, "Σερβικά και βυζαντιακά γράμματα Μετεώρου [Ser­
bian and Byzantine Letters of Meteorön]," Βυζαντίς, и (1911-1912), 59-62.
52. Jean Meyendorff, Introduction à l'étude de Grégoire Ρ alarnas (Paris,
1959), pp. 45 ff.; see Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im
byzantinischen Reich [The Church and Theological Literature in the Byzantine
Empire] (Munich, 1959), pp. 712 ff.; Giuseppe Schirò, Ό Βαρλαάμ και ή
φιλολογία εις τήν Θεσσαλονίκη ν κατά τόν δέκατον τέταρτον αιώνα [Barlaam
and Philosophy in Thessalonica in the Fourteenth Century] (Thessalonica,
1959); the studies relating to Hesychast teaching in Πανηγυρικός τόμος
εορτασμού της εξακοσιοστής επετείου του θανάτου του 'Αγ. Γρηγορίου
Παλαμά, αρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης, 1359-1959 [Festive Volume for the
Celebration of the Six Hundredth Anniversary of the Death of St. Gregory
Ρabîmas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, 1359-1959] (Thessalonica, I 9 6 0 ) ; and
the recently published texts of Gregory Palamas, ed. Panagiotis Christou (vol.
i, Thessalonica, 1962; vol. и, Thessalonica, 1966).
53. Schirò, Ό Βαρλαάμ (52), p. 11.
54. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydones (20), n, 51. Cf. Giuseppe Cammelli,
Demetrius Cydonès, correspondance (Paris, 1930), p. 116.
55. See Konrad Onasch, "Renaissance und Vorreformation in der byzan-
tinischen-slavischen Orthodoxie [Renaissance and Pre-Reformation in Byzan-
292 NOTES—CHAPTER 5

tine-Slavic Orthodoxy]," Berliner byzantinischen Arbeiten, v (1957), part 9,

288-302; and Antonios Tachiaos, 'Επιδράσεις του ήσυχασμοΰ εις τήν εκκλησι-
αστικήν πολιτικήν εν Ρωσία, 1328-1406 [The Effects of Hesychasm on Church
Policy in Russia, 1328-1406] (Thessalonica, 1962). Regarding the activity of
the painter Theophanes in Russia in the second half of the fourteenth century,
see V. N. Lazarev, "Этюды о Феофане Греке [Studies on Theophanes the
Greek]," Viz. Vrem., VII (1953), 244-258, VIII (1956), 143-165, ix (1956),
193-210.
56. See Andreas Xyngopoulos, "L'Activité des peintres macédoniens," BZ,
LII (1959), 61-67.
57. See Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle ( 1 5 ) , pp. 25ff.;and
Freddy Thiriet, "Les Vénitiens à Thessalonique dans la première moitié du
XIV e siècle," Byzantion, xx (1952), 323-332. There is some interesting infor­
mation on the attitude of the Zealots and the social character of the movement
in Giuseppe Cammelli, "Demetrii Cydonii orationes tres, adhuc ineditae [Three
Orations by Demetrius Kydones, Hitherto Unpublished]," BNJ, ш (1922),
70 ff.; and Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès ( 2 0 ) , ι, 4, 5. The most recent studies
are Ernst Werner, "Народная ересь или движение за социально-политиче­
ские реформы? Проблемы революционного движения в Солуни в 1 3 4 2 -
1349 гг. [National Absurdity or Agitation for Sociopolitical Reforms? Prob­
lems of the Revolutionary Movement in Thessalonica, 1342-1349]," Viz. Vrem.,
XVII (1960), 155-200; and V. Hrochová, "La Revoke des Zélotes à Salonique
et les communes italiennes," Byz.-Sl., XXII (1961), 1-15.
58. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès ( 2 0 ) , i, 110.
59. See the judgment of the Arab Muhammed b. Mängli, in the second half
of the fourteenth century: "Kampfen sie bloss um des reinen Siegens und
Uberwindens Willen, nicht um einen Glauben oder eine Religion zu verteidi­
gen, als ob sie ihre Lust hätten am Blutvergiessen und Zerstören . . . wenn
sie aber in gesittete Länder verpflanzt werden und die muhammedanische
Religion annehmen, wird ihre Lebensführung gut und ihre Natur bessert sich
[They fight merely for the desire of overpowering and of victory, not in order
to defend a belief or a religion—as if they had a lust for bloodshed and de­
struction . . . but when they are transplanted into civilized lands and take
up the Mohammedan religion, their manner of living becomes good and their
nature improves]." (See H. Ritter, "Werke über Taktik und Kriegswesen
[Works on Tactics and Military Affairs]," Der İslam, XVIII [1929], 147.) On
the Turkish method of fighting, see also Ibn Khaldûn, The Muquaddimah
(London, 1958), и, 8 1 .

Chapter 5
1. See Ibrahim Kafesoğlu, "Doğu Anadoluyailk Selçuklu akini (1015-1021)
ve tarihî ehemmieyti [The First Invasion of the Seljuks in Eastern Asia Minor
(1015-1021) and Its Historical Importance]" in Fuad Köprülü Armağani
(Istanbul, 1953), pp. 259-274.
2. Cf. Claude Cahen, "La Première Pénétration turque en Asie Mineure,"
Byzantion, XVIII (1948), 5-67.
NOTES—CHAPTER 5 293

3. See the brief study by J. Laurent, "Byzance et les Turcs Seldjoucides en

Asie Mineure. Leurs Traités antérieurs à Alexis Comnène," Βυζαντίς, π (1911-
1912), 101-126.
4. See Sir John Maundeville, The Voiage and Travaile of Sir J. Maundeville,
Which Treateth of the Way to Hierusalem (London, 1887), p. 20.
5. See Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana (1:43) (Vienna, 1860-1887), vol. ι.
6. See Heinrich Geizer, Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte
der Notitiae Episcopatuum; ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Kirchen- und Ver­
waltungsgeschichte [Unprinted and Insufficiently Publicized Texts of the Noti­
tiae Episcopatuum; a Contribution to Byzantine Church- and Administrative
History], Abhandlungen der königlichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissen­
schaften, 1. Klasse, Band XXI, Abt. 3 (Munich, 1900), 613 ff.; and Manuel
Gedeon, Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες (xxxvi, 1884) [Patriarchal Tables (xxxvi,
1884)] (Constantinople, 1885-1890), passim.
7. Albert Wächter, Der Verfall des Griechentums in Kleinasien im XIV.
Jahrhundert [The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor in the Fourteenth Cen­
tury] (Leipzig, 1903), pp. 38-39, 60.
8. Georgius Pachymeres, Συγγραφικά! ίστορίαι (3:69), ed. Immanuel
Bekker (Bonn, 1835), i, 310-311.
9. Ibid., 502.
10. Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken [The Old
Ottoman Anonymous Chronicles] (Leipzig, 1925), и, 16.
11. See George Georgiadis-Arnakis, " Ή περιήγησις του ϊμπν Μπατούτα
ανά τήν Μ. 'Ασίαν καί ή κατάστασις των ελληνικών καί τουρκικών πλη­
θυσμών κατά τόν Ι Δ ' αΙώνα [The Tour of Ibn Batouta through Asia Minor
and the Condition of the Hellenic and Turkish Populations in the Fourteenth
Century]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XXII (1952), 135-149. On the cities of Bithynia during
the period of Turkish domination, see Johannes Solch, "Historisch-geographi­
sche Studien über bithynische Siedlungen [Historical and Geographic Studies
of Bithynian Settlements], BNJ, ι (1920), 296 ff.
12. See Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage ďoutremer et retour de Jéru­
salem en France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et
1433, éd. Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, in Mémoires de VInstitut national des
sciences et arts; sciences morales et politiques, v (Paris, fructidor an X I I ) ,
pp. 520-521, 526; and Nompar II, Seigneur de Caumont, Voyage d'outremer
en Jhérusalem Van 1418 (Paris, 1858), p. 45.
13. Wächter, Der Verfall ( 7 ) , pp. 9-10. The district of Neocaesarea fared
better (p. 9 ) . Cf. Pericles Triantaphyllidis, Οι φυγάδες [The Fugitives], a
play about the Pontus, in five acts with lengthy prologues (Athens, 1870),
pp. 51-52.
14. On this colonization, see Máximos Maravelakis and Apostólos Vacalo-
poulos, Αι προσφυγικοί εγκαταστάσεις εν τη περιοχή Θεσσαλονίκης (1:89)
(Thessalonica, 1953), p. 30; and Anastasios S. Alektoridis, "Λεξιλόγιον του
εν Φερτακαίνοις της Καππαδοκίας γλωσσικού Ιδιώματος [Vocabulary of the
294 NOTES—CHAPTER 5

Dialect spoken in Phertakaina in Cappadocia]," ΔΙΕΕ, ι (1883-1884), 4 8 2 -

483, 483-484, 485.
15. Karl Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes (Berlin, 1873), p. 143. See also
Jacques Gassot, Le Discours du voyage de Venise à Constantinople (Paris,
1550), p. 18b.
16. See Wächter, Der Verfall ( 7 ) , p. 29.
17. See Hopf, Chroniques (15), p. 143: "Anco l'Armenia che si chiamava
anticamente Ciucia, è abitata da Greci [Armenia also, which was formerly
known as Cilicia, was inhabited by Greeks]."
18. See Wächter, Der Verfall ( 7 ) , pp. 20 ff., passim.
19. Regarding the Turkish-speaking population of Pontoherakleia (Zon-
gouldak), for instance, see Panagiotis Makris, Ηράκλεια του Πόντου [Herak-
leia on the Pontus] (Athens, 1903), p. 33; and Wächter, Der Verfall ( 7 ) ,
p. 26.
20. See Karl Dieterich, Das Griechentum Kleinasiens [The Hellenism of
Asia Minor] (Leipzig, 1915), pp. 10-12, which contains the relevant bibli­
ography. On the Armenian presence, see Sawas Ioannidis, Ιστορία και
στατιστική Τραπεζοΰντος και της περί ταύτην χώρας ώς και τά περί της
ενταύθα ελληνικής γλώσσης [The History and Statistics of Trebizond and of
the Region around It; and on the Greek Language of the Area] (Constanti­
nople, 1870), p. 134; and Speros Vryonis, "Byzantium: the Social Basis of
Decline in the Eleventh Century," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, п
(1959), 169 ff.
21. See Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαι ίστορίαι (3:69), ι, 16 ff.
22. Pierre Belon, Les Observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses mé­
morables, trouvées en Grèce (Paris, 1553), p. 164a.
23. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Ιστορικές παραδόσεις των Ελλήνων
προσφύγων του Σογιούτ [Historical Traditions of the Greek Refugees of
Sogut]," in Προσφορά εις Στιλπωνα Κυριακίδην (Thessabnica, 1953), pp.
78 ff., which contains the relevant bibliography.
24. See Theodor Nöldeke, "Auszüge aus Nešrťs Geschichte des osmanischen
Hauses [Extracts from Nesrťs History of the Ottoman House]," ZDMG, XIII
(1859), 192-193. On the Domanits villages and the beauty of the district, see
Andreas Mordtmann, Anatolien, Skizzen und Reisebriefe aus Kleinasien ( 1850-
1859) [Anatolia; Sketches and Travel Correspondence from Asia Minor (1850-
1859)] (Hannover, 1925), p. 61.
25. See Franz Taeschner, "Anatolische Forschungen [Anatolian Researches],"
ZDMG, n. F. VII (1928), 93.
26. On the part played by the ghazis in Turkish history, see Paul Wittek,
"Deux Chapitres de l'histoire des Turcs de Roum," Byzantion, xi (1936), 3 0 2 -
319, and his The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1938), pp. 14, 17-
20, 31-32, 45.
27. On the date of Orchan's ascent to the throne, see Ismail Hakki
Uzunçarşılı, "Gazi Orhan begin hükümdar olduğu tarih ve ilk sikkesi [When
Gazi Orchan Bey Became Ruler and His First Coin]," Belleten, ix (1945),
207-211. On the date of Orchan's death, see Peter Charanis, "Les Βραχέα
NOTES—CHAPTER 5 295

χρονικά comme source historique [The Short Chronicles as a Historical

Source]," Byzantion, XIII (1938), 349-351.
28. See Julian Palmer, "The Origin of the Janissaries," Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library, xxv (1953), 453-454. On the distribution of fiefs by Orchan,
see Giese, Die Altomanischen (10), и, 21-22.
29. See Sir Hamilton Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the
West (London-New York-Toronto, 1951), i, part 1, 46, 48 ff., which contains
the relevant bibliography.
30. See George Georgiadis-Arnakis, Οι πρώτοι 'Οθωμανοί [The First Otto­
mans] (Athens, 1947), pp. 99 ff.
31. Nicephoros Gregoras, Ρωμαϊκή ιστορία (3:44), ed. Ludwig Schopen,
ι, 458.
32. Ρ. Α. Vaphiadis, Τό Ρύσιον ('Αρέτσου) [The Village of Rysion
(Aretsou)] (Athens, 1924), p. 9.
33. Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαι ίστορίαι (3:69), и, 318-319, 335-336.
34. Georgiadis-Arnakis, Οι πρώτοι 'Οθωμανοί (30), p. 99.
35. Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, 'Τρηγορίου Παλαμά επιστολή προς
Θεσσαλονικείς [A Letter of Gregorios Pålarnas to the Thessalonians]," N E ,
xvi (1922), 11-12. On the participation of the Christian governor of Harman-
kaya, Köse Michal, in the enterprises of Osman, see Chronicle Asık paşa Zade,
tr. Richard Kreutel (Vienna, 1959), pp. 31-46. According to a Turkish source
of 1467, Michal Bey possessed Harmankaya and its surrounding villages as
his property or fief (mülk) (see Halil inalcık, "Ottoman Methods of Con­
questa Studia islamica, и [1954], 121, fn. 1).
36. See examples in Halil inalcık, "Stefan Dusan'dan Osmanlı imparator­
luğunda XV asırda Rumeli' de hıristiyan sipahiler ve menşeleri [Christian Spahis
in Rumelia during the XVth Century from Stephan Dušan to the Ottoman
Empire: Their Origin]," in Fuad Köprülü Armağanı (Istanbul, 1953), pp.
211 б. See also Vacalopoulos, 'Ιστορικές παραδόσεις (23), pp. 85-87, and
contrast Stilpon Kyriakidis' opinion on the interpretation of the passage from
George Pachymeres mentioned by Vacalopoulos (Stilpon Kyriakidis, "Διόρ-
θωσις εις χωρίον του Παχυμέρους [Correction of a Passage in Pachymeres]/'
Ελληνικά, xiv [1955], 174-176.
37. See Chronicle Aşik paşa Zade (35), p. 46, which mentions Köse MichaFs
conversion to Islam at the time of Osman.
38. See Max Treu, Matthaios, Metropolit von Ephesos; ueber sein Leben
und seine Schriften [Matthaios, Metropolite of Ephesus; on His Life and
Writings] (Potsdam, 1901), pp. 53, 54, 55.
39. Theodor Seif, "Der Abschnitt über die Osmanen in Sükrülläh's per­
sischer Universalgeschichte [The Section on the Ottomans in Sükrülläh's Per­
sian Universal History]," MOG, π (1923-1925), 67, 83. See further: "Da
kam ihm in den Sinn, dass er die Ungläubigen jener Länder ebenfalls zum
Glauben rufen müsse. Wenn sie nicht annähmen, müsse es Kampf und Tötung
geben [Then it occurred to him that he must likewise call to belief the un-
believers of those lands. If they should not accept this, there must be war and
death]."
296 NOTES—CHAPTER 5

40. See the letter from the captured Gregory Palamas to the Thessalonians
in NE, xvi (1922), 12. This terror is certainly attested by the widespread
currency among them of a tradition that the Turks cut out the tongues of
those they conquered so that they would forget their language and their
religion. Cf. Nikolaos Politis, Μελέται περί του βίου και της γλώσσης του
ελληνικού λαοΰ, Παραδόσεις (2:6) (Athens, 1904), ι, 16. The same tradition
persisted in the district of Zichna in Macedonia (Natalis E. Petrovits,
"'Εξισλαμισμοί [Conversions to Islam]," Σερραϊκά χρονικά, и [1957], 163).
41. See Giese, Die Altosmanischen (10), и, 18-19, and p. 23 regarding the
memories in certain districts of the good government of Suleiman, the son
of Orchan: "Alle Ungläubigen in diesem Gebiete [Taraklıjenidschesi, Göjnük,
and Modřeni] sahen die Gerechtigkeit Süleman Paschas und wurden all
Muslime) [All the unbelievers in this area saw the righteousness of the pasha
Suleiman, and all became Moslems]."
42. See Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, "Osmanlı imperatorluğunda bir iskân ve kolo-
nizasyon metodu olarak vakıflar ve temlikler. I istilâ devirlerinin kolonizator
Türk dervişleri ve Zaviyeler [Use of Wakfs and Temliks in the Settlement and
Colonization of the Turkish Empire. I: Turkish Dervishes and Monasteries
as Colonizers during the Invasion Periods]," Vakıflar Dergisi, и (1942), 2 7 9 -
286; and the resume in the French section of this journal, pp. 59-65. For the
different meanings of the word ribat, see the article under this title by Fuad
Köprülü in the same journal, pp. 267-278.
43. See Seif, "Der Abschnitt" (39), p. 83; Basileios Delighiannis, "To εν
щ περιφέρεια Π ρούσης χωρίον Κουβούκλια [The Village of Kouvouklia in the
District of Prousa]," Μικρ. χρονικά, ι (1938), 291, fn. 1; and Vacalopoulos,
" Ι σ τ ο ρ ι κ έ ς Παραδόσεις" (23), pp. 80 ff. On crypto-Christianity among the
inhabitants of Nicaea, see pp. 89-90 of the present work.
44. Fuad Köprülü, Ahurie osservazioni intorno all* influenza della istituzioni
bizantine ѕипе istituzioni ottomane [Some Observations on the Influence of
Byzantine Institutions on Ottoman Institutions] (Rome, 1953). Köprülü sup­
ports the view that Ottoman institutions underwent no change as a result of
Byzantine influence, though an influence was previously discernible during the
Seljuk period (see especially pp. 135-140). Compare, however, the criticism
of Hans Kissling, in BZ, XLVIII (1955), 399-401, where he makes a number
of interesting observations of a general nature: "das Renegatentum, insonder­
heit das griechische Renegatentum, bei der Weiterentwicklung des osmani-
schen Staates eine entscheidende Rolle wohl auch in der besprochenen Hin­
sicht gespielt haben dürfte [the apostasy, and in particular the Greek apostasy,
during the further development of the Ottoman state, probably played a de­
cisive role also in this regard]" (p. 401). This opinion is now accepted by
modern Turkish historians, Enver Z. Karal, for example. See his study "La
Transformation de la Turquie d'un empire oriental en un état moderne et
national," in Cahiers ďhistoire mondiale, iv (1958), 426, where the relevant
bibliography may be found. Cf. Georgiadis-Arnakis, Οι πρώτοι 'Οθωμανοί
(30), pp. 101 ff. Regarding the nature of Greek influence, particularly on the
religious beliefs and traditions of the Turks, and vice versa, a body of re-
NOTES—CHAPTER 6 297

vealing historiographical material has been gathered by Frederick Hasluck

(Christianity and Islam under the Sultans [Oxford, 1929], vols. I - I I ) . Although
Hasluck's comments on this material are interesting, it remains yet to be prop­
erly studied and employed.
45. Mordtmann, Anatolien (24), pp. 123-124. On the conversion to Islam
of the Greek population of Galatia, see also George K. Skalieris, Λαοί καί
φυλαί της Μικράς 'Ασίας [Peoples and Tribes of Asia Minor] (Athens, 1922),
pp. 157-158; and Moses Moysidis, "Συμβολή εις τήν Ιστορίαν της άνθυπατικής
Γαλατίας. Μονογραφία περί 'Αγκύρας [Contribution to the Study of the
Proconsular Galatia. Ankyra Monograph]," Ξενοφάνης, и (1904-1905), 436.
46. See Heinrich Geizer, Pergamon unter Byzantinern und Osmanen [Per-
gamum under the Byzantines and the Ottomans] (Berlin, 1903), pp. 95-97;
Karl Krumbacher, Griechische Reise [Travels in Greece] (Berlin, 1886), pp.
264-265; and Panteles Kontogiannis, Ή έλληνικότης των νομών Προύσης
καί Σμύρνης [The Hellenic Character of the Provinces of Prousa and Smyrna]
(Athens, 1919), pp. 20-21, 29.
47. See the journal Μικρασιατικά χρονικά, vols, i-v (1938-1952).
48. Raymond Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican City,
1956), и, 390; and Halil inalcık, ' T h e Ottoman Record-Books as a Source of
Place-Names," Proceedings and Transactions of the Fifth International Congress
of Onomastic Sciences (Salamanca, 1958), и, p. 5 of the reprint.
49. Demetrius Kydones, "Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός [Counsels to the Ro­
mans]," PG, CLiv, col. 965.

Chapter в
1. Vasily Vasilevsky, "Epirotica saeculi XIII" (3:21), Viz. Vrem., ш (1896),
242. The Metropolite of Naupactus, John Apocaucus, provides us with a
graphic description of the terror of the people in one of his letters to the
"powerful Ducaina," wife of the Despot of Epirus, Theodore Comnenus Ducas,
at the beginning of the thirteenth century. See also the description by his con­
temporary, Michael Choniates, in Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, "ΑΙ ανέκδοτοι
κατηχήσεις του μητροπολίτου 'Αθηνών, Μιχαήλ 'Ακομινάτου [The Unpub­
lished Catechisms of Michael Akominatos, Metropolite of Athens]," Π Α Α , ш
(1928), 315.
2. See Paul Wittek, Das Fürstentum Mentesche [The Principality of
Menteše] (Istanbul, 1934), pp. 45 ff., 58 ff.
3. Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo, A Diary of the Journey to the Court of Timur,
1403-1406, tr. (from the Spanish) Guy Le Strange (London, 1928), p. 47.
Regarding the measures taken by the interested Christian powers against
Turkish pirates in the fourteenth century, see Spyridon Theotokis, " Ή πρώτη
συμμαχία τών κυριάρχων κρατών του Αιγαίου κατά της καθόδου τών
Τούρκων αρχομένου του Ι Δ ' αΙώνος [The First Alliance of the Sovereign
Powers of the Aegean against the Descent of the Turks at the Beginning of
the Fourteenth Century]," Ε Ε Β Σ , vu (1930), 283-289.
4. For the relevant bibliography, see Nikos Bees, "Geschichtliche For­
schungsresultate und Mönchs- und Volkssagen über die Gründer der Meteoren-
298 NOTES—CHAPTER 6

kloster [The Results of Historical Investigations, and Monks' Tales and Folk­
tales concerning the Founders of the Meteora Monasteries]," BN J, ш (1922),
366, fn. 4.
5. Peter Charanis, "Piracy in the Aegean During the Reign of Michael VIII
Palaeologus," Annuaire de Vlnstitut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et
slaves, χ (1950), 127-136.
6. See Irène Mélikoff, Le Destân d'Umur pacha (Düstürname-i Enverî)
[The Ballad of Omur Pasha] (Paris, 1954). Cf. Nicephoros Gregoras, Ρωμαϊκή
ιστορία (3:44), ed. Ludwig Schopen, π (Bonn, 1830), 683; Spyridon Lam­
bros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Athens, 1926), m, 37;
and Antonio Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs de Matheu de Moneada y Roger
de Lluria en la Grecia catalana (1359-1370)," Anuari de l'Institut ďestudis
catalans (Barcelona, 1901, 1912), pp. 29-30. There is yet need for a sys­
tematic study of the pillage of the Aegean and Ionian islands and of the
consequences generally of piratical enterprise.
7. William Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, Eng., 1921),
p. 61.
8. See Clavijo, A Diary (3), pp. 54-55. The Venetians transferred the 4,000
inhabitants of the island to Bourgos in Chandax, which from that time came
to be known as τά Τενέδια (Stephanos Xanthoudidis, Ή ενετοκρατία εν
Κρήτη και οι κατά των Ενετών αγώνες τών Κρητών [3:48] [Athens, 1939],
p. I l l ) , and to Karystos, near Chalcis, and to Cythera (see Freddy Thiriet,
La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge [Paris, 1959], p. 264). On the devasta-
tion of Tenedos at the beginning of the fifteenth century, see Christopher
Buondelmonti, Description des îles de XArchipel. Version grecque par un
anonyme, publiée d'après le manuscrit du sérail, avec une traduction française
et un commentaire par Emile Legrand [A Description of the Islands of the
Aegean. Greek Version by an Unknown Author, after the Manuscript of the
Seraglio, with a French Translation and Commentary by Emile Legrand],
première partie (Paris, 1897), p. 79.
9. Buondelmonti, Description des îles (8), p. 33.
10. Clavijo, A Diary (3), pp. 40, 46-47, 48, 49.
11. Nompar II, Seigneur de Caumont, Voyage ďoutremer en Jhérusalem
l'an 1418 (Paris, 1858), pp. 41, 85 ff. See also Clavijo, A Diary (3), p. 4.
12. Buondelmonti, Descriptions des îles (8), pp. 6, 35, 36-37, 40, 53, 54,
58, 59, 61, 67, 68, 69-70, 72, etc.
13. Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs" (6), pp. 13-14.
14. For details of the activities of the Serbs and Bulgarians before 1369,
see Demetrius Kydones, Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός, PG, CLIV, cols. 973-974.
15. See Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν [Chronicle], ed. Immanuel Bekker
(Bonn, 1838), p. 43.
16. Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican City,
1956), i, 85, 98. See also pp. 95-96.
17. For some characteristic examples, see Manuel Gedeon, Πατριαρχικαί
Εφημερίδες [Patriarchal Journals] (Athens, 1936), p. 48.
NOTES—CHAPTER 6 299

18. Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, "Γρηγορίου Παλαμά επιστολή προς Θεσ­

σαλονικείς" (5:35), NE, xvi (1922), pp. 8, 9.
19. See the study by Ihor Sevčenko, "The Decline of Byzantium Seen
through the Eyes of Its Intellectuals," DOP, xv (1961), 169-186.
20. The events surrounding the conquest of Thrace are still clouded. See,
however, the informative study by Franz Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühge­
schichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.-15. Jahrhundert) [Contribu­
tions to the Early History of the Turkish Dominion in Rumelia (fourteenth to
fifteenth century)] (Munich, 1944), pp. 41 flF.
21. Máximos Maravelakis and Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Αι προσφυγικαί
εγκαταστάσεις εν τη περιοχή Θεσσαλονίκης (1:89) (Thessalonica, 1953),
pp. 378, 427. See also p. 428. A Turkish source testifies to the rebelliousness
of the Greek-speaking districts of Saros at the time of the Greek revolution in
1821—Ioannis K. Vasdranellis, ΟΙ Μακεδόνες κατά την έπανάστασιν του
1821 [The Macedonians in the Revolution of 1821], 3rd ed. (Thessalonica,
1967), p. 262.
22. See Theodor Seif, "Der Abschnitt über die Osmanen in Sükrülläh's
persischer Universalgeschichte" (5:39), MOG, п (1923-1925), 87-88, 89.
23. Julian Palmer, "The Origin of the Janissaries," Bulletin of the John
Ry^ds Library y xxv (1953), 458-462, 473. The infantry and cavalry corps
ceased to exist in 1592 (Tayyib Gökbilgin, Rumeli de Yürükler, Tatara ve
Evlâd-i Fatihan [Yuruks, Tatars, and the Sons of the Conquerors in the Bal­
kans] [Istanbul, 1957], p. 21).
24. Seif, "Der Abschnitt" (5:39), p. 89.
25. Maximilian Braun, Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarevic
von Konstantin dem Philosophen [Biography of the Despot Stefan Lazarevic
by Constantine the Phihsopher] (Wiesbaden, 1956), p. 6.
26. I consider the date given by Athanasius Ypsilantis (Τα μετά τήν
'Άλωσιν 1453-1789 [History of Affairs after the Conquest (1453-1789)]
[Constantinople, 1870], p. 761) to be correct, even though he lived several
centuries later. His education and position were such as to make him au fait
with most Turkish matters.
27. It is quite likely that the application of this unpopular measure, at
least in the early years, can be attributed in large part to the Kadiasker (the
highest judge of the army) Kara Chalil of Tsantarh (Franz Taeschner and
Paul Wittek, "Die Vezirfamilie der Candarlyzäde (14.-15. Jahrhundert) und
ihre Denkmäler [The Family of Viziers of Tsantarlizade and Their Monu­
ments]," Ishm, XVIII (1925, 691).
28. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Προβλήματα της ιστορίας του παιδομα-
ζώματος [Problems of the History of the Recruitment of Youths]," Ελληνικά,
xin (1954), 274-293. The subject has been investigated anew and a complete
bibliography compiled by Basilike Papoulia, Ursprung und Wesen der "Knaben­
lese" im osmanischen Reiche [The Origin and Ή ature of the Recruitment of
Youths in the Ottoman Empire] (Munich, 1963). Papoulia concludes that the
impressment of children and the founding of the janissaries took place at the
300 NOTES—CHAPTER 6

time of Orchan, while the conscription of one fifth of the prisoners of war
(pencik) was introduced by Murad I.
29. See Jacovaky Rizos Neroulos, Analyse raisonnée de l'ouvrage intitulé
"Charte turque," fols. 9, 27, 90. This manuscript, in the Public Library of
Geneva, should be examined by a specialist in Turkish studies.
30. Halil inalcık, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," Studia islamica, и
(1954), 120-121.
31. August Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige; eine
mittelgriechische Legende" (3:49), BZ, xiv (1905), 194, 228.
32. Demetrius Kydones, Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός (5:49), PG, сыѵ, cols.
1004—1005. See also Raymond Loenertz, "Manuel Paleologue, épitre à Caba-
silas," Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 38-39; and Kydones* similar indictments
around 1373 (Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (16), ι, 81, 156).
33. Halil inalcık, Edirne'nin fethi "Edirne" Armağan, Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basimevi [The Capture of Adrianople, "Gift to Adrianople," Turkish Historical
Association Press] (Ankara, 1964), pp. 137-159.
34. See Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), ed.
Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), i, 30. Cf. Babinger, Beiträge (20),
pp. 46 ff.
35. See Charles Schefer, ed., Le Voyage d'outremer de Bertrandon de L·
Broquière (Paris, 1892), p. 272.
36. Nicephoros Moschopoulos, " Ή Ελλάς κατά τόν Έλβιά Τσελεμπή"
(1:83), Ε Ε Β Σ , xiv (1938), 504.
37. Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (16), ι, 127-128.
38. See Polychronis Enepekides, "Der Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos
Kabasilas" (4:4), BZ, XLVI (1953), 4 1 : "Τό δε κεφάλαιον οίσθα, τάς ψήφους,
τήν δικαιοσύνην, τους δικαστάς και δσου πωλούνται* σφόδρα δε αρα ολίγου
[And, in short, you know of the votes, of the 'justice/ and of the judges and
what it takes to buy them—indeed it is very little]." Kavasilas was writing in
1363.
39. See Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès (16), ι, 30: "εΙτ' άπήγον επί τόν
δικαστήν . . . δήλον δ' δτι εφ' ?τερον ήλθεν ό δυστυχής εκείνος ληστήν [and
then they led him away to the judge, and it was obvious that that unfortunate
man was coming before another robber]."
40. See Rubio y Lluch, "La Grecia catalana de 1370 a 1377," Anuari de
l'Institut d'estudis catalans, 1913-1914 (Barcelona, 1914), pp. 47-48.
41. See Raymond Loenertz, "Manuel Paléologue et Démétrius Cydonès;
remarques sur leurs correspondances," Échos d'Orient, xxxvi (1937), 278,
where the relevant bibliography will also be found.
42. Ibid., pp. 476-477. See Loenertz's Demetrius Cydonès (16), и, 147-
148, 150-152, and ι, 175, on the Turkish invasion as far as Thessalonica at the
beginning of April, 1372, when Manuel Palaeologus sailed from the city.
43. Taeschner and Wittek, "Die Vezirfamilie" (27), 71 ff.
44. Peter Papageorgiou, "Αι Σέρραι και τα προάστεια, τά περί τάς Σέρρας
και ή μονή 'Ιωάννου του Προδρόμου (συμβολή ιστορική και αρχαιολογική)
[Serrai and Its Suburbs and the Monastery of John of Pródromos (an Historic
NOTES—CHAPTER 6 301

and Archaeological Contribution]," BZ, ш (1894), 292, 294. The Eski Mosque
was restored in 1719 and again in 1836.
45. See Taeschner and Wittek, "Die Vezirfamilie" (27), pp. 71 ff. On the
date of the capture of Christoupolis, see Raymond Loenertz, "Pour l'histoire
du Péloponnèse au XIV e siècle (1352-1404)," REB, ι (1944), 167. On the
descent of the Turks into Epirus, Aetolia, and Acarnania, see Andreas Mou-
stoxydis, ed., Ιστορικόν μονάχου Κομνηνού και Πρόκλου (1:51) Έλληνο-
μνήμων, ι (1843-1853), passim, and on events leading up to the battle of
Ankara, see Peter Charanis, "The Strife among the Palaeologi and the Otto­
man Turks, 1370-1402," Byzantion, xvi (1942-1943), 287-314; Apostólos
Vacalopoulos, "Οι δημοσιευμένες ομιλίες του αρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης
'Ισιδώρου ως ιστορική πηγή για τήν γνώση της πρώτης τουρκοκρατίας στην
Θεσσαλονίκη (1387-1402) [The Published Homilies of Isidorus, Archbishop
of Thessalonica, as an Historical Source for Knowledge of the First Turkish
Dominion in Thessalonica (1387-1402)]," Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 3 1 , 32-33;
and Loenertz, Demetrius Cydones (16), и, 121: "νυν τάς προς Ίονίω κόλπω
κατατρέχουσι πόλεις. "Εναγχός δε τοσαύτην εκ Πελοποννήσου λέγονται λείαν
έλάσαι [Now (1380-1381) they (the Turks) are persecuting the cities on the
Ionian gulf. And recently they are said to have taken just as much booty from
the Péloponnèse]." On the importance of Eer Baba, the conqueror of Almyros,
see Δελτίον της εν 'Αλμυρω φιλαρχαίου Εταιρείας της "Ορθρυος [A List
of Donors to the Museum of Almyros], τεΰχ. 1 (1899), 8 (author unknown).
His standard was preserved in the Greek museum of Almyros until 1898.
46. See Arkadios Vatopedinos, " 'Αγιορείτικα ανάλεκτα—15—Βασιλική
διαταγή προς Δημήτριον τον Βουλιωτήν περί 'Αγ. ' Ό ρ ο υ ς [Monastic Selec­
tions, 15—the Royal Mandate to Demetrius Bouliotes concerning the Holy
Mountain]," Γρηγόριος ό Παλαμάς, и (1918), 452.
47. Johann H. Mordtmann, "Die erste Eroberung von Athen durch die
Türken zu Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts [The First Conquest of Athens by the
Turks at the End of the Fourteenth Century]," BNJ, iv (1924), 346-350, and
especially p. 350.
48. Athanasius Petridis, "Χρονικόν Δρυοπίδος [The Chronicle of Dryopis],"
Νεοελληνικά ανάλεκτα, и (1871), 4-6, 24. On the position of the spahi vil­
lages, see p. 32. Most of the villages are noted in the text of the Turkish land
register of the district and on the map published by inalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli
sûret-i defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid (1:56) (Ankara, 1954). For mention of the
Turkish invasion of northern Epirus, see the codex of Delvino in Themistocles
Bamichas, "Κώδιξ του ναοΰ της πόλεως Δελβίνου [The Codex of the Church
of the City of Delvino]," HX, ν (1930), 58.
49. See inalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli sûret-i defter-i (1:56), p. xv; and the
article "Arnawutluk" in the Encyclopaedia of Ishm ι (1960), 651-658.
50. Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (16), π, 121.
51. Basileios Laourdas, 'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι εις τάς έορτάς
του 'Αγ. Δημητρίου [The Addresses of Archbishop Isidorus on the Holidays
of Saint Demetrius] (Thessalonica, 1954), p. 58. Cf. Loenertz, Démétrius
Cydonès (16), 116.
302 NOTES—CHAPTER 6

52. Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana (1:44) (Vienna, 1860-1887), π, 130, 131.
53. Giovanni Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Odone, Manuele
Caleca e Theodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della theologia e
della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (3:79) (Vatican City, 1931),
p. 374. I think Kydones refers not to the conquest of new lands, but to the
conquest of the soul, by conversion' to Islam: "δτι και καθ' ήμέραν το πλείστον
επί την άσέβειαν ώσπερ ρεΰμα άποχετεύεται [that even daily, for the most
part, upon impiety, as a stream is drained]." This interpretation depends upon
the phrase "upon impiety."
54. See Ioannis Vasdravellis, " Ιστορικά περί Ναούσης έξ ανεκδότου χει­
ρογράφου [Histories on Naousa, from an Unpublished Manuscript]," Μακε­
δόνικα, Ш (1953-1955), 132-133; and Halil inalcık, "The Ottoman Record-
Books as a Source for Place-Names," Proceedings and Transactions of the
Fifth International Congress of Onomastic Sciences (Salamanca, 1958), n,
p. 7 of the reprint.
55. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès (16), и, 407: "καί ώς έκάστφ (των
μεγίστων) σπουδή el δύναιτο μόνφ πάντα καταφαγεΐν καί ώς el μή τοΰτο
λάβοι άπειλεΐν προς τους πολεμίους αύτομολήσειν, καί μετ' εκείνων τήν τε
πατρίδα καί τους φίλους πολιόρκησε iv [and as each (of the greatest ones)
was eager to devour everything by himself, and, if he could not get this, to
threaten to go over to the enemy and with him assault their fatherland and
their friends]."
56. See Spyridon Lambros, "Θεόδωρος ό Ποτάμιος καί ή εις Ίωάννην τόν
Π αλαιολόγον μονφδία αύτοΰ [Theodoros Potamios and His Monody to Ioannis
Palaeologus]," ΔΙΕΕ, и (1885-1886), 58, 59. Cf. Mercati, Notizie (3:79),
p. 374: "ήμεΐς δε ολίγοι πάνυ καί δσοι λοιπόν μηδ' εν προσθήκης μέρει
νομίζεσθαι· καί τοΰτο δε τό μικρόν δουλεύει τήν πασών αίσχίστην καί έπι-
πονωτάτην δουλείαν [And we very few are a remnant not large enough to be
considered an adjunct, which, small though it is, labors under the most dis­
graceful and burdensome slavery of all]" (Kydones' words).
57. Mercati, Notizie (3:79), pp. 374-375. On the question of Manuel IFs
participation in the Turldsh expeditions in Asia Minor, see Kydones' letters in
Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès (16), π, 386-396, and 407-408. The dating of
these letters is, however, in my opinion, incorrect.
58. Ducas, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), p. 53 (ed. Basile Grecu
[Bucharest, 1958], pp. 81-82). Cf. Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί
Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Athens, 1926), ш, x-xi, 159. For the bibliography
on the duration of the siege, see Babinger, Beiträge (20), p. 62, fn. 96. The
siege did not, as Mercati says (Notizie [3:79], pp. 112-115), last about six
years, but rather seven years, as a hitherto unexamined source observes
(Johann Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels Of Johann Schiltberger, a
Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Afríca, 1396-1427, tr. Commander
J. Buchán Telfer [London, 1879], p. 80). Although the patriarchal document
on which Mercati bases his assertion speaks of a six years' siege, it does not
say that the siege was not continuous and in fact ended. Even shortly before
NOTES—CHAPTER 6 303
the Battle of Varna (1396) the Turks had already turned against Galata,
though little success attended their efforts (Braun, Lebensbeschreibung [25],
p. 94). Taking Schiltberger's statement as correct, we may roughly place the
beginning of the siege in 1394, which is the date generally accepted. Cf.
George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 2nd ed. (New Brunswick,
N.J., 1969), pp. 549-550; and John Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-
1425); A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, N.J.,
1969), app. 10, pp. 479-481.
59. Clavijo, A Diary ( 3 ) , pp. 88, 90.
60. Raymond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (Rome, 1950),
passim, but especially pp. 264-265. Other inhabitants of Constantinople and
Thessalonica fled at a later time (Neculai lorga, Notes et extraits pour servir
à Vhistoire des Croisades au XVe siècle [Observations and Extracts Pertaining
to the History of the Crusades in the Fifteenth Century], vol. i, series 1
[Paris, 1899], pp. 240, 258-259).
61. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès (16), π, 364.
62. Manoussos Manoussacas, " Ή διαθήκη του 'Αγγέλου Άκοτάντου (1436),
αγνώστου Κρητικού ζωγράφου [The Testament of Angelos Akotantos (1436),
an Unknown Cretan Painter]," ΔΧΑΕ, iv, 2 (1960), 139; contains also a
bibliography on the arrival in Crete of Constantinopolitan painters at the end
of the fourteenth century and the beginning of the fifteenth century.
63. Silvio Mercati, "Di Giovanni Simeonakis, protopapa di Candía [On
Giovanni Simeonakis, Protopope of Candía]," Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati,
ш (1946), 312-341. Cf. Basileios Laourdas, "Κρητικά παλαιογραφικά [Cre­
tan Palaeographs]," KX, п (1948), 539-543. Laourdas' article contains the
relevant bibliography.
64. See Vojislav Djurić, "Solunsko poreklo Resavskog živopisa [The Thessa-
lonian Origin of the Frescoes of the Monastery of Resava]," Zbornik Radova,
Vizantološkog Instituta (Belgrade, 1960), LXV, no. 6, 111-128.
65. Djordje Radojičié, "Drei Byzantiner, alt-serbische Schriftsteller des 15.
Jahrhunderts [Three Byzantines—Early Serbian Authors of the Fifteenth Cen­
tury ]," XI e Congrès international des études byzantines, Munich, 1958, Akten
(Munich, 1960), pp. 504-507. See also the study by the same author, "Un
Byzantin, écrivain serbe: Démétrius Cantacuzène," Byzantion, xxix-xxx
(1959-1960), 77-87.
66. See Demostene Russo, Studii istorice greco-romàne [Greco-Roman His­
torical Studies] (Bucharest, 1939), π, 489-521, especially pp. 518-521. Cf.
Emanuel Turczyński, Die deutsch-griechische Kulturbeziehungen bis zur
Berufung König Ottos [Greco-German Cultural Refotions up to the Appoint­
ment of King Otto] (Munich, 1959), p. 31, which contains the relevant
bibliography.
67. Ioannis K. Voyatzidis deals with this subject extensively in his "Γλώσσα
καί λαογραφία της νήσου "Ανδρου" (1:88), ΑΧ, iv (1949), 51-56.
68. Phaidon Koukoules, Οίνουντιακά [On Oinous] (Canea, 1908), pp. 5 0 -
51, 72-73.
304 NOTES—CHAPTER 6

69. Lambros, Παλαιολογεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), m, 40-41. There­

fore, they were not all Albanians, as Ioannis K. Poulos believes ( Ή έποίκησις
των 'Αλβανών εις Κορινθίαν [1:42], EMA, ra [1950], 62).
70. See Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs" ( 6 ) , pp. 35-36.
71. See the laudatory characterization by Demetrius Kydones in Loenertz,
Demetrius Cydonès (16), и, 117.
72. They are accurately characterized in John Cantacuzenus, Historiarum
libri IV (1:47), ed. Ludwig Schopen (Bonn, 1828-1832), ni, 86-87. Cf.
Kydones' letter to George the philosopher in Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès
(16), ι, 63. In a letter to Kydones George entered a plea in behalf of the
known δυνατός [magnate] of Monemvasia, and in another he gave a descrip­
tion of τήν των Κυκλώπων άγοράν [the market of the Cyclopes] which un­
doubtedly referred to the unreasonable δυνατοί of the Péloponnèse.
73. See William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish
Greece (1204-1566) (New York-Cambridge, Eng., 1964), pp. 379-384. Denis
Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Могее (Athens, 1953), ι, 94-118; Spyridon
Lambros, "Λακεδαιμόνιοι βιβλιογράφοι και κτήτορες κωδίκων κατά τους
μέσους αιώνας και επί τουρκοκρατίας [Lacedemonian Bibliographers and
Book Owners in the Middle Ages and under Turkish Rule]," NE, iv (1907),
160-187, 303-312; and François Masai, Pléthon et le Platonisme de Mistra
(Paris, 1956), p. 49. Kydones made some flattering remarks about John VI
Cantacuzenus and his sons (see Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès [16], ι, 31-32:
"ούρανομήκης στήλη ούκ εν Πελοπόννησο) κατ' 'Ιφικράτην [A sky-high
pillar not in the Péloponnèse as Iphicrates said]." See Alexandre Oleroff,
"Démétrius Trivolis, copiste et bibliophile," Scriptorium, iv (1950), 261-262.
74. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès (16), ι, 26.
75. Joseph Bryennios, Τα παραλειπόμενα (2:22), ed. Thomas Mandakasis
(Leipzig, 1784), in, 116. Cf. p. 117.
76. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (16), ι, 175; and Braun, Lebens­
beschreibung (10), p. 20.
77. Clavijo, A Diary ( 3 ) , p. 49.
78. Vatopedinos, "'Αγιορείτικα ανάλεκτα" (46), pp. 449-452.
79. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, " Ό αρχιεπίσκοπος Γαβριήλ και ή πρώτη
τουρκική κατοχή της Θεσσαλονίκης [The Archbishop Gabriel and the First
Turkish Occupation of Thessalonica]," Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 371-373.
80. See Bryennios, Τά παραλειπόμενα (2:22), m, 179-180; Nikolaos Toma-
dakis, Ό Ι ω σ ή φ Βρυέννιος και ή Κρήτη κατά τό 1400 (3:85) (Athens,
1947), pp. 129-130; and Lambros, Παλαιολογεια και Πελοποννησιακά
(1:66), m , 163-164.
81. On Thessalonica, see Basileios Laourdas, "Τό εγκώμιον του Δημητρίου
Χρυσολωρά εις τόν 'Αγ. Δημήτριον [The Encomium of Demetrius Chryso-
bras on Saint Demetrius]," Γρηγόριος ό Παλαμάς, XL (1957), 349. Cf. pp.
351-352.
82. Joseph Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα [Works Found] (Leipzig, 1768), il,
280.
NOTES—CHAPTER 7 305

Chapter 7
1. Max Treu, Matthaios, Metropolit von Ephesos; Ό eher sein Lehen und
seine Schriften (5:38) (Potsdam, 1901), p. 56, and, for this sort of prayer,
pp. 51-52.
2. Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, "Γρηγορίου Παλαμά επιστολή προς Θεσ­
σαλονικείς" (5:35), NE, xvi (1922), 8. See also Spyridon Lambros, " ' Ι σ ι ­
δώρου Μητροπολίτου Θεσσαλονίκης οκτώ έπιστολαί ανέκδοτοι [Eight Unpub­
lished Letters of Isidorus, Metropolite of Thessalonica]," NE, ix (1912), 3 4 9 -
350, 382 ff.; and Basileios Laourdas, 'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι είς τάς
εορτάς του 'Αγ. Δημητρίου (6:51) (Thessalonica, 1954), pp. 56-57.
3. Joseph Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82) (Leipzig, 1768), и, 245-246.
Cf. Lambros, " Ι σ ι δ ώ ρ ο υ " ( 2 ) , pp. 413-414.
4. August Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige; eine
mittelgriechische Legende" (3:49), BZ, xiv (1905), 199.
5. Bryennios, Τ ά ευρεθέντα (6:82), и, 246. Cf. m, 122-123.
6. See Cardinal Bessarion, 'Επιστολή καθολική, PG, CLXI, col. 460.
7. Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), ш, 120, 122. Cf. the patriarchal ad­
vice to the clergy of Crete in Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et
diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (1:43) (Vienna, 1860-1887),
и, 477-481.
8. Laourdas, 'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι (6:51), pp. 35 ff.
9. See Nikolaos Tomadakis, "Μελετήματα περί 'Ιωσήφ Βρυεννίου [Studies
on Joseph Bryennios]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XXIX (1959), 1-12.
10. Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), m, 107-108. See also p. 120.
11. Johann Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger,
a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, tr. Commander
J. Buchán Telfer (London, 1879), p. 83.
12. Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), и, 252-253, 266. Cf. и, 256, 259,
and ш , 108-109.
13. Nikolaos Tomadakis, Ό 'Ιωσήφ Βρυέννιος και ή Κρήτη κατά τό 1400
(3:85) (Athens, 1947), p. 28.
14. Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), и, 103.
15. Dyovouniotis, "Γρηγορίου Παλαμά" ( 2 ) , p. 11. See also Basilike
Papoulia, Ursprung und Wesen der "Knabenlese" im osmanischen Reiche
(6:28) (Munich, 1963), pp. 102 ff.
16. See Basileios Laourdas, "Γαβριήλ Θεσσαλονίκης όμιλίαι [The Homilies
of Gabriel of Thessalonica]," 'Αθηνά, LVII (1953), 165. Cf. Dyovouniotis,
"Γρηγορίου Π α λ α μ ά " ( 2 ) , pp. 10, 17.
17. George Gemistos, Π ρ ο ς τό υπέρ του λατινικού δόγματος βιβλίον [On
the Book concerning the Latin Doctrine], PG, CLX, col. 980.
18. Laourdas, "Γαβριήλ" (16), pp. 164-165, 169-170. Even though desti­
tute and miserable by the end of the fourteenth century, the poor were still
clearly distinguishable from the slaves.
19. Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), и, 103-104. For Demetrius Chryso-
loras' invocations to Saint Demetrius, see Basileios Laourdas, "To έγκώμιον
306 NOTES—CHAPTER 7

του Δημητρίου Χρυσολωρά είς τον 'Άγιον Δημήτριον" (6:81), Γρηγόριος ó

Παλαμάς, XL (1957), 350-351, where Chrysoloras is brief but impressive.
Cf. Ioannis Anagnostes, Διήγησις περί της τελευταίας αλώσεως της Θεσσα­
λονίκης [Account of the Last Capture of Thessalonica], ed. Immanuel Bekker
(Bonn, 1838), pp. 526-527.
20. Lambros, "Ισιδώρου" (2), pp. 35 ff.
21. See Ioannis К. Voyatzidis, Ίστορικαί μελέται (3:5), ΕΕΦΣΠΘ, и
(1932), 149.
22. Most of the Greek population of the city stayed, even most of the
stratiotai (see the Chronicle of Aşik paşa Zade, tr. Richard Kreutel [Vienna,
1959], p. 68).
23. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata (1:44), ι, 183-184, 197-198.
24. Ibid., и, 87, for the letter of Patriarch Neilos to Pope Urban VI, writ­
ten in September 1384. Cf. Spyridon Lambros, " 'Τπόμνημα περί τών ελληνι­
κών χωρών καί εκκλησιών κατά τόν 15 αΙώνα [Notes on Greek Regions and
Churches in the Fifteenth Century]," NE, VII (1910), 362.
25. See Treu, Matthaios (1), p. 57.
26. Regarding this monastery, see Tryphon Evangelidis, " Ή μονή τών
Σωσάνδρων [The Monastery of Sosandroi]," Ξενοφάνης, ι (1896), 474-478.
27. Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Batatzes" (2:49), p. 178. In Magnesia
on the right aisle of Saint Athanasius' (the archepiscopal seat) there existed
until 1922 a small chapel of Saint John Vatatzes (Olga Vatidou, Ή χριστιανι-
κότητα τών Τούρκων καί οί 'Έλληνες της Μικρασίας [The Attitude of the
Turks towards Christianity and the Greeks of Asia Minor] (Athens, 1956),
p. 39).
28. See Heisenberg, "Kaiser Johannes Batatzes" (2:49), pp. 161-162, 167,
192. The king's remains are in the monastery (p. 171).
29. On these eschatological ideas before 1204 and after 1453, see Alexander
Vasiliev, "Medieval Ideas of the End of the World: West and East," Byzantton,
xvi (1942-1943), 462 ff.
30. Parisinus Graecus 2661, of the year 1365, folios 208-209, contains "the
most holy Andritzopoulos' prediction to Michael Zorianos . . . about the Anti­
christ and the overthrow of the Byzantine state." Cf. George Sotiriadis,
"Βυζαντιναί επιγραφαί έξ Αιτωλίας [Byzantine Inscriptions from Aetolia],"
Έπετηρίς Παρνασσού, VII (1903), 213-215. These persons were alive at the
end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth century
(Spyridon Lambros, "Πρόχειρον σημείωμα περί Μιχαήλ Ζωριανοΰ [Extem­
poraneous Note on Michael Zorianos]," Έπετηρίς Παρνασσού, vu [1903],
221).
31. Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), п, 47, 103-104, 109-111, and m,
153, 154.
32. St. Paul, I Thessalonians 5:8: "νήφωμεν ενδυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως
καί αγάπης καί περικεφαλαιαν ελπίδα σωτηρίας [let us be sober and put on
the breastplate of faith and love and for a helmet the hope of salvation]."
33. Laourdas, "Γαβριήλ" (16), p. 148.
NOTES—CHAPTER 7 307

34. See Lambros, " Ι σ ι δ ώ ρ ο υ " ( 2 ) , p. 388.

35. Louis Petit, Xenophon A. Siderides, and Martin Jugie, Γεωργίου Σχολα-
ρίου άπαντα [The Complete Works of George Schohrios] (Paris, 1930), ш ,
290.
36. Lambros, " Ι σ ι δ ώ ρ ο υ " ( 2 ) , p. 391.
37. Demetrius Kydones, Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός (5:49), PG, сыѵ, col.
968.
38. See above, pp. 89-90, for an analysis of the epistles of Patriarch John
XIV Calecas. See also Lambros, " 'Ισιδώρου" ( 2 ) , pp. 390-391; and Matthew
Kamariotes, Θρήνος [Lamentation], PG, CLX, col. 1061.
39. See Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Οι νεομάρτυρες [The New Martyrs],
2nd ed. (Athens, 1934), 6ff.; and Constantine Amantos, Σχέσεις Ελλήνων
και Τούρκων από του ενδεκάτου αΙώνος μέχρι του 1821, vol. ι: Οι πόλεμοι
των Τούρκων προς κατάληψιν των ελληνικών χωρών, 1071-1571 [The Rela­
tions of the Greeks and the Turks from the Eleventh Century to 1821, vol. i:
The Wars of the Turks for the Conquest of the Greek Areas, 1071-1571]
(Athens, 1955), 190-193.
40. Cf. Bryennios, Τα ευρεθέντα (6:82), m, 149.
41. The Virgin of Edessa, who was betrayed by her father, Keil Petros (i.e.,
"Scald-headed Peter"), after the Turks captured her country, and who then
suffered martyrdom, has for this reason been most properly classified as a
modern Martyr (see Dionysios, Metropolite of Edessa and Pella, 'Ακολουθία
της 'Αγίας ενδόξου νεομάρτυρος Παρθένας της Έδεσσαίας [The Office of
the Famous Saint and New Martyr, the Virgin of Edessa] [Athens, 1958]).
Her biography and the historical records pertaining to her life have yet to be
studied in a scholarly fashion.
42. Spyridon Lambros, "Συμβολαί εις τήν Ιστορίαν των Μετεώρων [Con­
tributions to the History of Meteora]," NE, π (1905), 143.
43. See Papadopoulos, ΟΙ νεομάρτυρρς (39), pp. 6 ff., which contains also
the relevant bibliography. For a more complete bibliography, see Constantine
Amantos, "Νεομάρτυρες [The New Martyrs]," Ε Ε Φ Σ Π Α , и, 4 (1953-1954),
162.
44. Lambros, " 'Τπόμνημα" (24), 366.
45. See Laourdas, "Γαβριήλ" (16), p. 206; Joseph Bryennios, Τά παραλει­
πόμενα (2:22), ed. Thomas Mandakasis (Leipzig, 1784), in, 152; and the
patriarchal letter of 1387 to Bishop Myron, Miklosich and Müller, Acta et
diplomata (1:43), π, 95.
46. Cardinal Bessarion, Επιστολή καθολική ( 6 ) , PG, CLXI, col. 460.
47. The relevant texts are in Constantine Kyriazis, "To δίκαιον της αντι­
στάσεως εξ επόψεως ορθοδόξου [The Justice of the Opposition from the Or­
thodox Point of View]," Ε Ε Θ Σ Π Θ , iv (1959), 160 ff. Kyriazis eschews an
examination of the specific historical problem of the attitude of the Church
towards the Turks—such as I have attempted here—in favor of a more theo­
retical treatment.
48. Lambros, "'Ισιδώρου" ( 2 ) , p. 390. See also Ioannis Anagnostes, Διή-
γησις ( 1 9 ) , p. 497.
308 NOTES—CHAPTER 7

49. Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican City,

1956), и, 254, and 249 on similar ideas in Constantinople.
50. See Lambros, " Ι σ ι δ ώ ρ ο υ " ( 2 ) , pp. 389, 390.
51. See the brilliant study by John Hackett, A History of the Orthodox
Church of Cyprus from the Coming of the Apostles Faul and Barnabas to the
Commencement of the British Occupation (A.D. 45-A.D. 1878) together with
Some Account of the Latin and Other Churches Existing in the Isfond (Lon­
don, 1901), pp. 74-149; and Sir George Francis Hill, A History of Cyprus
(Cambridge, Eng., 1948), m, 1041-1088.
52. See Stephanos Xanthoudidis, Ή ενετοκρατία εν Κρήτη και οι κατά τών
Ενετών αγώνες τών Κρητών (3:48) (Athens, 1939), p. 19.
53. See Nikolaos Tomadakis, " 'Ορθόδοξοι αρχιερείς εν Κρήτη επί ενετο­
κρατίας [Orthodox Prelates in Crete under the Venetian Rule]," 'Ορθοδοξία,
XXVII (1952), 63-65, which contains the relevant bibliography; and the same
author's Ό 'Ιωσήφ Βρυέννιος (3:85), 83 ff.
54. See Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, " Ό 'Αθηνών "Ανθιμος και Πρόεδρος
Κρήτης ο Όμολογητής [Anthimos of Athens, the Confessor, and President of
Crete]," Ε Ε Β Σ , ix (1932), 47-79.
55. See Tomadakis, Ό 'Ιωσήφ Βρυέννιος (3:85), pp. 106 ff.; and Ray­
mond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (Rome, 1950), pp. 9 9 -
100.
56. See Georg Hofmann, "Nuove Fonti per la storia profana ed ecclesiastica
di Creta nella prima metà del secolo XV [New Sources for the History, Secular
and Ecclesiastic, of Crete in the First Half of the Fifteenth Century]," IXth
International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thessalonica, 1953, Πεπραγμένα,
π (Athens, 1956), 465 ff.; and Nikolaos Tomadakis, ' Ό ί ορθόδοξοι παπάδες
επί ενετοκρατίας και ή χειροτονία αυτών [The Orthodox Priests under Vene­
tian Rule and Their Ordination]," KX, XIII (1959), 46 ff., 61 ff.
57. For typical convictions in 1418 and 1419, see Manoussos Manoussacas,
"Μέτρα της Βενετίας έναντι της εν Κρήτη επιρροής του πατριαρχείου
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατ' ανέκδοτα βενετικά έγγραφα (1418-1419) [Vene­
tian Measures against the Influence in Crete of the Patriarchate of Constanti­
nople, according to Unpublished Venetian Documents ( 1418-1419)]," Ε Ε Β Σ ,
xxx (1960), 85-144.
58. Manoussos Manoussacas, "Βενετικά έγγραφα αναφερόμενα εις τήν εκ-
κλησιαστικήν ιστορίαν της Κρήτης του 14-16 αιώνος (Πρωτοπαπάδες και
πρωτοψάλται Χάνδακος) [Venetian Documents Relating to the Ecclesiastical
History of Crete from the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century (the Chief
Priests and Choir Leaders of Chandax)]," ΔΙΕΕ, xv (1961), 154-160.
59. Constantine Kalokyris, Αι Βυζαντιναί τοιχογραφίαι της Κρήτης [The
Byzantine Frescoes of Crete] ('Athens, 1957), pp. 181, 184-185.
60. See Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge (Paris, 1959),
289-290; and Freddy Thiriet and Peter Wirth, "La Politique religieuse de
Venise à Negrepont à la fin du XIV e siècle [The Religious Policy of Venice in
Euboea at the End of the Fourteenth Century]," BZ, LVI (1963), 297-303.
61. Thiriet, La Romanie (60), p. 405.
NOTES—CHAPTER 7 309

62. Antonio Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs de Matheu de Moneada y Roger

de Lluria en la Grecia catalana (1359-1370)," Anuari de Vlnstitut ďEstudis
Catalans (Barcelona, 1901, 1912), pp. 33-34. See also his "La Grecia catalana
de 1370 a 1377," Anuari de Vlnstitut ďestudis catalans, 1913-1914 (Barce­
lona, 1914), pp. 44, 45; and William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A His­
tory of Frankish Greece (1204-1566) (New York-Cambridge, Eng., 1964),
p. 242.
63. For details on converts to Rome, see Georg Hofmann, "Wie stand es
mit der Frage der Kircheneinheit auf Kreta im XV. Jahrhundert? [What Was
the State of the Question of Church Unity in Crete in the Fifteenth Century?],"
OCP, χ (1944), 93, 111, 112, and pp. 102-104 for the condition of the clergy.
64. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (55), pp. 62-63; and
"Pour la chronologie des oeuvres de J. Bryennios," REB, VII (1949), 2 1 , fns.
21-22, where Loenertz notes that in 1398 M. Chrysoberges obtained permis­
sion to found a Dominican monastery in Crete.
65. See the resolution of the Venetian Senate on May 18, 1425: "Cum in
terris et partibus nostris Levantis fides catholica multum diminuatur, et schis­
matici de die in diem multiplicentur [Since in the land and in our parts of the
Levant the Catholic faith is much diminished, and schismatics increase from
day to day]." (Hofmann, "Wie stand" [63], p. 103.)
66. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (49), ι, 19, for Kydones' letter to
John V Palaeologus in the autumn of 1371.
67. Cf., for example, the letter of T. Gazes to his brothers George and
Demetrius, written about two years before the capture, Spyridon Lambros,
Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Athens, 1926), iv, 46 ff.
68. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (49), ι, passim.
69. The letter will be found in Bryennios, Τά παραλειπόμενα (2:22), ΠΙ,
133-135. Cf. Loenertz, "Pour la chronologie" (64), 15-16; and Tomadakis,
"Μελετήματα" (9), pp. 20 ff.
70. See Giovanni Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele
Caleca e Theodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e
della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (6:53) (Vatican City, 1931),
pp. 365-366, 367, 370-371, 372, 374. Kydones' work has been translated by
Hans-Georg Beck into German, "Die 'Apologia pro vita sua' des Demetrios
Kydones," Ostkirchliche Studien, i (1952), 208-225, 264-282. Cf. the opin­
ions of Sir John Maundeville in The Voiage and Travaile of Sir John Maunde-
ville, Which Treateth of the Way to Hierusalem (London, 1887), pp. 18-19.
71. For some interesting comments on the ideological standpoint of Deme­
trius Cydones, Manuel Calecas, and others in relation to this matter, see
Mercati, Notizie (6:53), passim.
72. See Raymond Loenertz, "Les Dominicains byzantins Théodore et André
Chrysobergès et les negotiations pour l'union des églises grecque et latine de
1415 à 1430," Archivům fratrum praedicatorum, ix (1939), 5-60.
73. See Tomadakis, Ό Ι ω σ ή φ Βρυέννιος (3:85), pp. 96, 103, 105; and
Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (49), i, 22, 23. Elsewhere Kydones expresses
the opinion that Roman domination also must eventually come to an end
310 NOTES—CHAPTER 8

(Giuseppe Cammelli, "Demetrii Cydonii orationes tres, adhuc ineditae" (4:57),

BNJ, in, 1922, 70).
74. Bryennios, Τά παραλειπόμενα (2:22), ш, 118, 150, 153, 154, and Τά
ευρεθέντα (6:82), ι, 453.
75. Gemistos, Προς τό υπέρ του λατινικού δόγματος βιβλίον (17), col. 980.
76. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (49), ι, 164-168.
77. Christopher Buondelmonti, Description des îles de VArchipel. Version
grecque par un anonyme, publiée d'après le manuscrit du sérail, avec une
traduction française et un commentaire par Emile Legrand (6:8), première
partie (Paris, 1897), p. 89.
78. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage ďoutremer et retour de Jérusalem
en France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433,
éd. Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, in Mémoires de Vlnstitut national des sciences
et arts; sciences morales et politiques, v (Paris, fructidor an XII), p. 554.
79. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (55), pp. 232-233, 314 ff.
Cf. George T. Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonica,
1382-1387 (Rome, 1960), p. 36, where he refers to Pope Gregory ХГѕ com­
plaints to John V over the punishment of proselytes to Catholicism.
80. See Laourdas, "Τό έγκώμιον" (6:81), p. 349.
81. See M. Şesan, "La Chute de Constantinople et les peuples orthodoxes
[The Fall of Constantinople and the Orthodox Peoples]," Byzantinoslavica,
xiv (1953), 272-274.
82. See Guillebert de Lannoy, Gilbert de Lannoy i jego Podróże przez
Joachima Lelewela [Gilbert de Lannoy and His Travels, according to J.
Lelewel] (Brussels-Poznan, 1844), ι, 82.
83. See Kydones, Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός (5:49), col. 1221; and Loenertz,
Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (55), p. 81.
84. See Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82), и, 16.
Chapter 8
1. George Acropolitis, Opera, ed. August Heisenberg (Leipzig, 1903), i, 28.
2. See Neculai Iorga, France de Chypre [The France of Cyprus] (Paris,
1931), pp. 181, 195 ff.; Leontios Machairas, Χρονικόν Κύπρου [A Chronicle
of Cyprus], ed. Richard Dawkins (under the title Recital concerning the Sweet
Land of Cyprus Entitled 'Chronicle') (Oxford, 1932), i, 672-674; and Con­
stantine Spyridakis, " Ό χαρακτήρ της Κυπριακής επαναστάσεως του 1426
και ό Λεόντιος Μαχαιράς [The Nature of the Cypriote Uprising of 1426, and
Leontios Machairas]," Εις μνήμην 'Αμάντου (Athens, 1960), pp. 71-75.
3. Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican City,
1956), ii, 157.
4. Raymond Loenertz, "Pour l'histoire du Péloponnèse," REB, ι (1944),
152-181. For details, see George T. Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II Palaeo­
logus in Thessalonica, 1382-1387 (Rome, 1960), pp. 114ff.
5. See Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn,
1838), pp. 63-64; Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes
NOTES—CHAPTER 8 311

(1:52), ed. Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), ι, 91-92; and Denis

Zakythinos, Le despotat grec de Morée (Athens, 1953), i, 158-160.
6. See Stephanos Xanthoudidis, Ή ενετοκρατία εν Κρήτη και ol κατά των
Ενετών αγώνες τών Κρητών (3:48) (Athens, 1939), pp. 37 ff.; and Nikolaos
Zoudianos, 'Ιστορία της Κρήτης επί ενετοκρατίας [History of Crete under
Venetian Rule] (Athens, 1960), i, 60 ff.
7. See Agathangelos Xerouchakis, Ή εν Κρήτη έπανάστασις του 1 3 6 3 -
1366 [The Cretan Uprising of 1363-1366] (Alexandria, 1932), pp. 29-30.
Compare Zoudianos, Ιστορία ( 6 ) , ι, 176-189; and Xanthoudidis Ή ενε­
τοκρατία (3:48), pp. 81 ff., 99-110.
8. The Cretans' will to be free is also demonstrated by the conspiracy of
Rethemniot Sephes Vlastos some one hundred years later (1453-1454), that
is, at the time of the fall of Constantinople. See the special study by Manoussos
Manoussacas, Ή εν Κρήτη συνωμοσία του Σήφη Βλαστού (1453-1454) καί
ή νέα συνωμοτική κίνησις του 1460-1462 [The Conspiracy in Crete of Sephes
Vlastos (1453-1454) and the New Conspiratorical Movement of 1460-1462]
(Athens, 1960).
9. Ducas, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), p. 185 (ed. Basile Grecu
[Bucharest, 1958], p. 233).
10. See Constantine Kalokyris, Αι Βυζαντιναί τοιχογραφίαι της Κρήτης
(7:59) (Athens, 1957), pp. 184, 191-192.
* 11. The relevant material is on pp. 048 ff. of the appendix to the docu­
ments in Vladimir Lamansky's Secrets d'État de Venise; documents, extraits,
notices et études servant à éclaircir les rapports de la Seigneurie avec les Grecs,
les Slaves et la Porte Ottomane à h fin du XVe et au XVIe siècles (St. Peters­
burg, 1884). See pp. 055-056 for the document of the Council of Ten in 1487
which characterizes the Orthodox priests as follows: "papates non catholici,
quos semper recognovimus primos auctores et compulsores et fautores contra
statüm nostrum [non-Catholic priests, whom we always acknowledge as the
first authors, movers, and promoters against our state]."
12. See Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge (Paris, 1959),
pp. 395-398, 399-401.
13. See Aimilia Sarou, Το Κάστρον της Χίου [The Fortress of Chios]
(Athens, 1916), pp. 59-68; George Zolotas, 'Ιστορία της Χίου [History of
Chios] (Athens, 1924), и, 484-495; and Philip Argentis, The Occupation of
Chios by the Genoese and Their Administration of the Island, 1346-1566
(Cambridge, Eng., 1958), ι, 651-658.
14. Antonio Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs de Matheu de Moneada y Roger
de Lluria en la Grecia catalana (1359-1370)," Anuari de Vlnstitut destudis
catalans (Barcelona, 1901, 1912), pp. 48-49.
15. For some interesting details on the Greek presence and influence during
the period of Catalan domination, see Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado dels Ducats
de Grecia" (1:44), Institut d'estudis catalans (Mémoires de L· seccio his-
tórico-arqueológica), iv (Barcelona, 1933), 25 ff.
16. William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece
(1204-1566) (New York-Cambridge, Eng.), p. 240.
312 NOTES—CHAPTER 8

17. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), pp. 11-12, 26.

18. See Kenneth Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388 (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1948), p. 251: "Without having acquired a patent of freedom
and Frankish status." The cruel treatment of the Greeks by the conquerors is
revealed in a number of popular adages which are still extant among the
people of Thrace, Euboea, Thessaly, Acarnania, Athens, and the Péloponnèse
(pp. 247-248).
19. See Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter,
von der Zeit Justinians bis zur türkischen Eroberung (2:2) (Stuttgart, 1889),
Greek tr. by Spyridon Lambros (1904-1906), in, 399. Cf. Miller, The Latins
in the Levant (16), pp. 229-230.
20. Antonio Rubio y Lluch, "La Grecia catalana de 1370 a 1377," Anuari
de l'Institut ďEstudis Catalans, 1913-1914 (Barcelona, 1914), pp. 24-25.
21. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), p. 27.
22. Rubio y Lluch, "La Grecia catalana" (20), p. 41.
23. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), p. 27.
24. Rubio y Lluch, "Els Governs" (14), pp. 48-49; see also his "Chan­
celiers et notaires dans la Grèce catalane," in ΕΙς μνήμην Λάμπρου (Athens,
1935), pp. 153-154. Regarding the services and remuneration of Demetrius
Rentis, see Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), pp. 37-38; and his "Atenes
en temps dels Catalans," Anuari de VInstitut d'estudis catalans, i (Barcelona,
1907), 14-15.
25. See Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), p. 27. Rubio y Lluch men­
tions two different persons, Demetrius and Metros, but it is likely that they
were in fact one and the same person. Cf. Miller, The Latins in the Levant
(16), p. 240.
26. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), pp. 25-27, 29-30. See Miller,
The Latins in the Levant (16), p. 240.
27» Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana (1:43) (Vienna, 1860-1887), ι, 483-484, 564. See
Tassos Neroutsos, "Χριστιανικοί Α θ ή ν α ι " ( 3 : 7 ) , ΔΙΕΕ, iv (1892-1895),
198-199.
28. See Miller, The Latins in the Levant (16), pp. 311-330; and Dennis,
The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) , pp. 119 ff.
29. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), p. 32.
30. See Antonio Rubio y Lluch, " Π ε ρ ί της εποχής καθ' ην οι Καταλάνοι
απώλεσαν τάς 'Αθήνας [On the Period in Which the Catalans Lost Athens],"
ΔΙΕΕ, iv (1892-1895), 540.
31. See Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), p. 29; and Setton, Catalan
Domination (18), p. 85.
32. Miller, The Latins in the Levant (16), p. 238.
33. See Setton, Catalan Domination (18), pp. 17, 187-188, 200, 257. On
Athens during the Catalan period, see also Rubio y Lluch, "Atenes en temps
dels Catalans" (24). Compare the note on the Parthenon as a church of the
Virgin Mary in Antonio Rubio y Lluch, La Acrópolis de Atenas en L· época
catalana (Barcelona, 1908), p. 27. On Athens and the Acropolis generally
NOTES—CHAPTER 8 313

during the period of Catalan domination, see Rubio y Lluch, "La Grecia
catalana" (20), pp. 29-37.
34. Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), pp. 21-22. For some biblio­
graphical material on the geographical term "Hellas" within the confines of
the district of Sperchios-Lamia in medieval and modern times, see Giannis
Kordatos, 'Ιστορία της επαρχίας Βόλου και Ά γ ι α ς [A History of the Province
of Volos and Agio] (Athens, 1960), p. 171, fn. 1.
35. Miller, The Latins in the Levant (16), pp. 334-338, 403-406. See his
Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, Eng., 1921), pp. 135-136, 146.
Compare Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen (2:2), Greek гг., и, 3 2 2 -
323, and 328-329, 347 ff. For further information on the rise of the Greek
element, see Alfred Philippson and Ernst Kirsten, Die Griechischen Land­
schaften (1:9) (Frankfurt, 1950), ι, 3. 1024-1026, which contains the rele­
vant bibliography. On Nerios Acciajuolťs settlement in the Péloponnèse and
the gradual growth of his power until he was able to impose his will on the
Catalans, see Rubio y Lluch, "La Grecia catalana" (20), pp. 67-71. Cf.
Rubio y Lluch, "Chanceliers" (24), p. 154; and Setton, Catalan Domination
(18), pp. 161, 166-173, 218 ff., for a note on the Greeks mentioned in the
Catalan archives, especially the notary John Rentis.
36. See Ioannis Travlos, Πολεοδομική έξέλιξις των 'Αθηνών από των
προϊστορικών χρόνων μέχρι τών αρχών του 19011 αιώνος [The Evolution of the
Athenian City Plan, from Prehistoric Times up to the Beginning of the Nine­
teenth Century] (Athens, 1960), pp. 170-171.
37. See Rubio y Lluch, " Π ε ρ ί της εποχής" (30), pp. 541, 542; and Setton,
Catalan Domination (18), p. 218.
38. See Rubio y Lluch, "La Poblado" (1:44), p. 31; and "La Grecia cata­
lana" ( 2 0 ) , p. 88.
39. On the history of Stagoi, see Ioannis K. Voyatzidis, To χρονικόν τών
Μετεώρων (1:42), Ε Ε Β Σ , и (1925), 153 ff., especially pp. 169 ff.
40. On the life of this saint, see Spyridon Lambros, "Συμβολαί εις τήν
ίστορίαν τών μονών τών Μετεώρων" (7:42), NE, и (1905), 65-66. Cf. Nikos
Bees, "Συμβολή εις τήν Ιστορίαν τών μονών τών Μετεώρων [A Contribution
to the History of the Monasteries of Meteora]/' Βυζαντίς, ι (1909), 212, 230.
41. See Spyridon Lambros, "Νείλου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως σιγίλλιον περί
της μονής Λευκουσιάδος [The Seal of Neilos of Constantinople, Concerning
the Monastery of Levkousias]," NE, vi (1909), 174-178. Although there must
have been an important reason for Patriarch Neilos' designation of Archiman­
drite Euthymios as πρωτοσύγκελλος (superintendent) of the Vlachia (Thes-
saly) monasteries, I do not agree with Lambros that his intention was to
counteract increasing Serb influence in Meteora.
42. See Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66)
(Athens, 1926), m, 194.
43. See Spyridon Lambros, " Ηπειρωτικά [The Affairs of Epirus]," NE,
xi (1914), 3 ff.; and Athenagoras, " Ή εν τω φρουρίω τών 'Ιωαννίνων
σχολή τών Δεσποτών (ιστορικαί επανορθώσεις) [The School of Despots
in the Fortress of Ioannina (Historical Rectifications)]," ΔΙΕΕ, VIII (1922),
314 NOTES—CHAPTER 8

557-565, where the older bibliography will be found. The Varlaam monastery
in Meteora was built in 1542 by the monks Nectarius and Theophanes, mem­
bers of the house of Apsarades in loannina (Lambros, "Συμβολαί είς την
ιστορίαν" (7:42), pp. 93 ff.).
44. Nicephori Blemmydae curriculum vitae et carmina, ed. August Heisen­
berg (Leipzig, 1896), p. 36.
45. Alexander Solov'ev, "Ѳессалійскіе Архонты в XIV вѣкѣ [The Archons
of Thessaly in the Fourteenth Century]," Byz.-Sl., iv (1932), 159-174.
46. See D. K. Tsopotos, Γη και γεωργοί της Θεσσαλίας κατά τήν Τουρκο-
κρατίαν επί τη βάσει ιστορικών πηγών [The Land and Farmers of Thessaly
during Turkish Rule, according to Historical Sources] (Volos, 1912), pp. 6,
10-11, which contains the appropriate references.
47. See p. 8 above. The Orthodox Church in the Serb-dominated regions
of mainland Greece suffered a good deal between 1352 and 1371 as a result
of the disruption brought about by Stephen Dušan. Schism followed when
Dušan placed the Church under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of "Peć
and Serbia." These troubles came to an end only in May 1371, when John
Uğliesa, "Despot of Serbia," consented to restore the Church in the Serb-
dominated lands to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The restitution was ratified
by a Synodic letter. See Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata (1:43), ι,
553-555, and 560-564. The Metropolitan of Larissa, "ύπέρτιμος καί εξαρχος
δευτέρας Θετταλίας καί πάσης Ελλάδος [the very honorable exarch of the
second Thessaly and of all of Greece]," although he was able to establish
himself in his seat, complained to Patriarch Philotheos that many bishoprics
within his jurisdiction were in places "under the control of barbarians and
people of other races" (that is, Albanians, Arvanito-Vlachs, and Catalans) and
that therefore it was not possible to visit them or to take care of his flock. The
inhabitants of these areas either did not know that they belonged to the diocese
of Larissa or, feigning ignorance, disregarded the Metropolitan who visited
them for the purpose of attending to certain matters, consecrating bishops, or
merely asserting his rights. Having been apprised of these difficulties, the
Patriarch, in September of the same year, definitely delineated the extent of
the diocese of Larissa to include the bishoprics of Demetrias, Pharsala, Thav-
makos, Zitounion, Ezeros, Lidorikion, Mountinitza, Stami, Triki, Domeniko,
Katria (Krania?), Gardiki, Peristera, Radovisdi, Patsouna, and Vesaini. See
Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata (1:44), ι, 587-589; and Neroutsos,
"Χριστιανικαί Άθηναι" (2:7), pp. 202-203.
48. See Ιστορικόν Κομνηνού μονάχου καί Πρόκλου μονάχου (1:51), ed.
Andreas Moustoxydis in Έλληνομνήμων Ι (1843-1853), 494-496, 510, 527,
and Bizancio y España, ed. Sebastián Cirác Estopañán (Barcelona, 1943), п,
40 ff. The first known Metropolitan of loannina was Sebastian. Regarding his
activities and the Church in loannina in general, see Athenagoras, " Ή
Εκκλησία των 'Ιωαννίνων [The Church of loannina]," HX, HI (1928), Uff.
49. Cf. Michael Lascaris, "Byzantinoserbica saeculi XIV" (1:61), Byzantion,
xxv-xxvn (1955-1957), 314.
NOTES—CHAPTER 8 315

50. Ιστορικόν Κομνηνού και Πρόκλου (1:51), ed. Moustoxydis, pp. 534-
535 (Bizancio y España, ed. Estopañán, p. 48).
51. See Raymond Loenertz, "Un Prostagma perdu de Théodore I er Paléo-
logue regardant Thessalonique (1380/82?) [A Lost Order of Theodoros I
Palaeologus concerning Thessalonica (1380/82?)]," Ε Ε Β Σ , xxv (1955), 171.
52. Ιστορικόν Κομνηνού και Πρόκλου (1:51), ed. Moustoxydis, p. 535
(Bizancio y España, ed. Estopañán, p. 48).
53. Ιστορικόν Κομνηνού και Πρόκλου (1:51), ed. Moustoxydis, pp. 5 3 6 -
551 (Bizancio y España, ed. Estopañán, и, 4 8 - 5 1 ) .
54. Karl Hopf, Griechenland im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (1:51)
(Leipzig, 1867-1868), и, 39-40.
55. Cf. the opinions of Léon Heuzey, Excursion dans la Thessalie turque
en 1858 (Paris, 1927), pp. 187, 189, 191; and the pertinent documents in
Nikos Bees, "Σερβικά και βυζαντιακά έγγραφα Μετεώρων" (1:59), Βυζαντίς,
ι (1909), 73 ff.
56. On the dates, see Lascaris, "Byzantinoserbica" (1:61), pp. 4 ff. John
Uroš was a Palaeologus on his mother's side (Averkios Papadopoulos, Versuch
einer Genealogie der Palaeologen, 1259-1453 [An Attempt at a Genealogy of
the Falaeologi 1259-1453] [Munich, 1938], p. 25).
57. Lascaris has made the rather convincing speculation that the wife of
Alexius Philanthropenos, Maria Radoslava Angelina, was the daughter of Rado-
slav Chlapen (Lascaris, 'byzantinoserbica" (1:61), xxv-xxvii, 321-322).
58. Ioannis K. Voyatzidis describes these events in "To χρονικόν των Μετε­
ώρων" ( 1 : 4 2 ) , Ε Ε Β Σ , ι (1924), 175. On the Philanthropenos family, see
Athenagoras, "Συμβολαί είς τήν ιστορίαν του βυζαντινού οίκου των Φιλαν-
θρωπηνών [Contributions to the History of the Byzantine House of the
Philanthropen!]," ΔΙΕΕ, xi (1928-1929), no. 4, 61-74.
59. Hopf, Griechenland (1:51), π, 40.
60. See Raymond Loenertz, "Notes sur le règne de Manuel II à Thessa-
lonique, 1381/82-1387," BZ, L (1957), 390-394.
61. See Voyatzidis, "Το χρονικόν των Μετεώρων" (1:47), p. 175.
62. See George Theocharidis, "Δύο νέα έγγραφα άφορώντα εις τήν Νέαν
Μονήν Θεσσαλονίκης [Two New Documents Relating to the Nea Mone of
Thessalonica]," Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 320-322; and Dennis, The Reign of
Manuel U ( 4 ) , pp. 100-101.
63. See Papadopoulos, Versuch (56), passim; and Athenagoras, "Συμβολαί
είς τήν ιστορίαν" (58), pp. 61-74.
64. See Loenertz, "Notes sur le règne de Manuel Ι Γ (60), pp. 392-394;
and "Un Prostagma perdu" (51), pp. 170-172.
65. Hopf, Griechenland (1:51), и, 106; and Miller, The Latins in the Levant
(16), pp. 370-373. The publication of the verse chronicle of Carlo's deeds
will throw considerable light on his character and achievements, if one may
judge from the fragments already published: Giuseppe Schirò, "Una Cronaca
in versi inediti del secolo XV; 'Sui Duchi e Conti di Cefalonia/ " XI e Congrès
international des études byzantines, Munich, 1958, Akten (Munich, 1960),
pp. 531-538. See also Schirò's "Manuele Paleólogo incorona Carlo Tocco
316 NOTES—CHAPTER 8

Despota di Gianina [Manuel Palaeologus Crowns Carlo Tocco the Despot of

Ioannina]," Byzantion, xxix-xxx (1959-1960), 209-230.
66. John Barker, "On the Chronology of the Activities of Manuel II Palae-
ologus in 1415," BZ, LV (1962), 43.
67. Schirò, "Manuele Paleólogo incorona Carlo Tocco" (65), pp. 228-230.
68. Hopf, Griechenland (1:51), и, 106; and Miller, The Latins in the
Levant (16), pp. 337-338, 370-373. Documents concerning Francesca may
be found in Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen ( 2 : 2 ) , Greek гг., п,
743-746.
69. Neculai Iorga, Byzance après Byzance (Bucharest, 1935), p. 59.
70. Alexander Solov'ev, "Греческіе Архонты в Сербском Царствѣ XIV
вѣка [The Greek Archons in the Serbian Empire]," Byz.-Sl., π (1930),
275-287.
71. See Spyridon Lambros and Constantine Amantos, Βραχέα χρονικά
[Brief Chronicles] in the series Μνημεία της ελληνικής ιστορίας, ι, part l
(Athens, 1932), 33, 38, 41, 61.
72. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès ( 3 ) , ι, 110.
73. Ibid., и, 220, 226-227, 238; and Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) ,
pp. 71-73, 108^109.
74. Loenertz, Démétrius Суdonès ( 3 ) , и, 220, 258; Thiriet, La Romanie
( 1 2 ) , p . 357; and Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) , pp. 123-126, 136-
150, 163-164.
75. Giuseppe Cammelli, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Paris, 1930),
pp. 9 0 - 9 1 : "της περί τα βελτίω σπουδής μεμνημένος [Remembering his zeal
for better things]." For the attitude of the people of Thessalonica, see Dennis,
The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) , pp. 85-88.
76. Loenertz, "Un Prostagma" (51), p. 171.
77. Although Dennis should have taken note of the revival of the word
"Hellene" at that time, he does not mention it. His research is based princi­
pally on the letters of Kydones published by Loenertz in the second volume
of his Démétrius Суdones ( 3 ) .
78. See Oreste Tafralı, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle (Paris, 1913),
p. 157.
79. There are examples in Emile Legrand, Lettres de l'empereur Manuel
Paléologue (Paris, 1893).
80. Raymond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (Rome, 1950),
pp. 200, 329; and Démétrius Cydonès ( 3 ) , i, 146.
81. See Demetrius Kydones, Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός (5:49), PG, с ы ѵ ,
col. 968.
82. Cammelli, Démétrius Cydonès (75), p. 8.
83. Raymond Loenertz, "Paléologue et Cydonès," Echos ďOrient, xxxvi
(1937), 476-477. Cf. Loenertz's Démétrius Cydonès ( 3 ) , и, 217, 238. On
the date, see Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) , p. 73.
84. Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Ή ιστορική συνείδηση καί τό αγωνιστικό
πνεύμα του νέου ελληνισμού [The Historic Conscience and Competitive Spirit
of the New Hellenism] (Thessalonica, 1957), p. 9.
NOTES—CHAPTER 8 317

85. See Basileios Laourdas, " Ό Γαβριήλ Θεσσαλονίκης, ομιλίαι" ( 7 : 1 6 ) ,

'Αθήνα, LVI (1952), 203.
86. See Constantine Mertzios, Μνημεία μακεδόνικης 'ιστορίας [Monuments
of Macedonian History] (Thessalonica, 1947), p. 203; and Pierre Belon, Les
Observations de plusieurs singularitéz et choses mémorables, trouvées en Grèce
(Paris, 1553), pp. 58b-59a. For a bibliography concerning travellers who saw
the monument, see Paul Collart, Phillipes, ville de Macédoine, depuis ses
origines jusqu à la fin de Yépoque romaine (Paris, 1937), pp. 326-327.
87. George Bakalakis, " 'Από τήν ζωντανή φυλλάδα του Μεγάλου 'Αλε­
ξάνδρου [From the Lively Novel of Alexander the Great]," Μακεδονικόν
Ήμερολόγιον, 1939, pp. 97-98.
88. Andreas Xyngopoulos, "Παραστάσεις εκ του μυθιστορήματος του Μ.
'Αλεξάνδρου [Representations from the Romance of Alexander the Great],"
AE, 1938, p. 199. Cf. pp. 23-24 of the present work.
89. Joseph Bryennios, Τα ευρεθέντα (6:82) (Leipzig, 1768), и, 278. For
the classical education (θύραθεν παιδεία) of the monk of Thessalonica,
Makarios Makris, and that of some of his contemporaries, see Athanasios
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, "Μακάριος Μακρής," ΔΙΕΕ, ш (1889), 463, 464.
90. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), πι, 152. The word Ρωμέλληνες has
been found in the exegesis of an oracle, relating to the Isthmus of Corinth,
written by Isidore, later Metropolitan of Kiev. See Denis Zakythinos, "Μανουήλ
Β ' Παλαιολόγος και ό καρδινάλιος 'Ισίδωρος εν Πελοποννήσω [Manuel II
Palaeologus and Cardinal Isidore in the Péloponnèse]," Mélanges Merlier,
ш (1957), 61. Does this word betray also the identity of the anonymous
author of the panegyric Έ Ι ς Μανουήλ και 'Ιωάννην Η ' Παλαιολόγους [On
Manuel and John II Palaeologus]" in Lambros, in, 194?
91. See Manuel Chrysoloras, Σύγκρισις της παλαιάς και νέας Ρ ώ μ η ς [Com­
parison of the Old and the New Rome], PG, CLVI, col. 40. Cf. Denis Zaky­
thinos, Βυζάντιον. Κράτος και κοινωνία, ιστορική έπισκόπησις [Byzantium.
The State and Society; an Historical Survey] (Athens, 1951), pp. 3 0 - 3 1 .
92. Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) , p. 89, fn. 25; and Spyridon Lam­
bros, " 'Ισιδώρου Μητροπολίτου Θεσσαλονίκης οκτώ έπιστολαί ανέκδοτοι"
(7:2), N E , ix (1912), 350. See similar textual extracts in Ihor Sevčenko,
"A Postscript on Nicholas Cabasilas' 'Anti-Zealot' Discourse," DOP, xvi (1962),
406, fn. 24a.
93. See George Ostrogorsky, Pour Vhistoire de la féodalité byzantine (Brus­
sels, 1954), pp. 161 ff., 172 ff.
94. See Halil inalcık, "Osmanlı hukuna giriş [Introduction to Ottoman
Law]," Siyasal bilgiler fakültesi dergisi, XIII (1958), p. 8 of the reprint.
95. Similar proposals made by him in 1383 and 1390 may be found in
Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II ( 4 ) , pp. 90-91, which also contains the
relevant bibliography.
96. Ostrogorsky, Pour Vhistoire de la féodalité (93), pp. 173-175.
97. See Fuad Köprülü, "Vakıf müessesessinin hukuk mahiyeti ve tarihî
tekâmülü [The Legal Character of the Wakf Institution and Its Historical
318 NOTES—CHAPTER 8

Evolution]," Vakıflar dergisi, и (1942), 26-32 (pp. 36-44 of the French

section).
98. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (80), p. 200.
99. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Oí δημοσιευμένες ομιλίες του αρχιεπισ­
κόπου Θεσσαλονίκης 'Ισιδώρου ως ιστορική πηγή για τήν γνώση της πρώτης
τουρκοκρατίας στην Θεσσαλονίκη ( 1 3 8 7 - 1 4 0 2 ) " (6:45), Μακεδόνικα, iv
(1960), 23 ff.
100. See Basileios Laourdas, 'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι εις τάς έορτάς
του 'Αγ. Δημητρίου (6:51) (Thessalonica, 1954), p. 57.
101. See Laourdas, " Ό Γαβριήλ" (85), p. 206.
102. Cf. Laourdas, Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι (6:51), p. 62.
103. Regarding these memories in 1372, see Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès
( 3 ) , ι, 110.
104. Laourdas, 'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι (6:51), p . 63. See Vaca­
lopoulos, "Oí δημοσιευμένες ομιλίες" (6:45), pp. 20-34.
105. The word χάριτες, with the meaning pronoia, was used also by the
Venetians (gratie). See Spyridon Theotokis, "'Αποφάσεις Μείζονος Συμβου­
λίου Βενετίας, 1255-1669 [Resolutions of the Greater Council of Venice,
1255-1669]," Μνημεία της ελληνικής ιστορίας (Athens, 1932-1933), ι, part
2,51.
106. See Vacalopoulos, "Οι δημοσιευμένες ομιλίες" (6:45), pp. 25, 31-32;
and Laourdas, 'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαι (6:51), p. 61.
107. Basileios Laourdas, "'Ισιδώρου αρχιεπισκόπου όμιλίαν περί της
αρπαγής των παίδων καί περί τής μελλούσης κρίσεως [The Homilies of Arch­
bishop Isidore on the Seizure of Children, and on the Last Judgment],"
Ελληνικά, appendix 4, presented to S. P. Kyriakidis (Thessalonica, 1953),
pp. 389-398.
108. Speros Vryonis attempts to show that the institution of both the
janissaries and the impressment of children were inspired by Kara Halil
Tsantarh, and that they were begun simultaneously during the reign of
Murad I ("Isidore Glabas and the Turkish 'devshirme/ " Speculum, xxxi
[1956], 438, 442). On the spread of the conscription of janissaries among the
subjects of the Ottoman state, see the hypotheses advanced by Paul Wittek,
"Devshirme and sharťa," BSOAS, XVII (1955), 271-278. Wittek's supposi­
tions, however, on matters pertaining to the Greeks are quite groundless.
Basilike Papoulia has recently supported the view that the impressment of
children was introduced at the time of Orchan (Ursprung und Wesen der
"Knabenlese" im osmanischen Reiche [6:28] [Munich, 1963], pp. 62 ff.).
109. See Louisa Syndika-Laourda, " Έγκώμιον εις τον άρχιεπίσκοπον
Θεσσαλονίκης Γαβριήλ [Encomium on Gabriel, Archbishop of Thessalonica],"
Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 366 ff.
110. See Neculai Iorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à l'histoire des Croisades
au XVe siècle, i, first series (Paris, 1899), 179-180, 258-259, 300-301. Cf.
the successive journeys made by Manuel Chrysoloras to the West (chapter 16
of the present work).
111. Bryennios, Τα ευρεθέντα (6:82), и, 246-247.
NOTES—CHAPTER 9 319

Chapter 9
1. As to the date of Gemistos' arrival in the Péloponnèse, I think that the
view of Ioannis Mamalakis in Γεώργιος Γεμιστός—Πλήθων [George Gemis-
tos—Pletho] (Athens, 1939), pp. 60-64, is closest to the truth. François Masai,
however, believes that Gemis tos arrived in Mistra shortly after Theodore II
ascended the throne of the despotate (Pléthon et le Platonisme de Mistra
[Paris, 1956], pp. 67, 386-387).
2. Gregory the monk, Μονωδία τω σοφω διδασκάλω Γεωργίω τω Γεμιστώ
[Monody for the Learned Teacher George Gemistos], PG, CLX, col. 817. Cf.
Hieronymos Charitonymos, 'Τμνωδία τφ σοφωτάτω διδασκάλω κυρίω Γεωρ­
γίω τω Γεμιστώ [Hymns for the Most Learned Teacher, Lord George Gemis-
tos], PG, CLX, col. 808.
3. See George I. Theocharidis, "Τέσσαρες βυζαντινοί καθολικοί κριταί
λανθάνοντες εν βυζαντινώ γνωστω κειμένω [Four Catholic Byzantine Judges,
Unnoticed in a Familiar Byzantine Text]," Μακεδόνικα, iv (1960), 497-498.
4. Gregory, Μονωδία τ φ σοφω ( 2 ) , col. 817.
5. Συμβουλευτικός προς δεσπότην Θεόδωρον περί της Πελοποννήσου [Ad­
visory Speech to the Despot Theodore concerning the Péloponnèse] (Spyridon
Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά [1:66] [Athens, 1926], iv, 114,
116); see Basileios Laourdas, " Ό Γαβριήλ Θεσσαλονίκης" (7:16) 'Αθηνά,
LVI (1952), 205, 206, 207.
6. See Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), ed.
Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), ι, 173, and 202-203. However, the
power of the nobility did not disappear. We do not know precisely what hap­
pened after the removal of the nobles to Constantinople, but it is likely that
a certain compromise was reached with Manuel.
7. On the chronology of the memoranda, see Mamalakis, Γεώργιος Γεμι­
στός ( 1 ) , pp. 387-388. A German translation of the memoranda appears in
Adolf Ellissen, Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur [Analects
of Medieval and Modern Greek Literature] (Leipzig, 1860), iv, part 2, 8 5 -
130.
8. See ΕΙς Μανουήλ Παλαιολόγον περί των εν Πελοποννήσω πραγμάτων
[To Manuel Palaeologus, concerning Matters in the Péloponnèse] (Lambros,
Παλαιολόγεια [1:66], in, 247).
9. See Mamalabs, Γεώργιος Γεμιστός ( 1 ) , pp. 49-51.
10. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), ш , 247-249, 309-310; iv, 121, 1 3 1 -
132.
11. Masai, Pléthon ( 1 ) , pp. 67-68: "Pléthon s'intéressait même au fonc-
tionnement des états contemporains: j'ai notamment retrouvé à Venise une
copie de la Constitution de Florence, opuscule grec de Leonardo Bruni, por-
tant des corrections autographes de Pléthon."
12. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), iv, 116, 119.
13. Ibid., m , 249-265, iv, 119-122. Cf. m, 310-312.
14. Ibid., iv, 131-133.
15. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Τά ελληνικά στρατεύματα του 1821 [The
Greek Troops in 1821] (Thessalonica, 1948), pp. 107-108.
320 NOTES—CHAPTER 9

16. On the meaning of the word φιλοσοφώ, see the observations of Ellissen
in Analekten ( 7 ) , iv, 142.
17. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), ш, 257-259.
18. Ibid., m , 258-259.
19. Ibid., iv, 128-129.
20. Ibid., ш , 260, 261, iv, 131-132. Cf. Denis Zakythinos, Le Despotat
grec de Morée (Athens, 1953), ι, 179-180.
21. On the granting of immunities in Monemvasia, see Franz Miklosich and
Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (1:43)
(Vienna, 1860-1887), и, 154-155, 165-168, 172. Cf. E. Francés, "La
Féodalité et les villes byzantines au XIII e et au XIV e siècles," Byz.-Sl., xvi
(1955), 90-91, 95.
22. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), m, 261-262. Cf. iv, 124-125. The
Spanish traveller Pero Tafur mentions mutilations of hands and eyes in Con­
stantinople in 1438 (Travels and Adventures, 1435-1439, tr. Malcolm Letts
[New York-London, 1926], pp. 146, 147), and notes: "I enquired why they
did not put him to death, and they replied that the Emperor could not order
his soul to be destroyed."
23. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), πι, 262-265, 310; iv, 130.
24. Dräseke believes that the main reason that Gemistos' proposals were
not put into effect consisted "in den vielfach überspannten geistigen Voraus-
setzungen, von Seiten des Platonischen-Philosophen [in the much exaggerated
spiritual presuppositions on the part of the Platonic philosopher]" (Johannes
Dräseke, "Plethons und Bessarions Denkschriften 'Über die Angelegenheiten
in Peloponnes' [Pletho's and Bessarion's Memoirs O n the Affairs in the Pélo-
ponnèse']," NJKA, XXVII [1911], 114). His study is based on Spyridon Lam-
bros, "'Τπόμνημα του καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος εις Κωνσταντΐνον τόν
Παλαιολόγον [A Memorandum from Cardinal Bessarion to Constantine
Palaeologus]," N E , ш (1906), 12-50.
25. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata (1:43), ш , 173 ff. On the
nature of the benefice, see George Ostrogorsky, Pour Vhistoire de L· féodalité
byzantine (Brussels, 1954), pp. 180 ff.; and "Pour l'histoire de l'immunité
byzantine," Byzantion, XXVIII (1958), 232-234.
26. Cf. Mamalakis, Γεώργιος Γεμιστός ( 1 ) , p. 213.
27. See Denis Zakythinos, "Μανουήλ Β ' Παλαιολόγος καί ο καρδινάλιος
'Ισίδωρος εν Πελοποννήσου" (8:90), Mélanges Merlier, ш (1957), 61.
28. See Zakythinos, Le Despotat (20), ι, 188-191, 299-302. Compare with
this Gemistos' testimony, Μονωδία επί τη αοιδίμω βασιλίδι Κλεόπη [Monody
on the Renowned Queen Cleopa], in Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), iv,
167: "Σωφροσύνης δ' εκείνο μέγα τεκμήριον, ή εκ της ιταλικής άνέσεώς τε
καί ραστώνης επί τό κατεσταλμενον τε, καί κοσμον του ημετέρου τρόπου
μεταβολή ακριβέστατη. . . . Ευσέβειας δέ άπόδειξις ή του θεοΰ λατρεία,
ην προσευχαΐς τε καί άσιτίαις ενδελεχέσι τόν ήμέτερον νόμον έπεδείκνυτο
[And that great token of prudence, the most exact change from Italian relaxa­
tion and indolence to the restraint and order of our manner. . . . And the
NOTES—CHAPTER 9 321

worship of God is evidence of piety, which it displays by prayers and by con­

stant fasting, according to our custom]."
29. See Zakythinos, "Μανουήλ B ' " (8:90), p. 61; and Spyridon Lambros,
"Τά τείχη του 'Ισθμού της Κορίνθου κατά τους μέσους αΙώνας [The Walls
of the Isthmus of Corinth in the Middle Ages]," NE, и (1905), 472 ff. Cf.
Lambros, "Προσθήκη είς τα περί των τειχών του 'Ισθμού της Κορίνθου κατά
τους μέσους αΙώνας [Supplement to the Study T h e Walls of the Isthmus of
Corinth in the Middle Ages']," NE, iv (1907), 21-22, 240-243.
30. Zakythinos, "Μανουήλ B ' " (8:90), p. 61.
31. Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn,
1838), p. 158.
32. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια (1:66), iv, 174-175.
33. "Regnum ipsa gubernavit, magistratus veteres deposuit, novos instituit,
sacerdotia pro suo arbitrio ordinavit, et, eliminato Latinorum ritu, Graecanicum
superinduxit, belli pacisque leges dixit. Viro satis fuit convivan, deliciisque
affluere, atque in hune modum universa insula in potestatem Graecorum rediit
[she herself governed, removed old magistrates, installed new ones, arranged
the priesthoods according to her own judgment, did away with the Latin rite
and replaced it with the Greek, and made laws concerning war and peace. It
sufficed her husband to feast and to be surrounded with delights. It was in
this fashion that the entire island returned to the domination of the Greeks]."
(See Sir George Francis Hill, A History of Cyprus, ш [Cambridge, Eng.,
1948], 527 ff,)
34. See John Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus from
the Coming of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas to the Commencement of the
British Occupation (A.D. 45-A.D. 1878) together with Some Account of the
Latin and Other Churches Existing in the Isfond (London, 1901), p. 155.
Hill's protestations and reservations (A History of Cyprus [33], in, 754-756)
in regard to the character of Cypriot national beliefs reveal a certain political
bias. When Hill's book appeared, the Cypriots had resumed their vigorous
struggle for union with Greece, and his basic intention appears to have been
to denigrate the national zeal of the Cypriots. Only in these terms is it possible
to explain his conclusion: "It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that long
centuries of foreign domination had left in the people nothing of the stuff of
which a nation could be made."
35. Jean de Beles ta, Voyage à Jérusalem de Philippe de Voisins, Seigneur
de Montaut (Paris, 1883), p. 25: "et seroient volountiers ez mains des
François, car ilz en ayment naturellement la nation [and they would willingly
be in the hands of the Franks, for they naturally love their nation]."
36. For an account of this movement, see Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie
vénitienne au moyen âge (Paris, 1959), p. 297.
37. See Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter,
von der Zeit Justinians bis zur türkischen Eroberung (Stuttgart, 1889), Greek
trans, by Spyridon Lambros (Athens, 1904-1906), и, 323.
38. Chalcocondyles, Histońarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 93. On the
question of the name of the historian's father, see Giuseppe Cammelli, I Dotti
322 NOTES—CHAPTER 10

bizantini e le origini dell' umanesimo [The Byzantine Schohrs and the Origins
of the Renaissance], πι, Dem. Calcondila (Florence, 1941-1954), pp. 4-5.
39. See Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 159, and pp. 130-133; also Chalco-
condyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), π, 94.
40. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 113-114. Cf.
William Miller, "The Last Athenian Historian: Laonicos Chalkokondyles,"
JHS, XLII (1922), 37.

Chapter 10
1. See Christopher Buondelmonti, Description des îles de l'Archipel. Version
grecque par un anonyme, publiée d'après le manuscrit du sérail avec une tra­
duction française et un commentaire par Emile Legrand (6:8) (Paris, 1897);
Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage d'outremer et retour de Jérusalem en
France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433, éd.
Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, in Mémoires de l'Institut national des sciences et arts;
sciences morales et politiques, v (Paris, fructidor an XII); and Pero Tafur,
Travels and Adventures, 1435-1439, tr. Malcolm Letts (New York-London,
1926).
2. See Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo, A Diary of the Journey to the Court of
Timur, 1403-1406, tr. Guy Le Strange (London, 1928), p. 48; and Buondel-
monti, Description des îles ( 6 : 8 ) , p. 78.
3. Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Les Limites de Гетріге byzantin depuis la fin
du XIV e siècle jusqu'à sa chute (1453)," BZ, LV (1962), 56-65, which con-
tains the relevant bibliography.
4. Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), ed. Eu-
gene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), ι, 6-7.
5. Regarding these illegitimate acts, see Georgius Pachymeres, Συγγραφικού
Ιστοριαι (3:69), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1835), π, 494. See also Denis
Zakythinos, Crise monétaire et crise économique à Byzance du XIIIe au XVe
siècle. Reprint from Hell. Contemp. (Athens, 1948), passim.
6. The book of accounts for the period 1436-1440 belonging to the mer-
chant Giacomo Badoer is typical. See Umberto Dorini and Tommaso Bertele,
eds., Il Libro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer, Constantinopoli, 1436-1440
(Rome, 1956). There were many foreigners in the capital (Castilians, Vene-
tians, etc.), either as merchants or as soldiers in the service of John VIII
(Tafur, Travels ( 1 ) , p. 123).
7. See Louis Brehier, Les Institutions de l'empire byzantin (Paris, 1949),
pp. 278-280.
8. Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican City,
1956), i, 103.
9. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage d'outremer ( 1 ) , p. 566.
10. Raymond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (Rome, 1950),
p. 330.
11. Tafur, Travels ( 1 ) , p. 120.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 0 323
12. Johann Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schilther ger,
a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427', tr. Commander
J. Buchán Telfer (London, 1879), p. 77.
13. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (10), p. 168.
14. Buondelmonti, Descriptions des îles (1), p. 89.
15. See Neculai Iorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à Yhistoire des Croisades
au XVe siècle, i, 2nd series (Paris, 1899), 365-367, 397.
16. On the activities of Pope Eugenius IV in connection with the enforce-
ment of the Union of the Churches in Crete, see Georg Hofmann, "Wie stand
es mit der Frage der Kircheneinheit auf Kreta?" (7:63), OCP, χ (1944), 9 5 -
96, 112-113.
17. See Manoussos Manoussacas, "Recherches sur la vie de Jean Plousiadénos
(Joseph de Methone), 1429P-1500," REB, XVII (1959), 28-51, which con-
tains the relevant bibliography.
18. See Hofmann, "Wie stand" (7:63), p. 114; Nikolaos Tomadakis, "Μιχαήλ
Καλοφρενάς Κρής, Μητροφάνης Β ' και ή προς τήν έ'νωσιν της Φλωρεντίας
άντίθεσις των Κ ρητών [Michael Calophrenas of Crete, Metrophanes II, and
the Opposition of the Cretans to the Union with Florence]," Ε Ε Β Σ , xxi
(1951), 110-114, especially pp. 124-130; and Basileios Laourdas, "Κρητικά
παλαιογραφικά" (7:15), ΚΧ, ν (1951), 245-252. Cf. Constantine Kalokyris,
Αί βυζαντιναί τοιχογραφίαι της Κρήτης (8:59) (Athens, 1957), pp. 181-182.
19. See Tomadakis, "Μιχαήλ Καλοφρενάς" (18), pp. 126-130.
20. See John Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus from
the Coming of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas to the Commencement of the
British Occupation (A.D. 45-A.D. 1878) together with Some Account of the
Latin and Other Churches Existing in the Isfond (London, 1901), pp. 152-
153.
21. Anonymous, 'Ιστορία πολιτική Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Political History
of Constantinople] (Bonn, 1849), p. 9.
22. See Ducas, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), p. 216 (ed. Basile
Grecu [Bucharest, 1958], pp. 270-271); and Ludwig Mohler, Kardinal Bes-
sarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, ι (Paderborn, 1923), 31 ff.,
36, 37, which contains the relevant bibliography.
23. See Joseph Gill, "The Year of the Death of Marc Eugenicus," BZ, LII
(1959), 2 3 - 3 1 .
24. Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn,
1838), pp. 178, 179. Cf. Ducas, ed Bekker (22), p. 215 (ed. Grecu, p. 269).
25. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage d outremer ( 1 ) , pp. 602-610.
For the Turkish method of waging war, see chapter 4, fn. 59, of the present
work. According to Tafur, Travels ( 1 ) , p. 127: "The Turks have the custom
to carry in the saddle an iron staff and a tambourine with their bows and
quivers. This is the whole of their fighting outfit."
26. Charles Schefer, ed., Le Voyage d'outremer de Bertrandon de la
Brocquière (Paris, 1892), pp. 263-264, 265, 266, where other pertinent in-
formation about Johannes Torzelo and about the campaign plans of the Chris-
tian forces is given.
324 NOTES—CHAPTER 10

27. Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, Voyage dOutremer (1), p. 579. Cf. p. 592.

28. Ducas, ed. Bekker (22), p. 135, and p. 136 (ed. Grecu, pp. 177-179).
29. Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, Voyage d'outremer ( 1 ) , p. 592.
30. Halil inalcık, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," Studia islamica, и
(1954), 107.
31. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonès ( 8 ) , π, 240: "τοις μή πειθομένοις αδιάλ­
λακτα πολεμοΰσι, και λατρείαν θεώ προσφέρειν τήν εκείνων σφαγήν [they
fight without mercy against those who do not obey and slaughtering them
worship their god]."
32. See Tafur, Travels ( 1 ) , p. 127: "The Grand Turk and his people are
always in the field in tents, both in winter and summer, and although the city
is close at hand, he never enters it unless it is to go with women to the bath."
33. Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, Voyage ďoutremer ( 1 ) , p. 527: "sont gens
de fatigue, d'une vie dure, et à qui il ne coûte rien, ainsi que je l'ai vu tout le
long de la route, de dormir sur la terre comme les animaux [they are people
of hardship, of a harsh life, and it means nothing to them. I have even seen
them all along the way, sleeping on the ground like animals]." For the epics
of the Turks, see M. Canard, "Delhemma. Sayyid Battâl et O m a r Al-No 'mân,"
Byzantion, хи (1937), 183-188.
34. On these ideas, see George Georgiadis-Arnakis, Οι πρώτοι 'Οθωμανοί
(5:30) (Athens, 1947), pp. 110 ff.; and "Futtuwa Traditions in the Ottoman
Empire. Akhis, Bektachi Dervishes, and Craftsmen," Journal of Near Eastern
Studies, хи (1953), 232-247.
35. Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, Voyage d'outremer ( 1 ) , pp. 527-528, 610:
"J'ay veu bien souvent, quant nous mengions, que s'il passoit ung povre homme
auprès d'eulx, ils le faisoient venir mengier avec nous ce que nous, ne fésiesmes
point [Many times when we were eating I have seen them invite a poor man
passing by to eat with us, something we never do]" (p. 528). However, in the
middle of Asia Minor, and especially in Karamania, the inhabitants were cruel
and of marauding habits, and foreigners were in danger of being killed if they
went out at night, pp. 540 ff. See Tafur, Travels ( 1 ) , p. 128.
36. Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels (12), pp. 54-55, 77: "that the
Christians will yet expel them out of the country and will again possess the
country" (p. 77).
37. See Photios Chrysanthopoulos, 'Απομνημονεύματα περί της ελληνικής
επαναστάσεως [Memoirs on the Greek Revolution] (Athens, 1899), i, 1 3 5 -
136.
38. See Β. Κ., 'Από τήν αιχμαλωσία [From Captivity] (Athens, 1923),
p. 61.
39. Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, Voyage d'outremer ( 1 ) , p. 257.
40. Ibid., pp. 575, 576, 577, 578.
41. Murad II did not impose a land tax or personal tax (taille)— by which
Broquière means the poll tax, harac—on his subject compatriots, nor did he
take money by force or extortion (Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, Voyage
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 0 325

d'outremer [1], p. 578). A similar assessment of Murad—and, of course, a flat-

tering one—is made by his own adviser, Sükrülläh (Theodor Seif, "Der Ab-
schnitt über die Osmanen in Sükrülläh's persischer Universalgeschichte" (5:39),
MOG, и [1923-1925], 115-116).
42. See the narrative of Ioannis Kananos, Διήγησις περί του εν Κωνσταντι-
νουπόλει γεγονότος πολέμου το 6930 (1422) έτος [Account of the War in
Constantinople in the Year 6930 (1422)], ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1838).
Compare the additional information in Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και
Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Athens, 1926), m, xvi ff., 215.
43. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 179.
44. Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Les Limites de Гетріге byzantin" ( 3 ) , p. 62.
45. See Christopher Buondelmonti, Description des îles ( 6 : 8 ) , pp. 88-89;
Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage ă outremer ( 1 ) , p. 559; and Tafur,
Travels ( 1 ) , pp. 145-146, and p. 123: "the city is badly populated."
46. Tafur, Travels ( 1 ) , p. 128.
47. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών συγγραφή [Histories], ed. Karl Müller,
in Fragmenta historicorum graecorum (Paris, 1883), v, 40-161: i, xiv ( 3 ) -
(9).
48. Socrates Kougeas, "Notizbuch eines Beamten der Metropolis in Thessa-
lonike aus dem Anfang des XV. Jahrhunderts [Notebook of an Official of the
Metropolis in Thessalonica, from the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century]," BZ,
XXIII (1914-1920), 148. The "Μπαράκος(?) του Β ρ α ν έ ω ς ( ? ) " ο ί the chronicle
is Bürak, son of Evrenos.
49. See George I. Theocharidis, ""Αγνωστα τοπογραφικά της θεσσα­
λονίκης εξ ανεκδότου εγγράφου της εν 'Αγ. ' Ό ρ ε ι Μονής Διονυσίου [Un­
known Topographica of Thessalonica from an Unpublished Document of the
Dionysios Monastery on Mt. Athos]," Μακεδόνικα, ν (1960), 4.
50. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, A History of Thessaloniki, tr. T. F. Carney
(Thessalonica, 1963), pp. 62-70; and Camillo Manfroni, "La Marina veneziana
alla difresa di Salonicco (1423-1430) [The Venetian Navy in the Defense of
Thessalonica (1423-1430)]," Nuovo Archivio veneto, n.s. (1910), 5-68.
51. Vacalopoulos, "Les Limites de l'empire byzantin" ( 3 ) , p. 62.
52. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Συμβολή στην ιστορία της Θεσσαλονίκης
επί βενετοκρατίας" (4:14), Τόμος 'Αρμενοπούλου, pp. 137-141. The docu­
ment of Bishop Meletios of Campania, dated April 14, 1421, also mentions the
"nobles of the Senate" (see Franz Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heili­
gen Berges [From the Treasuries of the Holy Mount] [Munich, 1948], p. 266).
53. Euthymios Dionysiatis and Stilpon Kyriakidis, " " Ε γ γ ρ α φ α της ιεράς
μονής του 'Αγ. Διονυσίου άφορώντα εις αγνώστους ναούς της Θεσσαλονίκης
[Documents of the Monastery of Saint Dionysios Pertaining to Unknown
Churches of Thessalonica]," Μακεδόνικα, ш (1953-1955), 375.
54. See Vacalopoulos, "Συμβολή στην ιστορία τής Θεσσαλονίκης" (4:14),
pp. 143-146.
55. Robert de Dreux, Voyage en Turquie et en Grèce, publié et annoté par
Hubert Pernot (Paris, 1925), p. 103.
326 NOTES—CHAPTER 10

56. Kougeas, "Notizbuch eines Beamten" (48), p. 152.

57. See Constantine Mertzios, Μνημεία Μακεδόνικης Ιστορίας (8:86)
(Thessalonica, 1947), pp. 49-53.
58. See Vacalopoulos, A History of Thessaloniki (49), pp. 71-75.
59. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage dOutremer ( 1 ) , p. 557.
60. Ioannis Vasdravellis, 'Ιστορικά 'αρχεία Μακεδονίας, Α ' . 'Αρχεΐον
Θεσσαλονίκης, 1695-1912 [Historical Archives of Macedonia. I: Archive of
Thessalonica, 1695-1912] (Thessalonica, 1952), pp. 2-3.
61. See Constantin Jireček, "Die Witwe und die Söhne des Despoten Esau
von Epirus" (1:51), BNJ, ι (1920), 11, 16.
62. See Karl Hopf, Griechenland im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (1:51)
(Leipzig, 1867-1868), n, 107.
63. On the question of the nationality of the Slav nobles, see Sebastián
Cirác Estopañán, Bizancio y España (Barcelona, 1943), и, 218.
64. See Constantine Amantos, " Ή άναγνώρισις υπό των Μωαμεθανών
θρησκευτικών καί πολιτικών δικαιωμάτων τών χριστιανών και ό ορισμός του
Σινάν πάσα [The Recognition by the Mohammedans of the Religious and
Political Rights of the Christians, and the Order of Sinan Paşa]," НХ, ν
(1930), 207 ff.
65. See Anonymous, " Ιστορικόν κατά παράδοσιν του μακαρίτου Κ. Κοσμά
Μπαλάνου, διδασκάλου τών 'Ιωαννίνων [A History according to the Tradition
of the Late K. Kosmas Balanos, Teacher of Ioannina]," 'Αθηνά, ι (1831),
99-103; and Panagiotis Aravantinos, Χρονογραφία της 'Ηπείρου (1:46)
(Athens, 1856), ι, 225-226. See also, on the Epirotic chronicle, in Aravantinos'
vol. i, by an unknown author, " Ιστορία πολιτική Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Po­
litical History of Constantinople]," ed. by B. G. Niebuhr (Bonn, 1849), pp.
242-244.
66. Halil inalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli sûret-i defteri Sancak-i Arvanid (1:56)
(Ankara, 1954), p. xv.
67. See the article "Arnavutluk" by Halil inalcık in the Encyclopaedia of
Ishm (1960), i, 654.
68. Baron de Tott, Mémoires de Baron de T ott sur les Turcs et les Tartares
(Amsterdam, 1784), n, 208-209.
69. For full details, see inalcık, Sancak-i Arvanid (1:56), pp. xvii AF.; also
his "The Ottoman Record-Books as a Source of Place-Names," Fifth Interna­
tional Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Proceedings and Transactions (Sala­
manca, 1958), и, p. 4 of the reprint. Further details on the functions of the
commissioners may be found in Inalcik, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest,"
Studia islamica, п (1954), 110-111. See also Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, "Essai sur
les données statistiques des registres de recensement dans l'empire ottoman
aux XVe et XVIe siècles [Essay on the Statistical Data of the Registers of the
Census in the Ottoman Empire, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries],"
Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient, ι (1957), Uff.
70. See Inalcik, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest" (69), p. 5.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 1 327
Chapter 11
1. Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Προβλήματα της ιστορίας του παιδομαζώ-
ματος" (6:28), Ελληνικά, ΧΠΙ (1954), 281; and Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı,
Kapukulu ocakları [The Corps of the "Slaves of the Porte"] (Ankara, 1943),
ι, 13. Cf. Uzunçarşılı's article "Devşirme" in İslâm Ansiklopedisi (istanbul,
1940-1960). He accepts and combines the separate opinions of William
Langer and Robert Blake, "The Rise of the Ottoman Empire and Its Historical
Background," The American Historical Review, XXXVII (1932), 504, and Her­
bert Gibbons, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (New York, 1916), pp. 117-
118.
2. Vacalopoulos, "Προβλήματα" (6:28), pp. 281-282.
3. See ibid., pp. 281-283, which also includes a bibliography.
4. See Halil inalcık, "Stefan Dušan 'dan Osmanlı imparatorluğuna XV
asırda Rumeli' de hıristiyan sipahiler ve menşeleri," in Fuad Köprülü Armağanı
(5:36) (istanbul, 1953), pp. 213-214, 228-229, 246-247.
5. В. A. Cvetkova, "Новые данные о христианах-спахиях на Балканском
полуострове в период турецкого господства [New Evidence on Christian
Spahis in the Balkan Peninsula during Turkish Domination]," Viz. Vrem.,
XIII ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 184-197.
6. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage d'outremer et retour de Jérusalem
en France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433, éd.
Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, in Mémoires de Îlnstitut national des sciences et
arts; sciences morales et politiques, v (Paris, fructidor an XII), pp. 579, 610.
7. See Charles Schefer, ed., Le Voyage d'outremer de Bertrandon de la
Broquière (Paris, 1892), p. 265.
8. For a similar situation in Albania, see Halil inalcık, "Timariotes chrétiens
en Albanie au XV siècle [Christian Timariots in Albania in the Fifteenth Cen­
tury]," Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs, iv (1951), 122, 123,
124, 128.
9. See Halil inalcık, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," Studia islamica, и
(1954), 107, 114.
10. inalcık, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), pp. 214-216.
11. Very probably this reference was to the descendant of the great
πριμμικήριος [Byzantine official] Miekra, of the same district, who was men­
tioned in a letter by Antonios, Metropolitan of Larissa (probably mid-four­
teenth century). See Nikos Bees, "Σερβικά και βυζαντιακά έγγραφα Μετε­
ώρου [Serbian and Byzantine Documents of Meteora]," Βυζαντίς, и ( 1 9 1 1 -
1912), 7 1 .
12. inalcık, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), pp. 214-216.
13. Regarding the Bulgarians of this district, compare the similar view of
Sebastián Cirác Estopañán, Bizancio y España (Barcelona, 1943), II, 218:
these Bulgars "quizás deban ser considerandos como un resto de las invasiones
primitivas en Epeiros o como un resto de los búlgaros que ayudaron a Esteban
Dusan en la conquista del despotado, y que deben ser tenidos como pastores
328 NOTES—CHAPTER 11

o colonos y esclavos lo mismo que los blachoi [may be considered as remnants

of the primitive invaders in Epirus or of the Bulgars who aided Stephen
Dušan during the conquest of the despotate and, like the Vlachs, must be
thought of as shepherds or farmers or slaves]." See also p. 147.
14. Inalcik, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), p. 217.
15. Ιστορικόν Κομνηνού μονάχου και Πρόκλου μονάχου in Bizancio y
Espana (1:51), ed. Sebastián Cirác Estopañán (Barcelona, 1943), pp. 560-
561. Cf. the "Bulgaro-Arvanito-Vlach" philosopher, Neophytus of John Ka-
tranis (ed. Pietro Matranga, Anecdota graeca [Rome, 1850], и, pp. 676-677',
in George Soulis, "Περί των μεσαιωνικών αλβανικών φυλών τών Μαλακασίων,
Μπουίων και Μεσαριτών" (1:45), ΕΕΒΣ, ххш [1953], 216).
16. Inalcik, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), p. 217.
17. For examples in Albania as well, see Halil Inalcik, "Timariotes chré­
tiens" ( 8 ) , p. 126; and his "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), p. 217.
18. Inalcik, "Timariotes chrétiens" ( 8 ) , pp. 126, 130.
19. A similar event occurred about two centuries later with the conversion
to Islam of the spahis of Epirus (Anonymous, "Ιστορικόν κατά παράδοσιν
του μακαρίτου Κ. Κοσμά Μπαλάνου, διδασκάλου τών Ιωαννίνων" [10:65],
'Αθηνά, ι [1831], 101).
20. Inalcik, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest" (9), p. 115.
21. Inalcik, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), pp. 216-217. It is therefore remark­
able that Beldiceanu, who was acquainted with Inalcik's study, should still
prefer to regard them all as Vlachs, or rather Rumanians (Nicoara Beldiceanu,
"Les Roumains à la bataille d'Ankara," Sùdost-forschungen, xiv [1955], 4 4 1 -
454).
22. Inalcik, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), p. 216.
23. Ibid., p. 215. See also the Albanian voynuklar (Inalcik, "Timariotes
chrétiens" ( 8 ) , pp. 136-137).
24. Inalcik, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest" ( 9 ) , p. 114.
25. Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, XV ve XVI inci asırlarda osmanli imparatorlusunda
zirai econominin hukukî ve malî esasları [The Legal and Fiscal Principles of
the Agrarian Economy in the Ottoman Empire during the XVth and XVIth
Centuries] (Istanbul, 1945), i, 289.
26. See Inalcik, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), p. 218.
27. Ibid., p. 215. Cf. the ancient (kadımı) Christian timańotes in Albania
(Inalcik, "Timariotes chrétiens" ( 8 ) , pp. 120, 128, 132-133).
28. See Inalcik, "Timariotes chrétiens" ( 8 ) , pp. 132-133.
29. Ibid., pp. 133-135, 136. The Christians of Thessalonica who garrisoned
the twenty-four coastal castles were exempt from certain taxes from the time
of the city's capture in 1430 until 1605. In the latter year the beylerbey and
başdefterdar of Rumelia, Ahmed Pasha, dispensed with their services on the
grounds that "it is impossible to continue the garrisoning of the castle by a
collection of infidels, just as it is inconceivable to imagine that they could be
trusted." See Ioannis Vasdravellis, Ιστορικά 'Αρχεία Μακεδονίας, A ' .
Άρχεΐον Θεσσαλονίκης, 1695-1912 (10:60) (Thessalonica, 1952), pp. 1-3.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 2 329

Regarding those who were exempt from payment of the avarizi divaniye, see
"Avâriz" by Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, in Islam ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1940-1960),
π, 73-79.
30. inalcık, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest" (9), p. 108.
31. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Νεοελληνική παράδοσις δια τά επί τουρ­
κοκρατίας προνόμια των Δερβενοχωρίων Κορίνθου [Modern Greek Tradition
on the Privileges of the Dervenochoria of Corinth under the Turkish Rule]
( Thessalonica, 1941), for further details and the relevant bibliography.
32. See Inalcik, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest" ( 9 ) , pp. 135-136. For
the various meanings of the word Martolos in Balkan and other European lan­
guages (which one must constantly bear in mind in the interpretation of
foreign sources), see Robert Anhegger, "Martoloslar hakkında [On Martolos],"
Türkiyat mecmuası, vu-vin (1942), no. 1, 283-285.
33. Anhegger, "Martoloslar hakkında" (32), pp. 286-287.
34. Claude Fauriel, Chants populaires de la Grèce moderne (Paris, 1824),
i, xlvij-xlviij.
35. See Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), ed.
Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), ι, 31; и, 92.
36. Jacovaky Rizo Neroulos, Histoire moderne de la Grèce (Geneva, 1828),
p. 49.
37. Eugène Yemeniz, Scènes et récits des guerres de Vindépendance—Grèce
moderne (Paris, 1869), p. 6. Consider also, by way of elaboration, the char-
acteristic remarks of Panagiotes Aravantinos, Χρονογραφία της Η π ε ί ρ ο υ
(1:46) (Athens, 1856), и, 4, in relation to the etymology of the word Agrafa.
This etymology is still part of the popular heritage. See Sophronios Eustra-
tiadis, " Έπιστολαί Ευγενίου 'Ιωαννουλίου του ΑΙτωλοΰ [Letters of Eugenios
Ioannoulios the Aetolian]," Ελληνικά, VIII (1935), 273.
38. David Urquhart, The Spirit of the East (London, 1839), ι, 319-320.
39. See Léon Heuzey, Le Mont Olympe et ΓAcamante (París, 1860), pp.
223-267, especially pp. 257-258. Cf. the description by Yéméniz, Scènes et
récits (38), pp. 2, 4 - 5 .
40. See Demetrius Aenian, " Άρματωλοί καί κλέφτες [Armatoli and
klephtes],yt Βιβλιοθήκη του λαοΰ (Athens, 1852), p. 272.
41. Ibid., p. 272.
42. Ibid., pp. 273-274.
43. Inalcik, "Stefan Dušan" (5:36), pp. 215-216.
44. See Antonios Keramopoullos, Tí είναι ol Κουτσόβλαχοι (1:17) (Athens,
1939), fn., p. 96, for the bibliography; also pp. 125, 129 ff., 136-138, 1 3 8 -
139, 142-144. Cf. Socrates Liakos, "Μακεδόνικος άρματωλισμός [Macedonian
Armatolism]," 'Αριστοτέλης, Phlorina, nos. 3, 4, 5 (May-August, 1957).

Chapter 12
1. Ducas, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), pp. 136-137 (ed. Basile
Grecu [Bucharest, 1958], pp. 175-176); and Pero Tafur, Travels and Adven­
tures, 1435-1439, tr. Malcolm Letts (New York-London, 1926), p . 128.
Regarding the devastation in Thrace and throughout the West, see Bertrandon
330 NOTES—CHAPTER 1 2

de la Brocquière, Voyage d'outremer et retour de Jérusalem en France par la

voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433, éd. Pierre Legrand
D'Aussy, in Mémoires de l'Institut national des sciences et arts; sciences
morales et politiques, v (Paris, fructidor an XII), 569, 570, 571, 573-574,
591, and passim. Broquière mentions that in 1432 he saw in Adrianopolis, in
chains, Christians whom the Turks had captured in order to sell and who
were then begging in the streets (p. 589). Cf. Dimitar Angelov, "Certains
Aspects de la conquête des peuples balkaniques par les Turcs," Byz.-SL,
XVII (1956), 237 ff.
2. Joseph Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα (6:82) (Leipzig, 1768), n, 217.
3. See Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), ed.
Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), ι, 94; and Chronicle of Aşik paşa Zade,
tr. Richard Kreutel (Vienna, 1959), pp. 39, 40.
4. See Dionysios' note in Raymond Loenertz, Demetrius С уdonès, corre­
spondance (Vatican City, 1956), i, 175; Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo, A Diary
of the Journey to the Court of Timur, 1403-1406, tr. Guy Le Strange (Lon­
don, 1928), p. 49; and Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, "Les Déportations comme
méthode de peuplement et de colonisation dans l'empire ottoman," extrait de
la Revue de la faculté des sciences économiques de l'université d'Istanbul,
11 e année, nos. 1-4 (Istanbul, 1953), pp. 54, 60, which contains the relevant
bibliography.
5. See Barkan, "Les Déportations" ( 4 ) , p. 50.
6. See Ciro Truhelka, "Über die Balkan-Yürüken [On the Balkan Yuruks],"
Revue internationale des études balkaniques, ι (1934), 91; and Tayyib
Gökbilgin, Rumeli'de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlâd-i Fatihan (6:23) (istanbul,
1957), pp. 74 AF.
7. See Barkan, "Les Déportations" (4), pp. 38, 39, 40 ff., which contains
the relevant bibliography.
8. See Halil inalcık, "The Ottoman Record-Books as a Source of Place-
Names," Fifth International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Proceedings and
Transactions (Salamanca, 1958), и, pp. 6-7 of the reprint; and "Ottoman
Methods of Conquest," Studia islamica, и (1954), 125-126.
9. See Halil inalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli sûret-i defteri Sancak-i Arvanid
(1:56) (Ankara, 1954), pp. xv-xvii. On the wakf, freehold properties and
fiefs of the districts of Didymoteichon, Gumuljina (Komotine), etc., which
were held by the Yuruks who had settled there between 1456 and 1467, see
Gökbilgin, Rumeli'de Yürükler (6:23), p. 21, and p. 70 for the number of
ortos in Didymoteichon and Gumuljina in 1453, 1584, 1586, 1591, and 1642.
10. Gökbilgin, Rumelt de Yürükler (6:23), p. 14. Cf. pp. 12, 69, 70, where
the number of ortos in Demir Hisar, Kalamaria, Drama, Kavala, San Saban,
and Çağlayık during the years 1543, 1584, 1586, 1591, and 1642 is noted.
11. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstration's (1:52), i, 94. Concerning
these settlers, see the brief study by P. Traeger, "Die Jürüken und Koniaren
in Makedonien [The Yuruks and Koniari in Macedonia]," Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie, XXXVII (1905), 198-206.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 2 331
12. See Félix de Beaujour, Tableau du commerce de la Grèce (Paris, 1800),
i, 325-326.
13. See Barkan, "Les Déportations" (4), pp. 44-45, 50-51.
14. See Demetrius Salamangas, Γιαννιώτικα ιστοριοδιφικά μελετήματα:
Τρεις ενθυμήσεις των ετών 1584, 1597 καί 1630 [Historical Studies on
Ioannina: Three Brief Chronicles of 1584, 1597, and 1630] (Ioannina, 1958),
pp. 89-91.
15. Barkan, "Les Déportations" (4), p. 50.
16. On the confusion surrounding the use of the names Yuruk, Koniar,
Tatar Yuruk, and Tatar, see the detailed treatment by Gökbilgin, Rumelt de
Yürükler (6:23), pp. Iff. Gökbilgin also examines the ethnology of these
peoples, as well as the problem of their settlement in various parts of Europe.
See also the recent study by Ernst Werner, "Yürüken und Wlachen," Wissen­
schaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-M arх-Universität, Gesellschaft und sprach­
wissenschaftliche Reihe, xv (1966), 471-478, which contains a good bibli-
ography.
17. Barkan, "Les Déportations" (4), p. 50. Cf. Traeger, "Die Jürüken" (11),
p. 205.
18. Gökbilgin, Rumeli de Yürükler (6:23), pp. 76-77.
19. See Traeger, "Die Jürüken" (11), pp. 205-206.
20. See Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), i, 94.
21. David Urquhart, The Spirit of the East (London, 1839), ι, 319-320.
22. Jakob Fallmerayer, Schriften und Tagebücher (1:1) (Munich-Leipzig,
1913), π, 194-195.
23. Urquhart, The Spirit of the East (21), i, 320.
24. Besides Vlachs and Albanians, there are also references to remnants of
Slav peoples who were sometimes called Bulgarians and sometimes Serbs. See
Léon Heuzey, Excursion dans la Thessalie turque en 1858 (Paris, 1927), pp.
91, 128.
25. See Barkan, "Les Déportations" (4), p. 50. Besides Yuruks, there is
also a reference to eight different ortas of Tatars in Yeni Şehir and four in
Tsataltza, all of which performed the same duties as the Yuruks. See Gökbilgin,
Rumeli de Yürükler (6:23), p. 87.
26. See Nikolaos I. Giannopoulos, "Οί δύο μεσαιωνικοί * Αλμυροί καί ό νυν
[The Two Almyroses of the Middle Ages and the Present]," Έπετηρίς Παρνασ­
σού, VIII (1904), 82, fn. 1.
27. On the Turkish conquest and its monuments, see Franz Babinger,
"Moschee und Grabmal des Osman Schach zu Trikkala [The Mosque and
Tomb of Osman Shach at Trikkala]," Π AA, iv (1929), 15-18.
28. See Demetrius K. Tsopotos, Γη καί γεωργοί της Θεσσαλίας κατά τήν
Τουρκοκρατίαν επί τη βάσει ιστορικών πηγών (8:46) (Volos, 1912), pp.
1 ff., 11 ff., 20, 21, 25, 29, 35, 36-37, 38, 42, 43, 44-45.
29. See Alfred Philippson and Ernst Kirsten, Die griechischen Landschaften
(1:9) (Frankfurt, 1950), ι, 1. 281.
30. Gustav Weigand, Die Sprache der Olympo-Wattachén nebst einer
Einleitung über Land und Leute [The Language of the Olympos Vlachs, To-
332 NOTES—CHAPTER 13

gether with an Introduction on the Land and Its People] (Leipzig, 1888),
pp. 11-12.
31. See Tsopotos, Γη και γεωργοί (8:46), pp. 17, 18, 19.
32. See Franz Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft
in Rumelien (14.-15. Jahrhundert) (6:20) (Munich, 1944), p. 48, fn. 51.
33. See Eustathios Stougiannakis, Ιστορία της πόλεως Ναούσης [History
of the City of Naousa], part 1 (Edessa, 1924), pp. 36 ff.; and Ioannis Vas-
dravellis, " Ιστορικά περί Ναούσης εξ ανεκδότου χειρογράφου [Histories
concerning Naousa, from an Unpublished Manuscript]," Μακεδόνικα, in
(1953-1955), 128 ff. For legends about the Evrenos family, see Beaujour,
Tableau du commerce (12), i, 111-116. They are based on a Turkish manu­
script.
34. See Epaminondas G. Pharmakidis, Ή Λάρισα [Larissa] (Volos, 1926),
pp. 161, 280 ff.
35. For an oral tradition connected with the settlement of Tyrnavos, see
Fallmerayer, Schriften und Tagebücher (1:1), и, 188.
36. Urquhart, The Spirit of the East (22), i, 320-321.
37. Fallmerayer, Schriften und Tagebücher (1:1), и, 189, 193.
38. See Barkan, "Les Déportations" ( 4 ) , p. 49. Barkan has done research
on the returns of population and taxation compiled from the great census of
Suleiman I's reign. See also Urquhart, The Spint of the East (22), i, 322;
and Nikolaos Giannopoulos, " Ή μεσαιωνική Φθιώτις και τά εν αύτη μνημεία
[Medieval Phthiotis and Its Monuments]," ΔΙΕΕ, VIII (1922), 73, which con­
tains the relevant bibliography.
39. Urquhart, The Spirit of the East (22), i, 321-323. On the introduction
into Montpellier of the Greek method of dyeing cotton red during the middle
of the eighteenth century, see Beaujour, Tableau du commerce (12), i, 2 8 5 -
289.
40. Fallmerayer, Schriften und Tagebücher (1:1), π, 189-190.
41. William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece
(1204-1566) (New York-Cambridge, Eng., 1964), pp. 150-151.
42. Fallmerayer, Schriften und Tagebücher (1:1), и, 190.

Chapter 13
1. See Socrates Kougeas, "Notizbuch eines Beamten der Metropolis in
Thessalonike aus dem Anfang des XV. Jahrhunderts" (10:48), BZ, xxin
(1914-1920), 153.
2. See Denis Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Мог ее (Athens, 1953), ι,
213, 216-217.
3. See Andreas Moustoxydis, " 'Ιωάννης, Γεώργιος και Δημήτριος Μόσχοι
[Ioannes, Georgios, and Demetrios Moschos]," Έλληνομνήμων, ι (1843-1853),
387-388.
4. See William Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, Eng., 1921),
p. 149; and Vitalien Laurent, "Le Vaticanus latinus 4789. Alliances et filia-
NOTES—CHAPTER 13 333
tions des Cantacuzènes au XVe siècle," REB, ix (1951), 78 ff., which contains
the relevant bibliography.
5. See Alexandre Oleroff, "Demetrius Trivolis, copiste et bibliophile," Scrip­
torium, iv (1950), 260-263.
6. Börje Knös, "Gemiste Pléthon et son souvenir," Lettres d'humanité, ix
(1950), 131.
7. See François Masai, Pléthon et le Platonisme de Mistra (Paris, 1956),
pp. 380-381: "Aussi, lorsque Georges de Trebizonte l'interrogea sur l'issue
qu'il entrevoyait à la lutte qui opposait alors l'Islam et le christianisme, le
philosophe proclama sa foi dans la disparition prochaine des religions en con-
flit et dans le triomphe des conceptions païennes. Ses Lois devaient révéler
la pensée antique à un monde enfin prêt à la recevoir [Therefore, when George
of Trebizond asked him about the outcome which he foresaw in the struggle
in which Islam and Christianity were at that time involved, the philosopher
proclaimed his confidence in the forthcoming disappearance of the religions
which were in conflict and in the triumph of pagan ideas. His Laws would
reveal ancient thought to a world which was at last ready to receive it]."
8. George Gemistos, Π ρ ο ς το υπέρ τοΰ λατινικού δόγματος βιβλίον (7:17),
PG, CLX, col. 980. Cf. Ε. Stephanou, " Ή ειμαρμένη εν τω φιλοσοφικω
συστήματι τοΰ Πλήθωνος [Fate in the Philosophical System of Pletho]," Εις
μνήμην Σπυρίδωνος Λάμπρου (Athens, 1935), pp. 315-320.
9. See Franz Taeschner, "G. Gemistos Plethon, ein Vermittler zwischen
Morgenland und Abendland zu Beginn der Renaissance [George Gemistos
Pletho, an Intercessor between East and West at the Beginning of the Renais­
sance]," BNJ, VIII (1931), 100-113. Ioannis Mamalakis pursues this problem
in " Ή επίδραση των σύγχρονων γεγονότων στις Ιδέες τοΰ Γεμιστού [The
Influence of Contemporary Events on the Ideas of Gemistos]," IXth Inter­
national Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thessalonica, 1953, Πεπραγμένα
(Athens, 1955-1958), n, 498-532. See also Masai, Pléthon et le Platonisme
(7)> ΡΡ· 55-65, 102 ff., for a lengthy analysis of Gemistos' philosophical ideas
as well as the relevant bibliography.
10. For some interesting thoughts on Gemistos and his work, see Demos­
thenes I. Danielidis, Ή νεοελληνική κοινωνία και οίκονομία [The Modern
Greek Society and Economy] (Athens, 1934), pp. 79-103; and Ioannis
Mamalakis' monograph, Γεώργιος Γεμιστός-Πλήθων (10:1) (Athens, 1939).
11. Mamalakis, Γεώργιος Γεμιστός (10:1), pp. 182-214, especially pp.
195-196, 200, 204, and pp. 214-220. Cf. Martin Jugie, "La Polémique de
Georges Scholarios contre Pléthon," Byzantion, x (1935), 517-530.
12. Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Ath­
ens, 1926), π, 19-23. Cf. pp. 24-27.
13. See Zakythinos, Le Despotat ( 2 ) , i, 226, 229-230.
14. Ibid., pp. 204-226. On the wall across the Isthmus, see Spyridon
Lambros, "Τα τείχη τοΰ 'Ισθμού της Κορίνθου κατά τους μέσους αιώνας"
(9:29), N E , и (1905), 471 ff. Cf. Spyridon Lambros and Constantine Aman-
tos, Βραχέα χρονικά (8:71), series Μνημεία της ελληνικής ιστορίας, ι, part 1
(Athens, 1932), p. 48.
334 NOTES—CHAPTER 13

15. For the interpretation of the oracle, see Denis Zakythinos, "Μανουήλ Β '
Παλαιολόγος και ό καρδινάλιος 'Ισίδωρος εν Πελοποννήσω (8:90), Melanges
Merlier, ш (1957), 17, and especially p. 19.
16. See Spyridon Lambros, " 'Τπόμνημα του καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος είς
Κωνσταντΐνον τον Π αλαιολόγον" (9:25), NE, m (1906), 15. Page references
in parentheses in this chapter refer to the reproduction of the letter given in this
issue of NE. Lambros also reproduces it in Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησι­
ακά (1:66), iv, 32-45.
17. "Πάντων μεν αν ανθρώπων έβουλόμην αυτό [τό γένος] βασιλεύειν,
πάντων δε πάσαις άρεταϊς ύπερέχειν [I wanted this same race to reign over
the whole of mankind, and to excel all in virtue]."
18. Hans-Georg Beck, "Reichsidee und nationale Politik im spätbyzantini-
schen Staat [The Conception of Empire and National Politics in the Late By-
zantine State]," BZ, Lin (1960), 89-90.
19. Bessarion's predecessor, Joseph Bryennios, vividly portrayed the injus-
tices of the nobility (Bryennios, Τά ευρεθέντα [7:34] [Leipzig, 1768], ι,
96-97).
20. See one of Bessarion's letters to the Minorite monk, Jacob Pincens, in
which he lists the raw materials of the Péloponnèse (Lambros, " "Γπόμνημα"
[9:25], 32).
21. The last line of this text reads as follows: δτι δε και αυτός ταΰτα
εγκρίνεις καί πολλάκις αναλογίσω καί ήδιστα αν πράξειας καιρού λαβόμενος,
ουδείς αγνοεί των είδότων σου τά φρονήματα [and no one who knows your
sentiments is unaware that you yourself sanction this and, having often con­
sidered it, would do it most willingly if the opportunity offered itself]."
22. Barila Kretóć, Dubrovnik (Ragusę) et le Levant au moyen âge (Paris,
1960), pp. 55,56-57.
23. Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiaruin demonstrationes (1:52), éd. Eu­
gene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), и, 91-92. Cf. p. 341. It is not true, as
Denis Zakythinos asserts (Le Despotat grec de Morée [Athens, 1953], ι, 231),
that Constantine Palaeologus delegated the government of the Vlachs and
Albanians to a Vlach leader. Constantine Bins, in 'Αρβανίτες, ol Δωριείς του
νεωτέρου ελληνισμού (1:41) (Athens, 1960), pp. 65-66, does not interpret
the passage about the "Ai-vanoi" (Albanians) correctly.
24. See Karl Hopf, Griechenland im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (1:51)
(Leipzig, 1867-1868), ii, 119-120.
25. See Franz Babinger, "Beiträge zur Geschichte von Karl-eli, vornehmlich
aus osmanischen Quellen [Contributions to the History of Karl-eli, Primarily
from the Ottoman Sources]," Εις μνήμην Σπυρίδωνος Λάμπρου (Athens,
1935), pp. 140-149.
26. Karl Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes (Berlin, 1873), p. 195.
27. Ducas, éd. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), p. 223 (éd. Basile Grecu
[Bucharest, 1958], p. 279).
28. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), H, 114 ff.; Ducas,
éd. Bekker (27), p. 223.
NOTES—CHAPTER 13 335

29. Meletios of Ioannina, Γεωγραφία παλαιά τε και νέα συλλεχθεΐσα εκ

διαφόρων συγγραφέων παλαιών τε και νέων [A Geography, Ancient and
Modern, Gathered from Different Writers, Old and New], 2nd ed. (Venice,
1807), и, 365. Cf. Spyridon Lambros, "Προσθήκη είς τά περί των τειχών του
'Ισθμού της Κορίνθου κατά τους μέσους αΙώνας" (9:29), NE, iv (1907),
25-26.
30. Ducas, ed. Bekker (27), p. 223.
31. Lambros, " Π ρ ο σ θ ή κ η " (9:30), pp. 23-24.
32. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 118-120.
33. Panagiotis Aravantinos, Χρονογραφία Η π ε ί ρ ο υ (12:29) (Athens, 1856),
ι, 186. Cf. Ioannis Lambridis, "Πολιτική έξάρτησις και διοίκησις Μαλακασίου
[The Political Dependence and Administration of Malakasi]," Παρνασσός, x
(1886), 377.
34. See Ubertini Pusculi Brixiensis, Constantinopoleos libri IV, in Adolf
Ellissen, Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1857),
in (Anhang), 27.
35. See Spyridon Lambros, 'Αργυρόπουλεια [On the Byzantine Argyropou-
los Family] (Athens, 1910), pp. 2 - 3 ; and Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά
(1:66), га, 314-316. Cf. Pusculus, Constantinopoleos libri IV (34), p. 55.
36. Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn,
1838), p. 204; and Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и,
140-141. Cf. Emile Legrand, " 'Ιωάννου του Μόσχου λόγος επιτάφιος επί τω
Λουκφ Νοταρά [Ioannis Moschos's Funeral Speech on Lucas Notaras]," ΔΙΕΕ,
π (1885-1886), 420.
37. See Georgios Scholarios, 'Άπαντα τα ευρισκόμενα [The Complete
WorL·] (Paris, 1935), iv, 464 ff.
38. See Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 205; and Georg Hofmann, "Nuove
Fonti per la storia profana ed ecclesiastica di Creta nella prima metà del secolo
XV" (7:56), IXth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thessalonica,
1953, Πεπραγμένα (Athens, 1956), и, 462 ff.
39. See Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 141;
Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 206 ff.; and Zakythinos, Le Despotat (23), ι,
241 ff.
40. See Mamalakis, Γεώργιος Γεμιστός (9:1), pp. 224-225.
41. PG, CLX, col. 814.
42. Hieronymus Charitonymus, 'Τμνωδία τφ Γεμιστφ [Hymn to Gemistos],
PG, col. 807. Cf. col. 810.
43. Ibid., cols. 808, 810, 812, for quotations in this paragraph. The text in
col. 812 reads, in part: Έ Ι και αυτός ϊσως εσίγας, γήρας δή μόνον προβαλ­
λόμενος, καί τοι γε εν άλλοις ισχυρότατα γε αντέχων [and if you were per­
haps yourself silent, only putting forward your old age, but in other things
holding out most powerfully]."
44. Ibid., cols. 809, 812, where the text reads: "Και πολλών ϊσως πειρα-
σόμεθα δεινών, λόγους διώκοντες, ών καί αυτός πολλά έμνήσθην προς σε, ίνα
μή ταυθ' ύποσταίην [And we may experience many adversities employing
336 NOTES—CHAPTER 13

ourselves in philosophy, which I have often mentioned to you, in order not to

undergo them]."
45. Sawas Ioannidis, 'Ιστορία και στατιστική Τραπεζοΰντος και της περί
ταύτην χώρας ώς καί τά περί της ενταύθα ελληνικής γλώσσης (5:20) (Con­
stantinople, 1870), pp. 292-294. See also Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελο­
ποννησιακά (1:66), ι, iii—i ν : "ό πρώτος επί του θρόνου αντιπρόσωπος τής νέας
ελληνικής Ιδέας [the first representative of the new Greek idea on the throne]."
46. On the advocacy of the Unionist cause by John Argyropoulos and
Michael Apostolis, see Pusculus, Constantinopoleos libri IV (34), p. 55.
47. Lambros, Άργυροπούλεια (35), pp. 45, 46, 47, 49. John Argyropoulos
addressed the inhabitants of the Greek lands thus: "ώ άνδρες Έλληνες [Ο
men of Hellas]"—that is, using the word Hellenes (Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια
καί Πελοποννησιακά [1:66], iv, 67 ff.). The work referred to in the fourth
volume of Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά is not that of Michael Apostolis
(cf. pp. ix-xi), but rather that of John Argyropoulos (see Christos G. Patrine-
lis, "Νόθα, ανύπαρκτα καί συγχεόμενα προς άλληλα έργα του Μιχ. 'Αποστόλη
[Spurious, Nonexistent, and Confused Works of Michael Apostolis]," Ε Ε Β Σ ,
xxx [1960], 204-205).
48. Scholarios, "Απαντα (37), iv, 476-489.
49. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), iv, 83-87. Con­
trast with this Apostolis' use of Hellene in a classical, pagan sense at the
funeral panegyrics of Andrew Kallerges, following the capture of Crete (see
Basileios Laourdas, "Κρητικά παλαιογραφικά" (7:15), ΚΧ, XII [1958], 384).
On the character of Michael Apostolis, see also Deno Geanakoplos, Greek
Schohrs in Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), pp. 73-110.
50. See Emile Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée
des ouvrages publiés en grec par des Grecs au XVe et XVIe siècles (Paris,
1885), ii, 233-234. Concerning this person, see Franz Babinger, Johannes
Dańus (1414-1494). Sachwalter Venedigs im Morgenland, und sein griechi­
scher Umkreis [Ioannes Darius (1414-1494), Venice's Attorney in the East,
and His Greek Circuit] (Munich, 1961), pp. 71-117.
51. See Henri Grégoire, "Les Manuscrits de Julien et le mouvement néo-
païen de Mistra: Démétrius Rhallis et Gemiste Pléthon," Byzantion, v (1929),
733-734.
52. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Ή ιστορική συνείδηση καί το αγωνιστικό
πνεύμα του νέου ελληνισμού (8:84) (Thessalonica, 1957), p. 11, which con­
tains the relevant bibliography; and Scholarios, c 'Απαντα (37), p. 114.
53. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), и, 40: "καί δσοι
τών Ρωμαίων ή τών Ελλήνων του πράγματος ύστερον συναισθήσονται [and
as many Romans or Greeks as will later be conscious of the fact]." See also
p. 44: "οΰτω δε ώφελιμωτάτη τω κοινώ τών Ελλήνων καί χωρίς εκάστω τών
εντυγχανόντων γε γένη μένη [in that way she has become most useful both
to the Greek commonwealth and to each individual person]"; Gennadius'
words to Demetrius Palaeologus (p. 61): "ου γάρ περί τών σών δικαίων
ήγωνισαι μόνον, αλλ' υπέρ του δυστυχούς τούτου τών Ελλήνων λειψάνου, δ
θάττον αν απόλοιτο ταΐς ύμετέραις διαφοραΐς [you had striven not only for
NOTES—CHAPTER 14 337
your rights, but on behalf of this unfortunate remnant of the Greeks, which
might more swiftly be destroyed by your disputes]"; and p. 62: "καί τχ\ των
ελληνικών πραγμάτων στενότητι [and by the closeness of the Greek affairs]."
54. Scholarios, "Απαντα (37), p. 453.
55. For the relevant tradition, see the recent study by Johannes T. Kakridis,
"Neugriechische Sagen über die alten Griechen [Modern Greek Stories about
the Ancient Greeks]," Živa antika, ix (1959), 3-14, which contains the older
bibliography.
56. See Léon Heuzey, Le Mont Olympe et ΓAcamante (París, 1860), pp.
263-264. Characteristically, as late as a century ago, the historical memory
of the people of the district of Xeromero placed the Franks before the Turks
and the Greeks (who possessed supernatural faculties) before the Franks. This
popular memory characterized the various historical periods as Turkish, Frank-
ish, and Greek, rather than Byzantine, Roman, and ancient Greek.
57. See Pierre Belon, Les Observations de plusieurs singularitéz et choses
mémorables, trouvées en Grèce (Paris, 1553), p. 8a, concerning the ruins near
Kissamos in Crete: "les habitans la nomment Paleo Helénico Castro [the in-
habitants call it the Ancient Hellenic Castle]."
58. See Vacalopoulos, Ή ιστορική συνείδηση (8:84), pp. 11-12, which
contains the relevant bibliography. Note in the song of Porphyris the expres­
sion "υΐόν τραντέλλενον," meaning "thirty times a Greek." See also Ioannidis,
'Ιστορία καί στατιστική (5:20), p. 288. For the word Hellene in Pontic songs,
see George Soumelidis, "'Ακριτικά άσματα [Akritic Songs]," Α Π , ι (1928),
49 if. It is a fact, as Wagner observes in his notes to Demetrius Bikelas, Die
Griechen des Mittelalters und ihr Einfluss auf die europäische Cultur [The
Greeks of the Middle Ages and Their Influence on the Culture of Europe],
tr. Wilhelm Wagner (Gütersloch, 1878), p. 108, that the word Έλλενος
denoted to the Trapezuntines a strong and heroic person.

Chapter 14
1. See Ludwig Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und
Staatsmann, ι (Paderborn, 1923), 186-191, which contains the relevant bibli­
ography. For the people's impression of the event, see Spyridon Lambros,
Άργυροπούλεια (13:35) (Athens, 1910), pp. 46-47.
2. See M. Şesan, "La Chute de Constantinople et les peuples orthodoxes,"
Byz.-Sl., xiv (1953), 275.
3. Georgios Scholarios, 'Άπαντα τα ευρισκόμενα (13:37) (Paris, 1935),
iv, 463-473. Cf. ι, xi-xii.
4. Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Athens,
1926), iv, 46-47.
5. Ibid., pp. 49-63. Cf. libertini Pusculi Brixiensis, Constantinopoleos libri
IV, in Adolf Ellissen, Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur
(Leipzig, 1857), ш (Anhang), 34-36; and Baron Ludwig von Pastor, Ge­
schichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters [A History of the Popes
Since the Close of the Middle Ages] (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1955), ι, 6 0 1 -
603, 605-608.
338 NOTES—CHAPTER 14

6. Bariša Krekić, Dubrovnik (Ragusę) et le Levant au moyen âge (Paris,

1960), p. 60. Note also Bobaljevic's negotiations in the Despotate of Morea
and the granting of total exemption by Demetrius Palaeologus throughout his
realm (pp. 60-61).
7. See Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge (Paris, 1959),
p. 380.
8. Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn,
1838), pp. 217-219.
9. See Franz Babinger, "Ein Freibrief Mehmeds II des Eroberers, für das
Kloster Hagia Sophia zu Saloniki, Eigentum der Sultanin Mara (1451) [A
Charter of Mohammed II the Conqueror for the Monastery of Saint Sophia
at Salónica, the Property of the Sultana Mara (1451)]," BZ, XLIV (1951), 11,
which contains the relevant bibliography. Cf. Babinger's Aufsätze und
Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante [Essays and
Treatises on the History of Southeast Europe and the Levant], ι (Munich,
1962), 97. For a Turkish historian's view of the events between 1444 and
1452, see Halil inalcık, Fatih devrinde üzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar [Re­
searches and Documents on the Period of the Conqueror Mohammed II]
(Ankara, 1954), pp. 1-136. In his Belagerung und Eroberung Konstantinopeh
durch die Türken im Jahre 1453 [The Siege and Conquest of Constantinople
by the Turks in the Year 1453] (Stuttgart-Augsburg, 1858) Andreas Mordt-
mann observes that educated Turks used the name Mohammed only for their
prophet, but applied the name Mehmed to others—even to the Conqueror him­
self. This observation is supported by other Greek and Turkish sources.
10. See Mohammed 1Гѕ speeches in Adrianopolis to Constantinei emissaries,
in Ducas, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), pp. 238-240 (ed. Basile Grecu
[Bucharest, 1958], pp. 297-299).
11. See Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 210-211.
12. See Neculai Iorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches [History of the
Ottoman Empire] (Gotha, 1908-1913), π, 8-9; Pusculus, Constantinopoleos
libri IV ( 5 ) , pp. 33-34; and Franz Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und
seine Zeit [Mohammed the Conqueror and His Times] (Munich, 1953), pp.
69-70, 73.
13. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 233-237 (ed. Grecu, pp. 293-295).
Mordtmann, in Belagerung (9), p. 7, refers to Orchan as Mohammed's nephew.
The wife of Ibrahim of Karamania, a cruel ruler, was a sister of Murad 1Гѕ
(see Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Voyage d*outremer et retour de Jérusalem
en France par la voie de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433,
éd. Pierre Legrand D'Aussy, Mémoires de Vlnstitut national des sciences et
arts; sciences morales et politiques, v [Paris, fructidor an XII], 540).
14. Ducas (10), éd. Bekker, p. 252 (éd. Grecu, p. 315); Phrantzes,
Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 327; Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών συγγραφή (10:47),
in Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, ed. Karl Müller (Paris, 1883), v, 4 0 -
161; i, xviii, 8-20. Cf. Constantin Marinescu, "Notes sur quelques ambassa­
deurs byzantins en Occident à la veille de la chute de Constantinople sous les
Turcs [Observations on Some Byzantine Ambassadors in the West on the Eve
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 4 339

of the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks]," Annuaire de l'Institut de phi­

lologie et d'histoire orientales et shves, χ (1950), 419-428.
15. See Rodolphe Guilland, "Ai προς τήν Δύσιν εκκλήσεις Κωνσταντίνου
Ι Α ' του Δραγάτση προς σωτηρίαν της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [The Appeals
of Constantine XI Dragases to the West for the Saving of Constantinople],,,
Ε Ε Β Σ , XXII (1952), 60-74. For Alfonso V's relations with Byzantium, see
Constantin Marinescu, "Contribution à l'histoire des relations économiques
entre ГЕтріге byzantin, la Sicile et le royaume de Naples de 1419 à 1453,"
SBN, ν (1939), 218-219. For the attitude of Nicholas V, see von Pastor,
Geschichte der Päpste ( 5 ) , ι, 611-613. For that of Venice, see Thiriet, La
Romanie ( 7 ) , pp. 381-383, and his Régestes des délibérations du sénat de
Venise concernant la Romanie, ni (1431-1463) (Paris, 1961), 173 ff. For the
attitude of Philip the Good of Burgundy, see Armand Grunzweig, "Philippe
le Bon et Constantinople," Byzantion, xxiv (1954), 47-61.
16. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, vi ff.
17. See the relevant reference by Aşik paşa Zade in Abraham Papazoglou,
"Μωάμεθ Β ' ό πορθητής κατά τόν Τοΰρκον ιστορικόν Άσίκ πασά ζαντέ
[Mohammed II the Conqueror in the Turkish History Aşik paşa Zade],"
Ε Ε Β Σ , xvi (1940), 220; and by Saad-ed-din in Nicephoros Moschopoulos,
" Ή αλωσις της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατά τάς τουρκικάς πηγάς [The Cap­
ture of Constantinople according to Turkish Sources]," Hell. Contemp., 1953,
p. 30.
18. Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), ed.
Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), i, 90; ii, 148.
19. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p. 246 (ed. Grecu, p. 307).
20. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 252, 257, 265 (ed. Grecu, pp. 315, 321,
329-330); Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xxv; Guilland, "Ai
προς τήν Δύσιν" (15), pp. 60 fř.; and Marinescu, "Contribution à l'histoire"
(15), pp. 218-219.
21. See Pusculus, Constantinopoleos libri ГѴ ( 5 ) , pp. 37-38, for some in­
teresting information about the riots in Constantinople and the participation
in them of an anti-Unionist Bohemian, who was incited by Gennadius.
22. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), и, 120-121.
Note the fashion in which Ducas (10) preserves this declamation—with
changes, of course (ed. Bekker, pp. 253-254; ed. Grecu, p. 319). He places
it in time after Isidore's arrival, when, in fact, it was written before.
23. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 252-253 (ed. Grecu, pp. 315-316).
Isidore was also accompanied by Leonard of Chios, Bishop of Mytilene, who
has left a vivid narrative of the commotion. See von Pastor, Geschichte der
Päpste ( 5 ) , ι, 608. In the opinion of Ioannis Papadopoulos (" Ή περί αλώσεως
της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ιστορία Λεονάρδου του Χίου [The History of
Leonard of Chios concerning the Capture of Constantinople]," ΕΕΒΣ, xv
[1939], 8 5 - 9 5 ) , Makarios Melissinos (sixteenth century), who corrupted
Phrantzes' text, also used Leonard in order to complete the Μέγα χρονικόν.
For a bibliography on this subject, see Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica,
2nd ed. (Berlin, 1958), i, 282-288.
340 NOTES—CHAPTER 14

24. See Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), π, 123:

" Έγώ άλλο παρ' δ λέγω αεί ουκ έρώ ποτέ [I shall never say anything other
than what I am now continually saying]"; and pp. 131-135.
25. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p. 255 (ed. Grecu, pp. 317-319).
26. In the expression "πένητος εκείνου βασιλέως [that poor king]" I would
suggest that Gennadius uses the word "poor" not only in its present-day con­
notation of "unfortunate," but also hints at Byzantine traditions about the
"πένης βασιλεύς [poor king]" (see Nikolaos Poli tis, Μελέται περί του βίου
καί της γλώσσης του ελληνικού λαοΰ, Παραδόσεις (2:6), ι [Athens, 1904],
664-666).
27. Scholarios, "Απαντα (13:37), iv, 213, 214. Sathas blames Gennadius
for assuming this attitude and accuses him of having himself fabricated these
pessimistic oracles (Constantine Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23) [Ven­
ice, 1872-1874], VII, v ' ) .
28. "Ουδέν τι προσήκον τφ μεγέθει των κινδύνων άνδρισαμένους [show­
ing a courage not at all commensurate with the magnitude of the dangers]"
(Scholarios, "Απαντα (13:37), iv, 216). Cf. ibid., ι, 279, regarding the de­
fenders of the land walls: "φυγή προδεδωκότων των φύλαξε iv υποσχόμενων
[those who had undertaken to stand guard abandoned them in flight]."
29. See Emile Legrand, "'Ιωάννου του Μόσχου λόγος επιτάφιος επί τφ
Аоѵщ ΝοταρςΓ (13:36), ΔΙΕΕ, и (1885-1886), 416, 417.
30. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), и, 201. Cf. the
characterization in Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lxxiii, 12. See
Constantine Bonis, "Γεώργιος-Γεννάδιος Κουρτέσης ó Σχολάριος [Georgios
Gennadios Kourtesis, Scholarios]," Νέα Εστία, LIII (1953), 845; and Con­
stantine Amantos, Σχέσεις Ελλήνων καί Τούρκων από του ενδεκάτου αΙώνος
μέχρι του 1821, τ. Α ' . Οι πόλεμοι των Τούρκων προς κατάληψιν των
ελληνικών χωρών 1071-1571 [The Refotions of the Greeks and the Turks
from the Eleventh Century until 1821, vol. 1: The Wars of the Turks to Cap­
ture the Greek Lands, 1071-1571] (Athens, 1955), pp. 105-106.
31. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p. 264 (ed. Grecu, p. 329).
32. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Die Frage der Glaubwürdigkeit der
'Leichenrede auf L. Notaras' von J. Moschos (15. Jh.) [The Question of the
Authenticity of the Funeral Oration for Lucas Notaras of Ioannis Moschos
(Fifteenth Century)]," BZ, LII (1959), 16-17.
33. Scholarios, "Απαντα (13:37), iv, 496. On the conciliatory attitude of
Notaras, see also Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), и,
125, 127: "Μάτην κοπιφς, πάτερ, δτι τό μνημόσυνον του πάπα περιέστη να
δοθή, καί αδύνατον άλλως γενέσθαι [you labor in vain, father; for it happens
that the Pope must be mentioned by the Orthodox Church, and it cannot be
otherwise]." Cf. Adamantíos N. Diamantopoulos, "Γεννάδιος ό Σχολάριος ώς
ιστορική πηγή τών περί τήν "Αλωσιν χρόνων [Gennadios Scholarios as an His­
torical Source for the Period of the Capture]," Ελληνικά, ix (1936), 285, 298.
34. Leonardus Chiensis, Historia constantinopolitana, PG, CLIX, cols. 9 2 9 -
930. Cf. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 253-255, 256 (ed. Grecu, pp. 315,
319); and Pusculus, Constantinopoleos libri IV (5), pp. 36-37.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 4 341

35. Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xvii, 3; Ducas (10), ed.

Веккег, pp. 258-259 (ed. Grecu, p. 321); and Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15),
pp. 236-237. Pyrgos could not have fallen after the capture, as Ypsilantis
later claimed (Athanasius Ypsilantis, Τα μετά τήν "Αλωσιν 1453-1789 [6:26]
[Constantinople, 1870], p. 4 ) . The traditions mentioned in Polydoros Papa-
christodoulou, "Παραδόσεις [Traditions]," ΑΘΛΓΘ, ι (1934-1935), 60, that
Herakleia held on for seven years after the capture, and, in Kail. Chourmou-
ziadis, " Ε π α ρ χ ί α Μέτρων και Ά θ υ ρ ω ν . Πετροχώρι [Province of Metrai and
Athyran. Petrochori]," А Ѳ Л Г Ѳ , iv (1937-1938), 107-108, that Selymbria fell
before it, are also spurious.
36. Mordtmann, Belagerung ( 9 ) , p. 49.
37. Leonardus Chiensis, Historia (34), col. 927.
38. See Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer (12), p. 88.
39. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), и, 149-150.
40. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p. 262 (ed. Grecu, pp. 325-327).
41. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 240. Apparently quite a number of
foreign officers (Spaniards and others) served under John VIII Palaeologus
during the last years of the Empire. See Pero Tafur, Travels and Adventures,
1435-1439, tr. Malcolm Letts (New York-London, 1926), p. 123; and Krito­
boulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xxiii, 3. Phrantzes (p. 240) gives
the number as 258,000, and Ducas (10), ed. Bekker (p. 267), as 400,000.
Cf. Maximilian Braun and Alfons Schneider, Bericht über die Eroberung Kon­
stantinopels nach der "Nikon-Chronik [Report on the Conquest of Constanti­
nople, according to the Nikon Chronicle] (Göttingen, 1940), p. 6. Iacopo de
Promontorio de Campis places the number of Turks at 70,000 (Franz Ba-
binger, Die Aufzeichnungen des Genuesen Iacopo de Promontorio de Campis
über den Osmanenstaat um 1475 [The Notes of the Genoese Iacopo de Pro­
montorio de Campis on the Ottoman State about 1475] [Munich, 1957]).
Basing his own estimate on that of Promontorio de Campis, Babinger contends
that there were more than 80,000 (Mehmed der Eroberer (12), p. 9 1 ) .
42. See Mordtmann, Belagerung ( 9 ) , pp. 31 ff.; Scarlatos Byzantios, Ή
Κωνσταντινούπολις [Constantinople] (Athens, 1851), i, 105, 106; and Alexan-
dros Paspatis, Βυζαντιναί μελέται, τοπογραφικοί και ίστορικαί [Byzantine
Studies, Topographical and Historical] (Constantinople, 1877), pp. 5, 7, 13,
15, 17, 20.
43. Mordtmann, Belagerung ( 9 ) , p. 49.
44. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 239, 242-244.
45. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 267, 275 (ed. Grecu, pp. 333, 343-345);
and Leonardus Chiensis, Historia (34), col. 929C.
46. See Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 244-247.
47. Ibid., pp. 247-250. Cf. p. 338; and Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p p . 2 6 8 -
269 (ed. Grecu, pp. 335-337).
48. Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xlii; and Ducas ( 1 0 ) , ed.
Bekker, pp. 270-271 (ed. Grecu, pp. 337-339). Cf. Gustave Schlumberger,
Le Siège, la prise et le sac de Constantinople par les Turcs en 1453 (Paris,
1922), pp. 160-164.
342 NOTES—CHAPTER 14

49. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, XLVII, 1-2. Cf. Rodolphe

Guilland, "La Chaîne de la Corne ďOr [The Bondage of the Golden Horn]/'
ΕΕΒΣ, xxv (1955), 103 ff.
50. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 277-279 (ed. Grecu, pp. 347-349).
51. See Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xxv-xxvi, xxxi-xxxii,
xxxiv, xlii; and cf. xlvii, 1: "τό τε γαρ τείχος τό τε εντός τό τε εκτός ταΐς
μηχαναις κατήρριπτο μέχρις εδάφους [for the wall both inside and out fell
to the ground under the machines]." On the problem of defense as a whole,
and the actual performance of the besieged, see Leonardus Chiensis, Historia
(34), cols. 927 ff., 936B; and Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes
(1:52), ii, 151-152, 153-154.
52. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 244-247. See also Mordtmann, Bela­
gerung (9), pp. 71-72.
53. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xxxi. See also the sum­
maries from the diary of Nicolò Barbaro in Ellissen, Analekten (5), ш (Nach­
trag), 97 ff.; and Mordtmann, Belagerung (9), p. 80.
54. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 260.
55. See Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xlvii, 1-2.
56. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 275, 279-280 (ed. Grecu, pp. 343, 349-
351). Cf. Braun and Schneider, Bericht über die Eroberung (41), p. 15.
57. Mordtmann, Belagerung (9), p. 80.
58. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 252-256.
59. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 281-282 (ed. Grecu, p. 353).
60. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xliv; Phrantzes, Χρονι­
κόν (6:15), pp. 257, 260-261; and Leonardus Chiensis, Historia (34), cols.
934A, 935. Cf. Pusculus, Constantinopoleos libri IV (5), p. 78; and the testi­
mony of Evliya Tshelebi (Mordtmann, Belagerung (9), p. 122).
61. Scholarios, "Απαντα (13:37), iv, 214; and Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p.
318 (ed. Grecu, pp. 399-401). Cf. Anonymous, Ιστορία πολιτική Κωνσταν­
τινουπόλεως (10:65), ed. В. G. Niebuhr (Bonn, 1849), p. 10; and Braun
and Schneider, Bericht uber die Eroberung (41), p. 16 (fn. 31 for the rele­
vant bibliography).
62. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 264-265, 277; and Braun and Schnei­
der, Berícht über die Eroberung (41), pp. 20, 21. Cf. Kritoboulos of Imbros,
Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xlv, xlvi; and Pusculus, Constantinopoleos libri IV (5),
pp. 78-79.
63. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 261. For general reminiscences about
the outcry against Constantine, see Evliya Tshelebi in Mordtmann, Belagerung
(9), p. 116.
64. Leonardus Chiensis, Historia (34), col. 934B. Gennadius insisted shortly
before that the rich should contribute money (Lambros, Παλαιολογεια και
Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), и, 96).
65. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 256. Cf. pp. 260-261; and Scholarios,
"Απαντα (13:37), rv, 221.
66. See Scholarios, "Απαντα (13:37), pp. 501-502; Phrantzes, Χρονικόν
(6:15), p. 241; and Evliya Tshelebi, in Mordtmann, Belagerung (9), pp. 30,
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 4 343
116, 117, 122, for reminiscences of the defection of the inhabitants to the
Turkish camp, and their conversion to Islam.
67. See Alfons Schneider, "Die Bevölkerung Konstantinopels im XV. Jahr­
hundert [The Population of Constantinople in the Fifteenth Century]," Nach­
richten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1949,
pp. 236-237.
68. Leonardus Chiensis, Historia (34), col. 929D.
69. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xiv, 13-15; xlix, 1-2.
70. See Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 275, 282 (ed. Grecu, pp. 343, 353);
and Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xlviii, 7.
71. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 269-279. See also Leonardus Chiensis,
Historia (34), cols. 938C ff.; and Georgios Zoras, "Αι τελευταΐαι πρό της
αλώσεως δημηγορίαι Κωνσταντίνου του Παλαιολόγου και Μωάμεθ του Π ο ρ -
υ^ητοΰ [The Final Speeches of Constantine Palaeologus and Mohammed the
Conqueror before the Capture]," ΕΕΦΣΠΑ, и, 9 (1958-1959), 510-538.
72. See Linos Politis, "Μια ένυ^υμηση για τήν "Αλωση [One Memoir on the
Capture]," Ελληνικά, xvi (1958-1959), 231-232.
73. Pavlos Karolidis, Ιστορία της Ελλάδος, 1453-1862 [History of Greece,
1453-1862] (Athens, 1925), p. 30.
74. For the attack on the ruined walls and the first breaches, see Leonardus
Chiensis, Historia (34), cols. 940B, 941 ff. See also the relevant notes in
Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), iv, 91-93, according
to which Constantine met his death "εν τη γενομένη χαλάστρα [in the breach
that took place]" and "τόν 'Άγιον Ρωμανόν έμπροσθεν [in front of Saint
Romanos']." Cf. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lxxii, 2; Puscu-
lus, Constantinopoleos libri IV (5), pp. 80-81; and the diary of Nicolò Bar­
baro, in Ellissen, Analekten (5), ш (Nachtrag), 103-104.
75. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 280 ff., 291. Cf. Ducas ( 1 0 ) , ed.
Bekker, p. 283 (ed. Grecu, p. 355). On the various portrayals of Constantine,
see Spyridon Lambros, "Αι εΙκόνες του Κωνσταντίνου του Παλαιολόγου [The
Portrayals of Constantine Palaeologus]," NE, ш (1906), 229-242; and "Νέαι
εΙκόνες Κωνσταντίνου Παλαιολόγου [New Portrayals of Constantine Palaeolo-
gus]," NE, iv (1907), 238-240. See also Lambros' "Και αλλαι εΙκόνες 'Ιωάν­
νου και Κωνσταντίνου των Παλαιολόγων [Yet Other Portrayals of John and
Constantine Palaeologus]," NE, vi (1909), 399-408.
76. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lxiii; Ducas ( 1 0 ) , ed.
Bekker, pp. 285-286, 294 (ed. Grecu, pp. 359, 369-371).
77. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 288-291; Ducas (10), ed. Bekker,
pp. 287 ff. (ed. Grecu, pp. 361 ff.); Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47),
ι, li—liii ; and Braun and Schneider, Bericht über die Eroberung (41), p. 31.
78. Joseph Bryennios, Τα ευρεθέντα (6:82) (Leipzig, 1768), и, 280-281.
Cf. the lament in Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lxix, 2.
79. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lvi, 2. Cf. Chalcocondyles,
Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), и, 161.
80. Mordtmann, Belagerung ( 9 ) , p. 126.
344 NOTES—CHAPTER 1 4

81. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 287-288. Cf. Alexandres Paspatis,

Πολιορκία καί αλωσις της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως υπό των 'Οθωμανών έν Ιτει
1453 [The Siege and Capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans in the Year
1453] (Athens, 1890), p. 61.
82. Ypsilantis, Τα μετά τήν αλωσιν (6:26), pp. 50-53, 62. Cf. Anonymous,
Πατριαρχική ιστορία Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Patriarchal History of Constanti­
nople], ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1849), pp. 158 fř.; the contradictory re­
marks of Paspatis, Βυζαντιναί μελέται (42), p. 300; J. H. Mordtmann, "Die
Kapitulation von Konstantinopel im Jahre 1453," BZ, xxi (1912), 129-144;
Karolidis, Ιστορία της Ελλάδος (73), p. 34; and the view of Turkish-speaking
John Chotzis in Pericles K. Vizoukidis, " Ηπειρωτικών -θεσμίων έρευνα [An
Investigation of Epirote Customs]," HX, п (1927), 3, fn. 2.
83. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 298-299 (ed. Grecu, pp. 375, 377);
Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 290-291; and Braun and Schneider, Bericht
über die Eroberung (41), pp. 32-33.
84. Paspatis, Πολιορκία (81), pp. 187, 200.
85. Mordtmann, Belagerung (9), p. 125.
86. Xenophon A. Siderides, "Κωνσταντίνου Παλαιολόγου θάνατος, τάφος
καί σπάθη [The Death, Grave, and Sword of Constantine Palaeologus],"
Μελέτη, 1908, pp. 142-143. Cf. Braun and Schneider, Bericht über die Ero­
berung (41), pp. 32-33, fn. 72. There is a recent comparison and discussion
of the various opinions relating to Constantinei fate and the whereabouts of
his grave in Karolidis, Ιστορία της Ελλάδος (73), pp. 48-61. A much later
version of the events, which accords with popular belief, is that a certain
Christian (who was later executed) placed Constantine's head in a silver con­
tainer under the altar of Hagia Sophia and buried his body in a corner of the
Imperial Palace. See Neculai Iorga, "istanbul'un zaptı hakkında ihmal edilmiş
bir kaynak [A Neglected Source on the Capture of Constantinople]," tr. Fazıl
Işıközlü and Adnan S. Erzi, Belleten, xiii (1949), 146. As for the Christian
who was executed, it would seem that this popular story refers to the Greek
architect Christodoulos. See also Feridum Dirimtekin's review of Babinger's
Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit (12), in Istanbul enstitüsü dergisi, ı
(1955), 129; cf. p. 140.
87. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 301.
88. See Vacalopoulos, "Die Frage' (32), pp. 19-20.
89. See Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lxxiii; Leonardus
Chiensis, Historia (34), col. 943; Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 293; Ducas
(10), éd. Bekker, pp. 303-306 (éd. Grecu, pp. 379-385); Pusculus, Constan-
tinopoleos libri IV (5), p. 82; and Anonymous, Ιστορία πολιτική Κωνσταντι­
νουπόλεως (10:65), pp. 23-24, which provides considerable information un­
obtainable from other sources. See also Vacalopoulos, "Die Frage" (32), pp.
19-20. On the nobleman's murder, see Theodore Spandugino, "De la origine
deli imperatori ottomani" in Constantine Sathas, Documents inédits relatifs à
l'histoire de la Grèce au moyen âge (Paris, 1890), ix, 154-155.
90. See Spyridon Lambros, " Ό Κωνσταντίνος Παλαιολόγος ως σύζυγος
έν τη ιστορία καί τοις θρύλοις [Constantine Palaeologus as Consort in History
NOTES—CHAPTER 14 345

and in Legends]," NE, iv (1907), 454-466; and Konstantinos Mertzios,

" Ή διαθήκη της "Αννας Παλαιολογίνας Νοταρά [The Will of Anna Palae-
ologina Notaras]," 'Αθηνά, LIII (1949), 17-21.
91. Giovanni Cecchini, "Anna Notara Palaeologa: Una Principessa greca in
Italia e la politica senese di ripopolamento delle Maremma [Anna Notara
Palaeologa: A Greek Princess in Italy, and the Politics in Siena concerning the
Repopulation of the Maremma]," Bolletino senese di storia patria, n.s. ix
(1938), 6, 21-22, 26-27. That part of Cecchinťs study which examines the
relationship between Anna Notara and Constantine Palaeologus has no basis
in fact.
92. Wife of Matthew Spandounis and niece of Catherine, daughter of the
Despot of Serbia, George Brankovic, and Irene Cantacuzena (according to
Michael Lascaris). On Irene, see Michael Lascaris, Вцзантиске принцезе у
средњевековној Србији [Byzantine Princesses in Medieval Serbia] (Belgrade,
1926), pp. 97 ff.
93. See Lambros, " Ό Κωνσταντίνος Παλαιολόγος" (90), p. 461.
94. See Vacalopoulos, "Die Frage" (32), p. 20.
95. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), n, 196-197. Some
interesting comments on this forcible confinement appear in Kritoboulos of
Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lxxiv, 3.
96. See Halil inalcık, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," Studia ishmica, π
(1954), 123.
97. Konstantinos Paparrhegopoulos, Ιστορία του ελληνικού έθνους (3:2)
(Athens, 1932), ν, part 1, 377; part 2, 27.
98. See Olfert Dapper, Description exacte des isles de ΓArchipel (Amster­
dam, 1703), p. 17; Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Thasos, son histoire, son admin­
istration de 1453 à 1912 (Paris, 1953), p. 16; Margaritis Constantinidis, Ή
Μεσημβρία του Ευξείνου [Mesembria on the Euxine] (Athens, 1945), ι, 48;
and Margaritis Constantinidis, " Ή Μεσημβρία παρ' Εύξείνω [Mesembria on
the Euxine]," ΑΘΓΛΘ, xxi (1956), 19-20.
99. Konstantinos Mertzios, "Περί Παλαιολόγων και άλλων ευγενών Κων-
σταντινουπολιτών [On the Palaeologi and Other Noble Costantinopoli tans],"
Γέρας Κεραμοπούλλου, pp. 355-372. Cf. Andreas Moustoxydis, " 'Ιωάννης
Παλαιολόγος και οι άλλοι του αύτοΰ επωνύμου [Ioannis Palaeologus and Oth­
ers of the Same Family Name]," Έλληνομνήμων, ι (1843), 295-302; and
G. E. Typaldos, "Ol απόγονοι των Παλαιολόγων μετά τήν αλωσιν [The
Descendants of the Palaeologi after the Capture]," ΔΙΕΕ, VIII (1922), 1 2 9 -
157. On officers named Lascaris in the Stradioti, see Börje Knös, Un Ambassa­
deur de l'hellénisme—Janus Lascaris—et la tradition gréco-byzantine dans l'hu­
manisme français (Uppsala-Stockholm-Paris, 1945), pp. 66-67, which contains
the relevant bibliography. Cf. the supplementary bibliography in Manoussos
Manoussacas, Ή έν Κρήτη συνωμοσία του Σήφη Βλαστού (1453-1454) και
ή νέα συνωμοτική κίνησις του 1460-1462 (8:8) (Athens, 1960), p. 38, fn. 1.
100. Gennadios Arambatzoglou, Φωτίειος βιβλιου^κη [Photian Library],
part 1 (Constantinople, 1933), 108, fn. 3. Cf. Manoussos Manoussacas, "Les
346 NOTES—CHAPTER 14

Derniers Défenseurs de Constantinople d'après les documents vénitiens," XIe

Congrès international des études byzantines, Munich, 1958, Akten (Munich,
1960), 331-340; Ducas (10), éd. Bekker, p. 297 (éd. Grecu, p. 373); Chal-
cocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), η, 163; and Robert Browning,
"The Capture of Constantinople in 1453," Byzantion, XXII (1952), 379-387.
Browning's note had previously appeared in Arambatzoglou, Φωτίειος, ι, 108.
101. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, p. 297 (ed. Grecu, p. 391).
102. See E. Dallegio D'Alessio, "Le Texte grec du traité conclu par les
Génois de Galata avec Mehmet II le 1 er juin 1453," Ελληνικά, χι (1938),
115-124, which contains the early bibliography.
103. See Constantine Amantos, " Ή 'Άλωσις της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως
[The Capture of Constantinople]," Hell. Contemp., Commemorative Volume,
1953, p. 18.
104. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, lvii, 3.
105. Cardinal Isidore, Universis chństefidelibus [To All Christians], PG,
CLix, col. 955.
106. Ducas (10), ed. Bekker, pp. 258, 312 (ed. Grecu, pp. 321, 391-392;
Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ι, xvii, 3.
107. Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Les Limites de l'empire byzantin depuis la
fin du XIVe siècle jusqu'à sa chute (1453)," BZ, LV (1962), 63-64; Thiriet,
Régestes (15), m, 198, 200.
108. Andronicus Callistus, Μονφδία έπί τη δυστυχεί Κωνσταντινουπόλει
[Monody on Unfortunate Constantinople], PG, CLXI, col. 1131.
109. See the commemorative issues of the following journals on the occasion
of the 500th anniversary of the capture: Hell. Contemp., Byz.-Slav., Viz. Vrem.,
vn (1953), School of Oriental and African Studies, Bulletin ("The Fall of
Constantinople").
110. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 310, 314. It is curious that the Span­
iards do not hold the same opinion as other Roman Catholics (Sebastián Cirác
Estopañán, " Ή πτώσις της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως εν ετει 1453 και οι
Ισπανοί [The Spaniards and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453]," IXth In­
ternational Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thessalonica, 1953, Πρακτικά, π
(1956), 304-324, and especially p. 321.
111. Besides the bibliography in Amantos, Σχέσεις Ελλήνων και Τούρκων
(30), pp. 119-121, see Spyridon Lambros, "Και αλλαι μονωδίαι εις την
αλωσιν της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Other Monodies on the Capture of Con­
stantinople]," NE, vra (1911), 93; Lambros, " Ό εν τφ Χρησμολογίω του
Λιγαρίδου θρήνος της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [The Lamentation on Constanti­
nople's Capture in the Oracle Book of Ligaridis]," NE, xv (1921), 292; Em­
manuel Kriaras, To άνακάλημα της Κωνσταντινόπολης [Monody on the Cap­
ture of Constantinople] (Thessalonica, 1956); Georgios Zoras, Περί την
αλωσιν της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [On the Capture of Constantinople] (Athens,
1959), pp. 213-253, 269-283. There is only one demotic song, so far as I
know, which refers to the extinction of the Notaras family. See Argyrios Ghisas,
"Τραγούδια Κοζάνης [Songs of Kozane]." Ήμερολόγιον δυτικής Μακεδονίας,
1938, pp. 43-44.
NOTES—CHAPTER 14 347
112. Besides the bibliography given in n. 115 below, see Spyridon Lambros,
" Π ρ ο σ θ ή κ η εις τα περί των τειχών του 'Ισθμού της Κορίνθου κατά τους
μέσους αιώνας" (9:29), NE, iv (1907), 21-22; " Ό Κωνσταντίνος" ( 9 0 ) ,
N E , iv, 446-454; " Ή έξήγησις είς την Άποκάλυψιν του Ζαχαρίου Γεργανοΰ
[Interpretation of the Apocalypse of Zacharias Gerganos]," NE, iv (1907),
486-487; and "Στίχοι είς το μέλλον εσεσθαι τη πόλε ι [Verses on the Future of
Constantinople]," NE, xv (1921), 294. For the modern traditions, see Poly-
doros Papachristodoulou, Παραδόσεις (14:35), ΑΘΓΛΘ, ι (1934-1935), 6 0 -
62; Symeon Manaseides, Λαογραφικά Μαδύτου [Folklore Material from
Madytos], А Ѳ Г Л Ѳ , ш (1936-1937), 117-118. Basileios Deligiannis, Λαογρα­
φικά Μαλγάρων [Folklore Material from Malgara], А Ѳ Г Л Ѳ , ш (1936-1937),
209.
113. See Siderides, Κωνσταντίνου Παλαιολόγου (86), p. 71, which con­
tains the relevant bibliography.
114. Ducas ( 1 0 ) , ed. Bekker, pp. 289-290 (ed. Grecu, p. 365). See V. A.
Vasil'ev, Anecdota graeco-byzantina (Moscow, 1893), i, 33, for the relevant
prophecy. This Byzantine tradition had so influenced the masses that, after
the Turkish entry into Constantinople, the garrison of the sea walls threw the
keys to the gates into the sea in anticipation of the fulfillment of the oracle
(Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), и, 160-161.
115. For these traditions, see Bartholomaeus Georgieviz, De Turcarum
moribus epitome [A Summary of Turkish Customs] (Lyons, 1558), pp. 109 ff.,
together with the commentaries; Martinus Crusius, Turcograeciae libri octo
[Eight Books on Turkish Greece] (Basel, 1584), p. 494; Frederick Has-
luck, "The Prophecy of the Red Apple," reprinted in his Christianity and
Islam under the Sultans (Oxford, 1929), n, 736-740; Franz Babinger, "Quizil
Elma [The Red Apple]," in Isbm, хи (1922), 109-111; Ettore Rossi, "La
Legenda turco-bizantina del Pomo Rosso [The Turkish-Byzantine Legend of
the Red Apple]," SBN, v (1939), 542-553; and Richard M. Dawkins, "The
Red Apple," Α Θ Γ Λ Θ , vi (1941), 401-406, which contains the relevant bib­
liography. For the modern Hellenic tradition about the duration of the Turkish
occupation of Constantinople, see Deligiannis, "Λαογραφικά Μαλγάρων" (112),
p. 209; and Constantine Romaios, " Ή 'Κόκκινη Μηλιά' των εθνικών μας
θρύλων. Προβλήματα σχετιζόμενα με τήν καταγωγή της [The 'Red Apple'
in Our National Legends. Problems Connected with Its Origin]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XXIII
(1953), 676-688. The bibliography in Romaios' article is insufficient. There
are various traditions about the μήλα as a symbol. Johann Schiltberger (The
Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe,
Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, tr. Commander J. Buchán Telfer [London,
1879], p. 80) wrote at the beginning of the fifteenth century concerning the
sphere in the left hand of the statue of Justinian: "At one time the statue had
a golden apple in the hand, and that meant that he had been a mighty em-
peror over Christians and Infidels; but now he has no longer that power, so
the apple has disappeared." Cf. the traditions cited in Tafur, Travels ( 4 1 ) ,
pp. 140-141, 144-145.
348 NOTES—CHAPTER 14

116. See PG, CVII, col. 1150.

117. See Braun and Schneider, Bericht über die Eroberung (41), pp. 33,
34-35.
118. See Michael Lascaris, To άνατολικόν ζήτημα, 1800-1923 [The East­
ern Question, 1800-1923] (Thessalonica, 1948), i, 233, fn. 2; and Cyril
Mango, "The Legend οϊ Leo the Wise," Zbornik radova (Recueil de travaux),
Institute of Byzantine Studies, Belgrade, LXV (1960), no. 6, p. 67, fп. 38.
For mention of "ξανθόν γένος [fair-haired race]" in Turkish sources, see
Bertold Spuler's, review of Braun's and Schneider's Bericht über die Eroberung
in Islam, xxix (1949-1950), 255-256.
119. Lascaris, To άνατολικόν ζήτημα (118), pp. 231-232; and Braun and
Schneider, Bericht über die Eroberung (41), p. 33, fn. 75.
120. See Politis, Μελέται (2:6), ι, 22, 667 if.; and Mango, "The Legend
of Leo" (118), pp. 60-61.
121. See Spyridon Lambros, " 'Τπόμνημα του καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος
εις Κωνσταντΐνον τον Παλαιολόγον" (9:24), NE, m (1906), 23.
122. Georgios Zoras, " Ή αλωσις της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως και ή βασιλεία
του Μωάμεθ Β ' του κατακτητοΰ (κατά τόν άνέκδοτον έλληνικόν βαρβερινόν
κώδικα 111 της Βατικανής βιβλιοθήκης [The Capture of Constantinople, and
the Kingdom of Mohammed II the Conqueror, According to an Uupublished
Codex, Graecus Barberinus 111, in the Vatican Library]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XXII
(1952), 253-254. Cf. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23), ι, 267; and
Lambros, " Ό Κωνσταντίνος Παλαιολόγος" (90), 446-466.
123. See Nicolas de Nicolay, Les Navigations, peregrinations et voyages,
fatets en la Turquie (Anvers, 1577), pp. 90, 91; and Isidorus, Notitia, PG,
CLix, col. 951. There are some interesting comments on an investigation into
the problem of suppositious narratives in Braun and Schneider, Bericht über
die Eroberung (41), p. 6, fn. 8.
124. See Mango, "The Legend of Leo" (118), pp. 78-93. Cf. Lascaris,
To 'άνατολικόν ζήτημα (118), pp. 230-236; Börje Knös, "Les Oracles de Léon
le Sage (d'après un livre d'oracles byzantins illustrés récemment découvert),"
'Αφιέρωμα στή μνήμη του Μ. Τριανταφυλλίδη (Athens, 1960), pp. 155-188;
and Athanasios Kominis, "Παρατηρήσεις εις τους χρησμούς Λέοντος του
Σοφοΰ [Observations on the Oracles of Leo the Wise]," Ε Ε Β Σ , xxx (1960),
398-412.
125. See M. B. Levtchenko, "Завоевание турками Константинополя в
1453 г. и исторические последствия этого соыытия. [The Capture of
Constantinople by the Turks and the Historical Results of That Event]," Viz.
Vrem., vu (1953), 3-8.
126. Note the information given on Epirus by a later text in Athanasios
Petridis, "Χρονικόν Δρυοπίδος" (6:48), Νεοελληνικά ανάλεκτα, и (1871),
24. Cf. Sophronios Sophroniadis, Ή Σινασός της Καππαδοκίας και τα
δημοτικά της τραγούδια [Sinasos of Cappadocia and Its Popular Songs]
(Athens, 1958), pp. 145-146.
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 5 349
Chapter 15
1. In Adolf Ellissen, Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur
(9:8) (Leipzig, 1860), m, 190.
2. See Laonicos Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), ed.
Eugene Darkó (Budapest, 1922-1927), и, 197-201. On fiefs at the time of
Mohammed II, see Serif Bastav, Ordo Portae. Description grecque de la Porte
et de Varmée du Sultan Mehmed II, éditée, traduite et commentée [The Order
of the Gate. A Greek Description of the Gate and of the Army of Sultan
Mohammed II, Edited, Translated, and Annotated] (Budapest, 1947), p. 10.
3. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), n, 148, 169-170,
406. Cf. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών συγγραφή (10:47), in Fragmenta
historicorum graecorum, ed. Karl Müller (Paris, 1883), v, 40-161: i, lxxiv
(D43).
4. See Franz Dölger, "Politische und geistige Strömungen im sterbenden
Byzanz," JÖBG, m (1954), 9.
5. See Denis Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Могее (Athens, 1953), ι,
196-198, 212, 233-234.
6. Pero Tafur, Travels and Adventures, 1435-1439, tr. Malcolm Letts (New
York-London, 1926), p. 49.
7. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), ы, 170.
8. Ibid., p. 170. Thus I believe his phrase "και ωρμηντο μεν ώς ξυμβή-
σοντες τοις ήγεμόσι, μετά δε διεκωλύθησαν [and they were roused as if to
come to an agreement with the leaders, but afterwards were prevented]"
must be interpreted. His Latin translation is incorrect.
9. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), n, 170-175. See
Georgius Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1838),
pp. 383, 385. On the conflicts between Albanians and Greeks, see Freddy
Thiriet, Régestes des délibérations du sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie,
m (1431-1463), (Paris, 1961), 199 ff.
10. Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana (1:43) (Vienna, 1860-1887), m, 290.
11. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), n, 176. The rele-
vant passage in Chalcocondyles is both brief and obscure. Cf. p. 202.
12. Ibid., pp. 175-176.
13. See Spyridon Lambros, Άργυροπούλεια (13:35) (Athens, 1910), pp.
xxxix-xl; and Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66) (Athens, 1926),
iv, 196-197, 205-206.
14. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 202.
15. See ibid., 203 ff.; Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 387; Kritoboulos of
Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), in, iiiff.; Eugene Darkó, " Π ε ρ ί της ιστορίας
και των μνημείων του Μουχλίου [On the History and the Monuments of
Mouchlion]," Π Α Α , vi (1931), 22-29; and Darkó's " Ή ιστορική σημασία
και τα σπουδαιότερα ερείπια του Μουχλίου [The Historical Significance and
the More Important Ruins of Mouchlion]," Ε Ε Β Σ , x (1933), 454-482. The
350 NOTES—CHAPTER 15

Turks destroyed just enough monuments of ancient Corinth to make projectiles

for their canon (Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes, n, 207).
16. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ш, vi ( 3 ) - ( 8 ) . Cf. Chal­
cocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 207-211.
17. See Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), m, vii-ix; Phrantzes,
Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 337-338; and Apostólos Vacalopoulos, Νεοελληνική
παράδοσις δια τά επί τουρκοκρατίας προνόμια τών Δερβενοχωριτών Κορίνθου
(11:31) (Thessalonica, 1941), passim.
18. Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, von
der Zeit Justinians bis zur türkischen Eroberung (2:2) (Stuttgart, 1889),
Greek translation by Spyridon Lambros (Athens, 1904-1906), и, 384-390.
19. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ш, ix ( 4 ) - ( 7 ) .
20. Ioannis Travlos, Πολεοδομική έξέλιξις τών 'Αθηνών από τών προϊστο­
ρικών χρόνων μέχρι τών αρχών του 19. αιώνος (8:36) (Athens, 1960),
p. 182.
21. See Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), in, xix; Chalcocondyles,
Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 213-216, 224-227; and Phrantzes,
Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 388-395. For Bessarion's view of the situation in
the Péloponnèse, and his attempt to influence the West, see Spyridon
Lambros, " 'Τπόμνημα του καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος εις Κωνσταντΐνον τόν
Παλαιολόγον" (9:24), NE, m (1906), 32-33; and Georg Voigt, Enea Silvio
de Piccolomini, als Tapst Pius der Zweite und sein Zeitalter [Enea Silvio
de'Piccolomini as Pope Pius II, and His Age] (Berlin, 1863), ш, 56-58.
22. Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), in, i-v.
23. See Photios Chrysanthopoulos, 'Απομνημονεύματα περί της ελληνικής
επαναστάσεως (10:37) (Athens, 1899), ι, 139-140; and Vacalopoulos, Νεοελ­
ληνική παράδοσις (11:31), pp. 1-2.
24. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ш, xx; and Chalcocondyles,
Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 227-229. For the date of the fall of
Mistra, see Meletios E. Galanopoulos, " Ό Λακεδαιμόνιος βιβλιογράφος
επίσκοπος Βρεσθένης Παρθένιος [The Lacedemonian Bibliographer, Bishop
of Brestheni Parthenios]," ΕΕΒΣ, хи (1936), 252. One of Demetrius' cities,
Monemvasia, besought the protection of Pope Pius II and gave herself over
to him (Bariša Krekić, "Monemvasie sous la protection papale," Zbornik
radova, vi [1960], 129-135).
25. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), ш, xxiv.
26. See Demetrius Petropoulos, "Λαϊκή παράδοση καί ιστορία [Popular
Tradition and History]," Πελοποννησιακή πρωτοχρονιά, 1958, pp. 77-78,
which contains the relevant bibliography. There is some dispute as to whether
the medieval Gardiki was situated in the same place as its present-day coun­
terpart, or at Kokkala. See Alfred Philippson and Ernst Kirsten, Die griechi­
schen Landschaften (1:9) (Frankfurt, 1950), ш, 1. 293.
27. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), in, xxii ( 6 ) , xxiii.
28. On the ancestry of Mahmud (that his mother was a Serb and his
father a Greek), and his elevation to high office, see Chalcocondyles, His-
torìarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 196.
NOTES—CHAPTER 15 351
29. Ibid., pp. 229-239; and Spyridon Lambros, "Κωνσταντίνος Παλαιο­
λόγος Γραίτζας, ό άμύντωρ του Σαλμενίκου [Constantine Palaeologus Graet-
zas, the Defender of Salmenico]," NE, xi (1914), 260-288.
30. See Thiriet, Régestes (14:15), ш, 241.
31. See Michael Lascaris, " Ό κερκυραίος Πέτρος Λάντζας (Συμπλη­
ρωματικά) [The Corfiote Petros Lantzas (Supplementary Materials)]," in
'Αφιέρωμα εις τήν 'Ήπειρον είς μνήμην Χρ. Σούλη (Athens, 1956), p. 251.
32. Marinos P. Vrettos, " 'Απόπειρα άναστατώσεως της Μάνης κατά τόν
Ι Ζ ' αΙώνα [The Attempt at Disorder in Maina in the Seventeenth Century],"
Έθνικόν ήμερολόγιον, vi (1866), 199. Who they were, and from what coun­
tries they came, remain problematical.
33. Carlier de Pinon, Voyage en Orient (Paris, 1920), p. 52: "Le 6e (juin)
vismes, a gauche le port delle Quaïe, ainsy appelle a raison du nombre de
cailles, qui se trouvent en ladicte contrée. Ce port est pres du susdict, Capo
di Matapan, auquel endroit le pays est nommé Brazzo di Maina, et les habi-
tants Mainati, lesquelz jusques a present se sont guarantis du joug du Turc;
ils parlent albanois, et demeurent dans des cavernes ça et la par les mon-
taignes, ayant le bruict d'estre fort belliqueux [The 6th (of June) we saw
to the left the Port delle Quaïe, so called on account of the number of quails
in the above-mentioned area. This port is near the said Capo di Matapan, at
which spot the country is called Brazzo di Maina and the inhabitants Mainati,
who to this date have been exempted from the Turkish yoke; they speak
Albanian and live in caverns here and there among the mountains, and they
have the repute of being very warlike]."
34. Ducas, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn, 1834), p. 340 (ed. Basile Grecu
[Bucharest, 1958], pp. 425-427).
35. See Antonios Lignos, Ιστορία της νήσου "Τδρας [History of the
Isfond of Hydra] (Athens, 1946), i, 5, 10-16.
36. Frederick Hasluck, "Albanian Settlements in the Aegean Islands," BSA,
xv (1908-1909), 224.
37. See Spyridon Lambros, " Ή εκ Πατρών είς Ρώμην άνακομιδή της
κάρας του 'Αγίου 'Ανδρέου [The Removal from Patras to Rome of the Head
of Saint Andrew]," NE, χ (1913), 33 ff.; and "'Αλεξίου επισκόπου Κλουσίου
Άνδρεΐς [Poem on St. Andrew by Alexios, Bishop of Clusium]," NE, x
(1913), 81-112. On Thomas' journey through Ragusa and the attitude of the
people there toward him, see Bariša Krekić, Dubrovnik (Ragusę) et le Levant
au moyen âge (Paris, 1960), pp. 62-65.
38. Zakythinos, Le Despotat (5), i, 260 ff.
39. Cf. Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια καί Πελοποννησιακά (1:66), iv, 284ff.
40. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 412.
41. Vladimir Lamansky, Secrets d'État de Venise; documents, extraits, no­
tices et études servant à éclaircir les rapports de la Seigneurie avec les Grecs,
les Slaves et la Porte Ottomane à h fin du XVe et au XVIe siècles (St. Peters-
burg, 1884), p. 046. For details, see Manoussos Manoussacas, Ή εν Κρήτη
συνωμοσία του Σήφη Βλαστού (1453-1454) καί ή νέα συνωμοτική κίνησις
του 1460-1462 (8:8) (Athens, 1960), pp. 71 ff.
352 NOTES—CHAPTER 15

42. Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), pp. 452-453.

43. See Spyridon Sakellaropoulos, " Ό τάφος του Γεωργίου Φραντζή [The
Grave of Georgius Phrantzes]," Μελέτη, 1908, pp. 513-522.
44. I have treated the substance of this section in greater detail in my book,
Thasos, son histoire, son administration de 1453 à 1912 (Paris, 1953), which
also contains the relevant bibliography. I have included here only a supple­
mentary bibliography.
See Spyridon Lambros, " Επιστολή Π ίου Β ' προς 'Αλέξανδρον Άσάνην
περί καταλήψεως της "Ιμβρου [A Letter from Pius II to Alexander Asanes
concerning the Capture of Imbros]," NE, x (1913), 118. The governors, or
άρχοντες, as Kritoboulos called them, represented the Emperor and not the
Gattilusi as Lambros believed.
45. Baron Ludwig von Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des
Mittelalters (14:5) (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1955), i, 696 ff.
46. A little later, the Turks apparently removed ninety-six Christian families
to Phocaea (probably Palaea Phocaea) and settled them in one of its suburbs
(see Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, "Les Déportations comme méthode de peuplement
et de colonisation dans l'empire ottoman," extrait de la Revue de la Faculté des
sciences économiques de Vüniversite dlstanbul, 11 e année, nos. 1-4 [Istanbul,
1953], p. 41).
47. Von Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste (14:5), ι, 751-752.
48. Alexander Asanes, perhaps a son or a relative of Michael Asanes, gov­
ernor of the island in 1442, during the reign of John VIII Palaeologus, then
showed his interest in the liberation and occupation of Imbros by soliciting
the support of the Pope. See Lambros, " Επιστολή Π ίου B ' " (44), p. 126.
49. Virtually the only source for these years is in Spyridon Lambros, "To
τραπεζουντιακόν χρονικόν του πρωτοσεβάστου καί πρωτονοτάριου Μιχαήλ
Παναρέτου [The Trapezuntine Chronicle of the Protosebastos and Protono-
tarios, Michael Panaretos]," NE, iv (1907), 257-295. On the question of the
authenticity of the last part of the Chronicle, see Odysseus Lampsidis, " Ό
γάμος Δαβίδ του Μεγάλου Κομνηνού καί τό χρονικόν του Παναρέτου [The
Marriage of David the Great Comnenus, and the Chronicle of Panaretos],"
'Αθήνα, LVII (1953), 365-368, which gives the early bibliography; Jakob
Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaisertums von Trapezunt [History of the Empire
of Trebizond] (Munich, 1827), pp. 29 ff.; Sawas Ioannidis, 'Ιστορία καί
στατιστική Τραπεζοΰντος καί της περί ταύτην χώρας ως καί τά περί της
ενταύθα ελληνικής γλώσσης (5:20) (Constantinople, 1870), pp. 48 ff.; Pavlos
Karolidis, Ιστορία της Ελλάδος (14:73), 1453-1862 (Athens, 1925), pp.
160 ff.; William Miller, Trebizond. The Last Greek Empire (London, 1926),
pp. 14-15; Alexander Vasiliev, "The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond,"
Speculum, и (1936), 3-37; and Vasiliev's excellent critical analysis of the bib­
liography relating to Trebizond up to 1940, in his "The Empire of Trebizond
in History and Literature," Byzantion, xv (1940-1941), 316-377. On the
various problems associated with the chronicle, as well as some objections to
Vasiliev's view of the origins of the Empire, see Odysseus Lampsidis, Μιχαήλ
του Παναρέτου περί των Μεγάλων Κομνηνών—ΕΙσαγωγή-εκδοσις-σχόλια
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 5 353

[Michael Ρ anar etos' Work on the Great Comneni—Introduction, Text, and

Commentary] (Athens, 1958), passim.
50. See Gabriel Millet and D. Talbot Rice, Byzantine Painting at Trebizond
(London, 1936), pp. 174, 177.
51. Tafur, Travels ( 6 ) , p. 131.
52. See Pericles Triantaphyllidis, Οι φυγάδες (5:13) (Athens, 1870), p. 58;
and Miller, Trebizond (49), p. 87.
53. On the topography, products, commerce, and military organization of
the Empire, see Spyridon Lambros, "Βησσαρίωνος εγκώμιον είς Τραπεζούντα
[Bessarion's Encomium on Trebizond]," NE, XIII (1916), 145-204.
54. Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo, A Diary of the Journey to the Court of Timur,
1403-1406, tr. Guy Le Strange (London, 1928), pp. 117, 121, 336.
55. See Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 178, 222-
223; Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaisertums (49), pp. 254-257; Ioannidis,
Ιστορία και στατιστική (5:20), pp. 102-106; Karolidis, Ι σ τ ο ρ ί α της Ελλά­
δος (14:73), pp. 148-179; and Franz Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und
seine Zeit (14:12) (Munich, 1953), p. 201.
56. Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaisertums (49), pp. 258-261. There is an
interesting article on Uzun Hassan by Vladimir Minorsky, in the Encyclopedia
of Islam, iv (1924), 1065-1069. In Σχέσεις Ελλήνων και Τούρκων από του
ενδεκάτου αΙώνος μέχρι του 1821, τ. Α ' . Οι πόλεμοι των Τούρκων προς
κατάληψιν των ελληνικών χωρών 1071-1571 (14:30) (Athens, 1955), ι, 145,
Constantine Amantos refers to the daughter of John the Good as Theodora
(not Catherine). On the hostile disposition of Ibrahim Bey, see Bertrandon de
la Brocquière, Voyage d outremer et retour de Jérusalem en France par la voie
de terre, pendant le cours des années 1432 et 1433, éd. Pierre Legrand
DAussy, Mémoires de l'Institut national des sciences et arts; sciences morales
et politiques, ν (Paris, fructidor an XII), 541.
57. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), II, 246.
58. Miller, Trebizond ( 4 9 ) , pp. 97-99. For further details on the strange
history of the deceiver, Fra Lodovico da Bologna, see Babinger, Mehmed der
Eroberer (14:12), pp. 196-200.
59. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, i ( 7 ) .
60. Ducas (34), ed. Bekker, p. 339 (ed. Grecu, p. 425); and Chalcocon­
dyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 243.
61. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, ii ( l ) - ( 3 ) .
62. Ibid., iv, iii ( l ) - ( 2 ) . On the date of Mohammed 1Гѕ departure, see
Miller, Trebizond (49), p. 105.
63. Ducas (34), ed. Bekker, p. 341 (ed. Grecu, p. 427).
64. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, iii ( 3 ) .
65. Ibid. ( 4 ) - ( 8 ) ; Ducas ( 3 4 ) , ed. Bekker, pp. 341-342 (ed. Grecu, p.
429); Miller, Trebizond (49), pp. 101-102; and Babinger, Mehmed der
Eroberer (14:12), pp. 204-205.
66. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, iv-v ( 1 ) .
67. Ibid., iv, vi; Miller, Trebizond (49), pp. 101-102; and Babinger,
Mehmed der Eroberer (14:12), pp. 205-206.
354 NOTES—CHAPTER 15

68. Ducas (34), ed. Bekker, p. 342 (ed. Grecu, p. 429).

69. Jean François Boissonade, 'Ανέκδοτα [Unpublished Works] (Paris,
1883), v, 392-393.
70. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, vii ( l ) - ( 3 ) .
71. Boissonade, 'Ανέκδοτα (69), ν, 393.
72. Ibid.f ν, 394-395.
73. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, vii (4)-(8) Chalcocondyles,
Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 246-249; Ducas (34), ed. Bekker, pp.
342-343 (ed. Grecu, pp. 429-431); and Anonymous, Ιστορία πολιτική Κων­
σταντινουπόλεως (10:65), ed. Β. G. Niebuhr (Bonn, 1849), pp. 37-38. Cf.
Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaisertums (49), pp. 275-277 for the bibliogra­
phy; Spyridon Lambros, " Ή περί αλώσεως Τραπεζοΰντος επιστολή του
'Αμηρούτζη [The Letter of Ameroutzes on the Capture of Trebizond]," NE,
хи (1915), 476-477; Chrysanthos Philippidis, " Ή εκκλησία Τραπεζοΰντος
[The Church of Trebizond]," Α Π , iv-v (1936), 319-322; and Babinger,
Mehmed der Eroberer (14:12), pp. 207-208. On the date of the capture, see
Franz Babinger, "La Date de la prise de Trébizonde par les Turcs (1461),"
REB, vu (1949), 205-207, which contains the relevant bibliography. Since
the coincidence of the event with such an important feast of Orthodoxy as that
of the Assumption appears to be nowhere mentioned in Greek sources, August
15 would seem not to be an entirely convincing date.
74. Triantaphyllidis, Οί φυγάδες (5:13), p. 51.
75. See Spyridon Lambros, " Ή οίλωσις της Τραπεζοΰντος και ή Βενετία
[Venice and the Capture of Trebizond]," NE, и (1905), 324-333; and Babin­
ger, "La Date de la prise" (73), pp. 210-211.
76. Boissonade, 'Ανέκδοτα (69), ν, 390.
77. See Philippidis, " Ή εκκλησία" (73), pp. 520-522, which contains the
relevant bibliography. For the bibliography dealing with the "Brief Chronicles"
on the fate of David, see Odysseus Lampsidis, Πώς ήλώθη ή Τραπεζοΰς.
'Αντιγραφή και διερεύνησις των πηγών [How Trebizond Was Captured.
Transcription and Investigation of the Sources]," Α Π , XVII (1952), 54;
Phrantzes, Χρονικό ν (6:15), pp. 413-414; Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών
(10:47), iv, ix (1); and Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer (14:12), pp. 207-
210, 231-232, 246-247. For information on the fate of the members of David's
family, see Vitalien Laurent, "Le Vaticanus latinus 4789," REB, ix (1951),
88-89. See Amiroukes' verses dedicated to the Sultan—which were flattering
to the point of sycophancy—in Spyridon Lambros, "Ποιήματα Γεωργίου του
Άμοιρούτζη [The Poems of Georgios Amiroukes]," ΔΙΕΕ, n (1885-1886),
275-282.
78. See Miller, Trebizond (49), pp. 113, 114, which contains the relevant
bibliography; and Ioannidis, Ιστορία καί στατιστική (49), p. 119.
79. See Hippolyte Noiret, Documents inédits pour servir à Vhistoire de h
domination vénitienne en Crete de 1380 à 1485 [Unpublished Documents Per­
taining to the History of Venetian Domination in Crete from 1380 to 1485]
(Paris, 1892), p. 225.
NOTES—CHAPTER 15 355

80. Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, viii ( 2 ) ; Boissonade,

'Ανέκδοτα (69), ν, 396 ff.; Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes
(1:52), и, 248; and Phrantzes, Χρονικόν (6:15), p. 308. See also Anonymous,
Πολιτική ιστορία (10:65), p. 37.
81. Barkan, "Les Déportations" (46), p. 4 1 : "plusieurs habitants du Sandjak
de Trébizonde, possesseurs de Vignobles seigneuriaux' furent déportés en
Roumélie par Umur et Kasim bey et leurs propriétés réduites en timars [sev­
eral inhabitants of the Sancak of Trebizond, possessors of 'lordly vineyards/
were removed to Rumelia by Umur and Kasim Bey, and their properties were
reduced to fiefs]." Cf. Orner Lûtfi Barkan, "Osmanlı imparatorluğunda bir
iskân, ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak sürgünler [Deportation as a Method of
Settlement and Colonization in the Ottoman Empire]," iktisat Fakültesi Mec­
muası, vol. 15, nos. 1-4, pp. 10, 11, fn. 90, of the reprint [n.d.].
82. See Anonymous, Πολιτική ιστορία (10:65), p. 37.
83. Kritoboulos of Imbros, 'Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, viii ( 3 ) - ( 4 ) . See also the
Chronicle of Aşik paşa Zade, tr. Richard Kreutel (Vienna, 1959), p. 226: "Die
Gazi hatten inzwischen mehrere Gegenden des Landes heimgesucht und gute
Beute gemacht [The Ghazis had in the meantime devastated several areas of
the countryside, and found good spoils]."
84. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 248. The dis­
trict of Tzapnides is identifiable as that inhabited by the Kizilbashs. See
Franz Babinger, "Der Islam in Kleinasien [Islam in Asia Minor]," in his
Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Sudösteuropas und der Levante, ι
(Munich, 1962), 65—66, which contains the relevant bibliography.
85. Kritoboulos of Imbros, Ιστοριών (10:47), iv, viii ( 2 ) , ( 4 ) ; Chronicle
of Aşik paşa Zade (83), tr. Kreutel, p. 226; and Abraham Papazoglou,
"Μωάμεθ Β ' ό πορθητής κατά τον Τοΰρκον ιστορικόν Άσίκ πασά ζαντέ"
(14:17), Ε Ε Β Σ , xvi (1940), 234.
86. Ducas (34), ed. Bekker, p. 342 (ed. Grecu, p. 429).
87. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrationes (1:52), и, 248. Cf. the
later source " "Εκθεσις χρονική [A Chronological Description]" in Constan­
tine Sathas, Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23) (Venice, 1872-1874), vu, 578.
88. See Barkan, Osmanlı imparatorluğunda (81), p. 11, fn. 88: "Timar-ı
Merne(?) nâm zimmî ki Torul kal'asini ol vermiş [The fief of the subject
named Meme ( ? ) , who handed over the Castle of Torul]."
89. See the entry entitled "Ardasa," by Demosthenes Oikonomidis, in
Έγκυκλοπαιδικον λεξικόν Ελευθερουδάκη (Athens, 1927), и, 415.
90. See Barkan, Osmanlı imparatorluğunda (81), p. 12: "12 kayıtda mülk
sahibinin Tekür'le (imparatorla) beraber giden sipahi kâfirler olduğu, 9 unun
hain olub kaçan kâfirlere âid bulunduğu anlaşılmaktadır [at the twelfth record­
ing it becomes evident that it belongs to nine non-Moslems, who were infidel
spahis following the Emperor, the master of the property, and who became
treacherous to him and abandoned him]."
91. Triantaphyllidis, ΟΙ φυγάδες (5:13), p. 47. Cf. Emile Legrand, Recueil
de chansons populaires grecques (Paris, 1874), p. 78. See Apostólos Vacalo-
356 NOTES—CHAPTER 15

poulos, "Zur Datierung zwier griechischer Volkslieder [On the Date of Two
Popular Greek Songs]," Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, in (1965), 4 - 1 1 .
92. See the view of Triantaphyllidis, Οι φυγάδες (5:13), pp. 40-41.
93. See Pericles Triantaphyllidis, Ή εν Πόντω ελληνική φυλή ήτοι τά
Ποντικά. Τ Η προσετέθησαν και λόγοι τινές εν Τραπεζοΰντι έκφωνηθέντες
[The Greek Tribe on the Pontus, That Is, the Pontica. To Which Are Added
Certain Speeches Delivered in Trebizond] (Athens, 1866), pp. 66-76, 80-81.
For a note on the resistance, and mention of ruined castles and other buildings,
see Triantaphyllidis, Οι φυγάδες (5:13), pp. 9, 18-35, 39-40, 42-44, 47-49.
Ioannidis, Ιστορία και στατιστική (5:20), p. 113, disputes the fact of re­
sistance. Cf. Philip Cheimonidis, Ιστορία καί στατιστική Σάντας [History and
Statistics of Santa] (Athens, 1902), pp. vii, viii, 16, 18, 27-28, 30, 32-33,
33-39; Spyridon Lambros, " Ό τελευταίος Έ λ λ η ν αυτοκράτωρ (Δαβίβ
Κομνηνός αυτοκράτωρ Τραπεζοΰντος) [The Last Greek Emperor—David
Comnenus, Emperor of Trebizond]," NE, xiv (1917), 291-292; Demetrius
Apostolidis, Ι σ τ ο ρ ί α του ελληνισμού του Πόντου [A History of the Hellenism
of the Pontus] (Thessalonica, 1935), pp. 50-51; and Agathangelos Phoste-
ropoulos, Ή "Ιμέρα του Πόντου [Himera on the Pontus] (Thessalonica,
1939), p. 5. Also relevant is the published lecture of Philon Ktenides, " Ή
άντίστασις των Ελλήνων του Πόντου μετά τήν αλωσιν της Τραπεζοΰντος
[The Resistance of the Greeks of the Pontus after the Capture of Trebizond],"
in the newspaper Μακεδόνικος άγων, 283/58 (May 8, 1949), which, how­
ever, I have not myself seen.
94. Triantaphyllidis, Oí φυγάδες (5:13), p. 31.
95. "Ντ' έποίκαμέ σε, νέ Θεέ μ', στα αίματα βαμμένοι;
Σαράντα χρόνια χτέσκουντουν του ξένου μου ό κάστρον
Καί άτώρα νά χαλάγεται μέ τό βαρύν τήν σπάθην;
Έκεΐ πουλιά κελαϊδοΰν μέ φλιβερόν λαλίαν
εκεί "Ελλενοι άπέθαναν μύριοι παλληκάρια.
[What have we done to you, my God, that we are dipped in blood?
It took forty years for my hosťs castle to be built
And now to be demolished by the heavy sword?
There birds sing with a sad utterance:
There Hellenes were killed, a thousand brave men]".
(See Ioannidis, Ιστορία καί στατιστική [5:20], p. 287.) There is another
song in Triantaphyllidis, Ή εν Π ό ν τ ω ελληνική φυλή (93), p. 170, which,
along with other pertinent folk songs, Anthimos A. Papadopoulos analyzes in
his " Ό Πόντος διά των αΙώνων [The Pontus through the Ages]," Α Π , ι
(1928), 27-32. Cf. the song " Ό αΙχμάλωτος [The Captive]," in George Sou-
melidis, " Α κ ρ ι τ ι κ ά άσματα [Akritic Songs]," A H , ι (1928), 89-91.
96. According to tradition, the resistance of the inhabitants of the district
of Kromme (that is, the Mesochaldion) was very weak. See Athanasios Parcha-
ridis, Ιστορία της Κρώμνης [History of Kromne] (Trebizond, 1911), pp.
37-38. Indeed, as we have seen above, Hitir Pasha took over this district peace­
fully.
97. Legrand, Recueil de chansons (91), p. 76.
NOTES—CHAPTER 16 357

98. Cheimonidis, Ιστορία και στατιστική της Σάντας (93), pp. 41-42.
99. Philippidis, " Ή Εκκλησία Τραπεζοΰντος" (73), pp. 374, 440, 5 2 9 -
530, 531.
100. Cf. Gustav Hertzberg, Geschichte Griechenlands [History of Greece],
π (Gotha, 1877), 548-549.
101. See Apostólos Vacalopoulos, "Les Limites de l'empire byzantin depuis
la fin de XIV e siècle jusqu'à sa chute (1453)," BZ, LV (1962), 62-63. On
July 30, 1447, Ciríaco de Pizzicolli of Ancona met Laonicos Chalcocondyles,
"juvenem ingenuum [a noble youth]" in Mistra. See Remigio Sabbadini,
"Ciriaco d'Ancona e la sua descrizione autografa del Peloponnesso trasmessa
da Leonardo Botta," Miscellanea Ceriani (Milan, 1910), p. 203; and Denis
Zakythinos, Oí Σλάβοι εν Ελλάδι (1:3) (Athens, 1945), p. 65. Apparently
Laonicos returned to Athens after its capture by the Turks, and lived there.
See Giuseppe Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini e le origini dell' umanesimo (9:39),
in, Dem. Calcondila (Florence, 1941-1954), 5.
102. Chalcocondyles, Historiarum demonstrations (1:52), ι, 4.
103. Ibid., ι, 2.

Chapter 16
1. Demetrius Kydones, Συμβουλευτικός έτερος περί Καλλιπόλεως [Another
Advisory Speech on Callipolis], PG, CLIV, col. 1013.
2. See Raymond Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (Rome,
1950), p. 168.
3. Giuseppe Cammelli, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Paris, 1930),
pp. 90, 91, 126, 128. Cf. p. 92.
4. See Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas ( 2 ) , passim.
5. See Raymond Loenertz, "Paléologue et Cydonès," Échos d'Orient, xxxvi
(1937), 2 7 5 - 2 7 6 , 4 8 5 .
6. Demetrius Kydones, Ρωμαίοις συμβουλευτικός (5:49), PG, CLIV, cols.
977, 1008. See Giovanni Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone,
Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teo­
logia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (3:79) (Vatican City, 1931),
pp. 370-372.
7. Some interesting information about a Greek settlement in Ragusa appears
in Bariša Kreide, Dubrovnik (Ragusę) et le Levant au moyen âge (Paris,
1960), pp. 125, 127, 129 ff. See the list of Greek names on pp. 135-144.
8. For a brief survey of medieval Greek studies in Italy, see Kenneth Setton,
"The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance," Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, c, no. 1, February, 1956, 1-76. Cf. Carlo d e
Frede, J Letton di umanità nello Studio di Napoli durante il rinascimento
[The Professors of Humanities at the University of Naples in the Renaissance]
(Naples, 1960), pp. 84-85, 98-99, which contains the relevant bibliography;
and Giuseppe Schirò, " Ή βυζαντινή λογοτεχνία της Σικελίας και της Κάτω
'Ιταλίας [The Byzantine Literature of Sicily and of Southern Italy]," Ελληνικά,
XVII (1962), 170-187. On Greek monasticism in Calabria during the fifteenth
358 NOTES—CHAPTER 16

century, see M. H. Laurent and André Guillou, Le 'Liber visitationis' d'Athanase

Chalkéopoulos (1457-1458) (Vatican City, I960), passim.
9. In the Italian view, advanced mainly by scholars from Morosi to Par­
langeli, these ancient Greek peoples had been completely absorbed, and the
present-day Greek-speaking pockets are the remnants of medieval Byzantine
colonization. See Michael Dendias, " 'Απουλία και Χιμάρα [Apulia and Chi­
mara] ," 'A-íhjva, XXXVIII (1926), 72-109; and Stamatis Caratzas, L'Origine
des dialectes néo-grecs de l'Italie méridionale (Paris, 1958), especially p. 17.
10. Ambroise Firmin Didot, Aide Mantice et l'hellénisme à Venise (Paris,
1875), pp. 18-19. See Emile Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique ou descrip­
tion raisonnée des ouvrages publiés en grec par des Grecs au XVe et XVIe
siècles (Paris, 1885), i, xvii-xxviii, which contains the relevant bibliography;
and Giovanni Pesenti, "La Scuola di Greco a Firenze nel primo Rinascimento,"
Atene e Roma, хи (1931), 84, 85. On Petrarch's search for Greek manu­
scripts and his relations with Greek writers, see Pierre de Nolhac, Pétrarque
et l'humanisme (Paris, 1907), ι, 67, 118, 126-188.
11. See Setton, "The Byzantine Background" (8), pp. 40-41, 45-52.
12. See Raymond Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès, correspondance (Vatican
City, 1956), i, 22; π, 51, 122, and n, 409, for the impressions of his journey of
1391. See also Cammelli, Démétrius Cydonès (3), p. 116.
13. See Didot, Alduce Manuce (10), pp. 19-20.
14. See Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas (2), pp. 40-41, and
passim.
15. See Setton, "The Byzantine Background" (8), p. 60.
16. Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (12), и, 396, 406, 409-410.
17. See, for example, a letter written by Manuel Calecas to one of his
friends, Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas ( 2 ) , p. 270.
18. See Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès (12), II, 122: "τφ τε γαρ μεγέθει
και τφ κάλλει καί tfj λοιπή περιφανεία της πόλεως ήσθην, δτ' αύτοΰ διετρί-
βομεν [I was pleased by the size, the beauty, and the other aspects of the
city when we stayed there]."
19. The classic work on the subject remains Georg Voigťs Die Wieder­
belebung des classischen Altertums [The Rebirth of Classical Antiquity], 4th
ed. (Berlin, 1960), in two volumes.
20. See Spyridon Lambros, Άργυροπούλεια (13:35) (Athens, 1910), pp.
v-vi; and Giuseppe Cammelli, 1 Dotti bizantini e le origini dell' umanesimo
(9:39), ι, Manuele Crisolora (Florence, 1941-1954), pp. 17, 19: "e poco
più sapiammo . . . di Teodoro Gaza dopo le richerche dello Stein e del
Gercke. Giorgio di Trebizonda, Andronico Callisto, i due Lascaris, Demetrio
Castreno e molti altri di minor fama, aspettano ancora Гопоге di una tratta­
zione particolare [and we know a little more of Theodore Gazis, after the
research of (Ernst) Stein and (Alfred) Gercke. Georgius of Trebizond,
Andronicus Callistus, the two Lascarises, Demetrius Castrenus, and many
others of less note still await the honor of a special treatment]." Basileios
Mystakidis singles out the Collectio camerariana codicum latinorum 10351-
10478 in the Public Library of Munich (where, among many Latin letters,
NOTES—CHAPTER 16 359

are those by Mitrophanes Kritopoulos and Cyril Loucaris) as being the most
useful for a compilation of a history of letter-writing during the Renaissance
(Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, " 'Εκ των καταλοίπων του Β . Μυστακίδου τα
υπ' αριθμόν 16 και 17 [From the Rest of the Books of B. Mystakidis, Those
under the Numbers 16 and 17]," Ε Ε Β Σ , XVII [1941], 276). Of course the
older works, by Umfredo Hody, Emile Legrand, and Theodor Klette, also
have their worth, but they are poor and dull (see Cammelli, / Dotti bizantini,
ι, 18). The works of Legrand, notable for their almost overpunctilious exact­
ness, nevertheless deserve special attention for their criticisms of the method­
ology, inaccuracies, and carelessness of his forerunners, Greek historians of
modem Hellenic literature. See Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique (10), ι,
1 ff. The more recent works by Ludwig Mohler (on Bessarion) and Cammelli
(on Manuel Chrysoloras, John Argyropoulos, Andronicus Callistus, and De­
metrius Chalcocondyles ) treat their subjects in a methodical and exhaustive
fashion. The pertinent sections of this chapter are mainly based upon these
works. Cammellťs works, despite the verbosity in certain places, remain models
of critical historical analysis.
21. Martinus Crusius, Turcograeciae libri octo (Basel, 1584), p. 449. Cf.
Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ι, p. 19.
22. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas ( 2 ) , pp. 65-66.
23. Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ι, pp. 29 ff. For a more authentic
portrait of Chrysoloras, see Henri Omont, "Note sur un portrait de Manuel
Chrysoloras," REG, iv (1891), 176-177.
24. Remigio Sabbadini, Epistohrio di Guarino Veronese [A Collection of
the Letters of Guarino of Verona] (Venice, 1915), i, 99.
25. See Manuel Chrysoloras, Epistolae, PG, CLVI, cols. 53-56, on the com­
parison of the old Rome with the new.
26. Ibid., cols. 23-53.
27. Cammelli, I Botti bizantini (9:39), ι, 130. On the narratives of Byzan­
tine scholars and officials who travelled to the West, see the letter written by
the monk Isidore in Denis Zakythinos, "Μανουήλ ό Β ' και ό καρδινάλιος
'Ισίδωρος εν Πελοποννήσω" (8:90), Melanges Merlier, ш (1957), 8-9.
28. See Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas ( 2 ) , p. 68.
29. Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ι, 161 ff.
30. See Conrad Bursian, Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutsch­
land von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart [The History of CL·ssical Philology
in Germany, from Its Beginnings to the Present] (Munich-Leipzig, 1883),
91-93.
31. See Pesenti, "La Scuola di Greco" (10), pp. 84-101.
32. Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas ( 2 ) , pp. 257-258.
33. See Ludwig Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und
Staatsmann, ι (Paderborn, 1923), 325.
34. Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ι, 77-98, and ni, 91, on the publi­
cation of Questions.
35. For a comparison of the two methods, see Francesco Lo Parco, "Niccolò
da Reggia," in the Atti R. Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti di
360 NOTES—CHAPTER 16

Napoli, new series, и, 268 if., 1910 (cited by Setton, "The Byzantine Back­
ground" ( 8 ) , pp. 50-51).
36. On Guarino's visit to Constantinople, see Cammelli, / Dotti bizantini
(9:39), ι, 131-142. For the letters, see Sabbadini, Epistoforio di Guarino ( 2 4 ) ,
ι, especially p. 21—Guarino's letter to Manuel Chrysoloras, written in October
1411: "maximas gratias non vilissimae urbi sed augustae dignitatis civitatis
debeamus, tibi vero in primis, qui altissimis dudum demersos tenebris Italos
admota demum veluti solis lampade illuminasti. Hoc dicit Italia, hoc cunc-
tarum artium f a ten tur litterae, hoc clara testan tur voce [We owe the greatest
thanks, not to the lowliest of cities, but to a state exalted in its worthiness—
and especially to you, who, just as if you had at last brought the light of the
sun closer, have enlightened the Italians who were before plunged in the
deepest darkness. Italy declares this, and this does the literature of all the
arts confess, testifying with a clear voice]."
37. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique (10), i, xxvi-xxix.
38. See Sabbadini, Epistolario di Guarino (24), ι, 99.
39. Ibid., ι, 113. Guarino's letter to the jurist Iacopo de Fabris eulogizes
Manuel unreservedly.
40. See Spyridon Lambros, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά (1:66)
(Athens, 1926), и, 275, where George Scholarios characteristically writes:
" Έ π ε ί δε ωχετο φυγών τήν Κωνσταντινούπολιν ο πλούτος άπας των αγαθών,
οΐς τόν πρόσθεν χρόνον έκόμα, και τό τών λόγων καλόν παράμενε iv ουκ
ήνεσχετο [And, when Constantinople was fled by the entire wealth of goods
and chattels, upon which it once prided itself, even the comeliness of letters
was not suffered to remain]." loannis K. Voyatzidis furnishes an analysis of
this letter in his " Ίστορικαί μελέται [Historical Studies]," Ε Ε Φ Σ Π Θ , и
(1932), 242-244. Cf. Martin Jugie, "Georges Scholarios, professeur de phi­
losophie," SBN, ν (1939), 484.
41. Georgios Scholarios, "Απαντα τα ευρισκόμενα (13:37) (Paris, 1935),
m , 288. Cf. Jugie, "Georges Scholarios" (40), 483-484.
42. George Gemistos, Π ρ ο ς τό υπέρ του λατινικού δόγματος βιβλίον, PG,
CLX, col. 979.
43. See Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion (33), i, 113-114, 325.
44. See Arnaldo della Torre, Storia dell'Academia Platonica di Firenze
(Florence, 1902), pp. 436-441. On the first intellectual impulses generated by
Gemistos' teaching, see the letters of Francesco Filelfo, in Émile Legrand,
Cent-dix Lettres grecques de François Filelfe (Paris, 1892), pp. 31-34, 48.
45. See Giuseppe Cammelli, "Andronico Callisto" in Rinascita (Florence,
1942), pp. 117-121; and I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ni, 20-25, which contains
the relevant bibliography. The text of Michael Apostolis is in J. Enoch Powell,
"Michael Apostolios gegen Theodoros Gaza [Michael Apostolis against Theo-
dore Gazis]," BZ, xxxviii (1938), 71-86.
46. See Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion (33), i, 113, 325-326, 339, 347-350,
351 ff.; and loannis Mamalakis, Γεώργιος Γεμιστός—Πλήθων (9:1) (Athens,
1939), pp. 156-174. On his influence in the West, see Börje Knös, "Gemiste
NOTES—CHAPTER 16 361

Pléthon et son souvenir," Lettres d'humanité, ix (1950), 132-184. On the

influence of his work, see Andronicus Byzantios' epigram, ΕΙς το Βησσα­
ρίωνος υπέρ Πλάτοονος βιβλίον [On Bessarion's Book concerning Plato], in
Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres (44), pp. 220-221. See the correspondence be­
tween Bessarion and Guillaume Fichet on pp. 223 ff., for the intellectual dis­
cussions and controversy that the quarrel between the Aristotelians and
Platonists aroused.
47. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion (33), i, 178-208, 252-256, 258-265, 2 6 5 -
266, 325-326. For a criticism of the translations, see p. 341. On the re­
newal of the activity of the Academy after the death of Nicholas V, see
pp. 331-335. Most of Bessarion's theological works belong to this period (see
pp. 336 ff. ). Other relevant information may be found in Raymond Loenertz,
"Pour la biographie du cardinal Bessarion," OCP, χ (1944), 116-149. On the
teaching of C. Lascaris, at the monastery of San Salvatore, see Antonino de
Rosalia, "La Vita di C. Lascaris," Archivio storico siciliano, series III, vol. ix
(1959), 35, which contains the relevant bibliography.
48. Christos G. Patrinellis, "Μιχαήλ 'Αποστόλη προσφώνημα άνέκδοτον είς
τον καρδινάλιον Βησσαρίωνα [Michael Apostolis' Unpublished Address to
Cardinal Bessarion]," 'Αθήνα, LXV (1961), 134, 136.
49. Spyridon Lambros, " 'Ανέκδοτος επιστολή του Βησσαρίωνος [An Un­
published Letter by Bessarion]," NE, vi (1909), 393-398; and "Oí ταχυ-
γράφοι του Βησσαρίωνος [Bessarion's Stenographers]," NE, и (1905), 334—
336.
50. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion (33), ι, 266.
51. Ibid., i, 330. Cf. p. 414; and Bessarion's letter in 1469 to the Doge, in
which he announced his gift, in PC, CLXI, col. 701.
52. On Nicholas V's and Bessarion's libraries, see Eugène Muntz and Paul
Fabre, La Bibliothèque du Vatican au XVe siècle d'après des documents inédits
(Paris, 1887), pp. iv, 34-114. On Bessarion's library, see also Spyridon
Theotokis, "Κατάλογος χειρογράφων του 'Αγ. Μάρκου εν Βενετία [A Cata­
logue of Manuscripts of St. Mark's in Venice]," Ελληνικά, in (1930), 90 ff.;
and Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion (33), i, 408. On Aldus Manutius, see Didot,
Aide Manuce (10), pp. xlvff., 25-26.
53. On George Trapezountios' sojourn in Florence before March, 1443, and
his teaching there, see Giuseppe Cammelli, / Dotti bizantini (9:39), и,
Giovanni Argiropulo, 54, and 33-34 on Trapezountios' differences with John
Argyropoulos; see also Lambros, 'Αργυρόπουλεια (13:35), pp. xxvii-xxix.
54. Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ш , 18, fn. 3.
55. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique (10), ι, xxi-xxiv.
56. Constantine Sathas, Νεοελληνική φιλολογία (1453-1821) [Modern
Greek Philology, 1453-1821] (Athens, 1868), p. 38.
57. See Cammelli, "Andronico Callisto" (45), pp. 104-121, 172-214.
58. De Frede, I Lettori ( 8 ) , pp. 85, 86-87.
59. Spyridon Lambros, " Τπόμνημα του καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος είς
Παλαιολόγον" (9:24), NE, πι (1906), 25.
362 NOTES—CHAPTER 16

60. Crusius, Turcograeciae (21), p, 101.

61. See Voyatzidis, Ιστορικού μελέται (40), 245, 251-255; and Scholarios,
'Άπαντα (13:37), in, 115, where, in 1443, he contemplates Bessarion's good
fortune: "Νυν δ' ό μεν τήν 'Ιταλίαν κοσμεί, ήμεΐς δε πολίταις μεν άγαθοΐς,
άμαθέσι δε άλλως πλην ολίγων καί λόγων ανέραστοι ένδιαιτώμεθα, ουδέ
δυνάμενοι τι των υπαρχόντων έπιδείξασθαι σφίσι, καί δόξης τίνος ή χάριτος
επί τούτω τυχεΐν [And now he adorns Italy, while we, deprived of the joys
of culture, live among citizens who are good, but, except for a few, are with­
out learning. Nor are we able to display any of our faculties to them, and
thereby gain any repute or any favor]."
62. Krekić, Dubrovnik ( 7 ) , pp. 69, 70.
63. Among the scholars who passed through Ragusa to Ancona were Janus
Lascaris and Demetrius Chalcocondyles. See Cammelli, Í Dotti bizantini
(9:39), in, 19. The tradition that scholars also went to Moschopolis, which
was on the way to Ragusa, and that they there instigated the Greek studies
which later raised Moschopolis to a position of intellectual pre-eminence (see
Johann von Hahn, Albanesische Studien [Jena, 1954], ι, 296) is without foun­
dation. It is doubtful whether Moschopolis in fact existed at that time.
64. Denis Zakythinos, "Μιχαήλ Μάρουλλος Ταρχανιώτης [Michael Maroul-
los Tarchaniotes]," Ε Ε Β Σ , ν (1928), 202.
65. Krekić, Dubrovnik ( 7 ) , pp. 132-135.
66. Andronicus Callistus, Μονωδία επί χχ\ δυστυχεί Κωνσταντινουπόλει
(14:108), PG, CLXI, cols. 1138-1139.
67. Masai considers Argyropoulos a Platonist, a protagonist of Gemistos'
ideas, and an initiate into the "μυστήρια [mysteries]" of his circle (François
Masai, Pléthon et le Flatonisme de Mistra [Paris, 1956], pp. 313, 328-329,
339). This is, however, by no means proven.
68. See Cammelli, Í Dotti bizantini (9:39), и, passim. In Lambros' 'Αργυ­
ρόπουλε ια (13:35) ţ there are not only gaps, but a number of serious errors-
attributable in the main to Lambros' failure to examine the environment in
which Argyropoulos lived, his relations with others, the nature of his influence,
and other factors. See the criticism by Cammelli in I Dotti bizantini (9:39),
ι, 18. On Argyropoulos' replacement in the Florentine chair by Callistus, see
Cammelli, "Andronico Callisto" (45), pp. 179-189.
69. See Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ш, 135-141, which has the
early bibliography.
70. See de Frede, / Lettori ( 8 ) , pp. 13 ff. 81 ff., 92-93, 95, 109; and de
Rosalia, "La Vita di C. Lascaris" (47), pp. 32-50.
71. Cammelli, "Andronico Callisto" (45), pp. 104-121, 172-214; and
Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique (10), ι, 1-lvii. On Callistas' stay in Florence,
see "Andronico Callisto," pp. 189 ff.; and J Dotti bizantini (9:39), и, 128,
fn. 2, and p. 151. Before 1462, Callistus stayed in Padua as the guest of Palla
Strozzi (I Dotti bizantini, ги, 30). On humanistic studies in England during
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see Setton, "The Byzantine Background"
(8), pp. 62-64; and Robert Weiss, Humanism in England During the Fif­
teenth Century (Oxford, 1941).
NOTES—CHAPTER 16 363
72. On Nicholas Secundinos and his work, see Panagiotis D. Mastro-
dimitris, "Νικολάου Σεκουνδινού ανέκδοτος επιστολή [An Unpublished Letter
of Nicholas Secundinos]," Ε Ε Β Σ , xxxiv (1956), 203-207; and Franz Babin-
ger, "Nikolaos Segoundinos, ein griechisch-venedischer Humanist des 15. Jahr­
hunderts [Nicholas Secundinos, a Greco-Venetian Humanist of the Fifteenth
Century], , , Χαριστήριον εις 'Αν. Όρλάνδον, ι (1965), 198-212.
73. Cardinal Bessarion, Epistohe, PG, CLXI, col. 695. (See fn. 1, cols. 6 9 1 -
696, for Nicholas Secundinos' letter.)
74. See Bursian, Geschichte der chssischen Philologie (30), pp. 120, and
121, fп. 1; and the biographies of Hermonymos in Emile Egger, L'Hel­
lénisme en France (Paris, 1869), i, 146-147; in Sathas, Νεοελληνική φιλολο­
γία (56), pp. 67-70; and Knös, "Gemiste Pléthon" (46), 166-167.
75. See Spyridon Lambros, "Λακεδαιμόνιοι βιβλιογράφοι και κτήτορες
κωδίκων κατά τους μέσους αιώνας και επί τουρκοκρατίας" (6:73), NE, iv
(1907), 325-331, for some interesting details.
76. See Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique (10), ι, cxxxii-cxxxvi, cliii—elvi;
and Börje Knös, Un Ambassadeur de l'hellénisme—Janus Lascaris—et la iradi-
tion gréco-byzantine dans l'humanisme français (Uppsala-Stockholm-Paris,
1945), pp. 30-51, which contains the relevant bibliography.
77. Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres (44), p. 361.
78. See Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), in, 31, fn. 3.
79. See Knös, Un Ambassadeur de l'hellénisme (77), pp. 17-133.
80. See Manoussos Manoussacas, " Ή παρουσίαση από τόν Ι α ν ό Λάσκαρι
των πρώτων μαθητών του ελληνικοί) γυμνασίου της Ρ ώ μ η ς στον πάπα Λέοντα
Ι ' (15 Φεβρουαρίου 1514) [The Presentation by Janus Lascaris of the First
Students of the Greek Gymnasium at Rome to Pope Leo IX (February 15,
1514)]" in Ό Ερανιστής, ι (1963), 161-172, which contains the earlier
bibliography; Knös, Un Ambassadeur de l'hellénisme (77), pp. 137-152; and
Vittorio Fanelli, "Il Ginnasio Greco di Leone X a Roma," Studi romani, ix
(1961), 379-389.
81. Knös, Un Ambassadeur de l'hellénisme (77), pp. 152-158. On the
school at Rome, see Andreas Moustoxydis, "To έν Ρ ώ μ η ελληνικόν γυμνάσιον
[Rome's Greek Gymnasium]," Έλληνομνήμων, ι (1843-1853), 231-235; and
on pp. 328-336 his "Ζαχαρίας Καλλίεργης." On Kallierges and the printing
shop, see Deno Geanakoplos, Greek Schohrs in Venice (Cambridge, Mass.,
1962), pp. 122-125, 128, 159.
82. Knös, Un Ambassadeur de l'hellénisme (77), pp. 158-217; and Fanelli,
"Il Ginnasio greco" (81), pp. 389-390. For proof of the exact date of his
death, see Giovanni Mercati, "Quando morì G. Lascaris? [When did Janus
Lascaris die?]," Rheinisches Museum, LXV (1910), 318.
83. Egger, L'Hellénisme en France (74), ι, 164.
84. See Bessarion's letter to the tutor of the children of Thomas Palaeologus,
with the strict injunction that the nobles who accompanied the children to
church should not be allowed to leave when the moment arrived for reference
to the Pope: "διότι αν φεύγωσιν από την έκκλησίαν, είναι χρεία νά φεύγωσιν
364 NOTES—CHAPTER 17

καί από τήν Φραγγίαν [because if they leave the church they should also
leave Italy]" (PG, CLXI, cols. 680-681).
85. Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres (44), p. 79. Cf. pp. 119, 133, 175.
86. See Georg Voigt, Enea Silvio de'Piccolomini, als Papst Pius der Zweite
und sein Zeitalter (15:21) (Berlin, 1863), in, 606ff.
87. Othon Riemann, "Une Lettre d'un Grec du quinzième siècle," AAEEG,
х ш (1879), 125.
88. See de Frede, J Letton ( 8 ) , p. 95.
89. De Rosalia, "La Vita di С. Lascaris" (47), p. 38.
90. Lambros, Άργυροπούλεια (13:35), pp. 305-306; and Constantine Las­
caris, Epistolae quatuordecim familiares, PG, CLXI, cols. 957-958. Demetrius is
probably Demetrius Kastrenos. See Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique (10), ι,
clxiii; Spyridon Lambros, "Δημητρίου Καστρηνοΰ ανέκδοτος επιστολή προς
Σοφιανόν [An Unpublished Letter by Demetrius Kastrenos to Sophianos],"
NE, XIII (1916), 408-413; and Cammelli, "Andronico Callisto" (45), p. 205,
fп. 1. On Constantine Lascaris, see Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique, ι, Ixxi-
lxxxvii. See also Constantine Lascaris' letter to I. Gato, Bishop of Catania:
"φάνηθι των λόγων σωτήρ, καί τάς εν Κατάνη κατερρηκυίας σπουδάς, πολλω
σεμνοτέρας των 'Ιταλών άπόφηνον [show that you are the savior of education
and that the decadent studies in Catania are much worthier than those in
Italy]," PG, CLXI, col. 916.
91. See Cammelli, / Dotti bizantini (9:39), π, 174-175, 181. Cf. p. 133,
and his "Andronico Callisto" (45), pp. 199-200. Manuel Chrysoloras and
Theodore Gazes, with their Olympian characters, may be said to constitute
exceptions (see I Dotti bizantini, ι, 104), as Andronicus Callistus perhaps may
also ("Andronico Callisto," p. 200).
92. De Frede, I Lettori ( 8 ) , p. 88.
93. Constantine Lascaris, Proemium ad libros suos de grammatica, PG, CLXI,
cols. 933-936.
94. Basileios Laourdas, "Μιχαήλ 'Αποστόλη, Λόγος περί Ελλάδος καί Ευ­
ρώπης [Michael Apostolis' Address concerning Greece and Europe]," Ε Ε Β Σ ,
XIX (1949), 243, and 235-236 for the bibliography on Apostolis, and Hippo-
lyte Noiret, Lettres inédites de Michael Apostolis (Paris, 1889), p. 148. For an
analysis of Apostolis' speech, see Deno Geanakoplos, "A Byzantine View of the
Renaissance. The Attitude of M. Apostolis toward the Rise of Italy to Cultural
Eminence," Greek and Byzantine Studies, ι (1958), 157-162.
95. See Denis Zakythinos, "To πρόβλημα της ελληνικής συμβολής εις τήν
Άναγέννησιν [The Problem of the Hellenic Contribution to the Renaissance],"
Ε Ε Φ Σ Π Α , ii, 5 (1954-1955), 126-138.
96. Cammelli, I Dotti bizantini (9:39), ι, 11.

Chapter 17
1. See Basileios Laourdas, "Μιχαήλ 'Αποστόλη, Αόγος περί Ελλάδος καί
Ευρώπης" (16:95), Ε Ε Β Σ , xix (1949), 243.
2. Spyridon Lambros, "Λακεδαιμόνιοι βιβλιογράφοι καί κτήτορες κωδίκων"
(6:73), NE, iv (1907), 311, 316-317, 331, 332, 337.
NOTES—CHAPTER 17 365

3. Henri Grégoire, "Les Manuscrits de Julien et le mouvement néo-païen de

Mistra: Démétrius Rhallis et Gemiste Pléthon," Byzantion, v (1929), 733-734.
4. Lambros, "Λακεδαιμόνιοι" (6:73), 336.
5. Marie Vogel and Viktor Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des
Mittelalters und der Renaissance [The Greek Scribes of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance] (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 318, 319. On Michael Souliardos, see Spyri-
don Lambros, "Ναυπλιακόν εγγραφον του οίκου Πουλομμάτη εν έ'τει 1509
και ό βιβλιογράφος Μιχαήλ Σουλιάρδος [A Nauplian Document of the House
of Poulommates in the Year 1509, and the Bibliographer Michael Souliardos],"
N E , vi (1909), 279-283.
6. See Johannes Irmscher, 'Theodoros Gazes als griechischer Patriot [Theo­
dore Gazes as a Greek Patriot]/* La Parola del passato, xvi (1961), 161-173.
7. See Georgios Zoras, Γεώργιος ó Τραπεζούντιος και αί προς έλληνο-
τουρκικήν συνεννόησιν προσπάθειαι αύτοΰ ( Ή " Π ε ρ ί της των Χριστιανών
πίστεως" ανέκδοτος πραγματεία [George Trapezountios and His Efforts toward
a Greco-Turkish Understanding (The Unpublished Treatise "On the Faith
of the Christians")] (Athens, 1954). Compare the Turkish view on the
reconciliation of Christianity and Islam as expressed to Gregory Palamas: "Εις
δε τις εκείνων είπεν, ώς εσταί ποτέ δτε συμφωνήσομεν άλλήλοις. Καί εγώ
συνεθέμην και έπευξάμην τάχιον ήκειν τόν καιρόν εκείνον [And a certain
one of them said that there will be a time when we shall get along with one
another. And I agreed, and prayed that that opportunity come more quickly]"
(Constantine I. Dyovouniotis, "Γρηγορίου Παλαμά επιστολή προς Θεσσαλο­
νικείς" (5:35), NE, xvi [1922], 19). On the important ideological movement
later launched by Bedredin and his disciple, Berkludsh Mustafa, see Hier-
onymous Cotsonis, "Aus der Endzeit von Byzanz: Bürkludsche Mustafa [From
the Final Period of Byzantium: Burkludsh Mustafa]," BZ, L (1957), 397-404.
8. See Angelo Mercati, "Le Due Lettere di Giorgio da Trebizonda a Mao-
metto 11," OCP, ix (1943), 65-99.
9. See Ludwig Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und
Staatsmann, ι (Paderborn, 1923), 275-283; and Georg Voigt, Enea Silvio
de'Piccolomini, als Papst Pius der Zweite und sein Zeitalter (15:21) (Berlin,
1863), in, 56: "Wenn von den Leiden und Hoffnungen seiner griechischen
Brüder die Rede war, zeigte Cardinal Bessarion stets einen drängenden Eifer.
Er war eben kein weltkluger Mann, am wenigsten, wenn jene Grille ihn
beherrschte [When the subject was the misfortunes and hopes of his Greek
brothers, Cardinal Bessarion always showed a compulsive zeal. He was simply
not a man wise to the world, least of all when that desire (to free his brothers)
dominated him]."
10. See Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion ( 9 ) , i, 285-303.
11. Ibid., pp. 304-310.
12. Ibid., pp. 310-324, 416-425.
13. See his speeches in PG, CLXI, cols. 647-676. Note especially col. 667;
and G. Ficheťs exhortations to the leaders of the West to back Bessarion's
plans (Emile Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres grecques de François Filelfe [Paris,
1892], pp. 251 ff.). Cf. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion ( 9 ) , i, 425-429; and
366 NOTES—CHAPTER 17

О thon Riemann, "Une Lettre ďun grec du quinzième siècle," AAEEG, XIII
(1879), 124.
14. Emile Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique ou description rationnée des
ouvrages publiés en grec par des Grecs au XVe et XVIe siècles (Paris, 1885),
i, clvi-clvii. See Elias Voutieridis, Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας
[History of Modern Greek Literature] (Athens, 1924), pp. 246-247. On Las-
caris' travels in Greece, see Börje Knös, Un Ambassadeur de Îhellénisme—
Janus Lascaris—et la tradition gréco-byzantine dans l'humanisme français
( Uppsala-Stockholm-Paris, 1945), pp. 30-51, which contains the relevant bib­
liography. See also Lascaris' memorandum of 1508 to Pope Leo X, in Neculai
Iorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à l'histoire des Croisades au XVe siècle
(Bucharest, 1916), 6th series (1501-1547), pp. 45-55.
15. See John Acciajuoli's poem to Charles V, "του πρωτοκόμητος Κορώνης
[the chief leader of Korone]," in Georgios Zoras, Κάρολος ό Ε' τής Γερμανίας
καί αί προς άπελευθέρωσιν προσπάθειαι [Charles V of Germany and the
Efforts toward Liberation] (Athens, 1953). This study, with the text of the
poem, also appears in ΕΕΦΣΠΑ, n, 5 (1954-1955), 420-472, and in a sep­
arate edition, 'Ιωάννου Άζαγιώλου διήγησις συνοπτική Καρόλου του Ε' [Α
Brief Narrative on Charles V by John Acciajuoli] (Athens, 1964). Note also the
anonymous author of Θρήνος τής Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [Dirge for Constanti-
nople] (Adolf Ellissen, Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur
[9:8] [Leipzig, 1860], III, 154). Antoine Gidel, Études sur h littérature
grecque moderne (Paris, 1866), p. 66, believes that the author of the poem is
Georgilas of Rhodes, though Emile Egger (L'Hellénisme en France [Paris,
1869], i, 439, fn. 1) has certain reservations as to its authorship. Note also
that Francesco Filelfo in 1475 urged Demetrius Chalcocondyles to persuade
Lorenzo de' Medici of Florence to launch a crusade against the Turks. See
Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres (13), pp. 190-191.
16. Μονφδία έπί τη δυστυχεί Κωνσταντινουπόλει, PG, CLXI, col. 1139.
17. John Stavrakios, "κόντε Παλατινός καί καβελλάριος [Palatine count
and chevalier]/' was in fact one of Frederick's courtiers.
18. ""Εκ τε τής ανάγκης αυτής, ην Άδράστειαν έκάλεσαν οί φιλόσοφοι
καί τής των πραγμάτων περιφοράς τε καί παλίρροιας, άστατων γε δντων καί
εσαεί κινουμένων [And from that same need which the philosophers called
'Adrastian' and from the confusions and reversals of affairs, which were un­
stable and always in motion]." Basileios Laourdas, " Ή προς τόν αυτοκράτορα
Φρειδερίκον τόν τρίτον ?κκλησις του Μιχαήλ 'Αποστόλη [The Appeal of
Michael Apostolis to Emperor Frederick III]," Γέρας 'Αντωνίου Κεραμο-
πούλλου (Athens, 1953), p. 521.
19. Ibid., pp. 516-527. See also the moving plea with which he closes his
speech "Περί Ελλάδος καί Ευρώπης [About Greece and Europe]" (Laour­
das, "Μιχαήλ 'Αποστόλη λόγος περί Ελλάδος καί Ευρώπης" (16:95), ΕΕΒΣ,
xix [1949], 243-244).
20. Hippolyte Noiret, Lettres inédites de Michel Apostolis (Paris, 1889),
pp. 110-111.
NOTES—CHAPTER 17 367

21. See Denis Zakythinos, "Μιχαήλ Μάρουλλος Ταρχανιώτης. Έλλην

ποιητής των χρόνων της 'Αναγεννήσεως [Michael Maroullos Tarchaniotes.
A Greek Poet of the Times of the Renaissance]," ΕΕΒΣ, ν (1928), pp. 2 0 0 -
242.
22. See Alessandro Perosa, Michaelis Marnili carmina [The Poems of
Michael Maroullos] (Verona, 1951), pp. 89-90, 98-99, and pp. xxxix-xliv,
where a bibliography will be found. Note the epitaph to his father, Manilius:
Flens primům has auras hausi puer omine diro,
Flebilis erepta vita fuit patria,
Nunc quoque flens morior nequid non flebile restet:
Haec est humani conditio generis.
[Weeping and in evil times I as a child first breathed this air.
Lamentable my life since my fatherland was seized.
Now also I die weeping, that nothing remains which is not to be wept for.
Such is the state of human kind.]
23. Ibid., pp. 41, 72.
24. Ibid., pp. 72-73.
25. Ibid., pp. 29, 77-78. Concerning Manilius (i.e., Manuel) Kavakes Ralles,
see Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres (13), pp. viii-ix; Antonios Chatzis, Oí Ραούλ,
Ράλ, Ράλαι (1080-1800) (Kirchhain, 1909), pp. 56-61; and Manoussos
Manoussacas, " 'Αρχιερείς Μεθώνης, Κορώνης και Μονεμβασίας γύρω στα
1500 [The Bishops of Methone, Korone, and Monemvasia around 1500],"
Πελοποννησιακά, m (1959), 122-125.
26. Börje Knös considers this lack of faith a kind of snobbery. See his
"Gemiste Pléthon et son souvenir," Lettres d'humanité, ix (1950), 152. For
comments on the predilection of these scholars for magic, see Daniel Walker,
Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella (London, 1958).
Constantine Sathas' supposition, in Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη (2:23) (Venice-
Paris, 1872-1894), VII, lvii, that the Byzantine scholars "έμύησαν εις τά
μεγάλα της αρχαιότητος μυστήρια τους έν τη σκοτία του μεσαιωνικού
ρωμαισμοΰ καθεύδοντας λαούς [initiated into the great mysteries of antiquity
those people who had been slumbering in the darkness of medieval Roman-
ity]" is fanciful and unsupportable.
27. Zakythinos, "Μιχαήλ Μάρουλλος Ταρχανιώτης" (21), 225.
28. PG, CLXi, col. 959.
29. Ibid., col. 662.
^ЈШМ11Ш11ЈШ1Ш11)ШР1Ш1Ш11ШЈ11ШН^ЈРЈШШ1ШШ1111Ј1ј

INDEX

Academia Platonica, Florence, 241, 200, 209, 211, 212, 215, 217, 218,
248 221, 227, 286n81, 329nl
Academy of Florence ("Old Acad­ Adriatic Sea, 161, 206
emy"), 247, 248 Aegean islands, 20, 22, 63, 190; Con­
Academy Pontaniana, Naples, 254 stan tinopolitan refugees in, 76, 201,
Acarnania, 7, 15, 31, 78, 251, 312nl8; 202, 216; dialects of, 15, 81; Franks
Albanians in, 8, 10, 11, 116, 272n66 in, 43, 99, 106, 136, 137, 138;
Acciajuoli family, 108, 109, 215 Mohammed II and, 213, 216-21,
Acciajuoli, Antonio, duke of Athens, 222, 224, 231; piracy and, 69, 71,
134, 135 298n8. See also specific islands
Acciajuoli, Donato, 245 Aegina, island of, 4, 10, 109
Acciajuoli, Francesco, 211 Aeschines, 250
Acciajuoli, John, 366nl5 Aeschylus, 250
Acciajuoli, Nerio, ruler of Corinth, Aetolia, 29, 31, 78; Albanians in, 8,
105, 108, 110, 118, 313n35; Con­ 10, 11, 12, 116, 272n66
stantine XI and, 178; daughter of, Africa, 13
116 Against the Hellenes (Kata Hellenon
Achaia, 5, 10, 213, 215, 259, 266n9 . . . Scholarios), 171
Achelous, battle of (1359), 8, 112 Against Vlatds Calumniator (In
Achelous River (Aspropotamos), 7, calumniatorem Platonis . . . Bes-
14, 271n54, 272n72 sarion), 243
Achilles, 44-45, 287n89 Agathias, monk, 82
Achilles family, 201 Agathopolis (Aktopol), 79, 136
Achris (Ochrida), 32, 50 Agesilaos, Spartan general, 174
Acrocorinth, 209, 210(fig.), 211 Agrafa, 153, 156, 165, 178; Armatoles
Acropolis, Athens, 24, 211, 312n33 in, 157, 158, 159
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 61 agriculture, 28, 34, 54-57, 130,
Actuarius, John, 47 290n37; Constantine XI and, 172,
Adrianople, 59, 243, 251; Ottoman 190; military service and, 129;
Turks in, 76, 78-79, 190, 193, Turkish invasions and, 62, 65, 71,
370 INDEX

72, 76, 164, 165. See aho land Alfonso, copyist, 111
grants Alfonso I, king of Naples, 244, 253
Ahmed Pasha, quoted, 328n29 Alfonso V, king of Aragon, 190
Aigion (Vostítsa), 209 Ali Pasha of Ioannina, 180
Ainos (Enos), Asia Minor, 136, 184, Alighieri, Michael, 224
243; Ottoman Turks and, 213, 216, Almyros, 112, 165, 301n45
219, 221 Amantos, Constantine, cited, 28, 202
Akhis, 143 Amasya, Asia Minor, 222, 225
Ak Koyunlu Turcomans, 223, 226 Ambracia, 271n54
Akritai, 22, 35, 64, 337n58 Amiroukes, George, philosopher, 226,
Akropolites, George, historian, 35 227, 228, 354n77
Aktopol (Agathopolis), on Black Sea, Amisus (Samsun), Asia Minor, 63,
79, 136 223
Ak-Tsaïrli Oğlu Mohammed Bey, 190 Ammochostos (Famagusta), 95
Alä ed-Din I Kaikobad, Sultan of Ico- Amphissa (Salona), 106, 109, 111
nium, 64 Anadolu Hisar, fortress, Asia Minor,
Alaric, 19 190
Albania, 7, 8, 71, 269n40; Nicaea and, Anatolia, 65, 67, 68, 142, 223, 224
38; Ottoman Turks and, 77, 78, 82, Anatolikon, 11
149, 152, 179 Anchialus (Pomoriye), on Black Sea,
Albanian people, 1, 6-12, 14, 16, 82, 136, 193
269nn40-41, 270n45; Carlo I Tocco Ancona, Italy, 235, 362n63
and, 11, 116, 272n66; Catalan Andrea of Cremona, 263
armies and, 109, 110; languages of, Andrew, saint, 215
7, 269n40, 351n33; Peloponnesian Andritzopoulos, ЗОбпЗО
revolts and, 207-209, 213, 215; Androni, brigand, 110
Preliumbovic and, 113. See also Andronicus, Akritic hero, 22
Arvanito-Vlachs Andronicus I Comnenus, emperor,
Aldja Kale (Kordyle), fortress, Asia 221
Minor, 229 Andronicus II Palaeologus, emperor,
Aldus Academy, Venice, 252 41, 46, 57
Alexander (912-913), emperor, 3 Andronicus III Palaeologus, emperor,
Alexander the Great, 18, 35, 120, 175, 8, 46, 147
257; in folklore, 22-23, 47, 121 Andronicus IV Palaeologus, emperor,
Alexander IV, pope, 95 79
Alexander Romance, 22-23, 24 Andronicus Comnenus Ducas Palaeo­
Alexandria, Egypt, Sarapeum of, 19 logus, 45
Alexis, groom, 105 Andronicus Palaeologus, governor of
Alexius Angelos Philanthropenos, cae­ Thessalonica, 146, 201
sar of Greater Walachia and ruler Andros, island of, 10, 20, 81
of Thessaly, 114, 118 Angelokastron, 11
Alexius Comnenus, emperor of Trebi- Angelokoma, 64
zond, 221-22 Angelina, Maria Radoslava, 3l5n57
Alexius I Comnenus, emperor, 2 Angelos family, 65
Alexius Apocaucus, grand duke, 59, Angevin family, 8
194 Angiolello, Giovanni Maria degli, 121
INDEX 371

Angistri, island of, 10 Argonautica (Apollonius of Rhodes),

Anguillara, Count, of Rome, 220 251
Ankara, Turkey, 73, 201, 225 Argos, 4, 107, 209, 212, 256
Ankara, battle of (1402), 85, 88, 125, Ar gy rökas tron, Albania, 149
163; army reorganization after, 151; Argyropoulos, John, 208, 237, 2 4 5 -
Byzantine and Ottoman empires 47, 248, 254, 362nn67-68; quoted,
after, 136-50 180, 183, 336n47
Anna of Savoy, empress, 59 Argyros, Isaac, astronomer, 47
Anselm, saint, 99 aristocracy, see nobility
Anthimos, archbishop of Athens, 96 Aristotle, 2 1 , 39, 50, 100, 248, 249,
Antioch, Syria, 62 250; quoted, 147; Bessarion on,
Antipsara, island of, 71 243, 247; Gemistos on, 170, 171,
Antirretikos (Rebuttal . . . Gazes), 181, 184-85, 241; Hermonymos'
241 codex to, 256; Hesychasm and, 57,
Anti-Taurus mountains, 21, 225 58; Petrarch and, 236
Antonios, archbishop of Heraclea, 139 Armatoles, 157-60
Apano Castro, 81 Armenia, 63, 294nl7; Turks in, 61,
Apocaucus, Alexius, grand duke, 59, 68, 221-31
194 Armenopoulos, Constantine, jurist, 53,
Apocaucus, John, metropolitan of 148
Naupactus, 31-32, 297nl armies: Catalan, 108, 109; of Con­
Apollonius of Perga, 47 stantine XI, 178-79, 190, 193, 194,
Apollonius of Rhodes, 251 196, 197, 198; French, 252; Ge­
Apostolis, Michael, 184-85, 241, 245, mistos on organization of, 129, 132-
336nn47, 49; quoted, 254, 260, 33, 174; Macedonian, 123; mer­
366nnl8-19 cenaries in, 8, 12, 30, 65-66, 71,
Apsarades family of Ioannina, 313n43 105, 341n41; military oligarchy
Apulia, Italy, 167, 235, 244 and, 54-57, 74, 76, 123, 291n45;
Aquileia, Italy, 218 of Nicaea, 38, 40, 65; Ottoman,
Arabs, 22, 60, 62, 69, 89 12, 30, 60, 64, 65-66, 67, 73-74,
Aragon, 10, 109, 110 77, 78, 82, 125, 139-43, 145, 148,
Aravantinos, Panaghiotis, cited, 180 149, 150, 151-60, 188, 190, 193,
Arcadia, 10 194-99, 209, 212, 224-25, 226,
archaeology, 38, 49 228, 258, 299nn23, 27-28, 318n
Archimandreion monastery, Epirus, 108, 323n25, 324nn31-33, 341n41,
113 349nl5; prisoners of war and, 131,
architecture, 20, 38, 49, 50, 51 ( f e ) ; 174, 200-201, 221, 299n28, 320
in Constantinople, 145, 194; in n22; Roman, 273n80; Seljuk, 61;
Crete, 97; mosques, 163, 200, 211, of Trebizond, 224, 225-26; of
231; in the Péloponnèse, 82, Venice, 202. See aho janissaries
8 3 ( f e ) , 8 4 ( f e ) , 2 1 4 ( f e ) , 284 Armouris, Akritic hero, 22, 277n28,
п71; in Trebizond, 222, 231 278n33
Ardasa fortress, 228-29 Arnaea, plateau of, 4
Ardea, 6 art, 18, 19, 21-26; Cretan, 80, 97,
Arethas, 24 303n62; nationalism and, 21, 22,
Argolis, 10 26, 35, 38-39, 43-45, 82, 97,
372 INDEX

112, 250, 260-62; Palaeologian 78, 104, 134-35, 169, 211, 232,
renaissance, 46-49, 50, 58, 59, 82, 357nl01
177, 222. See also specific arts Atoumanos, Simon, archbishop of
Arta, 11, 33, 111, 116, 251, 272n72 Thebes, 111, 236
Artemision mountains, 209 Atramyttenos, Emmanuel, 260
Arvanito-Vlachs, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, Attica, 19, 98, 108, 178; Albanians
111, 112, 116; Albania and, 7, in, 10, 11, 12, 110; language of, 26
269nn40-42; Constantine XI and, Augustine, saint, 99
178-79, 180; Ottoman Turks and, Auxentius, grand duke, 36
78, 82, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, Avaro-Slavs, 2, 13
164. See aho Karagounides Avlaki, 145
Asanes, Alexander, 352n48 Avlöna (Valona), Albania, 7
Asanes, Matthew, 209, 211, 221 Avret Hisar, 162
Asanes, Michael, 352n48 Axios River, 163
Asarbey, 163 Aya Silonya, Thrace, fortress of, 162
Ascension of Alexander the Great Aydin, Asia Minor, 163
(bas-relief), 24, 25(fig.)
Asia Minor, 61-68, 79, 136, 258-59, Badoer, Giacomo, 322n6
324n35; Alexander the Great and, Balamout, 164
18, 23; Athens and, 21-22; Byzan­ Balkan peninsula, 2, 16, 38, 59, 102;
tine Empire and, 16, 17, 20, 35, 40, Ottoman Turks in, 67, 69-85, 149,
41, 50, 64-66, 88, 105; emigration 151, 152, 161, 162, 163-68. See
(fourteenth century) from, 162- aho specific place-names
63; Greek peasant resettlement in, Balkan Wars (1912-1913), 5
56, 62-63; Mohammed II and, ballads (paralogai), 21, 45
224; its population exchange with banditry, 78, 110, 236; seafaring, 69,
Macedonia (1923), 164, 222; 71, 298n8
Romans in, 13; sancaks of, 206; Barbaro, Ermolao, 250
Tamerlane and, 85. See also spe­ Barkan, Ömer Lûtfi, cited, 229;
cific cities quoted, 355nn81, 88, 90
Barlaam, monk, 58, 59, 235
Asıklar, 163
Basarab, Alexander, ruler of Walachia,
Aspropotamos (Achelous) River, 7, 80
14, 271n54, 272n72 Basdar Haïreddin, 77
"Assises of Romania," 107 bas-reliefs, 24, 25(fig.)
Astakos (Dragomesto), Asia Minor, Bayezid I, sultan, 74, 78, 88, 144;
11 occupation of Thessaly by, 152,
astronomy, 47 155-56, 162, 164; Thessalonica
Astypalaia, island of, 69-71 and, 123, 124, 125; Yuruks and,
Atalante, 280n7 163, 164, 165
Athanasius, monk, 111 Bayezid, son of Augustus, 155
Athens, 18, 19, 20, 21, 243, 247, Beck, Hans-Georg, 174; quoted, 288
267nl6; Frankish rule and, 106, nS
108,110,134, 215, 280n7, 312nnl8, Bedreddin Bey, 77
33; as Orthodox diocese, 21, 24, Beldiceanu, Nicoara, cited, 328n21
32, 109, 110-11; Ottoman Turks in, Belesta, Jean de, quoted, 321n35
INDEX 373
Belgrade, battle of (1456), 223 Bologna, Italy, 250
Belokoma (Bilecik), 64 Bologna, Fra Lodovico da, 224
Belon, Pierre, 121; quoted, 337n57 Bon, Antoine, on Corinth, 267nl6
Benoît de Sain te-M aur, 44 Boniface Castle, Crete, 36
Bessarion, loannis, archbishop of Book of Titles (sancak), see sancaks
Nicaea, cardinal of Trebizond, 100, Bosnia, 227
201, 215, 237, 241-45, 249, 253, Bosphorus, The, 17, 190; Golden
362n61, 363n84; Argyropoulos Horn of, 194, 196
and, 247; Constantine XI and, 169, Boua tribe, 10
171, 172-78, 179, 204-205, 232, Boué, Ami, cited, 163
334nnl7, 19-21; crusade agitation Bouïoi tribe, 7
of, 209, 218, 257-58, 259, 263, Bourgos, Chandax, 298n8
365n9; on decline of faith, 87 Bracciolini, Poggio, 239
Bessarion Academy, 243, 361n47 Bramante, Donato, 249
Bessoi tribe, 12 Brankovic, George, despot of Serbia,
Bible, The, 87, 94; New Testament 188, 345n92
of, 91, 111, 250 "Brief Chronicles," 2, 231
Biblioteca Marciana, Codex CCVI, Brocquière, Bertrandon de la, cited,
256 101, 324n41, 329nl; quoted, 139,
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 253 141-42,143,152, 286n81, 324nn33,
Biga, Asia Minor, 163 35
Bilecik (Belokoma), 64 Bruni, Leonardo, 239, 241, 3 1 9 n l l
bishops, 4, 32-33, 61-62; in the Bryennios family, 65
Athenian see, 21, 24, 32, 109, 110- Bryennios, Joseph, 20, 85, 88, 96,
11; Danubian, 81; judicial roles of, 121, 161, 185, 334nl9; quoted, 87,
147-48; Ottoman Turks and, 90, 93, 100-101, 102, 125, 199
94, 161; Roman Church and, 95, Bryennios, Manuel, 47
96, 98, 138; in the see of Larissa, Bude, Guillaume, 249, 250, 252
314п47. See also individual names Bulayir (Plagiarion), 72
Bithynia, Asia Minor, 34, 67, 68, 89, Bulgaria, 38, 48, 53, 71; Ottoman
101 Turks in, 76, 77, 152, 163, 164,
Bitola (Monastir), 78 218-19
Bitrinitza (Tolophon), 110 Bulgarian language, 3, 6, 268п32
Blachemae district, Constantinople, Bulgarian people, 35; in battle of
194 Klokotnitsa (1230), 33; invasion
Black Sea, 80, 136, 137, 193, 260; of Greece by, 4 - 5 , 6, 30, 267n21,
Theodore II Palaeologus on, 169, 274n84, 327nl3
170; Trebizond and, 222, 224; Bulla (Constitutio Cypria . . . Pope
Venice and, 137, 190 Alexander IV), 95
Blastares, Matthew, monk, 53 Buondelmonti, Christopher, cited, 71,
Blemmydes, Nicephorus, 35, 39, 111— 101, 138
12; quoted, 38 Buondelmonti, Esau de, despot of
Bobaljevic, Vuk, 188, 338n6 Epirus, 113-14, 116, 118
Boccaccio, Giovanni, 235, 236 Burak Bey, 146, 163
Boeotia, 10, 108, 178 Burgas (Pyrgos), 136, 193, 341n35
Bogoslavs fief, Trikkala, 154 Burgundy, 179, 223-24
374 INDEX

Bursa (Prusa), 62, 64, 144; Moham­ Cantacuzenus, Demetrius, 80, 201
med II in, 224, 228 Cantacuzenus, Evdokia, 201, 345n92
Busleiden College des Trois Langues, Cantacuzenus, George, 170
Louvain, 253 Cantacuzenus, John, emperor, see
Byzantine Empire, 136, 337п56; John VI Cantacuzenus
Alexander the Great and, 22-23, Cantacuzenus, John, in seige of Con­
24; class structure of, 54-57; eagle stantinople, 201
emblem of, 40, 284n70; ethnic in­ Cantacuzenus, Manuel, despot of
fusions in, 1—16; Hellenization of, Morea, see Manuel II Cantacuzenas
17-18, 20, 24-26, 28, 29-30, 37, Cantacuzenus, Manuel, rebel leader
42-43, 101, 104-105, 106-107, in Morea, 82, 208
185-86, 232, 255, 256-63; Otto­ Cantacuzenus, Matthew, 82, 106
man attack upon, 60, 64-66, 74, Canterbury, England, 19-20
76-77, 79, 85, 88, 137, 143-44, Capo di Matapan, 351пЗЗ
145, 170, 187-205, 256-57; Palae- Cappadocia, 22, 50, 62, 63, 223;
ologian Renaissance in, 46-54, 59, Mordtmann in, 67-68. See also
97, 137-38, 170, 222; Roman specific place-names
foundation of, 17-20, 27-28, 29, Caratzas, Stamatis, cited, 235
30, 37, 42-43, 49, 50, 100, 103, Caraféria, 267n21
175, 232. See aho specific place- Carlo I Tocco, 11, 114, 116, 272n66,
names 315n65
Byzantios, Aristonymos, 260 Carlo II Tocco, 148, 179
Cassandrea (Potidaea), 146
Cádiz, Spain, 234 Castel Nuovo (Kainourgion), 36
Caesarea, Cappadocia, 63 Castiglionchio, Lapo da, 241
Caesarea, near Kozane, 3 Castiglione, Baldassar, 249
Calabria, 57, 58, 235, 244, 254 Castrenus, Demetrius, 358n20
Calecas, Manuel, 100, 236, 285n77; Castriota, George ("Scanderbeg"),
quoted, 53, 124, 137-38 208
Calecas, Nicholas, quoted, 239 Catalans, 69, 106, 107, 312nl8;
calligraphy, 50, 250, 252, 284n71 Albanians and, 7, 10; laws of, 108-
Callimachus, 251 109, 110; Orthodoxy and, 98, 110;
Callimachus and Chrysorrhoe (An­ Ottoman Turks and, 77, 82; slave
dronicus Comnenus Ducas Palae- trade of, 71
ologus), 45 Catania, Sicily, 244, 364n90
Callipolis, 72 Catherine, princess of Serbia, 345n92
Callistus, Andronicus, 244, 247, 249, Catherine (Theodora), princess of
250, 254, 358n20, 362n71, 364л91; Trebizond, 223, 227, 353n56
quoted, 245, 259-60 Caumont, Nompar II, Seigneur de,
Callixtus III, pope, 208, 218, 219, cited, 71
220, 253, 257 Cayster River, 68
Cammelli, Giuseppe, quoted, 255, Cayir, 164
358n20 Cedrenus, George, cited, 20
Candia, 216, 251 Cephalonia, 11, 158, 202
Canea, 202 Cephalonia and Leukas, duchess of,
Cantacuzena, Irene, 345n92 113
INDEX 375

Cephisus, battle of (1311), 108 Choniates, Nicetas, historian, cited,

Cephisus River, 98 34-35; quoted, 28-29, 30, 54
Chadenos, provincial governor under Chora, monastery of, Constantinople,
Michael VIII Palaeologus, 64 47
Chalcedon, Asia Minor, 62 Chortatzes, George, 41
Chalcidice, 4, 81, 136 Choumnos, Makarios, abbot of Nea
Chalcocondyles, Demetrius, 233, 237, Mone, 114
247-49, 362n63; Lorenzo de' Choumnos, Nicephorus, 53
Medici and, 248, 251, 366nl5 Christianity, 16, 17, 23; Albanians
Chalcocondyles, George, 134, 135, and, 12; anti-Semitism and, 257;
169, 232 Armatoles and, 157-60; compas­
Chalcocondyles, Laonicos, 123, 134, sion and, 86-87, 89-90, 127,
135, 232-33, 247, 357nl01; cited, 306n32; crusading zeal and, 209,
5, 206, 207; quoted, 349n8 217-18; eschatalogical, 90-92;
Chalcocondyles, Theophilus, 249 Gagauz, 274n89; Greek paganism
Chaldia (Ophis), 231 and, 18-19, 26, 37, 39, 47, 48, 53,
Chalil, Kara, 299n27 57, 171, 184-85, 256, 262-63,
Chalkeon, Church of, Thessalonica, 50 333n7; Holy War of Islam and,
Chandax ( Herakleion ), 96, 298n8 60, 61-62, 64, 65, 66-68, 73, 76,
Char anis, Peter; quoted, 55; on Slav 77, 78-79, 86, 88-89, 92, 143-44,
migrations, 266n8 148, 149-50, 162, 203, 259,
Chariton, Metropolitan of Curtea-de- 292n59, 295n39, 296nn40-41, 44,
302nn53, 55, 365n7; janissary serv­
Argeş, 81
ice and, 125, 151-52, 202; mar­
Charitonymos, Jerome, on Gemistos,
tyrdom and, 92, 93-95, 96, 200,
181, 183
307n41; Slavs and, 3, 4; spahi
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor,
service and, 149, 150, 152-57,
259, 366nl5
230-31, 355n90; Tamerlane and,
Charles VII, king of France, 208
85. See also Orthodox Church;
Charles VIII, king of France, 252,
Roman Catholicism
259, 261
Christodoulos, architect, 200, 344n86
Charsianeites, monastery of, Con­
Christoupolis, 78
stantinople, 187
Chronicle of Dryopis, 78
Chatalja (Pharsala), see Pharsala
Chronicle of Qalaxidi, 4, 104, 113
Cheroiana (Kanis), 231
Chronicle (of Leontios Machairas),
Chios, island of, 107, 202, 216, 218,
105
219 Chronicle of Monemvasia, 2, 4
Chlapen, Radoslav, 114, 315n57 Chronicle of Morea, 43, 44
Chlomos, Demetrius, copyist, 111 Chronicle of Proklos and Comnenus,
Chlomoutsi fortress, Peloponnesus, 154
213 Chronicle (Sphrantzes), 216
Cholos, Peter (the Crippled), 207 Chrysoberges, Andrew, 100, 236
Chomatianus, Demetrius, archbishop Chrysoberges, Maximus, 100, 101,
of Achris, 32 236
Choniates, Michael, archbishop of Chrysoberges, Nicholas, 111
Athens, 21, 24, 26, 32 Chrysoberges, Theodore, 100, 236
376 INDEX

Chrysococces, George, astronomer, 80, 190, 334n23; reign of, 180-86,

47 217; in siege of Constantinople,
Chrysoloras, Demetrius, quoted, 102 187-205, 216, 343n74, 344n86
Chrysoloras, Manuel, 236, 237-41, Constantine Lascaris, emperor of
245, 248, 358n20, 364n91; teach­ Nicaea, 34
ing methods of, 240, 247, 249, Constantine Palaeologus, despot of
ЗбОпЗб; Union issue and, 100, 239 Morea, see Constantine XI Palae­
Chrysostom, John, saint, 230 ologus, emperor
Cilicia, 63, 294nl7. See also Armenia Constantinople, 3, 62, 65, 87, 117,
Çirmen, 77, 163 126; Chrysoloras in, 237, 239, 240;
civil service, 40, 133, 175-76; in Fourth Crusade and, 15, 29; Greek
Cyprus, 133; Gemistos on, 128, art in, 19, 24; Hesychast contro­
130; Turkish, 201, 206 versy in, 57, 58, 59; as Imperial
Clavijo, Ruy Gonzales de, cited, 71, seat, 17-18, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 42,
222 76-77, 136, 145, 180-81; Latin
Clement VII, pope, 259 occupations of Greece and, 35, 4 0 -
Clement XVI, pope, 98 41, 101, 104-105, 106-107, 148,
Cleopa Malatesta, princess, 132, 133 169; as Ottoman capital, 206, 207,
Colonia, Asia Minor, 14 213, 221, 227, 228, 245, 251,
Comnenus family, 54, 65. See also 257-63; Palaeologian Renaissance
individual rulers, e.g., John IV in, 46, 53, 100, 137-38, 185, 222;
Comnenus, emperor of Trebizond Tamerlane and, 85; Turkish siege
Comnenus, Alexander, 227 (1394), 79-80, 81-82, 302n58;
Comnenus, Alexius (nephew of Turkish siege (1422), 145; Turk­
David), 227 ish siege (1453) and capture, 93,
Comnenus, Anna, 227 104, 139, 187-205, 216, 218, 234,
Comnenus, Constantine, 201 237, 250, 256, 280nl3, 339n23,
Comnenus, George, 227 340n28, 341n35, 342n51, 343n74,
Comnenus, Isaac, 201 344n86, 347nnl14-15, 360n40;
Comparationes philosophorum Aris- walls of, 125, 193-94, 195(fig.),
totelis et Ftoonis (Trapezountios), 196, 197, 198, 199, 340n28,
243 342n51, 343n74
Concerning the Book in Favor of Constitutio Cypria (Bulla-Pope Alex­
Latin Dogma (Pros to hyper tou ander IV), 95
latinikou dogmatos biblion . . . Constitution de Florence (Bruni),
Gemistos), 171 319nll
Congress of Mantua, 257 copper mines, 225
Constantin, Akritic hero, 22 Corfu, island of, 8, 32, 71, 107, 146,
Constantine I the Great, 17, 18, 19, 202, 235; Janus Lascaris in, 251;
37, 232, 257, 260 Thomas Palaeologus and, 213, 215,
Constantine VI, emperor, 3 216
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, em­ Corinth, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19, 105, 266n8,
peror, 5, 24 267nl6; Catalans and, 106, 110;
Constantine XI Palaeologus, emperor, fortification of Isthmus of, 128, 132,
145, 180-86, 232, 345n91; as 172, 173, 174, 179, 317n90; Franks
despot of Morea, 134, 135, 169- in, 10, 107; music and, 39; Otto-
INDEX 377
man invasions of, 207, 212, 349nl5; Cyriacus of Ancona, 170, 172
silk industry of, 177 Cyrus, 175
Corinthios, Manuel, 251
Coron (Korone), 4 1 , 213 Dacia, see Thrace
Council of Athens and Neopatras, 110 Dakybiza (Libyssa), Nicaea, 65
Council of Constance (1414-1418), Dalmates, John, 199
71, 239, 240 Danişmend, Emir of Kastamonu, 21
Council of Ferrara (1439), 241, 244, Danişmendnăme, 22, 60
245 Danube River, 14, 80-81
Council of Florence (1439), 106; Darius the Cretan, 185
Church Union and, 138, 139, 187, David Comnenus, emperor of Trebi-
191; humanism and, 170, 171, 241, zond, 221, 223-24, 225-27, 228,
244, 245 229
Council (synod) of 1450-1451, 187 Delir, 164
Council (synod) of Santa Sophia Delvino, 149
(1412), 102 Demetrias (Volos), 112
Council of Ten (1487), 31 l n l 1 Demetrius, son of Michael, Christian
Cousinéry, Esprit, 10; quoted, 267n21 spahi, 153, 155
Crete, 31, 41-42, 205, 251, 283n49, Demetrius, saint, 47, 89
285n75, 337n57; art in, 80, 97, Demetrius Palaeologus, ruler of the
303n62; Byzantine refugees in, 202, divided Morea, 180-81, 185, 190,
215-16, 228, 235, 260; orthodoxy 201, 336n53, 338n6; Aegean Is­
in, 43, 87, 96-99, 106-107, 138, lands and, 213, 216, 221; in Adri-
323nl6; rebellion of 1230 in, 3 5 - anople, 212-13, 215, 227, 350n24;
36; serfdom abolitionists in, 134; revolt of (1455-58), 207, 208-209,
Vlastos' revolt in, 311n3
211
Critobulus of Imbros, 216-17, 2 2 0 - democracy, 49-50, 53-54
21; cited, 145-46, 211; quoted,
Demosthenes, 250
198, 199, 226, 352n44 Demus, Otto, 49; quoted, 48
Croesus, 262
Dennis, G. T., cited, 118, 316n77
Crusades, 60, 80, 172, 366nl5;
Derili, 164
Aegean agitation for, 217, 219-21;
Dervenochoria, villages, 212
Apostolis' agitation for, 260,
dervishes, 66
366nnl8-19; Bessarion's agitation
Didymoteikhon, 76, 221
for, 178, 209, 218, 257-58, 259,
263, 365n9; Fourth, 15, 27, 2 8 - 3 1 , Dieterich, Karl, 63
38, 54-55, 69 Digenis, 22, 35, 44
Crusius, Martinus, cited, 237 Digenis Akritas, 22, 35, 44
Crypto-Christianity, 66-68, 89-90, Dionysios, metropolitan of Edessa and
150 Pella, 307n41
Curtea-de-Argeş, 80 Diplovatatzes family, 208
Cuyrataci, brigand, 110 Diyarbakır, Mesopotamia, 223
Cyclades, The, 15, 71 Dobruja district, Rumania, 274n89
Cyprus, 105, 231, 32n34; Orthodoxy Docheiariou monastery, Mt. Athos, 24
in, 43, 95-96, 102, 133, 138, 139, Dodecanese islands, piracy in, 69, 71
321n33 Domanits, villages, 64
378 INDEX

Domenico Gattilusi, ruler of Lesbos, servants, 201; by tutors, 35, 245,

217, 218-19 247, 363n84; Vlachs and, 15
Domeniko, 153 Eer Baba, conqueror of Almyros,
Dominican Order, 236, 240 301n45
Domokos, 10, 112, 114, 153 Egypt, 80
Doria, Zorzi, 201 Elbe River, 13
Dorino I Gattilusi, ruler of Lesbos, Eleavoulcos, castle of, 116
216, 217, 218 Eleusis, 19
Dorino II Gattilusi, ruler of Ainos, 219 Elis, 5, 10, 213
Dorotheos, archbishop of Trebizond, Elissaeus (teacher), 144, 171
139, 231 England, 13, 19-20, 23, 248, 250, 254
Dragomesto (Astakos), 11 Enos (Ainos), 136, 184, 243; Otto­
Drama, Macedonia, 163 mans and, 213, 216, 219, 221
Dräseke, Johannes, quoted, 320n24 Eparchos, George, 251
Dreux, Robert de, quoted, 148 Epidemia tou Mazarí en Hadou
Dryinoupolis, bishop of, 114 (Sojourn of Mazaris in Hades . . .
Dubrovnik (Ragusa), see Ragusa Gemistos), 126
Ducas family, see ruling individual Epirus, 7, 11, 29, 30; architecture and,
members under their Christian 49; Church of, 31-32, 112-13,
names, e.g., Theodore Comnenus 281п20; Nicaean rivalry with, 3 1 -
Ducas, despot of Epirus 36; Serbs in, 8, 111, 112-13, 114,
Ducas, Stephen, 114 118, 148, 327nl3; Slavs in, 2, 3, 5,
Ducas, Michael, 197, 198, 218; 266n9, 274n84; Turks in, 10, 78,
quoted, 106-107, 142-43 104, 111, 114, 148-49, 328nl9;
Dušan, Stephen, conquests of, 8, 77, Vlachs in, 13, 14, 111, 112, 116,
156, 180, 266n9. See aho specific
112, 114, 116, 154, 314n47, 327nl3
place-names
Dvornik, Francis, quoted, 3
Epivatae, on Sea of Marmara, 193
Erasmus, Desiderius, 240, 250, 252,
earthquake of 1354, in Callipolis, 72
253, 262
ecclesiastical centers, 4, 16, 31-33,
Ermeni Mountains, 64
306n27; art and, 49, 50, 59;
Ermoniakus, K., poet, 33
Athenian, 109; Danubian, 80-81;
Erotemata (Questions . . . Chryso-
Roman Church and, 95, 96; in
loras), 240
Trebizond, 231; Turks and, 61-62,
Erotocritus, 44-45
63, 66, 78-79, 161. See aho bish- Ertoghrul Ghazi, 64
ops; monasteries Erymanthos Mountains, 209
Edessa, Virgin of, 307n41 Erzurum, Asia Minor, 225
education, 18, 46, 47, 58, 59, 170; in Esau de Buondelmonti, despot of
Athens, 19-20, 32; in Italy, 177, Epirus, 113-14, 116, 118
235-36, 237, 239-40, 241, 243, Eski Mosque, Serrai, 77
244, 245, 247-49, 250-51, 252-53, Eskişehir, Asia Minor, 64
254, ЗбОпЗб, 363n84, 364n90; of Estopañán, Sebastián Cirác, quoted,
janissaries, 125; of Theodore II 327nl3
Lascaris, 38, 39; in Thessalonica, ethnic groups, 1-16, 27, 114, 265n2,
118, 120, 317n89; of Turkish civil 272n72; in the Aegean Islands,
INDEX 379

81-82; in Asia Minor, 63, 67-68; 295n35, 355n81; wakf under, 1 2 3 -

in Italy, 235, 358n9. See also 24. See also land grants
specific groups Ficino, Marsiglio, 241, 248
Euboea, 4, 10, 107, 216, 312nl8; Filelfo, Francesco, 245, 248, 366nl5;
fall of, 258; Orthodoxy in, 43, 98 quoted, 170, 253
Euclid, 47 Filelfo, Gian Mario, son of Francesco,
Eugenicus, Marc, 138, 139 245
Eugenius IV, pope, 178, 244; Church Flandanelas, Captain, at siege of Con-
Union and, 138, 323nl6 stantinople, 196
Euphrates River, 13, 206 Florence, Italy, 105, 109, 113, 215,
Euripides, 250, 251 234, 250, 366nl5; Council of 1439
Europe, 29, 42-43, 49, 53, 174-75, (See Council of Florence); French
176; Aegean Islands and, 217-18; invasion of, 252; humanism in, 2 3 5 -
Asian refugees in, 71-72, 85; Con- 36, 237, 239, 241, 245, 247-49,
stantine XI and, 178, 179, 190; 251, 3 1 9 n l l
Constantinople's fall and, 202-203, Florence, University of, 235-36, 237,
205, 206, 245, 256, 257-63; feudal- 245; chair of ancient Greek at, 247,
ism of, 54-55, 143; Peloponnesian 248-49, 251
appeals to, 208-209, 212, 215; Florimont (Aimé de Varennes), 22
philosophy and, 39-40, 58, 99, 100, Florius and Vlatziafiora, 45
170, 171, 185, 233, 234, 235, 2 3 6 - folklore, 16, 44, 337n56; on the Al-
37, 239, 241, 243-55, 263; Tre- banians, 7; Alexander and, 22-23,
bizond and, 226. See also specific 47, 121; on Catalan cruelty,
countries 312nl8; on crypto-Christians, 67,
Eustathius, archbishop of Thessa- 68, 150; on fall of Constantinople,
lonica, 20, 24, 33 203-205, 344n86, 347nnl4-15;
Euthymios, abbot of Levkousias, 111, oracles in, 36, 91-92, 132-33, 172,
313n41 174, 197, 204, 205, 235, 260,
Evagrius Scholasticus, 2, 286n83 277n22, ЗОвпЗО, 317n90, 3 4 7 n l l 4 ;
Evdomon Palace, Constantinople, 194 paganism and, 19; on Peloponnesian
Evrenos Bey, 77, 106, 146, 156, 163, revolts, 213, 215; on piracy, 69;
166 songs and, 20, 21, 22, 27, 35, 157,
Ezeritai tribe, 5 186, 226, 229, 230, 231, 277n22,
337n58; on Thessalonian resistance,
Fallmerayer, Jakob Philipp, 1-2, 6, 121; on Thrace, 72; on Trebizond,
167, 168, 2 6 5 n n l - 2 227-28, 229-30; on Vlachs, 14; on
Famagusta ( Ammochostos ), 95 Yuruks, 165
fatalism, 48 Fourth Crusade (1204), 15, 27, 2 8 -
Fauriel, Claude, cited, 157 31, 38, 69; feudalism and, 54-55;
Feodosiya (Kaffa), 224 Orthodoxy and, 102
Ferrara, Italy, 241, 244, 245, 247 France, 22, 141, 208, 249, 250-53,
feudalism, 54-55, 107, 112, 127; 258, 259
cities and, 290n36; Ottoman, 64, 74, Frances, E., quoted, 290n36
78, 143, 145, 149-50, 152-57, 163, Francesca, wife of Carlo I Tocco, 116
165, 216-17, 219, 229, 230-31, Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan, 208
380 INDEX

Francis I, king of France, 252, 253, Gazes, Theodore, 241, 244, 247, 253,
259 256, 358n20, 364n91; quoted, 187
Franks, 15, 280n7, 284n71, 337n56; Genitsa (Giannitsa), 162
Catalans and, 10, 98, 108, 312nl8; Gemistos, George, 123, 126-35, 144,
Church Union and, 138-39; Con- 169, 170, 232, 237, 263, 319nl,
stantine XI and, 169, 177; hellenism 362n67; Bessarion and, 172, 173,
and, 37, 39, 43, 45, 49, 99, 102, 174, 176, 177, 241, 243; Bruni and,
104-11, 112, 133, 134, 231, 3 1 9 n l l ; Gennadius and, 171-72,
321nn33, 35; Ottoman Turks and, 184-85, 241, 256; Hexamilion, de-
77, 139-42, 143, 152, 205, 211, feat at, and, 179-80; on Holy War
218-19; Trebizond and, 222 of Islam, 333n7; his plan for reform
Frederick III, emperor of Germany, of Morea, 128-32, 320nn24, 28,
260, 262, 366nl8 335nn43-44; panegyrics on, 181,
Frederick III, king of Sicily, 109 183, 335nn43-44
funeral pyres, 2 Gennadius II, patriarch of Constan-
tinople (George Kourtesis Scho-
Gabriel, abbot of Archimandreion, 113 larios), 138, 139; quoted, 92, 102,
Gabriel, abbot of Nea Mone, 114 184, 191, 192, 193, 241, 244,
Gabriel, archbishop of Thessalonica, 336n53, 340nn24, 26-28, 360n40,
125; quoted, 88-89 362n61; accession of Constantine
Gabrielopoulos family, 112 XI and, 181, 187, 191; anti-Union
Gabrielopoulos, Michael, lord of riots and, 191, 339n21; Gemistos
Thessaly, 7, 33 and, 171-72, 184-85, 241, 256;
Gagauz, 274n89 Hexamilion, defeat at, and, 179
Galata, 202, 257, 302n58 Genoa, Italy, 59, 63, 69, 136, 137;
Galen, 111 Chios and, 107; Constantinople's
Galesiotes, Andronicus, 243, 250 siege and, 190, 196, 197, 202, 216;
Gallipoli peninsula, 162, 163, 234, Mohammed II and, 217, 218, 219
243; Turkish governors of, 217, 224 George, the philosopher, 304n72
Gardiki, 213, 350n26 George the Swift, saint, 52(fig.)
Gardner, Alice, 37 George of Trebizond, 333n7, 358n20
Gasmuli, 15, 43 Georgia, 222, 223, 224, 230
Gaspo, Michael de, 98 Georgilas of Rhodes, 366nl5
Gato, L, bishop of Catania, 364n90 Gercke, Alfred, 358n20
Gattilusi family, 136, 213, 216, 2 1 8 - Germanus, patriarch of Nicaea, 32
19, 352n44 Germany, 19, 40, 248, 250, 259,
Gattilusi, Domenico, ruler of Lesbos, 260, 262; Bessarion in, 257-58;
217, 218-19 Chrysoloras in, 239, 240; Crete and,
Gattilusi, Dorino ( I ) , ruler of Lesbos, 36; Slavs and, 5
216, 217, 218 Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea
Gattilusi, Dorino ( I I ) , ruler of Ainos, wahrend des Mittelalters (History
219 of the Veninsula of Morea during
Gattilusi, Nicholas, ruler of Lemnos, the Middle Ages . . . Fallmeray-
219 er), 1-2
Gattilusi, Palamedes, ruler of Ainos, ghazis, 64, 66, 73, 78, 163, 355n83
216, 217, 219 Giannitsa (Genitsa), 162
INDEX 381
Giese, Friedrich, quoted, 296п41 Catalans and, 110; Chalcocondyles
Gislenos, saint, 19 on, 232, 233; in Cyprus, 133;
Giustiniani family, 219 ecclesiastical usage, 26, 38; in
Giustiniani, John Longo, 190, 196, Epirus, 11, 13, 150; in France, 250;
198-99 Gemistos and, 128, 170; in Italy,
Glabas, Isidore, metropolitan of 235, 236, 237, 239-40, 243, 244,
Thessalonica, quoted, 92, 94-95, 245, 358n9; Kydones and, 53, 82;
120 Slavs and, 6, 8, 10, 265n2, 268n32;
Glarentza (Kyllene), 181 vernacular literature and, 22, 26, 45
glass-making, 177 Greek people: Christianity and, 1 8 -
Gniaousta, 267n21 19, 67, 80-81; ethnic origins of,
Golden Horn, 194, 196 1-16, 27, 265n2, 272n72; Turks
Gordon, Thomas, cited, 6-7 and, 61-63, 67-68, 7 1 , 77, 155,
Gostila, brigand, 110 257
Goths, 19 Gregoras, Nicephorus, historian, 30,
Gradenigo, Angelo, Venetian duke, 36 47
Gradenigo, Bartolomeo, Venetian Gregorios S ty li tes, monk, 111
duke, 36 Gregorovius, Ferdinand, cited, 134;
Grammousta, 14 quoted, 17-18, 19
"Grand Comneni" of Trebizond, 31, Gregory, monk, on Gemistos, 127, 181
222, 227 Gregory IX, pope, 37, 232
Grant, John, German engineer, 191, Gregory XI, pope, 77, 310n79
196 Gregory III Mammas, patriarch of
"Great Idea," 35. See also nationalism Constantinople, 187, 192
Greco-Vlachs, 14-15 Grevena, 32
Greece, 136, 337nn56-57; Armatoles Grocin, William, 248
of, 157-60; Asia Minor wars and, Guarino da Verona, 237; quoted, 240,
21-22, 35, 61-63; emigrations ЗбОпЗб
from, 3, 4, 8, 10-11, 81-82; La- Gulf of Corinth, 8, 209
scaris' journeys (1489-1492) in, Gulf of Messenia, 207
251, 258-59; Latin occupations of, Gulf of Patras, 209
15-16, 28-31, 35-36, 37, 40, 4 1 - Gulf of Saros, 72
42, 43-45, 49, 54-55, 82, 95-99, Gumuljina (Komotine), 77
104-11, 133-34; modern, 28, 49,
275n90; Moslem pirates in, 69; Hackett, John, quoted, 138, 139
Ottoman conquest of, 78, 79, 104, Hagia Sophia, 73, 192, 198, 199, 200,
124-25, 154, 157-60, 161-68, 186, 344n86
256-63; revolution of 1821 in, 1, hagiography, 47, 231
6, 14, 127, 144, 158, 160, 213, Hairoullah effendi Grand Mufti, cited,
299n21; as Roman province, 1 7 - 162-63
20, 27-28, 29, 30; Vlachs in, 1 2 - Halil, Tsantarli Kara, 77, 318nl08
15, 16, 78, 273n80. See also specific Halil Bey, 150
place-names Hamza, Admiral of the Turkish fleet,
Greek language: Aegean dialects of, 217
15, 81; Byzantium and, 16, 18, 20, haraç, 167
27; in Cappadocia, 63, 68, 94; Harmankaya, Asia Minor, 295n35
382 INDEX

Hassan, janissary, 199 Hexabiblos (Armenopoulos), 53, 148

Hassan, Uzun, 223, 224, 225, 227, Hexamilion, Wall of, 128, 132, 172,
228, 353п56 173, 174, 179
Hatun, Sara, mother of Uzun Hassan, Hexapterygos, Theodoros, 35
225, 228 Hierapetra, The, 260
Hebrus River, 77, 163 Hierissos, 116
Hector, 262 Hierosolymites, Nikon, priest, 80
Helen, empress of Trebizond, 227 Hill, Sir George Francis, 321nn33-34
Helen, princess of Serbia, 80 Hisar-eri, 143
Helen, second wife of John II Lu- History of the Byzantine Empire
signan, 105, 133, 138, 185, 321n33 (Amantos), 28
hellenism, see hellenizatíon; national­ History of the Veninsula of Morea
ism during the Middle Ages (Geschichte
hellenizatíon: of the Albanians, 10, der Halbinsel Morea wahrend des
14; Byzantine, 17-18, 20, 23, 2 4 - Mittehlters . . . Fallmerayer), 1-2
26, 27, 28, 37, 42-43, 91, 101, Hitir, Pasha of Amasya, 222-23, 228
232, 255, 256; Danubian, 80-81; Hody, Umfredo, 358п20
of Epirus, 33,111-16; of the Latins, Hofmann, Georg, quoted, 98
15, 99, 106, 232, 253; in Mace­ Hohenburg, Berthold von, 40
donia, 116-25; in Nicaea, 35, 3 6 - Holy Apostles, Church of the, Con­
40; peasantry in, 30, 134, 290n37; stantinople, 145, 200
of the Slavs, 3, 4-5, 6, 7, 14, 114, Homer, 33, 236, 249
267nnl6, 18; of the Turks, 15-16,
Hopf, Karl, 19; quoted, 294nl7
61, 67, 211, 296n44
horses, 141, 155
Hellespont, 68, 72, 73, 218 Hôtel de ГПе, Constance, 240
Hennegau, Germany, 19 How Aristotle Differs from Plato (Peri
Henry of Flanders, emperor of Con­ hon Aristoteles pros Phtona di-
stantinople, 104-105
apheretai . . . Gemistos), 170, 241
Heptapyrgion Fortress, Constanti­
humanism, 80, 99, 233, 254-55, 258,
nople, 227
260, 263; Athens and, 21; Barlaam
Heraclius, emperor, 19, 194
and, 58; classical translation and,
Herakleia, on Sea of Marmara, 136,
46, 111, 240, 244; Florence and,
180, 188, 193, 341n35
170, 171, 235-36; 237, 239, 241,
Herakleion (Chandax), 96, 298n8
245, 247-49; French, 249, 250,
Hermonymos, Charitonymos, bibliog­
252, 253; pagan flavor of, 195;
rapher, quoted, 256
Rome and, 100, 234-35, 236, 237,
Hermonymos, George, copyist, 250,
247; Theodore II Lascaris and, 38,
252
39-40
Hermus River, 68
Herodotus, 170 Hungary, 80, 178, 247; Turks in, 73,
Hesiod, 249, 250 188, 223
Hesseling, Dirk, cited, 44 Huny adi, John Corvinus, ruler of
Hesychast controversy, 57-60, 102, Transylvania, 178, 180, 188, 190
118, 235, 236 Hyakinthos, metropolitan of Curtea-
Heuzey, Léon, quoted, 269n40, de-Argeş, 81
272n72 Hydra, island of, 10, 215
INDEX 383
Hypate, see Neopatras 76, 86, 90-95, 139, 193, 203, 257,
Hypsomatheia, Constantinople, 200 302n53, 365n7; compassion and,
143-44, 292n59, 296n40, 324n35;
Iberia, 188, 230 Gemistos and, 171, 333n7; ghazi
Ibrahim Bey, ruler of Karaman, 188, militarism and, 64-65, 73, 77-78,
190, 223, 338n9 163, 324n31; Ottoman conversion
icmăl, 150 to, 60, 143; Tamerlane and, 85
iç oğlan, 201 Ismail, Turkish admiral, 221
Iconium (Konya), Asia Minor, 62, 64, Ismail Bey, Isfendiaroglou, prince of
163, 164, 165 Kastamonu, 223, 225
Idylls (Theocritus), 20 Isoer ates, 249
Iliad (Homer), 33, 44, 249 Istifa, see Thebes
Illyria, 7, 12, 13 Italy, 3, 13, 132, 141, 207, 358n9;
Imberíus and Margarona, 45 Constantinople's fall and, 188, 190,
Imbros, island of, 136, 352nn44, 48; 200-201, 218, 257, 258; crusaders
Ottomans and, 213, 216-17, 218, and, 209, 217, 219-21, 258, 263;
219, 220-91 French invasion of (1494), 252;
inalcık, Halil, cited, 149, 154 the Renaissance and Greek scholar­
In calumniator em Phtonis (Against ship in, 58, 128, 172, 173, 175, 177,
Plato's Calumniator . . . Bessar- 234-55, 262, ЗбОпЗб, 362n61,
ion), 243 364n90. See aho specific place-
India, 13 names
Ioannina, 8, 10, 11, 111, 116, 313n43, Izlati, Bulgaria, 218-19
314n48; fortification of, 29; Serbian
occupation and, 112-13; Turkish James I, Epistle of, quoted, 91
capture of, 148-49; Yuruks in, 164 James the Persian, martyr, 90
Ioasaph, abbot of Meteora, see John janissaries, 74, 7 5 ( f e . ) , 125, 151-52,
Ouroš Palaeologus, ruler of Thessaly 156, 201, 258, 299nn23, 27-28,
and abbot of Meteora 318nl08; Galata's exemption of,
Ionian islands, 231, 235 202; salaries of, 207; in siege of
Ionian Sea, 158, 301n45; piracy on,
Constantinople, 199; Trebizond
69, 71
and, 228
Iphicrates, 120
Jeremiah I, patriarch of Constanti­
Isaurian period (717-867), 63
nople, 199
Isidore, monk, 132, 133
Jerusalem, 80
Isidore, archbishop of Kiev, 191—92,
Jews, 144, 171; Turks and, 66, 148,
317n90
Isidore, archbishop of Thessalonica, 257
123, 124, 125 John, ruler of Thessaly, 56
Islam, 274n89, 338n9; Albanians and, John, metropolitan of Moscow, 187
12; Christian conversion to, 15-16, John III Ducas Vatatzes, emperor of
66-68, 73, 79, 88, 89-90, 93, 148, Byzantium and Nicaea, 34, 35, 43,
149-50, 153, 154, 155, 156, 162, 90, 175, 232, 283n49; quoted, 3 7 -
165, 259, 292n59, 295n39, 296nn40 38; canonization of, 36, 306n27
- 4 1 , 44, 302n53, 55, 328nl9; Chris­ John V Palaeologus, emperor, 53, 59,
tian theological responses to, 74, 71, 77, 99, 124, 234, 310n79; fiscal
384 INDEX

policy of, 137; Ottoman Turks and, Kalavryta, library of, 170
76, 79, 117 Kailar (Ptolemais), 163
John VI Cantacuzenus, emperor, 59, Kale-eri, 143
71, 82, 99, 304n73 Kallerges, Alexius, 4 1 , 106
John VIII Palaeologus, emperor, 98, Kallerges, Andrew, 336n49
140(fig.), 178, 192, 216, 341n41; Kallerges, John, 106
Argyropoulos and, 245; Chrysoloras Kallierges, Zachary, 252
and, 239; Church Union and, 138, Kalokyres, Constantine, quoted, 107
139; Murad II and, 145, 146, 180 Kamariotes, Matthew, 251
John de Brienne, Frankish emperor Kamelos, Kosmas, monk, 111
of Constantinople, 37 Kananos, Lascaris, cited, 5
John IV ("the Good") Comnenus, Kanis (Cheroiana), 231
emperor of Trebizond, 185, 188, Kapnion (Johann Reuchlin), 240,
223, 353n56 248, 249, 250
John V Comnenus, emperor of Tre­ Kara Chalil of Tsantarh, 299n27
bizond, 223 Karademilli, 164
John II Lusignan, king of Cyprus, 105, Karagounides, 7. See also Arvanito-
133, 321n33 Vlachs
John Ouroš Palaeologus, ruler of Karamania, Asia Minor, 74, 163, 188,
Thessaly and abbot of Meteora, 190, 324n35, 338nl3; Trebizond
113, 114, 115(fig.), 164, 315n56 and, 223
John II Ducas Orsini, despot of Karam tza, 163
Epirus, 8, 33 Karasi, Asia Minor, 162, 163
John XIV Aprenos, patriarch of Con­ Karatsoğlan, 164
stantinople, 89-90 Karatza Bey, Rumeli Valesi, general,
John Apocaucus, metropolitan of 193
Naupactus, 31-32, 297nl Karditsa, 7, 111, 155
John Chrysostom, saint, 230 Karpenision, 14
John of Basingstoke, 21 Karykes, Demetrios, archbishop of
John of Ephesus, 2 Ephesus, 35
John of Ioannina, 93 Kasomoulis, Nikolaos, cited, 14
Joseph of Ithaca, philosopher, 47 Kassim, governor of Gallipoli, 224,
Julian ("the Apostate"), emperor, 185 228, 355n81
Julius II, pope, 259 Kastamonu, 223
Justinian I, emperor, 3, 13, 19, Kastoria, 50, 155
347nll5 Kastrinos, Demetrius, 249, 251, 257;
Justinian II, emperor, 3 quoted, 253
Juvenal, monk, 183, 184 Kastritsi fortress, Peloponnesus, 212,
213
Kaffa (Feodosiya), 224 Kata Hellenon (Against the Hellenes
Kâfir'Sipahiler, 65-66 . . . Scholarios), 171
Kainourgion (Castel Nuovo), 36 Katallactis, Jacob, John and George,
Kalamaria, 146, 162 201
Kalaphatis, Michael and Jacob, 201, Kataphygion, 268n32
202 Kata tou Plethonos aporion ep'
Kalarites, 7 Aristotelei (Against the Doubts of
INDEX 385
Plethon about Aristotle . . . Scho- Köprülü, Fuad, cited, 67, 296n44
larios), 184-85 Koran, The, 143
Kavakes family, 208 Kordyle (Aldja Kale), fortress, Asia
Kavakes, Demetrius Ralles, 185; Minor, 229
quoted, 256 Koritsa district, 78
Kavasilas, Neilos, archbishop of Thes- Korone (Coron), 41, 213
salonica, 53 Korthion, 81
Kavasilas, Nicholas, astronomer, 47, Kosovo Polje, battle of (1389), 80,
53, 58; quoted, 50, ЗООпЗб 163, 187
Kavazitis family, 222, 229 Kotyaeon (Kütahya), Asia Minor, 62
Kazaklar, 164 Koufala, 164
Kell Petros ("Scald-headed Peter"), Kougeas, Socrates, quoted, 5
307n41 Koumas, Constantine, quoted, 13
Keltzene province, 62 Kozane, 3, 163
Keramopoullos, Antonios, on Vlach Kravaři, 153
origins, 273n80 Kravaldi, spahi, 153
Kerassovo, 14 Kritoboulos of Imbros, see Critobulus
Kercoporta, of Constantinople, 197, of Imbros
199 Kritopoulos, Anthimos, metropolitan
Kısalar, 163 of Curtea-de-Argeş, 81
Kissamos, 337n57 Kritopoulos, Mitrophanes, 358n20
Kissling, Hans, quoted, 296n44 Krokion, plain of, Thessaly, 165
Kitros, 78 Krystallis, Constantine, poet, 273n80
Kizilbashs, 355n84 Kuru Dag, 72
Klette, Theodor, 358п20 Kütahya (Kotyaeon), Asia Minor, 62
Küsura, 268п32 Kydones, Demetrius, 48, 77, 79, 101,
Klokotnitsa, battle of, 33 102, 105, 120; quoted, 42, 50, 53,
"Knidia Athena" (Praxiteles), 19 58-59, 68, 72, 76, 82, 100, 118,
Knights Hospitalers, of Rhodes, 217- 137,234,300n39,301n45, 302nn53,
18, 220 55-56, 304n73, 324n31, 358nl8; in
Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, 82, Italy, 234, 236, 237, 239, 358nl8;
106 Roman conversion of, 99-100,
Knòs, Börje, quoted, 171 309n73
Ko'inlu Hisar, 225 Kydones, Prochoros, brother of Deme­
Kokkala, 213, 350n26 trius, 53
Kokkini Melia (Red Apple Tree), 204 Kyllene (Glarentza), 181
Kolindros, 114 Kynouria district, 81
Kolokotrones, Theodore, 129 Kyriakidis, Stilpon, cited, 147, 277
Komotine (Gumuljina), 77 n28, 278nn30-31
Konitsa, 149
Konrad IV Hohenstaufen, emperor of Lacedemon district, 81
Germany, 40 Lacedemonia (Laconia), 4, 135, 174,
Konya (Iconium), Asia Minor, 62, 64, 175, 215, 256. See Sparta
163, 164, 165 Ladislaus, king of Hungary, 178
Kopitar, Bartholomäus, quoted, Lake Ioannina, 14
265n2 Lake Koroneia, 14, 163
386 INDEX

Lala Şahin, Pasa, governor of Philip- Lastiq, Jean de, commander of the
popolis, 166 Knights of Rhodes, 217-18
La Marciana Library, Venice, 244 Latin language, 7, 111, 243, 245, 249;
Lambros, Spyridon, 172, 313n41, Quirinal College and, 252, 253;
362n68; quoted, 26 spread of, 13-14, 15
Lamia (Zituni), 136, 145, 146, 155 Latin occupations, 28-31, 40, 232;
Lampridio di Cremona, 253 fall of Constantinople and, 202,
Lampsacus, Asia Minor, 88 205, 218; feudalism and, 54-55;
land grants, 98, 112-13, 291n45; Roman Catholicism and, 15, 43,
hereditary, 34, 54-55, 143, 149, 95-99, 101-102, 133, 138, 321n33.
154-55; monastic, 33, 56-57, 60, See aho specific conquering groups
85, 123, 127, 129-30, 165; Otto­ law, 53; Catalan, 108-109, 110;
man, 66-67, 74, 123-24, 143, 145, Gemistos and, 126, 127, 128, 129,
153, 154, 155-57, 161, 163, 209, 130; judicial ethics and, 76, 87,
213, 216-17, 227, 229, 230-31, 300nn38-39; in Thessalonica, 4 9 -
295n35; Turkish invasion threats 50, 117, 124, 146-47, 148, 149;
and, 62, 64, 78, 149, 152-53, 165- in Thessaly, 33, 112-13, 156;
66 Yuruk, 162
languages, 13, 15, 81, 269n40; na­ Laws (Nomoi . . . Gemistos), 171,
tionalism and, 16, 18, 20, 27, 30, 333n7
37, 38, 42, 43, 94, 183, 185-86, Lazare, saint, 80
232, 285nn77, 79, 286n80, 296n40, Lefka, 105
316n77, 336nn47, 49, 337n58; Lefkousias, monastery of, Thessaly,
place-names, 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, 19, 68, 33, 111, 313n41
79, 149, 153, 155, 163, 164, 213. Legrand, Emile, 358п20
See also specific languages Lemnos, island of, 136; Ottomans and,
Laodicea, see of, Asia Minor, 62 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220-21
Larissa, 112, 167, 314n47; Yuruks Leo VI ("the Wise"), emperor, 3,
204, 205
in, 162, 164^65, 331n25
Leo X, pope, 247, 252, 253, 259
Larissa, metropolitan of, quoted, 314
Leon, mathematician, 20
n47
Leonard of Chios, Bishop of Mytilene,
Lascarids, 36-40, 202. See aho indi­
339n23
vidual ruling members under their
Leonardo da Vinci, 249
Christian names, e.g., Theodore
Leondari, 213
II Lascaris, emperor of Nicaea
Lesbos, island of, 216, 217, 218, 219,
Lascaris, Constantine, 243, 245, 249- 285n77
50, 258; quoted, 253-54, 263, Leukas, archbishopric of, 116, 158
364n90 Levadia, 108-109, 154, 280n7
Lascaris, Demetrius, 208 libraries, 20, 104, 111-12; French,
Lascaris, Emmanuel, 201 252, 253; Italian, 235, 243-44, 249,
Lascaris, Janus, 237, 248, 249, 250- 251; of Kalavryta, 170; of Nicaea,
53, 258-59, 362n63 38; of Moschopoulos, 284n71;
Lascaris, Manuel, 251 Turkish, 158
Lascaris, Matthew, 251 Libyssa (Dakybiza), Bithynia, 65
Lascaris, Theodore, 201 Lidorikion, 153, 179
INDEX 387
Ligara, 164 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 274n84; Theodore
Limassol, 95, 105 Comnenus Ducas' conquest of, 33;
Linacre, Thomas, 248 toponyms of, 6, 155. See also
"Linda Athena" (Praxiteles), 19 specific place-names
Liosa tribe, 10 Machairas, Leontios, 105
literature, 20, 104, 111-12; classical Maeander River, 62, 68
revival in, 21, 30, 46-49, 53, 58, Magistros, Thomas, 46, 53
82, 99, 170, 171, 233 (See also Magnesia, Asia Minor, 306n27
humanism); epic, 22, 26, 33, 35, Magnesia, Asia Minor, "patriot monk"
44, 144, 287n89, 337n58, 356n95; of, 90; quoted, 74, 76
on fall of Constantinople, 203, 204, Magnesia River, 90
259-63, 354n77, 366nl5, 367n22; Mahmud, Vizier, 213, 218, 226,
Frankish rule and, 43-45, 107-108, 350n28
232; hagiographie, 47, 231; Italian Mahmud II, sultan, 167
Renaissance and, 235-36, 241, 243, Maina, 5, 40, 98; Byzantine refugees
249, ЗбОпЗб; Janus Lascaris' col­ in, 213, 215, 227, 351n33
lection of, 250-52, 253; Nicaea Mainalon district, 209
and, 38-39; painting and callig­ Majorca, 71, 108
raphy and, 23-24, 50, 250, 252, Makris, Makarios, 111, 317n89
284n71; Serbian, 80; sermons as, Makrynitsa, 167
86, 89; translation skills and, 46, Malakasioi tribe, 7
111, 240, 243, 244. See aho librar­ Malazgirt, battle of (1071), 61
ies; and see specific titles Malian Gulf, 136
Lluria, John de, 98 Mamalakis, Ioannis, cited, 319nl
Lluria, Roger de, filsy 82, 98, 109 Mamelukes (Saracens), 49, 105
Loenertz, Raymond, cited, 113 Mangaphas, nobleman, 113
London, England, 250 Mängli, Muhammed ben, quoted,
Lopadion (Olubad), Asia Minor, 199 292п59
Lorenzo de Medici, 248, 251, 366nl5 Maniakes, Nicholakes, 109
Loucaris, Cyril, 358n20 Maniatai, 5
Louis XII, king of France, 252 Manisa (Saruhan), Asia Minor, 163
Louvain, Flanders, 253 Mantua, Italy, 257
Lübeck, Germany, 5 Manuel II Palaeologus, emperor, and
Lucanis, Nicephorus, 209, 211 ruler of Thessalonica, 60, 99,
Luke the Younger, saint, 3-4 117(fig.), 192; quoted, 120-21;
Lycurgus, 105, 121, 176 Aegean Islands and, 216; Chry-
Lyvistros and Rhodamne, 45 soloras and, 237; Gemistos and,
126, 127, 129, 131; Ottoman Turks
Macedonia, 23, 38, 368n32; Fourth and, 77, 85, 113, 114, 116, 117-18,
Crusade and, 30; Hesychast civil 123, 124, 125, 145; Roman Church
war and, 59; Latin in, 13; nobles and, 102, 138, 139
expelled from, 127, 319n6; Otto- Manuel II Cantacuzenus, despot of
man Turks in, 72, 77, 107, 146-47, Morea, 10, 82, 105, 107, 109, 120
159, 162, 163-64, 166, 190; Palae- Manuel Angelos Philanthropenos,
ologian Renaissance in, 49-54, 114, ruler of Thessaly, 114
116-25; Serbs in, 8, 77; Slavs in, Manutius, Aldus, 244, 250, 251, 252
388 INDEX

Maria Melissene, duchess of Athens, Mercati, Giovanni, 302n58; quoted,

134-35 285n79
Marmara, Sea of, 65, 136, 180; pi­ mercenaries, 8, 12, 30, 65-66, 7 1 , 105,
racy on, 69; siege of Constantinople 341n41
and, 193, 194 Merne, of Trebizond, 229, 355n88
Maroullos, Manuel, physician, 245, Mesaritai tribe, 7
367n22 Mesembria (Nesebar), on Black Sea,
Maroullos, Michael, poet, quoted, 136, 193, 286n82
367n22 Mesochaldion, Trebizond, 222, 228
Marsuppini, Carlo, 239 Mesopotamia, 62-63, 223
Masai, François, 319nl, 362n67; Mesopotamites, Isaac, monk, 31
quoted, 319nll, 333n7 Messenia, 10, 41, 107, 207, 213
Mastrothodoros, Stephen, 98 Messina, Italy, 243, 249-50, 253
mathematics, 47 Metaphysics (Aristotle), 243
Matthew, quoted, 91 Metaphysics (Theophrastus), 243
Matthew, metropolitan of Ephesus, Metaxas, Sergius, Antony, and Nich­
quoted, 86 olas, 201, 202
Matthew, metropolitan of Ioannina, Meteora, 69, 70(fig.), I l l , 164, 251,
113, 114 313nn41, 43
Matthew Corvinus, king of Hungary, Methone (Modon), 4 1 , 213; castle
247 of, 214(fig.)
Maurice, emperor, 2, 3 Metochites, Theodore, 47-48, 288n8;
Mavronicholas family, 108-109 quoted, 49
Mavronicholas, Constantine, 109 Metsovon, 7
Mavronicholas, Nicholas, 109 Meyendorff, Jean, quoted, 57-58
Maximilian I, of Germany, 259, 260 Meyer, Gustav, cited, 6
Mecca, Sherif of, 167 Michael, spahi, 153
Medea, on Black Sea, 136 Michael VIII Palaeologus, emperor,
Medici family, 215, 247, 252 46, 55, 62, 64; recapture of Con­
Medici, Lorenzo de', 248, 251, stantinople by, 29, 40-41, 42
366nl5 Michael, Czar of Bulgaria, 38
medicine, 35, 47 Michael I Comnenus Ducas, despot
Megale Porta, 33 of Epirus, 29
Megara, 280n7 Michael II Comnenus Ducas, despot
Megara, archbishop of, 110 of Epirus, 282n32
Megara, battle of (1364), 82, 109 Michal, Köse, 295п35
Meliarakis, Anthony, 37 Michal Oğlu Ali Bey, 150, 295n35
Melingi tribe, 5 middle class, 55-56, 59; Gemistos on,
Melissene, Maria, duchess of Athens, 128, 129, 131
134 migrations: Albanian, 7, 10, 11, 12,
Melissinoi family, 35-36, 112, 134-35 269nn40-42; Greek, 3, 4, 8, 10-11,
Melitene province, 62 63, 67-68, 81-82; Slav, 2 - 3 , 4-6, 7,
Meliteniotes, Theodore, 47 12, 13-14, 154, 266nn8-9, 274n84;
Memorabilia (Xenophon), 243 Turkish, 162-63
Menander, 2 Mikira-li district, 153
Menteşe, Emirate of, Asia Minor, 69 Milan, Italy, 234, 249, 250, 254
INDEX 389

Miller, William, quoted, 275n90 Mordtmann, A. D., quoted, 67-68

Milutin, ruler of Serbia, 50 Morea, Despoiate of, see Péloponnèse,
Mingrelia, 223, 224 The
Miracula Sancti Demitrii, 2 Morphou, 105
Misalar, 164 mosaics, 47
Mistra, 24, 40, 98, 106, 170; L. Chai- Moschopoulos, Manuel, 46
cocondyles in, 232, 357nl01; Moschopoulos, Nicephoros, metropol-
Gemistos in, 126, 127, 134, 319nl; itan of Lacedemonia, 284n71
iron mines of, 177; Mohammed II Moscopolis (Voskopojë), 14, 362n63
in, 212; palace of, 84(/ig.), 181; Moslems, see Islam
Palaeologian Renaissance in, 46, Mosque of the Conqueror, Athens, 211
82, 178, 284n71 Mosque of the Conqueror, Constan-
Modon (Methone), 41, 213; castle of, tinople, 200
214 (fig.) Mosque of Faith (the Conqueror),
Moglena, 14 Trebizond, 231
Mohammed, 91, 338n9 Mouchlion, fortress of, Peloponnesus,
Mohammed I, sultan, 144, 155 209, 211
Mohammed II, sultan, 66, 189(/ig.), Mount Athos, monastery of, 24, 50,
207, 338nl3; Aegean islands and, 81, 251; Hesychasm and, 57, 59;
213, 216-21, 222, 224, 231; Arma- Manuel II Palaeologus and, 123;
toles and, 157; capture of Constan­ Ottoman Turks and, 78, 146; pi-
tinople by, 188, 190-202, 205, rates and, 69
257; land expropriations, 123, 153; Mount Hieron, 73
Peloponnesian revolts and, 208-16, Mount Olympus, 165, 266n9
221, 222, 223; Trebizond and, 2 2 1 - Mount Othrys, 165
31, 355nn81, 90 Mount Parnassus, 108
Mohammed Bey, son of Mandromi- Mount Parnon, 81
nos, 201 Mount Pelion, 167, 266n9
monasteries, 4, 16, 19, 23, 32, 80, Mount Vermion, 166
83(/ig.), 84(/ig.), 271п59, 313п41; Mousouros, Leo and Antony, 201, 202
Danubian, 81; Hesychasm and, 5 7 - Mousouros, Marcos, 251, 252-53
60; Islamic, 66-67; in Italy, 235, Mouziariko, 153
243, 244, 249; land rights of, 33, mufassal, the 150
56-57, 60, 85, 123, 127, 129-30, Murad I, sultan, 71, 74, 76, 114, 152,
165; libraries of, 20, 104, 111-12, 299n28, 318nl8, Yuruks and, 162,
235; moral standards in, 87-88, 89; 163
piracy and, 69; in Vagenetia, 8 Murad II, sultan, 66, 136, 144-50,
Monasteriotes, archbishop of Ephe- 188, 223, 338nl3; aimy organiza-
sus, 35 tion of, 151-52, 155, 157, 158, 159;
Monastir (Bitola), 78 Duchy of Athens and, 134, 135;
Monemvasia, 4, 40, 212, 213, 304n72; Herakleia and, 180; tax policies
Pius II and, 350n24 of, 150, 157, 158, 159, 324n41;
Mongols, 62 Yuruks and, 164
Monodendrion (Only One Tree), 204 Murano, Italy, 177
Montferrat family, 32 Musa, son of Petko, 155
Montferrat, Boniface, 50 music, 39, 157
390 INDEX

Mustafa, spahi, 153 124-25, 146-47; Trebizond and,

Mustafa, son of Filatrino, spahi, 155 222, 226, 229, 230, 231
Mykonos, island of, 81, 107 Naupactus, 31, 32, 179; castle of, 8,
Mylopotamos, 36 209, 267nl8, 297nl
Myrepsos, Nicholas, physician, 47, Nauplia, 107
111 Navarino (Pylos), 213
Mytilene, 218, 339n23; Crusaders in, Navarre, 10, 105, 108, 109-10
219-20 Naxos, island of, 15, 71
Nea Mone of Thessalonica, 114
Naousa, 166 Nectarius, monk, 313n43
Naples, Italy, 190, 244, 249, 253, 254 Neilos, patriarch of Constantinople,
Nardo, Italy, 235 111, 313n41
Narrative of Achilles, 44-45 neoclassicism, see humanism
"Narrative concerning the Fall of neo-Hellenism, see humanism; na­
Constantinople," Russian, 204 tionalism; neo-Platonism
nationalism, 15, 16, 27-45, 111, 2 3 4 - Neopatras, 32, 108, 109, 110, 162,
35, 285nn77, 79, 288nl2; Albanian, 167
149, 179, 207; Armatoles and, 159- Neophytos, monk, 109, 111
60; art and, 21, 22, 26, 35, 38-39, neo-Platonism, 19, 234; Gemistos
43-45, 97, 112, 250, 260-62, and, 123, 127, 128, 170-71, 180,
366nl5, 367n22; Bessarion on, 181, 184-85, 241, 362n67; Hesy-
172-78, 334nl7; of Chalcocon- chasm versus, 57, 58; Italian, 236,
dyles, 232-33; Constantine XI and, 243, 247, 248
178-80, 183, 185-86, 203-205; Neroulos, Rizoz, cited, 158
Constantinople's fall and, 145-46, Nesebar (Mesembria), on Black Sea,
200, 203-205, 222, 256-63, 136, 193, 286n82
280nl3; Frankish rule and, 104- Nesri, Mehemmed, cited, 163
105, 133, 169, 311n8, 321nn33, 35, Nevrokop, 155
337n56; Gemistos and, 123, 126- Nicaea, Empire of, 31-43, 46, 62,
35, 169, 170-71, 172, 176, 181, 241; Epirus' rivalry with, 31-36,
183, 184, 256, 263; Maina and, 281n20; Fourth Crusade and, 29,
215; Mistra and, 82; Nicaea and, 30; Metochites in, 47-48, 49; Otto­
36-40, 46, 47-48, 49, 283n53; man Turks in, 65, 89, 306n22. See
Ottoman Empire and, 77, 81, 88, also specific place-names
89, 104, 144, 337n56; peasant re­ Nicephorus I, despot of Epirus, 3
volts and, 105; religion and, 18, 37, Nicephorus II, despot of Epirus, 8,
41, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 88, 89, 90, 112
93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 102-103, 106- Nicholas III, patriarch of Constan­
107, 118, 133, 183, 185-86, 187- tinople, 2
88, 191-93, 231, 256, 257, 296n40, Nicholas V, pope, 138-39, 192, 253,
3 1 1 n l l , 321n33; Roman tradition 361n47; library of, 243-44; Turk­
and, 100, 116, 120, 121, 123, 175, ish siege of Constantinople and,
183, 185, 232, 234-35, 255, 262, 188, 190, 191, 218
337n56; Thessalonica's resistance Nicholas Gattilusi, ruler of Lemnos,
and, 113, 114, 117-18, 120-21, 219
INDEX 391

Nicolitsa, 14 Old and New Romes: A Comparison

Nicomedia, Asia Minor, 46, 62, 65 (Chrysoloras), 239
Nicopolis, battle of 1396, 80 Olovolos, Manuel, philosopher, 47
Nicosia, archbishop of, 98 Olubad (Lopadion), Asia Minor, 199
Nidir, 163 Olympia, 2
nobility, the, 35, 53, 87; Catalan, Olympic Games, 172
108-109; Cretan Venetian, 99, 106; Ömer, son of Turahan, 153, 208, 211
in Epirus, 113, 116, 149; fall of "On the Bravery of a Constantino-
Constantinople and, 28-29, 30, 137, politan Woman" (Tarhaniotes), 261
175, 197, 198, 200-202, 208, O n His Exile" (Tarhaniotes), 261
302n55, 334nl9; Frankish rule and, On Law (Peri потоп . . . Gemistos),
105; Gemistos and, 126, 128, 129, 256
130, 173, 174; land grants of, 33, On the Sovereign Sun (Julian), 185
34, 54-57, 65; in Macedonia, 59, Ophis (Of), 63, 231
117, 124, 127, 146-47, 319n6; oral tradition, see folklore
Peloponnesian intrigues of, 208, Orchan, sultan, 64, 65, 66, 72, 162,
212; spahi institution and, 149, 150, 163; army reorganization by, 73,
152-57; Theodore II Lascaris and, 299n28, 318nl08
40; in Thessaly, 112, 153-56, 165, Orchan, prince, 190, 200, 338nl3
207-208; of Trebizond, 227-28, "Order (Orismos) of Sinan Paşa,"
229, 230 149
nomadism, 15, 159; Albanian, 11, 154, Oreibasios, physician, 111
207; Turkish, 64, 162, 163, 164 Oreine, 105
Nomoi (Laws . . . Gemistos), 171, Orobe, island of, 4
333n7 Orthodox Church, 17, 26; autonomy
Normans, 49 in Russia, 187; Catalans and, 109,
Notara, Anna, 200-201, 345n91 110, 312n33; Epirotic, 31-32, 1 1 2 -
Notaras, Jacob, 200-201; quoted, 340 13; Gemistos and, 171-72, 184-85,
пЗЗ 256, 333n7; Hesychasm and, 5 7 -
Notaras, Lucas, grand duke, 181, 192- 60, 102, 118, 236; lands of, 56-57,
93, 200 60, 78-79; martyrs of, 93-95, 96,
Notaras, Matthew, 201 203, 307n41; nationalism and, 16,
Notaras, Vlasios, 201 30, 41, 42, 43, 93, 94, 96, 97, 102-
novels, 22-24, 44 103, 106-107, 118, 133, 170, 184,
Novo Brdo, Serbia, 80 187-88, 31 l n l 1; Oecumenical Pa­
Numa, 176 triarchate of, 31, 61, 95, 96-97, 98,
Nuremberg, Germany, 257 102, 161, 314n47; Photian Schism
of, 100, 102, 188, 203; Roman
Ochrida (Achris), 32, 50 Catholic conversions from, 15, 9 5 -
Ode on Constantinople's Misfortune 99, 236, 239, 243, 253, 309n65,
(Callistus), 259-60 310n79; Roman Union issue of, 95,
Odyssey (Homer), 249 99-103, 118, 138-39, 180-81, 183,
Oenoe, 63 185, 187-88, 191-93, 197, 235,
Oğlu, Balta, Turkish admiral, 196 237, 239, 309n73, 310n79; Tre-
Oises, Manuel Raul, 184 bizond's fall and, 231; Turks and,
392 INDEX

61-62, 66-68, 78-79, 80, 86-95, paganism, 18-19, 37, 39, 48, 53;
99, 118, 149; Vatatzes' canonization Gemistos and, 171-72, 184-85,
by, 36, 306n27 256, 333n7; hagiography and, 47;
Osman Bey, 295n35; ghazis under, 64 Hesychasm versus, 57; Tarhaniotes
Ottoman Empire, 60, 64-68, 89, 252, and, 262-63
337n56; Aegean islands and, 36, Pagomenos family, 208
41-42, 69, 71, 213, 216-21, 222; painting, 48, 80, 303n62; fresco, 50,
army organization and, 12, 30, 7 3 - 97; miniature, 23-24, 50
74, 139-43, 151-60, 323n25, Palaea Phocaea, Asia Minor, 219,
324nn31-33 (See aho armies, 352n46
Ottoman); Athens and, 78, 104, Palaeologian dynasty ( 1261-1453 ),
134-35, 169, 211, 232, 357nl01; 5, 46-60, 137, 222; neo-Hellenism
censuses of, 149, 150, 162, 163, of, 28, 35, 40, 42-43, 46-49, 57,
332n38; Christian theology and, 86, 58, 60, 80, 81, 82, 99, 100, 102,
91-95, 99, 139, 144, 203, 296n44; 110, 116-25, 126-35, 169-86, 205,
civil service of, 201; Constantine 235-37, 241. See also individual
XI and, 178-80, 187-200, 203-205, rulers
344n86; Constantinople's siege Palaeologina, Maria Angelina Ducai-
(1394) and, 79-80, 81-82, 302n58; na, princess of Epirus, 113, 297nl
crusade agitation against, 178, 190, Palaeologus, Andrew, 215
209, 217, 218, 219-21, 257-58, Palaeologus, Constantine (Graetzas),
259, 260, 263, 365n9, 366nnl5, 213
18-19; Peloponnese's conquest by, Palaeologus, Emmanuel, 201
10-11, 29, 30, 41, 43, 78, 82, 104, Palaeologus, Emmanuel (son of
106, 114, 127, 132, 146-49, 169- Thomas), 215
86, 207-16, 222, 250, 258, 350n24, Palaeologus, George, 219
351n33; Thessalonica's resistance Palaeologus, Murad, 201
to, 77, 78, 113, 114, 117-18, 120- Palaeologus, Symeon Uroš, ruler of
21, 123, 124-25, 146-48, 300n42; Thessaly, 8, 114; quoted, 271n59
Thessaly and, 14-15, 78, 104, 111, Palaeologus, Theophilus, 199
114, 153-56, 158-59, 162, 164-68, Palaeologus, Thomas, 363n84
179, 180, 190, 207, 211; Thrace Palaeologus, Zoë, 215
and, 72-73, 76, 77, 79, 161, 162- Palamas, Gregory, Archbishop of
63, 218-19, 286n81, 299n21; Tre- Thessalonica, 53; quoted, 72, 88,
bizond and, 221-31, 258, 353n56, 365n7; Hesychasm of, 57, 58, 235
355яп81, 83; tribute exaction by, Palamedes Gattilusi, ruler of Ainos,
64, 85, 137, 206-207, 217, 218, 216, 217, 219
221, 223, 224, 324n41 Palionaousta, 166
Panagia Chrysokephalos Cathedral,
Pachymeres, George, 65; quoted, Trebizond, 231
285n75 Panegyric to Manuel and John VIII
Pacioti, brigand, 110 Palaeologus, 11, 121, 317n90
Padua, Italy, 245, 247, 250, 362n71 Paparrhegopoulos, Constantine, 27-28
Padua, University of, 247-48, 249 Papoulia, Basilike, cited, 299n28,
Paean to the Handsome Demetrius 318nl08
(Kavasilas), 47 Paramythia, 149
INDEX 393
Pardo, Giovanni, Spanish philosopher 106, 109, 114, 120; Turkish con-
and poet, 253 quest of, 29, 30, 4 1 , 43, 78, 82,
Parekvolai (Eustathius), 33 104, 106, 114, 127, 132, 146-49,
Paris, France, 250, 252, 253 169-80, 207-16, 221, 222, 223,
Paris, University of, 250, 252 250, 258, 350n24. See also specific
Parma, bishop of, quoted, 258 place-names
Parnon Mountains, 4 Pergamon, 38
Parthenion Mountains, 209 Peribleptos, monastery of, Mistra,
Parthenon, The, 312n33 83 (fe)
Paspatis, Α., cited, 200 Peribleptos, monastery of, Constanti-
Patras, 3, 19, 209, 215 nople, 200
Patriarchs, 90, 96, 259; Oecumenical Peri hon Aristoteles pros Platona
Patriarchate of, 31, 61, 95, 96-97, diapheretai (How Aristotle Differs
98, 102, 161, 314n47. See aho from Plato . . . Gemistos), 170,
individual names 241
Patzinak tribe, 6 Peri потоп (On Law . . . Gemis­
Paul, archbishop of Smyrna, 236 tos), 256
Paul, saint, quoted, 306n32 Perinthos, 72
Paul II, pope, 257, 258 Peristeronas, 105
Paul VI, pope, 215 Pernot, Hubert, quoted, 278n35
Pavia, battle of (1525), 259 Perotti, Niccolò, 243
peasantry, 53, 89, 121, 305nl8, 327 Peroules, Demetrius, 111
n l 3 ; Bessarion on, 176; Catalans Persians, 23, 60, 127, 263
and, 108; Constantinople's siege Peter, saint, 94
and, 190; Gemistos and, 128, 134, Peter III, king of Aragon, 109, 110
174; Hellenism and, 30, 134, Peter IV, king of Aragon, 10
290n37; land grants and, 34, 5 4 -
Peter de Lusignan, king of Cyprus,
57, 154; Ottoman Turks and, 65,
98
81-82, 137, 144, 154, 165-66;
Petrarch, 235, 236
Saracens and, 105; of Trebizond,
Petrobouas family, 208
226; urban refuges of, 59
Phacrases, dignitary of Thessalonica,
"Pec and Serbia," archbishop of, 314
n47 59
Péloponnèse (Morea), 31, 165; Al- Phanarion, 33, 111, 112, 162; Al-
banians in, 7-12, 16, 109, 2 0 7 - banians in, 7; Gemistos and, 131;
209, 213, 215, 269n41, 272n66; spahis of, 153, 155
Constantine XI and, 169-80, 181, Pharsala, 10, 112, 114, 153, 162, 167
190; Constantinople and, 17, 8 1 - Phidias, 19, 260
82, 170, 190, 202, 205, 213; divi- Philadelphia, Asia Minor, 39
sion of 1449, 181, 208; Duchy of Philanthropenos family, 65, 114, 155,
Athens and, 134, 135; Frankish rule 315n57. See also individual ruling
in, 106, 312nl8; Gemistos and, members
126, 128-32, 133, 170, 173, 174, Philip, king of Macedonia, 22, 23,
320nn24, 28; piracy and, 69; Slavs 120
in, 2-6, 7, 16, 266n8, 274n84; Philip, duke of Burgundy, 223-24
Thessalonian alliance with, 1 0 5 - Philippi, 121
394 INDEX

Philippopolis (Plovdiv), 22, 23, 162, and, 57, 58; Italian translations of,
166, 206; Mohammed II and, 218, 241; on soldiers, 129
221, 225 Plato's Academy, Athens, 19
philosophy, 19-20, 24, 244, 263; in Pléthon, see Gemistos, George
Nicaea, 38, 39-40; Palaeologian Plousiadenos, John, bibliographer, 138
Renaissance and, 46, 47, 50, 5 7 - Plovdiv, see Philippopolis
60, 100, 170, 184-85, 233, 2 3 4 - Plutarch, 47, 111, 250
37, 239, 241, 243-55. See also poetry, 33; Akritic, 22, 26, 35, 44,
humanism; neo-Platonism 287n89, 337n58, 356n95; of Ami-
Philotheos, patriarch of Constanti­ roukes, 354n77; nationalist, 2 6 0 -
nople, 109, 314n47 62, 366nl5, 367n22; romantic, 45.
Phlorina, 162 See also songs
Phocas family, 65 Policastro, Calabria, 254
Phocas, metropolitan of Sardes, Poliziano, Angelo, 249
283n56 Polyphengon, fortress of, Pelopon­
Phocas, Andronicus and Emmanuel, nesus, 209
201, 202 Pomoriye (Anchialus), on Black Sea,
Phocis, 4 136, 193
Phocylides, 250 Pontano, Giovanni, 254
Photian Schism, 100, 102, 188, 203 Pontic Alps, 63, 223, 225, 226
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, 3 Pontus, 63, 186, 230-31, 356n95
Phthiotis, 110 Poros, island of, 10
physics, 35 Porphyris, Akritic hero, 22
Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius, see Pius Porphyrogenitus, see Constantine VII
II, pope Porphyrogenitus
Pieria district, 4, 267n21 Potamios, Theodore, quoted, 79
Pilato, Leonzio, 235-36 Potidaea (Cassandrea), 146
Pincens, Jacob, Minorite monk, 334n20 pottery, 24
Poulianos, Ares, cited, 6
Pindus Mountains, 7, 111, 149, 156,
Poulos, I. K., on Albanian colonies,
165, 215; Vlachs in, 14, 154, 157,
272n66
159, 178-79, 180
Pournar Daği, 162
Pinon, Carlier de, quoted, 351n33
Praxiteles, 19, 260
Pisidia, 63
Preliumbovic, Thomas, despot of
Pius II, pope, 201, 202, 215, 220,
Epirus, 10, 112-13, 114, 116, 118
253, 257, 258; Helen of Cyprus
Premeti district, 78
and, 133, 321n33; Monemvasia Priam, 262
and, 350n24; Trebizond and, 224 Přilep, 162
Pizzicolli, Ciriaco de, 357nl01 Procheiron (Armenopoulos), 148
Plagiarion (Bulayir), 72 Promontorio de Campis, Iacopo, 341
plague, 2, 164, 218, 223 п41
Planoudes, Maximus, monk, 46 pronoia, see land grants
Platamon, 32, 153 Prophet Elijah, Church of the, Corfu,
Plątana fortress, Asia Minor, 229 216
Plato, 24, 39, 50, 100, 170, 236; Propontis (Sea of Marmara), 136,
Bessarion on, 243, 247; Hesychasm 170, 193
INDEX 395

Prosakon, 32, 116 Ravanica, monastery of, Serbia, 80

Pros to hyper tou latinikou dogmatos Ravenna, Italy, 258
biblion (Concerning the Book in Rebuttal (Antirretikos . . . Gazes),
Favor of the Latin Dogma . . . 241
Gemistos), 171 Reformation, The, 258
Pros tas hyper tou Aristotelous Renaissance, The, 38, 58, 234-55,
Georgiou Schohriou antilepseis 262, ЗбОпЗб; nationalism and, 2 5 6 -
(The Views of George Scholarios 63, 288nl2; Palaeologian, 46-49.
in His Defense of Aristotle . . . See abo humanism
Gemistos), 171 Rentes, Demetrius, Chancellor of
Protestantism, 258 Athens, 109
Protobelissenos, George, copyist, 111 Republic (Plato), 129
Prusa (Bursa), 62, 64, 144, 224, 228 Resava, monastery of, Serbia, 80
Psara, island of, 71 Rethymnon, 36
Psellus, Michael, 24, 32, 276nl5 Reuchlin, Johann (Kapnion), 240,
Pseudo-Callisthenes, 22, 24 248, 249, 250
Pseudo-Nonnus, 24 Rhaedestos, 72
Pseudo-Oppian, 24 rhetoric, 35
Ptolemais (Kailar), 163 Rhetoric (Aristotle), 21
Ptolemy, 47 Rhodes, island of, 43, 218, 219, 220
Pylos (Navarino), 213 Rohlfs, Gerhard, cited, 235
Pyrgos (Burgas), 136, 193, 341n35 Roman Catholicism, 236, 253, 346
Pythia, Oracle of, 132-33 n l l O ; Bessarion's conversion to,
243, 363n84; Catalan, 98, 110,
Questions (Erotemata . . . Chryso- 312n33; Council of Ten (1487)
loras), 240 and, 31 l n l 1; Helen of Cyprus and,
Quirinal College, Rome, 252-53 133, 321n33; Holy Roman Empire
Quirini, John, 71 and, 259; Latin occupations and,
15, 43, 95-99, 101-102, 105, 107,
Radenos, pupil of D. Kydones, 59 133, 138, 321n33; marriage laws
Radojčič, S., quoted, 48 and, 109; Orthodox Union issue and
Raf ail, Antonije, 80 95, 99-103, 118, 138-39, 180-81,
Ragusa (Dubrovnik), 50, 178, 188, 183, 185, 187-88, 191-93, 197,
235, 362п63; Tarhaniotes in, 245, 235, 239, 309n73, 310n79; the Re­
260-61 formation and, 258; Venetian Sen­
raias (non-Moslem subjects), 16, 35, ate (1425) and, 309n65
40, 66, 166; Constantinople's fall Roman Empire, 12, 92; Eastern Em­
and, 199, 200-202, 205; haraç and, pire of, 17-20, 27-28, 29, 30, 37,
167, 206-207; janissary service of, 42-43, 49, 50, 100, 103, 175, 232,
74 (See also janissaries); spahi 273n80; Greek Byzantine national­
service of, 149, 150, 152-57, 2 3 0 - ism and, 120, 121, 123, 175, 183,
31 185, 234-35, 255, 262; Latin spread
Ralles, Manuel, 262 and, 13, 14, 15. See aho Byzantine
Ranieri Zeno, doge of Venice, 41 Empire; Latin occupations
Rantgoun, 164 Romans, quoted, 94
Raul, Manuel, 208 Rome, city of, 17, 188, 239, 249;
396 INDEX

Byzantine refugees in, 201, 202, Salmenico Castle, Peloponnesus, 213

215, 234-35, 236, 237, 247, 250, Salona (Amphissa), 106, 109, 111
257, 358nl8; publishing in, 252-53 Salónica, see Thessalonica
Romulus, 262 Salutati, Coluccio, 237
Rouillard, Germaine, quoted, 290n37 Samos, island of, 71
Roustem, Kara, theologian, 74 Samothrace, island of, 136; Ottoman
Rozias, George C , 13; cited, 12, 273 Turks and, 213, 216, 219, 220, 221
n78 Samsun (Amisus), 63, 223
Rubio y Lluch, Antonio, 107; quoted, sancaks, 149, 153, 154, 156, 159, 206;
108, 110 of Trebizond, 228, 229, 355n81
Rumanians, 12, 269n40 Sangarius district, 62
Rumeli Hisar, 190 San Giovanni di Carbonara, Naples,
Rumelia, 38, 43, 136, 142, 149, 163; 249
castle guards of, 328n29; janissaries San Nicola di Casóla, monastery of,
in, 151; Trebizond and, 228, 355 southern Italy, 235
n81 San Salvatore, monastery of, Messina,
Russia, 6, 53, 187; Constantinople's 243, 250
fall and, 204, 205; Hesychasm in, Sant'Agata di Goti, Church of, Rome,
59, 102 253
Russian Orthodox Church, 187 Santameri fortress, Peloponnesus, 213
Rysion, on Sea of Marmara, 65 Santorini, island of, 15
Saracens, 49, 105
Saint Athanasius, Church of, Mag­ Sarakatsans, nomads, 15
nesia, 306n27 Sarantaporos, 167
Saint Demetrios, Church of, Mistra, Sarapeum of Alexandria, 19
284n71 Sardes, 283n56
Saint Dionysius, monastery of, Mt. Sarıgöl, 163
Athos, 146 Saros, 299п21
Saint Elias, Church of, Thessalonica, Saruhan (Manisa), Asia Minor, 163
Sl(fe) Sarutza Bey, 149, 163
Saint George, Great Seal of, 108 Sathas, Constantine N., cited, 27,
Saint George of Zavlantia, monastery 340n27; quoted, 34, 367n26
of, Thessaly, 56-57 Saxolo, 170
Saint Mark, Cathedral of, Venice, 24 "Scald-headed Peter" (Keil Petros),
Saint Philip, Church of, Trebizond, 307п41
231 Scanderbeg (George Castriota), 208
Saint Romanos, Church of, Constanti­
Scarampi, Lodovico, patriarch of
nople, 199, 343n74
Aquileia, 218, 220
Saint Romanos Gate, Constantinople,
Scar latos, Philippe, 201
193, 196, 197, 199
Schiltberger, Johann, cited, 137;
Saint Stephanos (city), 136, 193
Saint Theodosia, Church of, Constan­ quoted, 3 4 7 n l l 5
tinople, 200 Schirò, Giuseppe, quoted, 58
Saints Theodore, Church of the, Scholarios, George, see Gennadius
Mistra, 284n71 II, patriarch of Constantinople
Salamis, island of, 10 (George Kourtesis Scholarios)
INDEX 397

science, 31, 35, 38, 47, 58, 177, 244 silk, 167-68, 177
Scleros family, 65 Simavnaoglou, Turkish noble, 77
sculpture, 19, 260; bas reliefs, 24, Simeonakis, John. 80
25 (fig.) Sinai, monastery at, 80
Scyrus, 136, 202 Sinan Paşa, Valesi, governor of Ru­
Sea of Marmara (Propontis), 136, melia, 149
170, 193 Sinope, on Black Sea, 62, 224, 225
Sebastia (Sivas), Asia Minor, 225 Siphnos, island of, 71
Sebastianos, metropolitan of loannina, Sisojevac, church of, Serbia, 80
112, 113, 314n48 Sivas (Sebastia), Asia Minor, 225
Secundinus, Nicholas, 250 Sixtus IV, pope, 247, 258
Sei'di Ahmet, vizier, 218 Skoplje (Uskiib), 206
Selanik Yürükler Kanunname, 162 Skordylai family, 35-36
self-government, 280п7; Armatoles Skylolimni, Trebizond, 226
and, 158-60; Corfu, 107; Council slave trade, 71, 149, 187, 202, 329nl
of Athens and Neopatras and, 110; Slavonia, 73
in Epirus, 149, 180; in Galata, 202; Slavs, 1, 2-6, 7, 16, 19, 265n2, 266n8,
in Levadia, 108; in Maina, 215; in 274n84; in Corinth, 267nl6; Fourth
Thessalonica, 49-50, 53, 146-48; Crusade and, 29; piracy and, 69;
in Trebizond, 222; Vlachs and, 180 in Thessaly, 2, 5, 8, 10, 114, 154,
Selim I, sultan, 199 155, 266n9, 267nl8; Vlachs and,
Seljuk Turks, 35, 61-62, 64, 67, 89 12, 14
Selymbria, 136, 170, 202, 341n35 Smyrna, Asia Minor, 236
Seminara, Calabria, 235 Socrates, 39
Serbia, 10, 71; art of, 48, 50, 80; in­ Sofia, Bulgaria, 218
vasions of Greece by, 8, 30, 111, Sogut district, 64, 67
112-13, 165, 313n41, 314n47, 327 Solon, 176
π 13; law in, 53; Ottoman Turks
songs, 20, 21, 22, 27, 35, 186, 337n58;
and, 77, 148, 152, 188
the Armatoles in, 157; as Christmas
Serenus, 47
carols, 277n22; on Notaras family,
serfdom, 128, 129, 130, 134, 137, 165.
3 4 6 n l l l ; of Pontus resistance, 231,
See also peasantry
356n95; of Trebizond, 226, 229-30;
Serrai, 77, 116, 117, 155, 163, 227,
of the troubadours, 45. See aho
251
poetry
Servia, 162
Servopoulos, Frangoulios, 208, 254 Sosandra, on Magnesia River, 90
Seyyid Battal, 22 Souliardos, Michael, coypist, quoted,
Sforza, Francesco, duke of Milan, 208 256
Sforza, Lodovico, 249 Soulis, George, on Albanians, 270n45
Sgouropoulos, Demetrius, 251 Sourmelis, Dionysius, cited, 12
Sgouros, Boua, Albanian chief, 11 Soviet Anthropological Institute, 6
shipbuilding, 177 Sozopolis, on Black Sea, 251
Sicily, 3, 235, 244 spahis, 149, 150, 152-57, 328nl9; in
Siderides, Χ. Α., cited, 200 Trebizond, 230-31, 355n90
Siderokastron, 162 Spain, 69, 108, 137, 254, 3 4 6 n l l 0 .
Silistra, 162 See also Catalans
398 INDEX

Spandounis, Matthew, 345п92 Tafur, Pero, 137; quoted, 143, 145,

Sparta, 5, 105, 174, 175, 250. See 320n22, 323n25, 324n32
Lacedemonia (Laconia) Tamerlane, 85, 162, 175
Spata, Gin Boua, ruler of Aetolia, 12 tanning, 39
Spata, Paul, brother of Gin Boua, 1 1 - Tarchaniotes family, 65
Tarhaniotes, Michael Maroullos, 245;
Spetsai, island of, 10, 215 quoted, 260-61
Sphrantzes, George, 216; cited, 134- Tarsos, fortress of, Peloponnesus, 209
35, 139, 145; quoted, 151, 197-98, Tartars, 71
211 Tatar, 164
Sporades islands, 136, 202 Taurus Mountains, 21, 228
Stagai, monastery of, Meteora, 111 taxation, 28, 33, 106, 137; Catalan,
Stavrakios, John, 260, 366nl7 110; Constantine XI and, 188,
Stein, Ernst, 358n20 338n6; Gemistos on, 129, 174; land
Stephen Lazarevic, despot of Serbia, grant exemptions from, 55, 129,
74, 80 152, 209; military, 60, 6 4 , 1 2 9 , 1 5 6 -
Stephen II Uroš Milutin, despot of 57, 174; Ottoman, 64, 65, 85, 150,
Serbia, 245 156-57, 158, 159, 165, 166, 167,
Stephen of Surozh, saint, 20 206-207, 208, 212, 217, 324n41,
Stiso, Sergio, 251 328n29, 332n38; Vatican, 247
Stomeo, Paolo, cited, 287n89 Taygetus Mountains, 4, 126; paganism
Strabo, quoted, 274n84 in, 19; Slav settlements of, 5
Stradioti, 202 Tenedos, island of, 69, 298n8
Strategopouloi family, 112 Tenos, island of, 15, 81, 107
Thalassinos, Leo and Andrea, 201
Strozzi, Palla, 241, 362п71
Thamar of Georgia, aunt of Alexius
Strumica, 162
Comnenus, 222
Strymon River, 136, 145, 146, 227
Thasos, island of, 136; Ottoman Turks
Stylis, 145
and, 213, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221
Suda (Suidas), 249
Thebes (istifa), 18, 24, 82, 98, 109,
Şükrüllâh, cited, 74, 324п41; quoted,
236; Constantine XI and, 178;
66, 73, 295п39
Council of 1373 in, 77; Frankish
Suleiman, sultan (1402-1410), 85, occupation of, 280n7; Majorca and,
296n41; Thrace and, 72-73, 162 108; Turkish capture of, 134-35,
Suleiman I the Magnificent, sultan 154
(1520-1566), 199, 332n38 Themistocles, 121, 124
sun worship, 185 Theocritus, 20, 111
Symeon, czar of Bulgaria, 4, 274n84 Theodora (Catherine), princess of
Symeon Uroš Palaeologus, ruler of Trebizond, 223, 227, 353n56
Thessaly, 8, 114; quoted, 271n59 Theodore, bishop of Alania, quoted,
Synada, 62 280nl3
Synods, see specific councils Theodore I Lascaris, emperor of Ni-
Syntagma kata Stoicheion (Blastares), caea, 34r-35, 42
53 Theodore II Lascaris, emperor of Ni-
Syria, 105; migrations from, 63 caea, 283n53, 286n82; quoted, 38,
Syros, island of, 15, 81 39, 40, 42, 43, 283n56, 284n58
INDEX 399

Theodore Comnenus Ducas, despot Thevet, André, cited, 215

of Epirus, 31-32, 33, 34, 297nl Thomas Aquinas, saint, 99
Theodore I Palaeologus, despot of Thomas Palaeologus, despot of divided
Morea, 10, 105-106, 109, 114, 118 Morea, 181, 190, 201, 258; Pelo-
Theodore II Palaeologus, despot of ponnesian revolts and, 207, 2 0 8 -
Morea, 12, 98, 105, 169, 170, 201, 209, 211, 212, 213
319nl; Gemistos and, 126, 127, Thrace, 42-43, 136, 312nl8; anti-
131, 132, 133 Greek persecutions in (1906), 274
Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of n89; Epirus and, 33; Gemistos and,
Canterbury, 19-20 184; Hesychast civil war and, 59;
Theodosius, 47 Nicaea and, 38; Ottoman Turks in,
Theodosius I, emperor, 17, 18 56, 72-73, 76, 77, 79, 161, 162-63,
Theodosius II, emperor, 194 218-19, 286n31, 299n21; piracy
Theoleptos I, patriarch of Constan­ and, 69; Slavs in, 3, 5; Vlachs in,
tinople, 199 12. See also specific place-names
Theon, 47 Thucydides, 250
Theophanes, monk, 313n43 Tiferno, Gregorio da, 254
Theophanes, painter, 291n55 Timurtaş Bey, 150
Theophrastus, 243 Tocco family, 8, 158. See also indi­
Thessalonians, quoted, 306n32 vidual rulers
Thessalonica, 3, 87, 136, 243, 251; Tocco, Leonardo, Count, 116
coronation of Theodore Comnenus Tokat, Asia Minor, 225
Ducas in, 32; Councils of, 146-47, Tophane, 196
148, 149; Fourth Crusade and, 28; Torsello, Marino Sañudo, 42, 43-44
Hesychasm and, 57, 58, 59, 235, Torzelo, J., cited, 152
236; Klisura and, 268n32; Palae- Tozis, Giannis, quoted, 286nn82-83
ologian Renaissance in, 46, 47, 49— trade, 4 - 5 , 16, 108, 136-37; Italian,
54, 80, 116; pottery of, 24; Otto­ 59, 63, 188, 190, 202, 235; middle
man Turks and, 77, 78, 81, 85, 92, class and, 128, 131; monasteries
94, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 113, and, 88; Trebizond and, 222, 225;
114, 117-18, 120-21, 123, 124-25, Turkish invasions and, 76, 161
146-48, 151, 162, 206, 300n42, tragedy, 21
328n29; Vlachs in, 14; walls of the Transylvania, 73, 178
citadel of, 119(fig.); Yuruks in, Trapezountios, George, 243, 244, 257
162, 163 Traversari, Ambrogio, 239
Thessaly, 13, 31, 56, 111-16, 136, Trebizond, 30, 31, 205, 243; Ottoman
251, 312nl8; Albanians in, 7-8, 10, Turks and, 221-31, 258, 353n56,
33, 78, 111, 112, 153-56, 165, 207, 355nn81, 83. See aho specific place-
269n42; Hesychast civil war and, names
59; Ottoman Turks in, 14-15, 78, Triclinios, Demetrius, 46, 287n2
104, 111, 114, 153-56, 158-59, Trikkala, 8, 111, 112, 159, 165; castle
162, 164-68, 179, 180, 190, 207, of, 9(fig.); spahis of, 153, 154,
211; Slavs in, 2, 5, 8, 10, 114, 154, 155-56; Turahan's gifts to, 167
155, 266n9, 267nl8; weaving in, Trikkala, Order of 1520, 155
39, 166, 167-68. See also specific Tripolis, 209
place-names Trissino, Gian Giorgio, 249
400 INDEX

Tri voliš, Demetrius, quoted, 256 Urban IV, pope, 41

Trojan War, The (chivalric novel), 44 Urban V, pope, 98
Trojan War, The (Benoit de Sainte- Urban VI, pope, 118
Maur), 44 urbanization, 59, 290n36; Turkish in­
troubadours, 45 vasions and, 62, 72, 161
Truth of the Christian Faith, The Urquhart, David, cited, 158, 164
(Trapezountios), 257 Uzunçarsilı, Ismail Hakki, cited, 151
Tsakonia district, 4
Tschelebi, Evliya, 199; cited, 14, 163, Vagenetia, 8
200 Valona (Avlöna), Albania, 7
Turahan Bey, governor of Thessaly, Valtos, 158
135, 153, 156, 163; Constantine XI Vardanis, George, metropolitan of
and, 169, 190; land confiscations of, Corfu, 32
165, 166; Peloponnesian invasions Vardas family, 201, 202
and, 207, 208; Tyrnavos and, 158, Varennes, Aimé de, French poet, 22
164, 167-68 Varlaam monastery, Meteora, 313n43
Turkey, 61, 88,136, 258-59; exchange Varna (Stalin), 136, 145, 146, 274
of Turkish population in Macedonia n89, 286n82
with Greek population in (1923), Varna, battle of (1444), 172, 178,
164, 222; Romans in, 13. See aho 179, 187, 188; Galata and, 302n58
Asia Minor Vasmer, Max, cited, 3
Turkish Bahkh (Zoödochos Pege), Vatatzes family, 65. See aho individ­
Constantinople, 200 ual ruling members
Turkish fleet, 196, 197; in the Aegean, Vatican Library, 244
216, 217, 219, 220, 221; Trebizond Veles, 155
and, 223, 224, 225, 227 Velia, bishop of, 114
Turkish language, 12, 66, 79, 254;
Velthandrus and Chrysantza, 45
Christian liturgy and, 94; personal
Venice, 12, 24, 45, 82, 145, 158, 234;
names in, 338n9
Bessarion library in, 243, 244;
Turks, 5, 22, 23, 57, 139-44, 323n25,
Byzantine refugees in, 201, 202,
324nn31-33; Seljuk, 35, 61-62,
228, 235, 250, 252, 259-60; Coun­
64, 67, 89; Yuruk, 64, 161-65, 179,
cil of Ten (1487) and, 3 1 1 n l l ;
190, 331nnl6, 25. See also Islam;
Cretan colony of, 35-36, 41-42, 80,
Ottoman Empire
96-97, 98, 106-107, 134, 205,
Tursun Bey, 150
215-16, 228, 235, 283n49, 285
Tyrnavos, 158, 164, 167
nn74-75, 311n8; Cyprus govern­
Tzapnides, 228, 355n84
ment and, 134; fleet of, 219-20;
Tzartzoulis, Nikolaos, on Vlachs,
Greek trade and, 59, 63, 137, 188,
273n80
Tzympe, 72, 162 190, 235; Mohammed II and, 188,
196, 197, 213, 215, 219-20, 226;
Uğliesa, John, despot of Serbia, 314 Morea and, 105, 178, 181; piracy
n47 and, 69, 298n8; publishing in, 240,
Umur, son of Theodore, 155 251, 252; Senate resolution (May
Umur Bey, son of Sarutza Bey, 149, 18, 1425), 309n65; Thessalonica's
163, 228, 355n81 resistance to the Turks and, 118,
INDEX 401
146-47, 148, 149; Turkish declara­ 127, 129-30, 165; Turkish pillage
tion of war on (1463), 258 and, 62, 64-65, 69, 71, 76, 78-79,
Vergerio, Pier-Paolo, 239, 245 92, 99, 146, 161, 165, 200; Vene­
Vermion mountains, 4 tian crusaders and, 220. See also
Veroia, 50, 69; Ottoman Turks in, land grants; nobility; taxation; trade
77-78, 274n89 weaving, 39, 166, 177; dyes and, 167,
Vibius Quartus, G., cenotaph of, 121, 332n39
122 (fig.) Weigand, G., cited, 14
Vienna, 257 West, The, see Europe
Views of George Scholarios in His De­ World War II, 29
fense of Aristotle, The (Pros tas Worms, Germany, 257
hyper tou Aristotelous Georgiou
Scholariou antilepseis . . . Gemis- Xanthopoulos, Nicephorus Kallistos,
tos), 171 53
Vinsauf, Walter, English chronicler, Xanthopoulos, Theodore, 53
23 Xenophon, 243
Vizye, on Black Sea, 193 Xeromero, 158, 337n56
Vlach language, 7 Xylalas Palace, 191
Vlachia, see Thessaly
Yakoub, Turkish admiral, 224
Vlachorynchini, 14
Yayakioi', 163
Vlachs, 6, 7, 10, 12-15, 16 266n9,
Yenice Vardar (Genitsa), 163
327nl3, 328n21; ancient Greece
Yenişehir, see Larissa
and, 273n80; Constantine XI and,
Yenitzek, 165
334n23. See also Arvanito-Vlachs;
Yiğit Bey, Pasha, 163
Vlachorynchini
Ypsilantis, Athanasius, cited, 299n26,
Vlastos, Rethemniot Sephes, 311n8
341n35
Voight, Georg, quoted, 365n9
Yugoslavia, 38. See also specific place-
Volos (Demetrias), 112
names
Vonitsa: castle of, 8; episcopal see of,
32
Yuruk Turks, 64, 161-65, 179, 190,
ЗЗІппІб, 25
Voskopojë (Moscopolis), 14, 362n63
Vostitsa (Aigion), 209 Zachary, pope, quoted, 19-20
Voyatzidis, Ioannis K., cited, 28, 40, Zacynthus, 11, 202
185, 288nl2 Zağanos, Turkish admiral, 221
Vryonis, Speros, on janissaries, 318 Zakythinos, Denis, quoted, 262
nl08 Zambelios, Spyridon, on nationalism,
Vryones, Palaeologus, 113 27
Zealots, 53, 124
wakf institution, 123-24, 167 "Zeus" (Phidias), 19
Walachia, 80-81, 114 Zichna, Macedonia, 116, 274n89,
wealth, 55, 59, 98, 206-207; Bessarion 296n40
on, 175-76; Byzantine fiscal policy Zituni (Lamia), 136, 145, 146, 155
(1402-1421), 136-37, 145; Con­ Zoödochos Pege (Turkish Balıklı),
stantinople's siege and, 197, 198, Constantinople, 200
342n64; Gemistos on, 129-30, 131; Zorianos, Michael, ЗОбпЗО
monastic, 56, 60, 85, 88, 113, 123, Zygos district, 5
MAPS
 V^Main <?oints of Albanian Penetration

IONIA N;

ZACYNTHUS
(ZANTE)

l Kala mata ; ) <

Methane (Modorìì
1Г\7 Korone £cr¿r\)
MELOS
Miles

Kt lometers

LZÇZWD
* Penetration of Albanian and Arvanito ~ V t a c h tribes
ШШШШ Main points of Albanian establishment, approximated i-i*-b-17 ^ centuries
The areas marked in the map were not everywhere permanent establish­
ments durina the 14^ through the 17^ centuries, and they were not in­
habited by Albanian immigrants only
 Settlements of Turcoman Tpibes CVuruks) in Western
Thrace, Macedonia^ Thessaty (end of і4^~Цшнпс| of i5tJ> century)·
'.;.'.- Establishments of Turcoman 'Vfctes Vlstib~i386
Tribes
Nevrokop·
30 kil.
• Metemkon
• Strumtca
MTS *HtOrvílos . ·. A . ·
/\Mt<PHalükron
r < ?.·.·'// ::•'•:•
>Siderokastron (Oemir-Htssqr). '
лМШшйюопХ

'%^^s¿- ш і.' :': У > ~ YhrtsbupoHş^

vAchris (Ochrida)

Λ • - ^ N ^ j r ^ J^^mZıçhna Í3e7-Subjeci«m'-І&і-СарЫгг
AMtíPailcon y- .-^^—x_J5^X/ A Mt.<Panaaion
Hzari
: \ • ІЪтіілао* \chrysoupoUs
*'<#? -^ţOrphanc f/ f *^0
/THASOS 7
\.Vegoriiis
^—-s_/-**í?eftdina v-л ^^
L.Cheirnaditis NaouscT ^¡atonica &*°«*¡* K
\J$trjrt»0nic ÇutiT
Û Ar nata
^-Subjection . Ρ
Kasto rja ¿¡f?/, ¡¡¿astori a ѴгГОІа- 1385-1380 i39i*ıst.Ca|>türe:i43û~2nd.Captur(A
\ Sedes £#ƒƒ* ¿f ОгрНпПС
!aí lar;.' - (Türme) • ^ b t t s t a HÍ€r¡SS0>l
Ш
<Polyayr<
~f^ ~ť ~\ Selitsa Ч У */ 9 - KitrOSÏ
Κ>ζαήΓ uj^Mtfljią.Zl Thermalen
£ Anaselitsa 1
Statista
«w \V<ç>-^
\ j K
Katerimi
1430- (^ssandreaiWotidaea)
à Mi Athos
.Servia
Çrevena '
Çuîf
Mt.Chosia Mt.<
ж <Platamon
A 50 kil
HiKamvounia
The Creek 'Peninsuta from i*oz~iézs

LEG-ENí)
Arabatoi (Albanians) ШШРА 'Possessions of the Tbcci
ßyzantine Empire H H I Possessions of the Giustiniani
ШШЛШЈЈ íDespotate of Morea H i Possessions of the Çattilusi
(Duchy of Thebes b Athens Е Ѕ Ѕ ^ Knights of Rhodes
Venetian Possessions § • • «Possessions of various Franltish families
'Principate of Achata ('Patras-Possession of Latin Archbishop)
ИІМ1І Semt-inde pendent populations of the Hindus Mountains
Areas belonging to various Albanian noble families, vassals of the sultan

Miles Kilometers
The text of this book was set in Caledonia Linotype
and printed by offset on Ρ ir S Old Forge manufac­
tured by P. H. Glatfelter Co., Spńng Grove, Pa.
Composed, printed, and bound by Quinn ir Boden
Company, Inc., Rahway, New Jersey.