570

Bu tezde, VIII. Michael Palaiologos tarafından tahtlarının gasp edilmesinden sonra,
İznik yöneticilerinin isimleri ve hatıralarının bir muhalefet ve eleştiri aracı olarak
kullanımı incelenmektedir. Bu tez taht gaspını takiben Laskarid hatırasına dayanan
yeni bir eleştirel söylemin ortaya çıktığını iddia etmektedir. Taht gaspından sonra
devrik hanedanlığın ismi kullanılarak meydana gelen olaylar ve reaksiyonlar
incelenerek bu argüman desteklenmektedir. İncelenecek olaylar arasında iktidardaki
hanedana yönelik komplo girişimleri ve isyanlar ile Laskarid destekçisi kişilere
kutsallık atfedilmesi gibi sosyal ve dini tepkiler yer almaktadır. Buna ek olarak,
Laskarid hafızasının dönemin muhalif ideolojisindeki etkisine dair daha geniş bir
imaja sahip olmak adına kaiserkritik'in bu dönemdeki yeni kalıpları analiz
edilecektir. Son olaraksa Palaiologos hanedanı üyelerinin mevcut duruma tepkisini
görebilmek adına onların Laskarid hatırasına yaklaşımları ve tepkileriyle beraber onu
nasıl özümsemeye çalıştıkları incelenecektir. Sonuç olarak bu tezin temel amacı
İznik hafızasının, çöküşünden sonraki dönemde bir muhalefet aracı olarak etkisinin
ne şekilde devam ettiğinin bütüncül bir resmini elde etmektir.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor
Prof. Nevra Necipoğlu for her comments and guidance that helped me in the process
of writing this thesis. I also express my gratitude to Prof. Koray Durak for
introducing me to the world of Byzantine history. I am also deeply grateful to Dr.
Anestis Vasilakeris for encouraging me into Byzantine Studies and for his lectures
and seminars from which I benefited and learned a lot about the mesmerizing world
of Byzantine art. I owe my deepest thanks to Dr. Athanasia Stavrou for being the
most caring and encouraging person that she is and for patiently teaching me Ancient
Greek throughout my master’s studies as well as her help with the translations in this
thesis. I am also grateful to Dr. Siren Çelik for being a part of my committee and her
valuable comments. I am indebted to all the professors of the History Department for
everything they taught us.
I am deeply thankful to all my friends at Boğaziçi University as we lived
through this journey all together. I cannot thank Gözde Bilgin, Zerrin Mutlu and
Sefer Soydar enough for their friendship and support in my stressful times. Special
thanks go to my mother, Meryem, and my father, Hüseyin, for their endless support
and confidence in me.
During my graduate studies, I have been financially supported by TÜBİTAKBİDEB
(2210-A). I also express my gratitude to the Byzantine Studies Research
Center and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for their academic and financial
support.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction to modern scholarship ...................................................................... 3
1.2 Sources and methodology ..................................................................................... 8
1.3 Chapter plan ........................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 2: PALAIOLOGAN USURPATION AND THE REACTIONS IN THE
NAME OF LASKARIDS .......................................................................................... 12
2.1 Historical background ......................................................................................... 13
2.2 Political opposition .............................................................................................. 28
2.3 Emergence of political saints in the early Palaiologan period ............................ 37
2.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 3: KAISERKRITIK IN THE WORK OF GEORGIOS PACHYMERES
AND THE LASKARID FOIL ................................................................................... 50
3.1 Byzantine kaiserkritik ......................................................................................... 52
3.2 Pachymeres’ motivation for criticism and introduction to his Historia .............. 59
3.3 Traditional patterns of kaiserkritik in the Historia of Pachymeres ..................... 67
3.4 Twelfth-century patterns of kaiserkritik in the Historia of Pachymeres ............. 80
3.5 Later references to the Laskarids in late Byzantine literature ............................. 88
viii
3.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 92
CHAPTER 4: NICAEAN MEMORY FROM THE PALAIOLOGAN
PERSPECTIVE .......................................................................................................... 94
4.1 Michael Palaiologos on his accession to the throne ............................................ 94
4.2 Laskarids and Palaiologans in the History of Georgios Akropolites: a kaiserkritik
of the Laskarids ........................................................................................................ 101
4.3 Andronikos II’s interference for resolution ....................................................... 115
4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 119
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 122
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 129
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis attempts to analyze the ways in which the memory of the Nicaean
Laskarid dynasty was used as an oppositional tool and means of criticism against the
Palaiologan rule during the reigns of the first two Palaiologan emperors, namely
Michael VIII Palaiologos (1258-1282) and Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328).
The usurpation of the Laskarid throne by Michael VIII Palaiologos and the blinding
of John IV Laskaris had caused a great reaction and created a new discourse for the
imperial criticism and opposition in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century
Byzantine Empire. The Laskarid memory and name were used as a subversive tool of
criticism and opposition against the Palaiologans from that date on. This thesis aims
to answer questions like how the usurpation was received by the Byzantines, what
the outcome of the usurpation was for both parties, how this incident created a
Palaiologan versus Laskarid discourse, and how this discourse and the Laskarid
memory were used to criticize the Palaiologan rulers. In addition to this, the way in
which the Nicaean memory was used by the Palaiologans themselves as a means of
propaganda will be also examined.
Michael VIII Palaiologos took hold of the throne of the Nicaean State in 1258
when he made himself to be acclaimed as the regent and co-emperor of John IV
Laskaris who was 8 years old at that time. After the conquest of Constantinople in
1261, by usurping John’s right of rule, he declared himself as the sole ruler of the
Byzantine Empire. He left John in Nicaea for imprisonment and had him blinded to
make sure that he cannot reclaim the throne; in other words, Michael usurped the
2
throne. This usurpation of Michael Palaiologos in 1261 paved the way for the
emergence of a new discussion concerning the legitimacy of the imperial rulers. His
usurpation of the regency from Mouzalon with a coup in 1258 had already created a
questioning of the legitimacy of his power, and his blinding of John Laskaris and
usurpation of his throne enhanced this questioning. Considered along with his
economic, political, and social actions and policies, this question of legitimacy and
wrong-doing against the little John IV created an anti-Michael/pro-Laskarid faction.
This opposition to him and his descendent survived for a significantly long time,
even up until when his dynasty was already well-established. Opposition continued
in different forms, some being more aggressive, some being passive and even
covered; this opposition to Michael in the name of the Nicaean heir and the Laskarid
dynasty had changed its form in time and turned into a political device and a
discourse for criticizing the policies of the present rule.
Therefore, this thesis will be shaped around the early Palaiologan politics,
and the main issue will be the study of the perception of the Nicaean rule and how
the Nicaean rulers and their memory were incorporated and subjected into the
politics of the time, both from the anti-Palaiologan perspective as a tool of
kaiserkritik and subversion, and from the imperial perspective as a tool for the
legitimization of their rule. The questions that this thesis attempts to answer are
formed around the issue of usurpation and its aftermath. It is significant to explore
and analyze the reception and reaction of the Byzantines to this usurpation. By
analyzing the political and social reactions to this event, the thesis endeavors to
understand the creation of a new discourse for the criticism of the Palaiologan
emperors. The use of the name of Laskarids as an oppositional and subversive tool
against the Palaiologans; creation of a dichotomy between the two dynasties as the
3
examples of good and bad government, utilization of this dichotomy as a means of
kaiserkritik; and the reaction of Palaiologans to the existence of such criticism are
among the main problems of the thesis that will help us to appreciate the matter in a
more comprehensive way. To achieve this end political, social, and religious
reactions to the usurpation will be analyzed along with an examination of the literary
subversion in terms of its relationship with the abovementioned discourse.
1.1 Introduction to modern scholarship
It is significant to provide a brief introduction to the modern scholarship on the
topics like Nicaean and early Palaiologan history along with the history of Byzantine
kaiserkritik and literary subversion as that could help us to situate this study within
the already existing body of literature.
It is important to recognize that the Latin occupation of Constantinople in
1204 was considered a breaking point for Byzantine history. Nicaean State that was
established after this date was among the several small states that replaced the
empire, but its significance lies in the recapture of Constantinople by a Nicaean ruler.
However, when one examines the existing body of literature on the topic, it is
evident that the history of the Nicaean State usually is not incorporated into the
studies on late Byzantine history. Its history has been commonly studied as an entity
of its own. The major works related to the history of the Nicaean State started to be
studied around the early twentieth century. Alice Gardner’s study on the history of
the State of Nicaea1 written in 1912 can be counted as the first major work on the
field. Gardner provides a detailed account of the political and military history of the
time period following 1204. Another contributor to the field is Michael Angold, who
1 Gardner, The Lascarids of Nicaea: The story of an empire in exile.
4
has a book and several articles on the history of the Nicaean State.2 In his book
written in 1975, Angold’s main concern is to examine the “social and administrative
structure” of the State of Nicaea. John Langdon’s Ph.D. thesis3 and a book he
published afterward4 can be counted among important sources for the history of
Nicaea as well. He is mainly concerned with the reign of John III Vatatzes and
provides a complete picture of his reign in his thesis. However, none of these sources
go beyond 1261 and discuss the continuation of political and social issues that were
transmitted from the Nicaean State into Palaiologan Byzantium.
When it comes to the period after 1261, for the first decades of Palaiologans,
Donald M. Nicol5, Deno J. Geanakoplos6, and Angeliki Laiou7 can be counted
among the major sources. Nicol provides the political history of late Byzantium
starting from 1261, whereas Geanakoplos’ work is only based on the reign of
Michael VIII and Laiou provides the internal and external dynamics of the reign of
Andronikos II. Nevertheless, none of these accounts examine the issues that we had
mentioned earlier.
As these sources demonstrate, the impact of Nicaean rule on the following
period has acquired little to no attention. There are limited works that exceed the
limits of 1261 as a historical separator and deal with the issues that this thesis is
concerned about. Dimiter Angelov must be counted as an important contributor to
the field. In his book on ideology and politics8 he examines a time period from 1204
2 Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society Under the Laskarids of Nicaea
(1204-1261).
3 Langdon, John III Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Imperium in Anatolian Exile, 1222-1254: The Legacy
of his Diplomatic, Military and Internal Program for the Restitutio orbis.
4 Langdon, Byzantium’s last imperial offensive in Asia Minor: the documentary evidence for and
hagiographical lore about John III Ducas Vatatzes’ crusade against the Turks, 1222 or 1225 to1231.
5 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453.
6 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West.
7 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins; The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II 1282-1328.
8 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330.
5
to 1330; he is aware of the continuation of many ideas and themes throughout this
period. He relates the perception of imperial ideology and political thought in the
given period, he also briefly mentions the impact of Nicaean rule and its model in the
early Palaiologan period. He also mentions the value of Pachymeres’ Historia –
which is among the main sources of this thesis— as a work of criticism and the use
of the Laskarids as a historical foil. Besides his work, articles by Teresa Shawcross9
and Ruth Macrides10 are among the works that deal with the impact of Nicaean rule
and the usurpation in the Palaiologan politics and the use of their memory as a tool
for opposition. But none of these sources provide a complete picture of the
opposition done in the name of Laskarids, nor are they concerned with the use of
their memory as a means of kaiserkritik. Therefore, this thesis attempts to fill this
gap in the literature.
Imperial ideology and politics are among the major topics for Byzantine
studies as well; yet, the criticism targeted to these two topics has acquired much less
attention in comparison. Studies on Byzantine kaiserkritik, subversive literature, and
opposition to imperial policy have not collected much attention as a separate
category of their own; when these topics are studied, they are generally included in a
large-scale work on Byzantine political thought or ideology. Nevertheless, when
there are works dedicated to these topics, they mainly deal with the period between
the 6th and 12th centuries, from Prokopios to Niketas Choniates.
The most significant modern work that is focused on Byzantine kaiserkritik
was Franz Tinnefeld’s 1971 book titled Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der
byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates. This book alone
can be considered as the reason behind the focus on the period between the 6th and
9 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor: Politics of Resistance after the Palaiologan Usurpation.”
10 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period.”
6
12th centuries as being the pioneering study on the field. It is not surprising to see
Prokopios gaining much attention as he wrote a book that was entirely dedicated to
the critique of the emperor. Thus, his Secret History is rightfully the first book that
comes to mind while talking about Byzantine kaiserkritik and a very effective one.
Prokopios’s work was also the one that had the most attention from the modern
scholars, and it has a great influence on modern scholarship to a degree that scholars
tend to pay attention to the authors who followed the tradition of Prokopios.11
Nevertheless, Byzantine literature has much more examples in it concerning
the criticism of emperors that does not follow the Prokopian way. Writings of
Byzantine intellectuals had the aspect of defending and criticizing the imperial power
as a “concealed” opinion.12 In a system that was dominantly coercive, it is not
surprising to have the criticism in a concealed form. Byzantine studies historically
based on the idea that Byzantines were in agreement with the imperial policies.
However, in recent years there is an increase in the studies concerning the critical
and “subversive” side of Byzantine intellectuals and their writings. This increase in
the field shows the departure from the traditional stereotypical reading of Byzantine
sources.13
Subversion as a word has the meaning of a secret, underhand activity to
overturn an authority; applied to Byzantine literature it can be used as a concept to
look for the concealed and implied criticism of the authority that is not done in an
open way. Therefore, it differs from the criticism that was applied openly like in the
Secret History of Prokopios.
11 Cameron, “Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories,” 1.
12 Kazhdan, People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies, 157.
13 Angelov, “Power and subversion in Byzantium: approaches and frameworks,” 1.
7
Most of the time criticism comes with a reference to an image of the ideal
ruler and that image is used to criticize the current ruler based on that image. Such
sort of criticism is not directed to the idea of authority or the system itself, but it
rather targets the individuals or families and aims to replace them with the ones that
suit that image. Doubtless, it is not always about the state being ruled by an ideal
ruler, but most of the time it is about the writer’s personal problems with the current
ruler or their alignment of interest with another possible or past ruler. Angelov
describes this kind of criticism as “pointed” and opposes it with the “systematic” one
which targets a system as a whole aiming at a transformation. Systematic subversion
can also be “pointed” to a certain individual or norm, but its end goal is what
differentiates it from the pointed subversion.14
The earlier study that was completely composed to understand the critical
side of Byzantine writing was the book written by Franz Tinnefeld that we have
already mentioned. The study of Tinnefeld was only concerned with the
historiographical works, and it is restricted to the time period from the sixth to the
twelfth centuries. He studies the historiographical accounts one by one in
chronological order and discusses the critical character of each separately. In
conclusion, he is more concerned with the reasons and motivations of writers to
compose such criticism.
Margaret Alexiou is one of the pioneering figures in the field as well. She
studies irony and subversion targeted to authority in literature, she specifically
focuses on the twelfth century.15 Likewise, Paul Magdalino also studies the
14 Angelov, “Power and Subversion in Byzantium: approaches and frameworks,” 7-8.
15 See Alexiou, “Literary Subversion and the Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: A Stylistic
Analysis of Timarion (ch.6-10)”; Alexiou, “Ploys of Performance: Games and Play in the
Ptochoprodromic Poems”; Alexiou, “Afterword- Literary subversion in Byzantium: A partial and
personal perspective”; Angelov, “Power and Subversion in Byzantium,” 1-2.
8
kaiserkritik in the twelfth-century histories. He is more concerned with the aspects
that differentiate the critical attitude of this century than the previous ones. He
emphasizes the existence of a republican character in the works of the time period
that accompanies a criticism of increased imperial power and authority under the
Komnenian regime.16
More recent contributors to the field are the names like Averil Cameron,
Dimiter Angelov, Teresa Shawcross, Liz James, Antony Eastmond, and Maria
Mavroudi. Dimiter Angelov is among the most important names who contributed to
the field. Besides his abovementioned book on imperial ideology, he has also written
many articles about the topic and he is the editor of a work dedicated to subversion in
Byzantium.17 Liz James and Antony Eastmond have studied the relationship between
art and subversion; whereas Teresa Shawcross, Maria Mavroudi, and Ruth Macrides
are mostly interested in textual analysis.
1.2 Sources and methodology
The main sources of the current study are the histories written by Pachymeres (1254-
1307) and Akropolites (1203-1261) along with other primary sources like
hagiographies –like the vita written by Georgios of Pelagonia— or typika when it is
necessary. In Byzantine literature, an emperor, another high ranking individual, a
religious or political group, an institution, religion itself, a culture or tradition, and
many other various subjects can be the target of criticism,18 but, in this study, we will
be focusing on the criticism that is directed to the emperors or dynasties –which can
be defined with the German term kaiserkritik whose literal translation means
16 See Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik.”
17 Angelov and Saxby, Power and Subversion in Byzantium: Papers from the Forty-third Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies.
18 Angelov, “Power and Subversion in Byzantium,” 8.
9
imperial criticism. The written criticism can exist in different genres from
hagiography to poetry, but historiography takes the main spot by providing a more
frequent and varied criticism as its main concern is the emperors and their deeds.
This is the reason behind the choice of these two histories as the main sources.
Concerning the methodology, the thesis is mainly based on the textual
analysis of different narratives. The named sources are analyzed in the thesis within a
framework of concepts, patterns and rhetorical devices that were developed within
the already existing literature on kaiserkritik. These patterns and rhetorical devices
that are used in the thesis to examine the sources in a more analytical way are mainly
based on the framework that is used by Tinnefeld in his analysis of histories in terms
of kaiserkritik. More can be added to this frame of tools and concepts in terms of
kaiserkritik, historiography, and literary studies in further studies.
In addition to an analysis of texts in terms of their critical and subversive
aspects, this thesis will go beyond the limits of textual analysis and also examine the
examples of deeds and ideas which are related to the use of Laskarid memory as a
subversive tool as in the case of sanctification of political figures or the rebellions in
the name of Laskarids. While the textual analysis will provide us the opinions of the
upper classes, the latter will provide us some hints concerning the stand of the
general public –especially the provincial ones— and their opinion on the subject.
These examples will provide us a better portrayal of the political world of the late
thirteenth and early fourteenth century Byzantium. We will be able to understand the
importance of Laskarid memory for the political opposition of the time period in a
more comprehensive way.
10
1.3 Chapter plan
The thesis is composed of five chapters. The introductory chapter is followed by a
second chapter in which the political and socioreligious reactions to the usurpation
and opposition to the Palaiologan rule will be examined. This chapter is more factual
in comparison to the following ones; it relates certain events from a period that starts
with the Nicaean State and continues up until the end of Andronikos II’ reign. The
chapter starts with a brief account of the history of the Nicaean State and the
usurpation of Michael VIII to provide the context. Then, it continues by relating the
acts of opposition done in the name of the Laskarids. The revolts and plots organized
for the revenge of the Laskarids, the use of Laskarid memory both by external and
internal enemies to overthrow the Palaiologans, and the sanctification of Laskarid
and pro-Laskarid figures as a passive reaction and as a part of an anti-Palaiologan
ideology will be examined in detail.
Chapter three will be about written criticism directed to the Palaiologans. In
this chapter, the main source of the thesis –the Historia of Georgios Pachymeres—
will be analyzed in detail, in terms of its critical stand against the Palaiologans,
especially Michael VIII. The chapter first starts with a general account on the
Byzantine patterns of kaiserkritik and rhetorical devices that were commonly used in
it. Then it continues by discussing the life of Pachymeres along with his possible
motives for composing a critique of Palaiologans. In the main body of the chapter,
Pachymeres’ work will be analyzed in terms of the patterns and techniques that are
used for the criticism of Palaiologan rule. Special emphasis will be on the usage of
the Laskarid memory as a tool for subversion and criticism. Lastly, this chapter
presents a few later references to the name of Laskarids in different written sources;
which will demonstrate the continuation of the utilization of Laskarid versus
11
Palaiologan discourse for the critical and oppositional purposes even years after the
reigns of the first two Palaiologan emperors.
Chapter four will analyze the Palaiologan side: it is about the reaction of
Palaiologans to the opposition directed to them in the name of Laskarids. The ways
in which Palaiologans themselves reacted to this opposition are analyzed based on
some writings and including a few examples of events that took place at the time.
The chapter endeavors to demonstrate the tools that Palaiologans and their supporters
used to support their legitimacy and claim of power, and their response to the
criticism directed to them. This chapter starts with an examination of two monastic
documents composed by Michael VIII Palaiologos to comprehend the tools he uses
to defend his stand and legitimize his usurpation. Then, the history of Akropolites
will be analyzed as a work of propaganda written under the sponsorship of Michael
VIII Palaiologos, and the ways in which it treats the Laskarid period. Lastly, the
reactions of the family members of Michael VIII will be discussed with an emphasis
on Andronikos II and the empress Theodora –the wife of Michael VIII; we will
examine how they tried to dissociate themselves from the memory of Michael.
The thesis ends with the fifth chapter in which the final remarks on the topic
and the conclusion of the thesis will be stated along with suggestions for further
studies.
12
CHAPTER 2
PALAIOLOGAN USURPATION AND THE REACTIONS
IN THE NAME OF LASKARIDS
The usurpation of the throne by Michael VII Palaiologos from the last member of the
Laskarid dynasty was a significant event in the history of thirteenth-century
Byzantium. The events and reactions that took place after this can be considered
among the most important social, political, and religious incidents of late thirteenth
and early fourteenth century Byzantine history. The environment created with the
usurpation had caused the name of the Laskarid rulers to become a political foil
against the Palaiologans. Even though their reign ended with the usurpation, the
name and the memory of the Nicaean rule had continued to live in the minds and the
writings of Byzantines for more than a hundred years after the usurpation. The name
Laskaris was still in the stage of politics for many more years after their rule ended
because it was still relevant for the opposition of current Palaiologan rule of the time.
As Shawcross evidently states it “remained on the lips of those who sought to take a
stand against the Palaiologi.”19 The opposition revealed itself in different forms
varying from a revolt of people in the name of Laskarids to sanctification of pro-
Laskarid figures. This chapter will demonstrate the ways in which the reactions
against the Palaiologan usurpation take place. By looking at these reactions we will
be able to achieve a greater level of understanding of how the usurpation was
19 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 203. Even though Shawcross’ statement is only about
the name of John IV Laskaris, it can be generalized for the all members of Laskarid dynasty as this
thesis aims to show.
13
received by the Byzantines, and what was the outcome of the usurpation for the
Palaiologans.
2.1 Historical background
To have a better understanding of the opposition against the usurpation of Michael
VII Palaiologos and the bases of the support for Laskarid dynasty, a brief history of
the Nicaean State and the events that took place later between Michael Palaiologos
and John Laskaris must be provided first.
2.1.1 A brief history of the Nicaean State
The fall of the imperial capital Constantinople to the armies of the fourth crusade in
1204 was a major shocking moment for the course of Byzantine history.20 The loss
of Constantinople and the foundation of a Latin state in the City was very significant
for the Byzantines as the City was among the pillars of the imperial identity.
Following the Latin capture and sack of Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire was
fragmented into small states. Byzantines fled to the different parts of the remaining
Byzantine lands and established new states –Nicaea, Epiros, and Trebizond—all
claiming to be the real inheritors of the Byzantine imperial rule. Among the three, the
State od Nicaea was the most successful one and from there the last dynasty of the
Byzantine Empire emerged.
When Constantinople was under the attack of the crusaders, the emperor of
the time Alexios V Doukas had fled from the city and Constantine Laskaris was
chosen as the new emperor at Hagia Sophia by some members of the aristocracy.21
20 For detailed information on the Fourth Crusade and what happened to the Byzantine Empire
afterwards please see Laiou, Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences.
21 For the discussion on the identity of the person chosen at the time please see Sinogowitz, “Über das
Byzantinische Kaisertum Nach dem Vierten Kreuzzuge (1202-1205),” 351.
14
After his election, he endeavored to organize a final resistance against the crusaders;
however, realizing that his efforts were hopeless he decided to flee to Asia Minor
with his retinue.22 There he and his brother established themselves by gaining the
control of Bithynian territories. Constantine perishes from the history soon after the
fall of the City and his brother Theodore Laskaris –who was the son-in-law of former
emperor Alexios III Angelos and had the title of despot23— took the stage. After
gaining control over the local rulers of Asia Minor, he was proclaimed as emperor at
Nicaea in 1206; thus, he was the first ruler of the Empire of Nicaea.24 In 1208, with
the hope of strengthening his stand, he called for a synod to be held at Nicaea to elect
a new patriarch. The very first deed of the new patriarch Michael Autoreianos was to
coronate Theodore. By this way, Theodore Laskaris made sure that the two
backbones of Byzantine Empire were rebuilt at Nicaea: “the imperial office and the
patriarchate.”25
During the early years of his reign, after establishing his empire and the
patriarchate, Theodore’s main objective was to make this state strong and secure. In
order to reach this end, he fought in every front with different enemies varying from
Latins to Turks and other Greeks. Within the state, his relationship with the
population of Nicaea was in god terms: he gained both the refugees from
Constantinople and the local population by creating a secure and stable environment
for them as well as engaging in construction activities for the safety of the city.26 At
the time of his death in 1222, Nicaea was a center of political and military activities
22 Sinogowitz, “Über das Byzantinische Kaisertum,” 354.
23 Angold, “Byzantine Nationalism in the Nicaean Empire,” 50. Angold, A Byzantine Government in
Exile, 12.
24 Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, 12-13.
25 Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, 13.
26 Foss, A Byzantine Capital and Its Praises, 63.
15
and was the center of patriarchate; the newly established state was in a fine stage and
open to further progress.27
After Theodore’s death, his son-in-law John Doukas Vatatzes took the throne
of the Nicaean Empire and ruled from 1222 until 1254.28 His reign can be considered
as the most successful period of the Nicaea. In his reign Nicaean state had a strong
army and he added new territories to the empire.29 The state was self-sufficient in
terms of production, and with the ongoing trade, economy of the state became more
advanced.30 During his reign Nicaea became a center of education and culture.31
John III Vatatzes was the definition of an ideal good ruler for many in terms
of his management of both foreign and internal affairs. He attempted to create a
peaceful relation with the Eastern and Western neighbors of his state by diplomacy
and negotiations. However, he was also ready to wage war for the good of his state
when diplomacy is not an option; he was also successful when it comes to military
operations.32
Regarding the government, he preferred to appoint the men of merit instead
of the members of noble families. Also, he changed the administrative center to
Nymphaion and Magnesia; which resulted with the outcome of many different
centers of the empire becoming equally important and well-cared. Concerning his
domestic policy, it can be said that he was genuinely interested in the well-being of
his subjects. He endeavored to support the middle and lower classes of the society
and create social justice. He tried to provide better conditions for the peasants,
27 Gardner, The Lascarids of Nicaea, 52-115. Foss, A Byzantine Capital, 61.
28 For a detailed information on the reign of John III Vatatzes see Langdon, John III Ducas Vatatzes’
Byzantine Imperium in Anatolian Exile.
29 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 21-25.
30 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 21-25.
31 Foss, A Byzantine Capital, 65.
32 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 97.
16
artisans, manufacturers within the realms of his empire.33 He wanted the empire to be
self-sufficient; he supported the local production whereas discouraged the use of
luxury items imported. He even issued a law to forbid the importation of luxury
goods. Moreover, to support the agriculture, he tried to make every subject of his
empire landowners. He prevented big land owners to take control of small lands and
he divided the land for small holders.34 He also had lands and animals to meet the
needs of his family and the imperial court; he is also praised for not using public
treasury for his and his family’s expenditures.
His reign also witnessed an increase in the scholarly activities taking place at
Nicaea. John sponsored learning and used his own money to support students. He
established libraries in several cities having books of arts and sciences. Additionally,
John and his wife Irene engaged in many building activities. They built churches,
hospitals, homes for the aged and poor, monasteries and other charities.35
Vatatzes was succeeded by his son Theodore II whose reign only continued
for four years. He was the first emperor from the Laskarid dynasty who was born in
Nicaea; as a result of this, he was more bounded to his motherland. His relations with
his subjects was also in good conditions. He mostly continued the successful policies
of his father and his strategy of appointing the men of merit to the offices. Theodore
was harsher than his father in terms of his treatment of the aristocracy. Both he and
his father also downgraded power that was hold by the members of the imperial
family. They were praised for their such attitude for “not having a numerous and
privileged family” like their predecessors did.36 However, this anti-aristocratic
policies in the long run created an anti-Laskarid sentiment among the long-
33 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 98.
34 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 99.
35 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 101.
36 Angelov, “Byzantine Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople,” 303.
17
established aristocratic families.37 After his death at an early age in 1258, the throne
was inherited to his little son John IV Laskaris.
2.1.2 The usurpation of Michael Palaiologos
Michael Palaiologos’ career before his accession to throne was marked by his
disloyal behavior against the last three emperors of Nicaea.38 Before his actual
usurpation, Michael was accused of treason several times and swear oaths of loyalty
to the Laskarids as a result.39 First of such incidents happened in 1253, when Michael
was a governor in the Thracian towns; and the last one happened before the death of
Theodore II.40 Whether the accusation or the incidents that are reported by the
historians were completely true or not, it is clear from all the accounts of the time
period that Michael was suspected of treason by the Laskarids.
After the first incidence that had happened in Thracia, even though Michael
was given all of his honors back, he did not acquire the governorship of Melnik and
Serres back.41 This can be taken as a proof of the distrust against Michael and the
suspect of him creating an alignment with western neighbors. Moreover, he was
given a new title as the commander of the Latin mercenaries (grand constable); this
can be Vatatzes’ attempt to keep Michael close to his court and away from west.42
After being suspected for many times, Michael finally achieved his goal after the
death of Theodore II and usurped the throne from the little John IV Laskaris.
37 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 204.
38 Langdon, John III Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Imperium in Anatolian Exile, 271.
39 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 206.
40 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus, 21-32.
41 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 26.
42 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 26.
18
Before his death in August 1208, Theodore II appointed the protobestiarios43
Mouzalon as the regent and guardian for his son John who was only nine years old at
that time.44 Mouzalon was unpopular among the aristocrats of the empire as he was a
man of humble origins. Moreover, the dislike for Mouzalon was the result of anger
towards Theodore II himself. Because Theodore II had appointed many men of lower
origins to high rank offices and did not consider those from aristocracy for such high
honors, he was disliked by many men of aristocratic origins. Mouzalon was his
closest friend and officer, as well as he involved in Theodore’s harsh policies against
the aristocrats. All these combined made Mouzalon a hated figure.45 In addition to
this, he was also disliked by the members of clergy again as a result of Theodore’s
independent manner against the Church.46 Pachymeres states that many were in great
hostility against the Mouzalon family and that created a highly threatening
environment for the guardian of little emperor.47
Specifically, Latin troops within the army were among those who hated
Mouzalon the most. This was because they believed to be dishonored by Mouzalon
as he deprived them from their rights. He also neglected to pay their payments and
gifts.48 Moreover, there seemed to be a plan of Theodore II to dismiss the foreign
troops and establish an army only consisting of Greeks; and this might be learned by
the foreign troops.49 As a result of such things, they were ready to kill Mouzalon “if
43 This was a post for a palace eunuch who was the keeper of emperor’s private wardrobe, from the
12th century it became a more prestigious title. For further details see Kazhdan, The Oxford Dictionary
of Byzantium, 1749.
44 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 205.
45 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologos and the West, 34-35.
46 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 35. Geanakoplos, “The Nicene Revolution of 1258 and the
Usurpation of Michael VIII Palaeologos,” 421.
47 Pachymeres, Historia translated by Nathan J. Cassidy, 17.
48 Pachymeres, Historia, 23.
49 Geanakoplos, “The Nicene Revolution of 1258,” 422.
19
given only a little encouragement;” and that encouragement came from no one other
than Michael Palaiologos himself who was the head of the Latin troop.50
On the ninth day of Theodore’s death when a memorial service was going to
take place, the expected revolt happened. Mouzalon was killed at the spot by a Latin
mercenary and many other office holders, fearing for their lives, fled to different
places.51 After the incident, the first step Michael took was to take the child emperor
under his guardianship. However, there were many others from different noble
families all claiming to have the right to be regent. They decided to have an
assembly; many had started to argue about who will be the guardian of the little
emperor John. Eventually, they agreed upon Michael Palaiologos, thinking that he
was the most suitable one than the others: he was from a noble descent, was a good
general and was a relative of the emperor.52 To match his new duty as the regent,
Michael demanded to have a high title that is suitable for his position; accordingly he
was agreed to given the title of megas doux.53
Nonetheless, Michael’s plan was to reach higher than this title; with the help
of bribes, gifts, and promises he managed to find support among the clergy and
nobles. His supporters advocated the idea that the person who is responsible from the
state affairs and who will be receiving foreign ambassadors must hold a higher title
which gives him more authority.54 Despite there was some opposition, his supporters
managed to convince patriarch Arsenios and Michael Palaiologos raised to the rank
of despot.55
50 Pachymeres, Historia, 23-24. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 37-38.
51 Pachymeres, Historia, 25-28.
52 Pachymeres, Historia, 29-30.
53 Pachymeres, Historia, 30-31.
54 Pachymeres, Historia, 34-36. Geanakoplos, “The Nicene Revolution of 1258,” 428.
55 Pachymeres, Historia, 37.
20
His new rank as despot gave Michael the chance to control affairs more
freely, however it was not enough for him to only be a despot. He wanted to become
co-emperor along with John Laskaris to have the total control –and consequently to
become the sole ruler.56 His desire for becoming the co-emperor created another
ground for discussion among nobles and clergy. Michael was trying to do his best to
convince people by making several promises. If he was given the title of co-emperor,
he would honor the Church, the priests, scholars, soldiers, and promote higher ranks
for many people.57 Consequently, he seemed to impress and convince many with his
promises. Furthermore, his supporters tried to convince others with questions like
what if little John dies before reaching to his maturity.58
Even though many were already won over by the promises of Michael, the
patriarch and the bishops had some concerns. They knew that having two rulers
creates an environment of conflict and struggle. However, Michael’s supporters were
much in number and many bishops agreed on making Michael the co-emperor.
Regarding this concern, they bind the two “with dire oaths” and they both made
vows to not plot against each other.59
There were some who did not forget the words and vows that Michael gave to
John III and Theodore II about not engaging in any plot against the dynasty. They
claimed due to this vow it was not possible to declare Michael co-emperor; if this
was going to happen, he indeed must be excommunicated as the vow required.
Nevertheless, the others were not sharing the same idea: the event that was
happening was not a plot against the emperor, rather they were forming a partnership
that will benefit the little emperor John. Moreover, this new oath was being added to
56 Pachymeres, Historia, 37.
57 Pachymeres, Historia, 43-44.
58 Pachymeres, Historia, 38.
59 Pachymeres, Historia, 44-45.
21
the previous one, thus it will be a stronger one and made sure there is no possibility
of plot.60
On the other hand, Michael also had concerns about his future as the coemperor.
Thus, he also demanded the oath to be mutual, and young John to be
bounded by the same rules with him. Moreover, the subjects were made to swear to
take action for revenge if one of the emperors plots against the other61 and magnates
swore to “defend the victim of a plot.”62 Michael was the first one to swear the oaths
to the emperor John as he was still inferior to him; he swore to “counsel him and
attempt no deadly plot against him.” In this way he was raised to the imperial level
and now was the co-emperor.63
When it was the time for them to be crowned, Michael took the child and
following the patriarch they moved to Nicaea. According to the arrangement, John
IV Laskaris must be crowned first, and he must lead the procession whereas Michael
and his wife, being crowned after, must follow John in the procession. However, as it
can be expected at this point, Michael had his own agenda: for him it was not proper
to be preceded by someone who was not even mature yet, thus he must come first. 64
On the day of the coronation, just at the time of the ceremony, Michael made his plan
announced and this created an uproar among those present. Some of the supporters of
Michael had “threatened to harm the child and put him to death” if the plan was not
approved by the clergy.65
Discussions among the clergy took place, after a long time they accepted the
plan by majority; those who agreed had signed a document stating it. However, there
60 Pachymeres, Historia, 45.
61 Pachymeres, Historia, 45
62 Pachymeres, Historia, 46.
63 Pachymeres, Historia, 46.
64 Pachymeres, Historia, 48.
65 Pachymeres, Historia, 49.
22
were others who insistently opposed, to convince them the little John was brought
and made to state his approval of the situation only if he suffers anything. While this
was happening, there were many people threatening him and “the axe-bearing Celtic
regiment” was present there to take action if it was ordered. Thus, under the
circumstances of such threat others had to accept the plan involuntarily. As a result,
Michael and his wife were the only ones crowned at that ceremony and the child was
planned to be crowned later.66 It is important to notice that all this happened in a
short span of time; Michael Palaiologos managed to become an emperor in
December 1208 within only four months.67
When Constantinople was taken back by Michael, he emphasized in his
speech that the capture was destined to him; it was in his reign God showed his
kindness.68 There was no mention of John in his speech, but he only emphasized that
he was the one who was destined to take the city. In his first entrance to the City,
John was absent from the scene again. He took with himself his wife and his son
Andronikos, as well as the mother of queen; they accompanied by the senate and the
council of elders.69 After their entrance to the city, Michael wanted to be crowned for
a second time in Hagia Sophia; in September 1261 a second coronation took place.
John Laskaris’ coronation was again neglected and there was no mention of his
name.70
Conquest of Constantinople was so significant for Michael to legitimize his
place as the rightful emperor of the throne and made people forget his past as the
usurper. That is the reason why he made himself crowned a second time in the city
66 Pachymeres, Historia, 49-50.
67 Geanakoplos, “The Nicene Revolution of 1258,” 430.
68 Pachymeres, Historia, 76.
69 Pachymeres, Historia, 78.
70 Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, 92. Pachymeres, Relations historique ed. A. Failler and
trans. by V. Laurent, 232.
23
and along with his wife and his child Andronikos II. Moreover, it cannot be a
coincidence that Michael got rid of John Laskaris completely and claimed his son
Andronikos as co-emperor to create his own dynasty after the conquest of the City
which he might have believed had given him the right to do so.71
The existence of John along with himself was causing Michael insecurity, so,
he believed that John should not be reigning with him as having two emperors was a
source of disorder. John was not mentioned nor honored during the second
coronation of Michael; this was a step in his “gradual obliteration.” However, it was
not enough for Michael, he did not want to leave any hope for the little one; to secure
his rule as the sole emperor he had to get rid of the little John completely. His
passion surpassed and lead him to engage in, what Pachymeres calls, a shameful
decision: he ordered John to be blinded and sent him away to be locked in a
fortress.72 This incident took place in the Christmas day of 1261 and John was sent
into prison to Dakibyza.73 This was the final step in Michael’s usurpation of the
throne as he secured his place by totally getting rid of John IV Laskaris.
2.1.3 Afterwards of the usurpation
The usurpation of the throne was the main reason behind the questioning of Michael
VIII’ legitimacy; however, it was not the only reason behind the opposition that he
had to face during his reign. Many other incidents that took place in his reign further
enhanced the emergence of oppositions against him. The Arsenite schism, the Union
of Lyons and the loss of Asia Minor along with his fiscal policies were among the
reasons why Michael had to deal with several oppositional parties and movements.
71 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, 120-122.
72 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 254-256.
73 Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, 93.
24
All these things combined with his usurpation, had paved the way for the emergence
of an anti-Palaiologan environment in which pro-Laskarid sentiments were able to
get a strong hold. Once the name and memory of the Laskarids had become a tool for
the opposition against Michael, it then continued to be used for his descendants as
well for a long time.
The first of such instances is the emergence of Arsenites. The Patriarch
Arsenios, after hearing the incident, immediately summoned the bishops and
excommunicated Michael VIII Palaiologos.74 This was the beginning of a series of
events that took place as a reaction to Michael’s usurpation of the throne from the
Laskarids. From that date on the tension between the patriarch and the emperor did
not stopped and in 1265 Michael VIII finally had the chance to depose and exile the
patriarch.75 After this incident a group of clergy and laymen parted from the Church
and did not recognize the authority of the newly appointed patriarch.76 Joseph I, the
patriarch who was appointed after the deposition of Arsenios, also excommunicated
by Arsenios; thus Arsenites did not accept his authority and those he appointed.77
Arsenites were mostly supported in Asia Minor which could be related with the
existence of Laskarid supporters there. Many of the clergy and the population of Asia
Minor had sided with the patriarch against the emperor, and from there emerged the
Arsenite faction.78 Nicol claims that some of the Arsenites were not necessarily
concerned with the usurpation and blinding; however, their main concern was the
interference of the emperor in the matters of church.79 However, since this movement
emerged as a result of a tension between the patriarch and the emperor after the
74 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 268. Nicol, The Last Centuries, 44.
75 Nicol, Church and Society in the Last Centuries of Byzantium, 7. Nicol, The Last Centuries, 45.
76 Nicol, Church and Society, 8.
77 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 34.
78 Nicol, The Last Centuries, 46.
79 Nicol, Church and Society, 8.
25
blinding of John Laskaris, Arsenites were mostly associated with pro-Laskarid
figures. They continued to pose a threat to the authorities also in the reign of
Andronikos II until 1312 when they were finally placated.80 After the death of
patriarch Athanasios I, Arsenite demanded to be a part of the body of church again.
An assembly was organized in St. Sophia and the body of dead Arsenios was seated
on the patriarchal throne and dressed in his patriarchal dress; in his hands there was a
formula claiming everyone excommunicated by him to be forgiven.81 That was the
end of Arsenite schism, but until that point they had been among the major problems
of Palaiologans.
Beside this, the reign of Michael Palaiologos also witnessed the Union of
Churches which was among the reasons why there was a strong opposition against
him. Late Byzantine history witnessed two attempts for the union of churches; one
was the Union of Lyons in 1274 and the other was the Union of Florence in 1439.
Michael VIII was good at diplomacy especially in his relations with the West, and he
managed to save the empire from another Latin attack. However, to be able to do so,
he had to agree on the Union of Churches with the West.82 The Union of Lyons did
not receive much support from the Byzantines; indeed, it was hated to a degree that
St. Sophia was ritually cleansed in 1282– just like it happened in 1261— because it
served as the seat of a unionist patriarch for years.83 After the Union, there were
oppositions directed to Michael from different layers of society, even from within his
own family.84 Michael VIII severely punished those who opposed the union and he
imprisoned many people because of their anti-union stand. This also caused the
80 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 36.
81 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 245.
82 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 11-12.
83 Nicol, Church and Society, 18.
84 For a detailed account on the opposition and the family members that opposed Michael see Nicol,
“The Greeks and the Union of Churches”, 3-4. Nicol, The Last Centuries.
26
anger against him and the union to improve. Even though Michael VIII tried his best
to make the union accepted, he never achieved this end. After his death, his son
Andronikos II canceled the union and released the prisoners who were imprisoned by
Michael VIII due to their opposition to the Union. Moreover, Michael VIII did not
receive funerary rites that was fitting for the emperor as he was responsible from the
union; and the salvation of his soul believed to be impossible.85
Another reason of why Michael VIII faced many oppositions was his
treatment of the aristocratic class and the population of Asia Minor. Palaiologan
period witnessed the increasing power of aristocratic class in social, political and
economic relations whereas the power of the central imperial government was in
decline.86 John II Vatatzes and Theodore II Laskaris tried to weaken the power of the
aristocratic class.87 Inevitably, in the long run it created an environment of hostility
against them and when Theodore died, the members of aristocratic class were ready
to overthrow his friend Mouzalon.88 They supported the regency of Michael
Palaiologos who promised them their statue back. Laiou interprets the success of
Michael’ usurpation as the success of this aristocrats who helped his way to the
throne and to whom he promised many things and created marriage alliances with
them.89 After his succession to the throne Michael granted large pronoia holdings to
his supporters.90 As a result of this, the holdings of small pronoia owners were seized
by the large pronoia holders in the late thirteenth century.91 After the loss of Asia
Minor, the local aristocracy also lost their power along with their land; many became
85 Nicol, Church and Society, 18.
86 A.E. Laiou, “The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Palaeologan period: a Story of Arrested
Development,” 131. This group of ruling elites is defined as “the powerful (δυνατοί)”; they were
mainly pronoia holders which gave them economic power that leads the political power as well.
87 Angelov, Imperial Ideology, 4-5.
88 Laiou, “The Byzantine Aristocracy,” 133.
89 Laiou, “The Byzantine Aristocracy,” 135.
90 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 4.
91 Laiou, Byzantine Aristocracy, 141.
27
paid soldiers in the other territories.92 Thus, both small land holders and the
aristocrats of Asia Minor lost their holdings and became refugees during the
Palaiologan times, which could be the reason of their dislike of the Palaiologans.
Asia Minor had a secondary place in Michael’s policy in comparison to
Constantinople and Western relations.93 Michael’s usurpation was not forgotten by
the populace of Asia Minor and he was aware of that. He tried to weaken the area
financially by imposing heavy taxes there, which he thought might weaken their
power and opposition as well.94 Concerning the decline of Asia Minor, Michael
blamed the ones who were fighting against him meaning the Arsenites and pro-
Laskarid parties.95 Whereas the inhabitants of Asia Minor had a dislike for the
central government because they believed the rulers did not do enough to save their
region. That created a tension between the Anatolian populace and Palaiologans
which had caused the people of Asia Minor to be the main supporters of anti-
Palaiologan and pro-Laskarid parties. It was a necessity for the emperors to “stay on
the good side of public opinion”96 as it was among the important features of politics.
This can clearly be observed in the situation of Laskarids and Palaiologans where
one was highly favored by the populace and other was not liked much especially by
the people in the provinces. All of these things combined were the causes of the
emergence of the name of Laskarids as a tool for criticism and opposition against the
Palaiologans.
92 Laiou, Byzantine Aristocracy, 142.
93 Concerning Michael VIII’ policies in Asia Minor, Dimitri Korobeinikov suggests a different
picture, he claims that Michael VIII’ policies were not as bad as it is believed. Please see
Korobeinikov, Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century.
94 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 22.
95 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 23.
96 Kaldellis, “How to Usurp the Throne in Byzantium,” 48.
28
2.2 Political opposition
Michael’s usurpation of the throne had caused some revolts and plots against him
and his descendants in the name of Laskarids, especially John IV Laskaris who was
blinded by Michael. These varies from people’s uprisings to pseudo members of
Laskarid dynasty claiming the throne. Some events took place soon after the blinding
of the John Laskaris whereas some happened years after in the reign of Andronikos
II; moreover, sources demonstrate that the legacy of the Laskarids continued to be
used in the later decades as means of political criticism against the current rule.
2.2.1 Nicaean revolt
John IV Laskaris’ name was used by different parties to support their anti-
Palaiologan attempts. The first of such events had happened only one year after the
blinding of John at 1262 in a frontier land called Trikokkia near Nicaea.97
Pachymeres relates this event as follows: the inhabitants of this frontier zone had
found a blind boy –according to Pachymeres he was blinded by illness— and a
rumor spread among them claiming this blind boy was John. As they believed him to
be from the family that they swore oaths of loyalty; they accepted this false John as
their master. According to Pachymeres, they wanted to take revenge in the name of
him who was victimized by Michael. They proclaimed the child as emperor and
acted as his subjects; they were ready to fight in his name.98
When Michael heard about this incident, he burst into anger. He was afraid of
losing this region in the borders and was aware of the danger that others would
follow the rebels so the incident might get even worse. Therefore, Michael had
decided to send his army against those people to “wage civil war” as Pachymeres
97 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 22.
98 Pachymeres, Relations historiques, 260.
29
calls it.99 Learning about the march of the army against themselves, the farmers took
hold of the nearby fortifications and fight against the army bravely. Having the
informational advantage over the geography, the rebels caused much damage to the
army. The struggle continued for a long time and the army of the empire was not
able to win against this small group of lightly armed people who believed in their
cause of resisting against the Palaiologan emperor. Seeing that it took long time to
defeat those people, they tried to win them over by bribes and promises. Also, they
tried to persuade the rebels by explaining that the real John Laskaris was in Dakibyza
and if they want to see him, they can. By all these means they managed to persuade
some, and others decided to continue their resistance.100
They regarded it as a dishonor to hand over the child who took refuge in their
land, but they were also aware of that it was not possible for them to defeat all of the
enemy. Thus, they decided to make an agreement with the condition of not handing
the boy over to the army; a peace seemed to be agreed. After a while the boy fled to
Turks and those who defended him until the last minute were punished harshly. The
revolt came to an end in this way and the army returned back. 101
It is important here to see that especially those who were living in the
Anatolian borders of the empire were highly attached to the former rule of the
Laskarids. Their loyalty to the Laskarid family even made them engage in a war for
the defense of little John Laskaris. It is also important to notice that, as Shawcross
states, the pretender John was able to find support easily among these people and this
was clearly a result of the efforts of Laskarid rulers who did capture the hearts of the
subjects on that regions.102
99 Pachymeres, Relations historiques, 260.
100 Pachymeres, Relations historiques, 260-264.
101 Pachymeres, Relations historiques, 266-268.
102 Shawcross, “In the Name of the True Emperor,” 210.
30
Laskarid emperors realized the importance of the people those live in the
frontiers and established good relations with them unlike the Palaiologan rulers
whose attitude towards the frontiersmen had criticized by Pachymeres. The eastern
neighbor of the Nicaean Empire were the Turks and the Nicaean rulers used the
frontiersmen as a defense mechanism against their eastern enemies. They were given
certain exemptions and gifts, some were awarded with pronoia; also, the emperors
showed affection and direct support to those people.103 However, what Palaiologans
did was the opposite: Michael both cancelled their tax exemptions and imposed new
taxes on them as well as expected them to join into military services apart from their
own service at the frontiers; moreover, Michael also cut the emotional ties between
the frontiersmen and himself, he distanced from them.104 All these things combined
had weakened the ties between the dwellers of the frontier towns and the imperial
center; the frontiersmen were no longer in good terms with their emperor as they
were before. The political attitude of the emperor Michael VIII against these people
and his usurpation of the rights of a Laskarid had caused the revolt. Therefore, it is
not surprising to see these people revolting against the Palaiologan emperor in the
name of a Laskarid ruler whom they felt attached to.
2.2.2. Charles d’Anjou and John Laskaris
The one that had caused the Nicaean revolt was not the only pseudo-John that
appeared in the history; about ten years after the previous event another pseudo-John
appeared, this time at the opposite side of the empire. Charles I of Anjou, who was
the king of Sicily and the protector of Pope, was posing a great threat of a new
103 Pachymeres, Historia, 2-4.
104 Pachymeres, Historia, 5-6.
31
crusade to restore the Latin Empire at Constantinople.105 He openly accused Michael
of usurping the throne and declared himself as the “champion of those who had been
wronged by Michael VIII.”106 He at first declared his support for Baldwin II, the last
ruler of the Latin Empire, and provided shelter for him.107 However, Baldwin II was
not his only guest: to strengthen his hand against Michael and to legitimize his
intervention more, Charles’ party announced that John Laskarid had escaped from
prison and he too seek refuge in the court of Charles.108
Angevin records contain a letter from this so-called John Laskaris written in
1273 declaring that he managed to escape from “his enemy” and wishes to be
accepted to the Charles’ court; and there is a response written in the same year
declaring that he will be welcomed.109 Angevin documents also suggest that this
person arrived to the court and resided there.110 In despite of the Angevin documents,
Byzantine sources do not mention any escape or involvement of John with Charles.
Considering the political atmosphere of the time such escape would cause an
important uproar at the Byzantium as well, thus it is safe to expect that the writers
would definitely mention it. Moreover, as Geanakoplos points out, Byzantine sources
of Pachymeres and Gregoras provide evidence for the opposite situation where John
Laskaris was still under custody at Dakibyza. According to these sources, in 1282,
after the death of his father, Andronikos II visited John IV Laskaris in prison at
Dakibyza to talk to him and ask forgiveness.111 Thus, Charles claims seems to be a
false rumor and the person who arrived at his court must be another pseudo-John.
105 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 49-50.
106 Shawcross, “In the Name of the True Emperor,” 212.
107 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 212.
108 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 52.
109 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 212.
110 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus, 217. Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,”
212.
111 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus, 217-218. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium,
99.
32
In addition to this, Charles also made alliance with others who were also the
opponents of Palaiologans and the supporters of the Laskarids. For example, he
formed an alliance with the Tsar of Bulgaria who was also an enemy of the Michael
VIII Palaiologos because of his wife who was the sister of John IV Laskaris and was
hostile against Michael.112 He also created alliances with Greeks that bear hostility
against Palaiologans. For instance, the Duchy of Thessaly was ready to support
Charles due to their troubled relations with the Byzantine emperor. Also, a powerful
family called Tarchaneiotes, who were the sympathizers of Arsenios and John
Laskaris, was influential at Thessaly back in the time.113 It is evident that the
supporters of the Laskarids were ready to create alliances with foreign powers
against Palaiologans. Even though Charles d’Anjou’s crusade against Constantinople
never took place as a result of the Union of Churches in 1274, Michael VIII
Palaiologos’ great efforts to stop this from happening shows how much he actually
considered the chance of losing the city to Charles as a reality.
Moreover, it is significant for us to observe the way in which Charles tried to
legitimize his claim and receive more support. His claim of being the champion of
John and having the Laskaris in his side clearly shows that he was aware of the
internal problems that were going on in the empire back in the time following the
usurpation of throne by Michael. From this evidence, one can also reach the
conclusion that the support of the Laskarids and the hostility against Michael was
strong among the Byzantines to a level that Charles thought he would be able to gain
support from within by claiming to have John Laskaris at his court.
112 Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus, 216.
113 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 214.
33
2.2.3 The revolt of Alexios Philanthropenos
It is evident from the sources that the opposition centered around the pro-Laskarid
cause did not come to an end with the reign of Michael VIII. His son and successor
Andronikos II also faced troubles caused as a result of the deeds and policies of his
father, and he seems to be aware of the possible problems that might be awaiting him
in the future. After his father’s death Andronikos II visited the blinded John IV
Laskaris where he was kept in prison. In his visit he ordered to improve John’s living
conditions, he begged him pardon for the things he had suffered and asked him to
recognize Andronikos as emperor.114 Later Andronikos II even made a public
apology concerning the “sin committed by his father” and stated that this wrong deed
must be left in the past.115 These show that Andronikos had thought his acceptance
by John Laskaris him as the emperor would ease the political reactions against him;
and probably he hoped that by this way the sympathizers of Laskaris and Arsenios
would also recognize his legitimacy as emperor. However, his efforts were not
enough to stop the opposition happened in the name of Laskarids.
For instance, a general named Alexios Philanthropenos attempted a rebellion
in the year 1295 in Asia Minor against Andronikos II. He managed to gather a large
body of supporters among the local population who probably supported him to due to
their pro-Laskarid and Arsenite sentiments.116 He was sent to Asia Minor by
Andronikos II to be the governor of the region, he proved to be successful in his duty
and liked by the people of the region. After being sent to Asia Minor by the emperor,
114 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 99.
115 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 216.
116 Laiou, “The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Palaeologan period: a Story of Arrested Development,”
136.
34
Philanthropenos gained successes against the Turks there. He was believed to be a
brave general and a generous, kind person.117
With the support he gained among the populace and the soldiers, he declared
his control of the area.118 This rebellion was actually started by his soldiers and
supported by the masses in Asia Minor. The population of the region considered him
to be someone through whom they could express their dissatisfaction against the
center.119 It seems like he also received support from the clergy in the region who
were probably Arsenites. As they were politically an anti-Palaiologan group, it is not
surprising to see their support for a rebellion against the Palaiologan rule. Moreover,
Philanthropenos’ family was related to the Arsenite leaders in Constantinople.120
Alexios’ aim was not to take control of the imperial throne in Constantinople; he just
claimed to be the independent ruler of Asia Minor. However, he showed hesitation in
his claims which made his support among the soldiers decline. This, caused his
rebellion to be defeated by the central forces.121 And he was blinded by his own
Cretan soldiers.122 Even though this rebellion was not directly related with the
Laskarid cause, it was supported by them; for that reason it must be counted among
the examples that are being given in this study. It is significant to see that this
rebellion once again demonstrated that the people of the region were still
disappointed with the rule of Palaiologans and wanted to free themselves from the
Constantinople even after the reign of Michael VIII had ended.
117 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 81.
118 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 82.
119 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 82.
120 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 83.
121 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 83-84.
122 Laiou, “Some Observations on Alexios Philanthropenos”, 90.
35
2.2.4 The revolt of John Drimys
The first incidence that took place in Andronikos II’s reign as a direct reaction in the
name of Laskarids was the revolt of John Drimys who according to patriarch
Athanasios was a member of the clergy.123 In the spring or autumn of 1305, he
started his revolt by claiming that he was a descendant of the Laskarid dynasty and
thus, was the legitimate heir of the throne.124 Athanasios claims that it is not known
who he actually was; but, no one ever heard of a Laskarid born.125 He said to have
come from the west126, yet the exact place of his departure is not known. Wherever
he was coming from, he arrived at the capital; thus, this time the uprising was
happening at the center of the empire in Constantinople. He arrived at
Constantinople with a group of people who were obedient to him127 and his revolt
gained a huge support also in the capital both from the people and the elite. This was
the last armed uprising made in the name of Laskarids and had gained support from
all the anti-Palaiologan parties.128
Among the elites that helped the revolt were military officers Fernando
d’Aunes and Theodore Doukas Mouzakios,129 as well as scholar Manuel
Moschopoulos and the prison governor Glyks.130 The evidence concerning the
involvement of Moschopoulos and Glyks comes from letters. Concerning Glyks
123 Athanasius, The Correspondence of Athanasius I Patriarch of Constantinople edited and
translated by Alice-Mary Talbot, 203-205.
124 Pachymeres, Relations historiques, 652. Athanasius, The Correspondence 205;Laiou,
Constantinople and the Latins, 197. Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 216.
125 Athanasius, The Correspondence, 205.
126 Pachymeres, Relations historiques, 652.
127 Athanasius, The Correspondence, 203-205.
128 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 216.
129 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 216. There is also another opinion concerning these
two names: Failler based on Pachymeres’ account claims that the revolt of these two military officers
was independent from the Drimys’ one. He bases his argument on the use of the words “ένθεν
μεν…έκείθεν δε” while describing the two incidences; and Failler claims Pachymeres differentiates
the two parties revolting around the same time. For further information see Albert Failler, Le complot
antidynastique de Jean Drimys.
130 Sevcenko, “The Imprisonment of Manuel Moschopoulos in the Year 1305 or 1306”.
36
there is a letter of patriarch Athanasios I in which he asks Andronikos II to forgive
the conspirator Glyks. Because Glyks was trusted to him by John Laskaris when he
was alive, the emperor must act accordingly he says.131 Once again, we see the
involvement of another person who was once close to John Laskaris in a plot against
the Palaiologan rule. Regarding Moschopoulos, evidence comes from his own letters
which he wrote from prison. He admits his involvement in some political actions, but
he claims to be trapped and rejects that he was involved in any criminal acts.132 What
all these demonstrates is that Drimys’ revolt had gained support from a wide group
of elites ranging from the military ranks to scholars.
In regard to the support that he got from the masses there were two main
reasons: the involvement of Arsenites and refugees from Asia Minor. Among the
supporters of the revolt of Drimys there were also Arsenites as they were mainly a
pro-Laskarid and anti-Palaiologan group. 133 It seems like they were the most
important supporters of Drimys; even the headquarter of the revolt seems to be an
Arsenite monastery.134 Rebels were excommunicated by the patriarch Athanasios I
who was an important anti-Arsenite figure, and after the incident Arsenite leaders
were transferred out of the city;135 these are important signs that supports the claim
of the involvement of Arsenites in this rebellion. Another reason of why John
Drimys had gained a mass support from the populace was the loss of Asia Minor to
the Turks and massive migration this loss caused. During the reign of Andronikos II
most of the Asia Minor was lost to Turks and the population of those regions moved
to the western parts of the empire, some to Constantinople. These refugees, accusing
131 Sevcenko, “Notes on Stephen the Novgorodian Pilgrim to Constantinople in the XIV Century,”
174.
132 Sevcenko, “The Imprisonment of Manuel Moschopoulos,” 147-148.
133 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 197.
134 Sevcenko, “The Imprisonment of Manuel Moschopoulos,” 149.
135 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 197-198.
37
Andronikos for their loss and remembering the good Laskarid past, gave their
support to Drimys who claimed to be a Laskaris.136
In the end, what this event shows to us once again is that Drimys, just like
those before him, was aware of the pro-Laskarid feelings that still continued to be
used as a shield against the Palaiologans and what he did was to take advantage of
this political situation. It is worth noting that, among his supporters there were
people who would know it very well that he was not related to Laskarids in any way;
however, they chose to side with him. This can be interpreted as a significant sign of
the anti-Palaiologan atmosphere which might be the result of a disappointment
caused by Palaiologan administration. This disappointment displayed in the form of a
support to a revolt that was reminded the Laskarid past to the masses. Therefore,
even though the actual aim of the revolt was not related to Laskarids or it was no
longer possible to restore the Laskarids to the throne, when it came to the opposition
to current Palaiologan rule the name of the Laskarids used as a subversive tool.
2.3 Emergence of political saints in the early Palaiologan period
In addition to all the social and political reactions targeted to Palaiologan rule in the
name of Laskarids, another form of reaction that has its root in the religious realm
also emerged: which was the sanctification of Laskarid or pro-Laskarid figures. Holy
man and saints played an important role in the Byzantine society throughout its
existence. Emergence of new contemporary saints and holy men was not something
peculiar to the to the Palaiologan period; rather, it can be observed commonly in the
previous periods. However, the peculiarity of the first decades of the Palaiologan rule
was that it witnessed the emergence of some new saints which were related to the
136 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 217.
38
current political strifes of the empire. These new saints were not necessarily related
to religious realm or recognized for their ascetic life; instead they were the faces of
anti-Palaiologan opposition.137
Macrides, by judging from the remaining textual evidence from the time
period, observes that saints did not hold an important place in the Nicaean society.138
However, the later periods witnessed an increase in the hagiographical works. What
replaced the holy man in the thirteenth-century Nicaea was the environment created
by the Laskarids. However, with the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos, saints
reappeared in the scene and this time they were the representatives of the “right
order” of Nicaea like the patriarch Arsenios, and emperors John III Vatatzes and
John IV Laskaris. There were emperors before that remembered as saints like
Constantine the Great, Theodosios the First, Justinian and others; but they were all
related to the spreading of Christianity, defense of Orthodoxy and fight against the
heresies.139 The difference between these emperors and the Laskarids was that the
later were not canonized as a result of their involvement in the religious affairs.
Thus, we observe the emergence and veneration of political anti-Palaiologan saints
throughout the Palaiologan times, especially during the reigns of the first rulers from
the Palaiologan dynasty.
2.3.1 John III Vatatzes the Almsgiver
The Nicaean Empire had reached to its peak during the reign of John III Vatatzes;
thanks to his virtuous rule people were devoted to him. After his death, his affection
in the memories of his subjects had continued to live as a saint.140 Among the ones
137 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 68.
138 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 67-68.
139 Demetrios J. Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 93.
140 Heisenberg, “Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige,” 160.
39
we will discuss his memory seems to be the longest one in terms of its history of
veneration. His memory started to be commemorated within ten years following his
death in the churches of Magnesia.141 John’s memory continued to be celebrated in
his burial place at Magnesia for centuries and his memory is still alive as his name is
on the calendar of the Orthodox Greek Church and his date of commemoration is the
4th of November.142
As we mentioned above his reign was very prosperous and John himself was
a very generous man. Philanthropy and almsgiving were among the virtues that was
expected from an emperor to have. John Vatatzes was definitely satisfying the
expectations as being a philanthropist emperor both with his public and private
benefactions.143 He was praised for building churches, monasteries, orphanages,
hospitals, and old-age homes or refurbishing already existing ones.144 This led him to
be remembered with the title ‘almsgiver’ which was given to him during his
lifetime.145 Pachymeres too mentions Vatatzes’ generosity by stating that he “was the
father of the Romans”146 and he did everything due to “his love of God and his love
for the Romans”147. He also praises John III Vatatzes for not spending the imperial
treasury but his own money coming from his own land and animals for his
philanthropic activities. As Pachymeres relates when he was ill, he gave lots of alms
to the poor and asked patriarch to be the witness of his alms being given from his
own money.148 In addition to this, his social reforms was another factor in his good
reputation as they contributed to the welfare of the lower classes. John Vatatzes was
141 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 93.
142 Heisenberg, “Kaiser Johannes Vatatzes,” 192.
143 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 95.
144 Cassidy, 164-165. Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 69.
145 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 69.
146 Pachymeres, Historia, 31.
147 Pachymeres, Historia, 32.
148 Pachymeres, Historia, 32.
40
highly interested in creating a better standard for the middle and lower classes of his
subjects; he wanted to establish social justice and improve the conditions of lower
classes.149
Even though John Vatatzes was such a good emperor, this was not the only
reason for his veneration as a saint. It can be the reason for the creation of his cult,
however, the continuation of his memory as a saint was highly related to the politics
of the times following his death.150 The first miracle that is attached to his memory
reveals this fact. During the Palaiologan times, the lands of former Nicaean Empire
in Asia Minor were in decline. When Lydia was under attack from the Turks in 1302,
the emperor then, Andronikos II son of Michael VIII, failed and abandoned the land
and left it to the hands of the enemy. It was that time the watchmen saw a man with a
torch at the walls who was dressed as an emperor and he said that the garrison was
under his control. People believed this vision was John Vatatzes and God assured his
protection for them.151
As Macrides observes well this demonstrates that the people were
disappointed with their current emperor and they thought John III to return for their
defense who defended them before.152 The circumstances were such that the subjects
of the Palaiologan regime considered John Vatatzes as their protector. Moreover,
when the region was taken by Turks, John’s relics were not left behind there but
moved to Magnesia. Thus, it is evident that the memory of the ‘good old days’ under
the Laskarid rule in the Asia Minor continued to live in people’s minds and the old
rulers were respected and venerated in such a political context.
149 Constantelos, “Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern,” 97.
150 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 69.
151 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
152 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
41
In the fourteenth century as well, John’s relics were still in Magnesia and
considered to be a source of healing; his relics were respected as a source of miracle
which can be clearly observed in a hagiographical source written for him by
Georgios of Pelagonia.153 The healing power of his relics is also mentioned in three
hymns and a life that are written in the later centuries.154 He “had received the grace
of healing” and his grave believed to heal the sick who had visited it.155 Another
issue that is emphasized is his involvement in the Christianization of many
barbarians. This issue of mass conversion of Cumans is mentioned in the funeral
oration for Vatatzes that was written by Akropolites.156 John Vatatzes’ image as a
saint has most of the elements that one would expect a saint to have: miracles in his
name, a vita, and a celebration day for his name in the calendar of patriarchate.
2.3.2 John IV Laskaris
In addition to the role John Laskaris had played in the social and political opposition
against the Palaiologans, his memory continued to play a subversive role as a saint.
Like his grandfather Vatatzes, John Laskaris was also sanctified; however, since he
had never become a real emperor, there is not an idea of a good ruler created around
his memory as in the case of John Vatatzes. Nevertheless, he was the last
representative of the Laskarid dynasty whose rights were usurped by Palaiologans,
this made him an important figure for the oppositional party. There is not any
hagiographical or biographical work written about him nor he has a day of
commemoration like Vatatzes, but there are some miracle tales developed around his
shrine. For instance, his name was in the lists that were written by fifteenth-century
153 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
154 Polemis, “Remains of an Acoluthia for the Emperor John Ducas Batatzes,” 546.
155 Polemis, “Remains of an Acoluthia,” 546.
156 Polemis, Acoluthia, 546-547.
42
churchmen Agallianos and Syropoulos describing the men and women whose relics
have miraculous powers.157 Also a sixteenth-century manuscript mentions John
Laskaris and the location of his relics by stating that his relics showed healing
miracles.158 The assignment of miracles to John’s relics demonstrates that they were
receiving devotion from the people; thus, he was considered among the saints.159
Laskaris’ remains were first buried in Asia Minor after his death, but then at
the time of Andronikos II, his body was transferred to Constantinople and buried in
the Monastery of St. Demetrios. This monastery was originally a Palaiologan
foundation and was restored by Michael VIII Palaiologos.160 Shawcross discusses
that Michael Palaiologos might have designed the monastery of St. Demetrios to be
his burial place and the tomb John Laskaris’s body is placed was actually designed
for Michael.161 This fact can be interpreted as a public apology for the wrong-doings
that John suffered. Since it was important for Michael’s son Andronikos II to restore
the image of the Palaiologans, the placement of John’s remains in the place of his
father might be interpreted as Andronikos’ attempt to fix his family’s reputation.162
Turning back to John Laskaris’s shrine, the memory of John and his relics must
be well established among the Byzantines that he even made it to the list of foreign
travelers who mentions his shrine and relic. For example, the account of midfourteenth
century Russian traveler -Stephen of Novgorod- mentions his burial place.
He writes about his shrine as follows:
“From there (Contoscalion Harbor) we went to St. Demetrios where the body
of the holy Emperor Laskariasaf (for such was his name) reposes. Sinners
157 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 219-220. Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 72.
158 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 220. Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 73.
159 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 73.
160 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 72.
161 Shawcross, “In the Name of True Emperor,” 220.
162 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 72.
43
though we be, we kissed his body. This is an imperial monastery, and it
stands by the sea.”163
Then, he continues to his narrative by describing the place the monastery was
situated and according to Majeska it must be near today’s Yenikapı region.164 The
excerpt gives a sense that the Russian traveler was not aware of the identity of John
Laskaris, this can be understood from his wrong spelling of the name. However,
Sevcenko claims the word ‘Laskariasaf’ might mean Laskaris Joseph; that, he believes,
can be the name John took after he took the monastic habit.165 In either case, it is
obvious that Stephen of Novgorod is talking about the shrine of John IV Laskaris. One
can suggest that John was only important for Stephen because he might be informed
about him to be a holy man, but he did not know the exact conditions that made him
an important figure. However, even it might not mean much to him, his visit to the
shrine can be a sign that the memory of John was well established among Greeks and
his shrine was counted among the places one must visit with a religious intention.
Because, as Majeska suggests that the Russian travelers might have a guide or guide
book while traveling the city and the relics,166 and if the shrine of John was mentioned
in the guidebook or Stephen was told by some people to visit the shrine, then we might
claim that the shrine had significance for Greeks and they considered it to be among
the important shrines of the city that can be visited by a tourist. Even there was no
guidebook or a guide, again he must be directed by someone to the monastery of St.
Demetrios, so there were people in the city that considered the shrine among the
important body of relics/shrines. Hence, the passage shows us that even though the
163 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries 38.
164 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, 267.
165 Sevcenko, “Notes on Stephen the Novgorodian Pilgrim,” 173. Teresa Shawcross, “In the Name of
True Emperor,” 219.
166 Majeska, “Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople,” 104-108.
44
Russian traveler was not aware of the political value of John, the people of the city
were aware of it. This shrine, however, is not mentioned by the later Russian travelers
who came to the city in late fourteenth or early fifteenth centuries; so it can be argued
that, in time, when the Palaiologan dynasty was well established and the Nicaean days
were in the far past, the shrine lost its importance.
When we look at Pseudo-Kodinos’ account about the offices and ceremonies,
we see that the monastery of St. Demetrios is mentioned in there but there is no
reference to any relic situated within it. The text only says “For the commemoration
of the great Demetrios he (emperor) goes to the venerable monastery of the Palaiologoi
which is honored with his name.”167 The Palaiologan roots of the monastery is
mentioned without giving any details and without mentioning the relics in there, only
important component of the monastery in this passage seems like its name. Emperor
goes there to commemorate St. Demetrios because the monastery carries his name.
This text is, just like the account of Stephen of Novgorod, dated to mid-fourteenth
century, so the relics of John Laskaris were in there at the time and his memory was
still relevant as it is mentioned in the traveler’s account. Even though his name is not
mentioned in the ceremony, we can see that Palaiologan emperors were visiting
annually the place where John lies, and one can expect the memory of him being alive
for the members of the Palaiologan dynasty as well.
2.3.3 Patriarch Arsenios
Finally, the last example of the new saints that we will mention is patriarch Arsenios.
Arsenios was highly associated with the Laskarids and he was a supporter of John
against Michael VIII. In a hymn written for him, Arsenios is praised as the one that
167 Macrides, Munitz. And Angelov, Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and
Ceremonies, 195.
45
exposed the “injustice and the unjust deeds of the emperor.”168 This is the reason that
he can be considered among the political saints that are related to anti-Palaiologan
trend. His deposition by Michael created a tension and paved the way for Arsenite
schism. His canonization had taken place after the death of Michael, just like the other
previously mentioned saints. His relics were transferred from the island of
Prokonnesos to Constantinople, to Hagia Sophia in 1284, in the reign of Andronikos
II just like John Laskaris.169
His body was first placed in Hagia Sophia and then for a short time it was
translated to another monastery, but in the end turned back to Hagia Sophia. And he
was situated in the bema which is a central and important point within the church.170
Thus, this shows the importance given to his memory. His name was among the ones
that commemorated back in the time; however, he is not on the church calendar today
unlike John Vatatzes.171 There is biographical work written for him which also has an
anti-Palaiologan notion, and his relics were also associated with healing miracles. 172
His relics were also mentioned in traveler accounts. Starting again with the
account of Stephen of Novgorod, he mentions the relics of Arsenios while he relates
his visit to Hagia Sophia and when he was in the east of the naos: “From there we went
to St. Arsenius the Patriarch. We kissed his body and a monk anointed us with his
oil.”173 Another Russian traveler Ignatius of Smolensk who visited the city in the last
decade of the fourteenth century mentions Arsenios’ relic very briefly by saying “we
kissed … then the body of St. Arsenius the Patriarch…”174 An anonymous Russian
168 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 74.
169 Talbot, “The Relics of New Saints: Deposition, Translation, and Veneration in Middle and Late
Byzantium,” 221.
170 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 75.
171 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 75.
172 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 75-76.
173 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 30.
174 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 92.
46
account that also dated to late fourteenth century mentions him as “The body of St.
Arsenius the Patriarch reposes on the left-hand side of the altar; healing comes to the
sick from it.”175 Another late fourteenth century Russian traveler named Alexander the
clerk also mentions him very briefly “The relics of holy Patriarch Arsenius are in the
sanctuary.”176 And the last Russian account dated to early fifteenth century written by
Zosima the deacon says “I also kissed … the relics of St. Arsenius the Patriarch.”177
Another account written by a Spanish traveler named Clavijo who came to
Constantinople in the fifteenth century also mentions the relics in St. Sophia, and in
one sentence he says “… in the church we were shown a sacred relic, namely the body
of a certain patriarch that was most perfectly preserved, with the bones and flesh
thereon.”178 Majeska claims that if we judge this sentence within the order he relates
the relics inside the church, its location proofs here he talks about the relics of
Arsenios.179
This is not a surprise that all these traveler accounts mention the relic of
Arsenios as he was placed in St. Sophia that was the first accommodation of all the
travelers. The information provided by them makes it possible to situate the relics
within the church almost correctly. His relic was in the northern side of the sanctuary,
thus in the north-east side of the church.180 Beside this, they also show that his relics
believed to be a source of healing, even one of the travelers had been anointed by the
oil that is probably taken from the lamp above or near the tomb which shows his relics
and related items to his relics were considered to have healing power.
175 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 132.
176 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 160.
177 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 182.
178 de Clavijo, Embassy to Tamerlane 1403-1406, 41.
179 Majeska, “St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: The Russian Travelers on the
Relics,” 84.
180 Majeska, “St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, 83-84.
47
In none of the accounts we see a personal observation or any information
concerning the Arsenios, his life, or the political debates surrounds his memory. This
can be considered as no surprise because Russian traveler accounts generally do not
give such kind of information, but they only present a list of the places and relics that
they visited. However, one of them -Ignatius of Smolensk- relates the political
struggles between John V and John VII in his work as he witnessed them. One might
expect such information in his work, but it does not exist. Clavijo who gives
information about the city and politics in his narrative also does not mention any
information about Arsenios, he does not even seem like he knows what his name was
or who he was. Thus, we might again suggest that the foreign visitors of the city were
not informed about the identity of Arsenios, but they mentioned his name only because
he was situated in Hagia Sophia where everyone visits, and he was a venerated figure
by the Byzantines; however, his memory and relics were important for the Byzantines
that his relics were situated in a central position within the church of St. Sophia. Hence,
just like in the case of John Laskaris, what made his relics to be mentioned in the
accounts of the foreigners is the significance attributed to him by Byzantines; his
political identity -not surprisingly- did not mean much for the foreigners, but they
mentioned both Arsenios and John Laskaris as they were respected figures for the
Byzantines and their relics were incorporated into the body of well-known and visited
ones.
In the end, the examination of the examples of these three new saints makes it
possible to claim their sainthood was related to political tensions of the time, mainly
to the wrongdoings of Michael VII mentioned before – his usurpation of throne,
blinding of John Laskaris and the union of churches-. And this was not only about the
actions of Michael as a person, but it was also about the changing economic and social
48
situation of the time. As it is said earlier, the period of the Nicaean state was an
economically stable and prosperous one in which the populace was more pleased with
the administration; however, with the reconquest of Constantinople this had changed,
and thus the rule of Palaiologans became connected with the loss of well-being for
them.
Looking from the perspective of Andronikos II, all these matters were related
to his efforts for dissociate himself and his family from the memory of his father. When
he took the power as sole emperor, his first act was to renounce the union of churches
and declare the restoration of Orthodoxy.181 He set free all the people they were
imprisoned by his father182 and as it is mentioned above, he translated the relics of
John Laskaris and the patriarch Arsenios to return their prestige -the reason that the
same thing did not apply for the relics of John Vatatzes might be related with the fact
that Vatatzes was not a direct victim of his father’s problematic actions but he was
just related with the old good order of the Nicaean State. Andronikos was also aware
of the dangers the memory of Laskarids in general and of his father’s usurpation was
causing him; thus, by showing his respect to Laskarid related figures, he also wanted
to eliminate the danger of future revolts and plots.
2.4 Conclusion
The usurpation of the Nicaean throne by Michael Palaiologos had caused some social
and political reactions against him and his successors. Some were direct responses to
the usurpation itself like the revolt of the frontiersmen or the sanctification of John
Laskaris. However, others were the result of opposition against the Palaiologan rule in
181 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 94.
182 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 95.
49
general context. There emerged a dichotomy that positioned the Laskarids and
Palaiologans in opposite ends as the examples of good and bad government. The name
and the memory of the Laskarid dynasty and their government of the Nicaean state
became a critical subversive tool against the policies of the current rulers of late
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The sympathy towards the Laskarids and the
positive image of the previous dynasty in people’s mind was so apparent that both the
foreign and internal enemies of Palaiologans used their name as a device to achieve
their goals as we saw in the examples of Charles d’Anjou and Drimys revolt.
Nevertheless, the reactions were not always in the form of revolts, plots or political
criticism, there was also socio-religious reflections of the opposition like the Arsenite
schism in the church and social support they got. Another socio-religious response was
the sanctification of the Laskarid or pro-Laskarid figures as it is discussed. Therefore,
all the above reactions in different forms that we had had a look at against the
Palaiologans and the usurpation of Michael VIII were the instances of the use of
Laskarid memory as a means for opposition and critique.
50
CHAPTER 3
KAISERKRITIK IN THE WORK OF GEORGIOS PACHYMERES
AND THE LASKARID FOIL
Opposition and criticism directed towards an emperor can be observed both in
politics and social reactions of his time, as well as in written sources. This also
applies to the opposition that Michael VIII Palaiologos and his family faced after the
usurpation of throne from the Laskarids. The written criticism can exist in different
genres from hagiography to poetry; but historiography takes the main spot by
providing a more frequent and varied criticism as its main concern is the emperors
and their deeds.183 Concerning the first decades of the Palaiologan rule, Pachymeres’
Historia184 is the most detailed historiographical account of the time period, and it
provides a great amount of critical statements about the Palaiologan administration.
Among the texts that survived from the early Palaiologan period, Pachymeres’
history has an important place for the cause of this thesis as it covers the related
period and has an openly opposing tone against the Palaiologans, especially against
Michael VIII. Thus, this chapter of the thesis will be about the history of Pachymeres
in particular, as he can be considered as the main source that shows the opposition to
Palaiologans in a clear way. Later narrative sources –including the vita written by
Georgios of Pelagonia— that had a similar stand to that of Pachymeres in terms of
their use of the Nicaean past as a tool for criticism against the Palaiologans will also
be briefly mentioned in the chapter.
183 Tinnefeld. Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der Byzantinischen Historiographie, 11-12.
184 The original title of the work is Συγγραφικοί Ίστορίαι, it is translated as Relations Historique into
French by Failler, and there is a partial translation exists in English by Nathan Cassidy in which he
refers to the work as Historia. For purposes of precision we will be sticking to the title used in the
English version throughout this thesis.
51
An analysis of Pachymeres’ account along with other sources can give us
some hints about the ways in which the memory of the former rule can be used as a
subversive tool in literature. In the following pages, after discussing the history of
kaiserkritik and subversive literature in Byzantium; the general frame of the patterns
used in Byzantine kaiserkritik will be drawn. Then, after providing information about
Pachymeres himself, his work and his understanding of history, this thesis will
examine the Historia in detail. Emphasis will be on the first six books as those are
the ones that are dealing with the reign of Michael VIII and Pachymeres is more
vocal in those parts concerning his opposition. The remaining seven book also will
be included when it is related for the certain themes; however, the same kind of use
of Nicaean memory was not a relevant tool for Pachymeres for the reign of
Andronikos II. This is mostly related with Andronikos’ take on the policies of his
father; of which most of the controversial ones Andronikos did reversed. Therefore,
the emphasis will be put on the reign of Michael VIII and the first six books.
Since the main concern of this chapter is not to provide factual information
about the political situation of the period but to analyze the way that Pachymeres
reacts to that situation, chronological order of the book may not be saved, and
irrelevant sections will be excluded from the narrative. A close reading of his work
supported by further readings will enable us to observe the main issues that
Pachymeres was concerned, main themes of his criticism directed towards Michael,
and how Laskarid were a major tool and base for this criticism. We will try to
discuss and situate his oppositional stand within the patterns of Byzantine
kaiserkritik. Moreover, we will have the chance to observe Pachymeres’
understanding of kaiseridee, his thoughts on the role of the state and the public, and
52
how his political thought was similar to or different from the previous historians all
of which also affected the way he composes his criticism of the Palaiologan emperor.
After the examination of patterns and tools of kaiserkritik in the history of
Pachymeres we will briefly examine other references to the Nicaean past as a means
of criticism in the works of Georgios of Pelagonia and others. Since these later
accounts were not written during the early Palaiologan period, they are not included
in the main body of the chapter, but they are included to show that such a discourse
of Laskarids as the representation of ideal emperors and a comparison between the
two dynasties was not something peculiar to Pachymeres and inspired others too.
3.1 Byzantine kaiserkritik
3.1.1 Motivations and concerns of Byzantine critics
Looking at the general characters of Byzantine kaiserkritik, the tendency and
concerns of the author for Tinnefeld plays a central role in the imperial criticism.185
According to Tinnefeld the tendency of the author is determined by his own
individual attitude or by the society around him; individual attitudes also shaped by
social forces.186 Almost all of the historians have high ranks or high social standing,
they criticize because they feel that their position and property is threatened by the
emperor or their class consciousness is what makes them to criticize. This kind of
concerns are generally related with the changes of the dynasties which creates an
environment of insecurity and change on positions of power and property relations
including all classes.187
185 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 182.
186 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 184.
187 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 184-185.
53
For instance, Prokopios writes in the name of the senatorial and landholding
class that established under Anastasios and economically ruined in the reign of
Justinian. Theophanes speaks for the middle class that was promoted by empress
Eirene, but its existence threatened by Nikephoros. Skylitzes expresses the
dissatisfaction of civil and ecclesiastical circles in the capital who felt ignored by
Constantine VII. Psellos from an upper class develops a class consciousness and
criticizes Michael V as he was from the lower class and let the common people to
rise in offices and dignity. Atteliates criticizes Michael VII because his policy of
centralization of the treasury had threatened the prosperity of provincial landowners
which he was a member of. Zonaras writes in the name of civil aristocracy whose
influence in threatened by the military aristocracy during the reign of Alexios I
Komnenos. Choniates demonstrates the class consciousness of the aristocratic class
as he criticizes the attitude of the emperors towards the nobles especially in terms of
rise in office and economic matters. 188
The change of the rule or dynasties also brings the opposite; sometime the
predecessor of the current emperor gets criticized either because the change brought
the historians a personal advantage or the historian is writing an official propaganda
for the current emperor.189 The history written by Akropolites can be considered as
an example for this. All these criticisms that was an end result of the change in the
dynasty was due to social mobility of Byzantium; and this factor was a peculiarity of
the Byzantine kaiserkritik.190
In addition to this, sometimes the opposition of a historian against an emperor
can be the result of his sympathy for a high personality of his time; for instance,
188 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 185.
189 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 185.
190 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 189.
54
Prokopios and Agathias criticize Justinian due to their sympathy for the general
Belisarius who they thought was treated improperly by Justinian. The person that
they wanted to defend could be sometime a general, sometime a patriarch or any
other high rank holder. 191
3.1.2 Commonly used rhetorical devices and patterns of Byzantine imperial criticism
The work of Tinnefeld displays that most of the criticism present in the histories
written between the sixth and twelfth centuries was based on the personality of the
emperor along with a moral and ideological judgment of his policies.192 It is possible
to see certain patterns in the criticism of emperors along with peculiar approaches.
Almost all of the sources have “general and recurring patterns of thought.”193 Politics
were generally interpreted with references to the personal attitudes of emperors. And
these personal attitudes were shaped by certain stereotypical expectations like being
noble and having a good soul, as well as an emperor was expected to love the poor
and humble the rich, thus he can please all his subjects.194
Consequently, one can observe that the Byzantine criticism of the emperor
was based on an image of the ideal emperor. The imperial idea was more likely to be
used in criticism when material was needed for defamation, claims Tinnefeld.195 The
image of the ideal ruler for the Byzantines was composed of features like a good
lineage, philanthropy, generosity, justice, piety, intelligence, wisdom, bravery, and
military success.196 Thus, when it comes to the criticism of the emperor based on this
191 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 186.
192 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 253.
193 Cameron, “Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories,” 16.
194 Cameron, “Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories,” 16.
195 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 192-193.
196 See Kazhdan, “The Social Views of Michael Atteliates, Studies on Byzantine Literature of the
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.”
55
ideal image character traits like greed, treachery, cruelty, tyranny, injustice,
unintelligence, carelessness for people were emphasized to draw a negative image.
Even though the emperor was expected to be the image of the God on earth
and criticized accordingly, he also had some earthly responsibilities; especially the
political and military policies of the emperor considered among the most important
elements of his rule.197 Emperors were harshly criticized for their failures; military,
political and fiscal failures comes as the result of the decisions of the emperors. If
something failed it was either due to the incapability of the emperor, or his
unintelligence and immoral behavior.
Related to this, another characteristic of the Byzantine kaiserkritik was its
formulation as a criticism of the time. For the Byzantines, there was a belief in
people’s responsibility for the course of history; thus, having a strong position,
emperor was responsible from the miseries of the time. Even though there was no
direct relation between an event and a person as its cause, Byzantine authors likes to
associate sinfulness of the people as the cause.198
Byzantine writers did not always state their criticism openly, sometimes little
comments reveal the real opinions of them about an emperor. For instance, even
though John of Epiphenia wrote a neutral account about Justin II, he also writes that
the best thing Justin ever did was to appoint Tiberius as Caesar.199 This statement can
be interpreted as a hidden shade thrown to the whole reign of Justin II. An open
criticism of the current rule would most probably be dangerous for the author to
compose; thus, the only option left was the hidden opposition.200 Sometimes a
critique can be hidden in innocent statements like criticizing imperial officials
197 Cameron, “Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories,” 16.
198 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 190.
199 Cameron, “Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories,” 3.
200 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 191-192.
56
instead of the emperor, however, it is hard to locate indirect criticism as it requires a
complete knowledge on the author and the broader frame of the things they relate.201
Another element of the criticism was the displeasure of the authors because
the power, fame and unity of the empire was not being maintained and promoted by
the emperor enough; this attitude Tinnefeld calls as “empire consciousness” with a
reference to “national consciousness.”202 Having such a point of view Prokopios
criticizes every friendly gesture of Justinian against the foreigners as weakness. Also,
Choniates criticizes the growing influence of the foreigners within the empire.
However, imperial consciousness seems to be put back when it comes to the military
failures of the emperor; to underline the inability of the ruler territorial losses and
military defeats exaggerated.
Whereas in the twelfth century, a change can be observed with regard to the
patterns of kaiserkritik. The criticism turns its shift from the persona of the emperor
to a criticism of the system meaning the way in which emperor uses his power. There
was a critic of the “absolutist system” and emphasis on senatorial power along with
an emphasis on the “public accountability” of the emperor.203 This new criticism
emerged in the twelfth century was a response against the rule of Komnenian
dynasty that established a system of family privilege.204 Therefore, as a response to
this new system what the new imperial criticism emphasized was the way emperor
ruled the state, his treatment of his subjects, his favoritism, and use of public
treasuries as his private holding. The criticism, however, became to be redirected
from the personality of a certain emperor to the state system in which the emperor
operates his power. For instance, Choniates does not necessarily criticizes “the”
201 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 182-183.
202 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 188.
203 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 253-254.
204 Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik.”
57
emperor but he draws an image of a “typical” emperor that applies to most emperors
of the Romans he says.205 However, Choniates’ criticism is targeted not at the
imperial power or imperial government, but at the style in which that system
operates; he emphasizes the need for senatorial power.206 Another example can be
drawn from the history of Zonaras: He makes “an explicit differentiation between the
imperial and the common good”207, and criticizes emperors such as Basil II,
Romanos I, and even Constantine the Great by saying they all did things against the
good of public like burdening heavy taxes on the people, using common property as
their own, and behaving their subjects in a wrong manner.208
Concerning the rhetorical devices that were commonly used in the Byzantine
kaiserkritik, one can look for the several books produced on progymnasmata in the
ancient times.209 Rhetorical devices for the criticism –or to say κοινοί τόποι— that
were used by Byzantine authors were also mostly influenced by the
progymnasmata.210 Among the techniques used were ‘exaggeration’ in the form of
exaggerating a thing for the worse; ‘generalization’ which also goes with
exaggeration in the form of using expressions like everything, everyone, and all were
influenced by the actions of a certain individual or he did everything wrong;
‘comparison’ either with a good example or with another bad example by stating that
this person was even worse than that person, and ‘defamation’ in the sense of
slandering the manner on which an action is based.211 Some other tools used in
Byzantine subversive literature was to make omissions or substitutions in the course
205 Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik,” 327.
206 Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik,” 328.
207 Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik,” 330.
208 Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik,” 330-331.
209 For a detailed information and to access several examples of progymnasmata please see Kennedy,
Progymnasmata, Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric.
210 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 29.
211 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik 29-33; Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 79-80, 105-108, 147-
154, 201-206.
58
of events, emphasis praise in the virtues that the person actually is missing, praise the
achievements which the person did not achieve yet.212 Another important tool was to
use the word ‘tyrant’ or ‘tyranny’ while referring to an emperor and his rule that both
was a tool to criticize the violent disposition of the ruler or the imply that he was a
usurper of the throne.213
Many of these patterns and rhetorical devices can also be observed in the
kaiserkritik of Pachymeres too as we will discuss in the following pages. It can be
argued that Palaiologans had continued a similar government to that of the
Komnenians: they treated the state as “their own patrimony.”214 Therefore, one
would expect to see the continuation of a similar pattern of twelfth-century criticism
towards the Palaiologans. However, as Angelov claims, the late Byzantine historians
based their criticism on the traditional patterns of criticizing the personal attitude and
immoral actions of the emperor.215 They mostly did not apply the twelfth century
example of criticism; to this Pachymeres was an exception. He mixes the traditional
and twelfth century patterns in his kaiserkritik of Palaiologans. In addition to his
discussion of Michael’s immoral acts especially he displayed while usurping the
throne from the little John Laskaris, Pachymeres also criticizes the Palaiologan
policies, tax system, use of public treasuries and their succession practice. He also
gives reference to the notion of public power against the emperor.216
Moreover, Pachymeres himself was a teacher of rhetoric and he had written a
progymnasmata himself.217 Therefore, it is safe to expect someone like Pachymeres
to be aware of the rhetorical devices that was commonly used by Byzantine writers
212 Mullett, “How to criticize the laudandus,” 262.
213 Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik, 35-36, 52.
214 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 254.
215 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 256.
216 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 260.
217 Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 59, 61-63.
59
before him. It comes as no surprise that he made use of such devices himself along
with introducing new themes and tools peculiar to his writing. While he
‘exaggerated’, ‘compared’, and ‘judged’, the character and deeds of Michael, he also
used Nicaean government as a “historical foil” for his criticism of the current rule.
3.2 Pachymeres’ motivation for criticism and introduction to his Historia
3.2.1. Life of Georgios Pachymeres and his writings
In order to get a better understanding of Pachymeres’ writing and to search for the
possible reasons of his opposition to Palaiologan rule, it is better to start with his life.
The information concerning his life mostly comes from his own writings, however
he does not reveal much, especially in the History. He had an autobiographical poem,
but unfortunately it preserved only in excerpts, and the remaining parts of it does not
provide any biographical information.218 Nonetheless, what we know about his life is
still valuable in terms of understanding his standpoint concerning the politics of his
time.
Georgios Pachymeres was born in Nicaea in 1241-42 and believed to die after
1307 when the narrative of his book, the History, ends.219 He was the son of a family
who left Constantinople after the fall of the city to the Latins. He mentions his
Constantinopolitan descent, and the fact that he was born and raised in Nicaea in the
beginning of his work. There is no further information concerning his family and
their background neither in his work nor in another source. Even though, his familial
background is not clear, N. Cassidy suggests that they must have some status as
218 Lampakis, Γεώργιος Παχυμερης, 21, 34.
219 Cassidy, A Translation and Historical Commentary of Book One and Two of the Historia of
Georgios Pachymeres, xiii-xiv.
60
Pachymeres had the opportunity to access to high-level education which would not
be possible if they were not so.220 He spent the first twenty year of his life in Nicaea
and returned to Constantinople in 1261, thus he himself witnessed the last years of
Laskarid rule in Nicaea and the beginning of Palaiologan rule. The years he spent in
Nicaea and the city being his birthplace might had affected the way Pachymeres
regards the issues related to Asia Minor.
His high-education brought him some high rank offices and the two highest position
he appears to had were: protekdios – whose function for the 12th-15th centuries was to
protect those who seek asylum in Hagia Sophia221— and dikaiophylax – which was an
imperial officer appointed among the clergy to deal with the legal issues that
transcends the civil-ecclesiastical divide—.222 He thought to have these two positions
at the same time and by being the sixth highest rank in the patriarchal hierarchy
protekdios was his highest position.223 Hence, he was a part of both the ranks of secular
and ecclesiastical hierarchy, and was involved in issues concerning both realms. It is
quite obvious that Pachymeres was always close to the imperial circles; and he used
this opportunity to observe the events critically.224
Along with the History, Pachymeres wrote some other works in varying
topics from science to theology. He has a book on mathematics and astronomy, a
collection of philosophical writings from Aristotle, some poetry, rhetorical exercises,
letters and theological works.225 However, the History is his longest and most-known
work, and it is the work that Pachymeres is famous for.
220 Cassidy, Historia, xiii.
221 Kazhdan, Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, 1742-43.
222 Cassidy, Historia, xiii
223 Lampakis, Γεώργιος Παχυμερης, 23-24.
224 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 262-263.
225 For a detailed information on his writings please see Lampakis, Γεώργιος Παχυμερης.
61
The book reveals the history of a more than fifty-year period of Byzantium. It
starts from the reign of Theodore II Laskaris –1254— and relating everything in
between, it ends suddenly at 1307. It consists of thirteen books; the first six are about
the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1258-1282), while the others cover the reign
of Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328) until the year 1307. Pachymeres displays a
somewhat critical approach to these emperors; the main themes of the book revolve
around financial problems, political crisis, religious controversies of the time
period.226 Pachymeres’ history provides a more detailed account than the other
histories which covers the same time period.227 Since he was a member of both
secular and religious hierarchies, his work deals with the topics related to two realms
equally, and he is concerned about both politics and religion at the same level as it is
evident in his work.
3.2.2 Preface of the Συγγραφικοί ‘Ιστορίαι
Before examining the content of the Historia in terms of its use of Nicaean past as a
tool for criticism, the preface of the book deserves a close look as it reveals
Pachymeres’ motivation, inspiration, research methods and his way of recording the
history. His preface mainly “follows the traditional formulas of literary
composition,” yet it is possible to obtain information concerning his attitude.228 He
claims not to use “unconfirmed stories from the past,” or not to believe in the things
said by anyone without any further proof.229 Instead he records the events only that
226 Neville, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing, 237.
227 His work historically overlaps with two others: the period until 1261 is also covered in the history
of Georgios Akropolites which will be examined in another chapter of this thesis, and the rest
overlaps with the work of Nikephoros Gregoras. See Cassidy, Nathan. Xv.
228 Lampakis, “Some Considerations on the Historiographical Work of Georgios Pachymeris,” 135.
229 Pachymeres, Historia, 1.
62
he was “a witness” to them at the time of their occurrence, and claims he was a firsthand
observer of most of the things that he wrote down. Beside this, he claims to
attain information from other people who witnessed things but uses these
information “only after obtaining conformation from many others.”230 Hence, he has
a claim of narrating ‘the truth’ that is confirmable.
Like many other historian Pachymeres also has a claim of objectivity. He
declares that it is significant for him to not to overstate the facts as a result of being
“moved by hatred or favor.”231 He states that he has not such feelings, nor has any
intention to fool the audience by praising or dispraising events in an excessive
manner; he just relates them in the way that they are. This statement of writing not as
a result of favor or hatred is first can be seen in the preface of Anna Komnina232, and
later on also exists in the preface of Akropolites. Both Akropolites and Pachymeres
must be aware of Anna’s work; it is significant to recognize the need of both writers
to use this statement, since it was not something used for centuries. This, implication
of them must be related to their stance in the history writing which actually contains
a motivation drove from favor or hatred just like Anna Komnina wrote her history to
defend her father. Therefore, to legitimize their take on the events they might have
felt the need to emphasize such a thing. Or maybe Pachymeres’ use of this statement
was solely based on Akropolites’ use of it; as a kind of irony and reference to his
work which was written from a supportive stand for Palaiologans.
In addition to this, Pachymeres adds that it is better to remain silent
concerning the things which are not necessary to relate than to distort the reality in a
way author prefers to.233 This last point he states opens a room for questions like
230 Pachymeres, Historia, 1.
231 Pachymeres, Historia, 1.
232 Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, 106.
233 Pachymeres, Historia, 1.
63
whether he had ‘remained silent’ on certain things either because they were
unnecessary to relate, or he just preferred not to relate them for certain reasons which
actually might be moved by ‘favor or hatred’. Nonetheless, by stating all these,
Pachymeres’ main motive was to prove his objectivity and to make the audience
believe that what they will read is nothing but the mere facts. It is evident in his work
that he really does try to be objective by only using reliable sources; and by having a
critical approach on the affairs he tries to understand reasons and motives of why
things happened in certain ways. However, this does not stop him to insert his
judgment about the things he relates; and it is possible to distort the narrative even
while using reliable sources and witness account if you are only relating a certain
side of the story and neglecting the other point of views. Thus, the claim of
objectivity and narrating the ‘truth’ must be treated cautiously as the truth depends
on the side you are standing.
Beside this, he states his aim for writing an history as to prevent the occurred
events to be forgotten by time, as this aim also applies for many other historians.
And what further encouraged him to write an history was his feelings about the time
period they are living in. He, like many other writers of any time, was disappointed
of his own time and was remembering the old days as better than present. He
believes that things are getting worse for the Byzantine state and it is far away from
its “previous blooming state.”234 Therefore, even from the very beginning of his
work he clearly states his dissatisfaction with his own time period and prepares the
reader for what is going to follow.
Since Pachymeres’ understanding of writing history was based on his own
witness account, he does not mention any events prior to his lifetime. He clearly
234 Pachymeres, Historia, 2.
64
states that he will omit those times both because he does not have any first-hand
information, and they are already written by others.235 Moreover, he thinks that it is
irrelevant to narrate past events for his present study;236 yet, he makes some
exceptions for occasions which he considers to be necessary. Most of the time these
exceptional references to past are given to support his criticism of Palaiologan rule;
he explains the conditions or policies in the past Nicaean times to compare it with the
Palaiologans. After explaining his approach to history writing, his sources and his
aim of writing, his preface continues with an account of the loss of Asia Minor, then
he starts to narrate the history of the period from Theodore II Laskaris to Andronikos
II Palaiologos.
3.2.3 The dichotomy between the Laskarids and Palaiologans in the Historia and the
motivation of Pachymeres for the criticism
The use of Nicaean memory as a tool for criticism is openly done in the work of
Pachymeres. Whether it was in the sense of a more traditional criticism based on the
image of a good ruler, or another model of criticism based on the twelfth century
ideas, Nicaeans were there as the historical foil. In both kind of criticism Pachymeres
repeatedly uses the rhetorical device of σύγκρισις / comparison again and again to
counter Nicaean rulers with the Palaiologans, especially with Michael VIII. Even at
the very beginning of his work, he starts by comparing the wrong policies of
Palaiologans as opposed to the good rule of Laskarids.237 And this concept continues
later on as well, specifically in the first six book of his history while talking about
235 Pachymeres, Historia, 2.
236 Even though Pachymeres states that he will only mention one past event, he mentions some others
too and make comparison between past and present when that serves for his narrative in terms of
strengthening his claim.
237 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 267.
65
Michael VIII. Michael VIII Palaiologos’ wrongdoings especially occupies an
important place in his criticism, especially his act of usurpation which can be
considered as the reason behind the creation of such a dichotomy between the two
dynasty.
The Historia is a detailed account in every sense, but, when one looks closely
it is clear that Pachymeres gives the most details concerning the time period before
Michael VIII became the sole ruler of the empire. Pachymeres gives a very detailed
account of the process that leads to the final act of usurpation of the throne by
Michael VIII. He devotes a huge part of his account –almost three books out of six—
on the reign of Michael up until to the period of his usurpation. Pachymeres seems
like he wishes to demonstrate that Michael VIII Palaiologos had always planned to
establish his own dynasty and his desire was apparent in his actions from the very
start. Pachymeres clearly develops a plot like a novel in which he explains the path
that lead Michael to become the sole ruler step by step; this plot shows clearly his
master skills in the rhetorics. The introduction of the story is done with the account
of Michael’s previous acts of treason against the Nicaean rulers, and the disbelief on
his loyalty to the emperors. The body starts with the plot against Mouzalon and
continues with Michael’s climb of the ranks one-by-one; then, the climax can be
considered as the coronation of Michael alone. All this narrative end with the
complete usurpation of the throne and the blinding of John IV Laskaris. And the
afterwards is the story of Michael as the sole ruler to which Pachymeres devotes the
other three books on his reign.
It can be claimed that the reason why Pachymeres was so critical of Michael
VIII was highly related his concern for the Asia Minor along with the religious
policies of Michael. As we had mentioned above Pachymeres was born and raised in
66
Asia Minor under the Laskarids, this can be the explanation of his attachment to the
land and why he was highly concerned about the fate of Eastern lands. Pachymeres
was concerned with Asia Minor more than the other writers of the time; and he was
interested in the problems and frustrations of his society.238 Pachymeres gives
detailed information of “movements and struggles” of people of Asia Minor like the
Anatolian Revolt –that was mentioned in the previous chapter—, the situation in
Asia Minor during the Turkish attacks and the arrival of Anatolian refugees to the
capital. He was concerned with the problems of population just like he was
concerned with politics.239 In addition to this, he was also against the religious
policies of Michael, especially the Union of Lyons. These was yet another reason for
him to criticize Michael. In his narrative he describes how the opponents of the union
were treated by Michael with tyranny and how Andronikos II restored the
Orthodoxy.240
As the ‘class consciousness’ was among the key motives of many Byzantine
writers to criticize the emperor, most of them were the members of the upper classes
threatened by the change of the ruler. However, the situation was different with
Pachymeres: like many before him, he also seems to have ‘class consciousness’, but
this time not from the side of upper classes. As it is mentioned above Laskarid rulers
were favored by the lower classes of the society, whereas Palaiologans were mostly
favored by the aristocratic families. Therefore, not being a member of an aristocratic
family must be another reason for Pachymeres to stand against Michael. All these
motives combined with Pachymeres’ support for the Laskarid heir of the throne and
238 Arnakis, “George Pachymeres – A Byzantine Humanist,” 167.
239 Arnakis, “George Pachymeres – A Byzantine Humanist,” 166-167.
240 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 346.
67
his disapproval of Michael’s usurpation had paved the way for his criticism of
Michael.
3.3 Traditional patterns of kaiserkritik in the Historia of Pachymeres
In the work of Pachymeres the patterns of traditional Byzantine kaiserkritik was
followed to a certain degree. The most prominent feature was the criticism of
Palaiologans based on an image of ideal emperor. Laskarids for Pachymeres were the
models for the ideal ruler; thus, his traditional criticism of the Palaiologan emperors
comes from a comparison between the two dynasties as the representatives of right
and the wrong rule. In addition to this Michael VIII was criticized as someone
having bad characteristic treats which is something not suitable for an emperor.
Pachymeres is most vocal in his criticism of Michael VIII especially while relating
the story of his usurpation of the throne and right after his succession to the throne –
which means the first three books of his history. Consequently, Pachymeres draws an
overall negative image of Michael as someone who does not fit into the image of an
ideal ruler, someone not fitting for rule and applying wrong policies that had caused
territorial loss to the empire. In this section we will examine the patterns of
Pachymeres’ criticism of Michael based on the traditional way of criticizing the
personality of the emperor along with his emphasis on his usurpation.
3.3.1 Personal traits
3.3.1.1 Philanthropy and generosity
Philanthropy and generosity were among the most significant features attached to the
image of an emperor in Byzantium. Therefore, it takes an important place in the
68
narrative of Pachymeres as well. Michael’s philanthropy was questioned again and
again in the work, and Laskarids were there to provide a contrast. Pachymeres makes
it sure that the reader was reminded about the philanthropic activities of Laskarids
and a ground for comparison with the Palaiologans was ready.
John III Vatatzes was highly known and praised for his philanthropy and
generosity. This attitude of him was also mentioned by Pachymeres. He even calls
Vatatzes as “the father of the Romans”241 and states that he was donating money for
the love and mercy of God. While talking about his generosity against the poor,
Pachymeres says: “… sackful of gold were channeled out and to each poor man.”242
As it can be clearly observed Pachymeres does not hesitate to ‘exaggerate’ to praise
John III’s act of generosity.
On the other hand, when talking about Michael VIII, Pachymeres tends to
question the intentions of him. For instance, when right after his first coronation
Michael distributed coins to the people it was to make sure that he was loved and
accepted by them.243 When Michael displays generosity to people Pachymeres
questions his reasons of doing so. He says that he does not know if it is Michael’s
nature or if he just pretends. He might be acting generous either because he wants to
create a philanthropic image which can help him as he knows he does not hold
legitimate power; or he was aware of that if he does not act generously as the
previous emperors did, he would not be like them. Thus, he had to act like an
emperor to become one.244 This comment, on its own, shows how Pachymeres
devaluates Michael’s claim to the throne; he does not acknowledge Michael as the
emperor, but just considers him to be an emperor wannabe. Since he does not hold
241 Pachymeres, Historia, 31.
242 Pachymeres, Historia, 32.
243 Pachymeres, Historia, 50.
244 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 252.
69
any legitimate ground for his claim, he just acts in imitation of other emperors like
being a benefactor for the subjects; in doing so he would ensure the
acknowledgement he needs. Pachymeres also creates here a scene where the people
do not consider him as a real emperor, thus Michael tries to win over them by acting
in a generous manner.
According to Pachymeres, one of the most significant attributes of an
emperor is his philanthropic approach to his subjects in return of which he earns the
honor of his position. He continues by claiming that Michael was aware of this; thus,
he wanted to act in an imperial way seeing that the people were provided with gifts
and favors by the previous emperors. Moreover, he considered himself being accused
and was also fearing any condemnations, therefore he followed the path of “deceased
emperors.”245 Even though Pachymeres does not openly clarify why Michael was
feeling accused, what was the cause of his fear, and who were the “deceased
emperors,” one can claim that he again creates a tension between Michael and the
Laskarid. He might be feeling the fear and accusation due to his treatment of
Laskarid child, while the deceased emperors might be the former Laskarids.
3.3.1.2 Greed
Among the negative character traits that were used to criticize emperors was their
‘greed’. In the work of Pachymeres this trait was used in a different way; this time it
was not the Michael himself who was greedy, but he used other people’s greed to
achieve his goals. Pachymeres emphasizes that through gifts and promises Michael
managed to achieve his goals of first to be chosen as regent and then to be claimed
emperor. According to Pachymeres, when Michael was agreed by others to be the
245 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 254.
70
regent as being the most suitable candidate, his suitability “was only one part of the
reason why” he was chosen, and in reality, there were other reasons. Those who
support Michael was given a say at the first place as Michael was the one who
managed the affair, beside this, Pachymeres claims that Michael gained the support
of many men –particularly the ones who lost their position during the reign of
Theodore—with some promises.246 By stating this facts Pachymeres seems to be
questioning the legitimacy of Michael’s election as the real reason for his election
was his secret alliance with some people. Furthermore, Pachymeres also claims that
when Michael demanded higher rank positions, he used bribes and gifts to win the
support of people.247
3.3.1.3 Piety
Piety is yet another trait that Michael was missing according to Pachymeres. He is
most vocal about his opinions on the piety of Michael VIII when it is right after the
blinding of John Laskaris. Pachymeres states that he, whose accession to the throne
was accepted because of his show of possessing piety, was not acting accordingly.248
Power showed his true character and the real reason behind his piety towards God.
By blinding the child, says Pachymeres, Michael blinded his own soul as well.249
Pachymeres throughout his narrative, up until now, was questioning the true reasons
behind Michael’s behaviors; but here he openly expresses that he believes all his
good, virtuous behaviors were just pretended.
246 Pachymeres, Historia, 29-30.
247 Pachymeres, Historia, 32-33.
248 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 256.
249 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 258.
71
3.3.1.4 Tyranny
Pachymeres was not afraid to call Michael as tyrant which was among the futures of
Byzantine kaiserkritik. For instance, after the blinding of John, when Michael
severely punished the ones opposing his act, Pachymeres states that such acts leads
to a tyrannical rule. He ruled no longer in legality but his rule turn into a tyranny
where he did not accept any of the mistakes he does and punishes those who speaks
the truth and this was the result of a fear.250 It can also be seen in the narrative of the
revolt in Nicaea. Once Michael heard about the revolt in the name of John, he was
filled with anger and was no longer concerned with losing this border region; he just
wanted to get rid of them which shows his tyrannical reaction.251 It was only after not
being able to win, the emperor decided to win them over by peace.252
3.3.1.5 Breaking of oaths
Another negative attitude that Pachymeres attributes to Michael was his constant
break of the oaths that he had sworn. Such an attitude was definitely not suitable for
an emperor, emperor must be someone who is trustworthy. Pachymeres continuously
reminds the reader the words Michael had given and then relates the stories that
shows Michael did not keep his words or sometimes openly states that accuses him
of not being true to his word. For example, after his first incidence of disloyalty
against the Laskarids Michael was made to swear an oath of loyalty and was bound
by the church which would excommunicate him if he revolts against the dynasty.253
However, a few pages later Pachymeres relates another story where Michael again
was suspected of disloyal behavior. Therefore, Pachymeres shows that he was not
250 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 258.
251 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 260.
252 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 262.
253 Pachymeres, Historia, 6-7.
72
following his words. Most important example of this was his blinding of little John
IV and his accession to the throne as the sole ruler.
Another incidence that Pachymeres depicts Michael as someone who is not
true to his word takes place after the death of Theodore II Laskaris. Pachymeres here
follows a clever path of showing the immoral character of Michael: he uses an
important device of rhetoric, namely speeches, to manipulate the story to reach to a
certain end. Pachymeres, right before accusing Michael as the head of the plot
against Mouzalon, mentions an assembly gathered after the call of Mouzalon to
discuss his regency. In the assembly, Mouzalon gave a speech stating that he does
not have any intention of taking the throne for himself, and he only will guard the
emperor if the majority of those present there agrees with that.254 There was no
opposition to him among the audience, on the contrary many gave speeches
confirming their support for his rule, and of such man was Michael Palaiologos who
made a very supportive speech.255 It cannot be a coincidence that Pachymeres first
provides Michael’s speech at the meeting declaring his support for Mouzalon and
then he emphasizes that Michael encouraged his troop to kill Mouzalon. By doing so,
Michael was breaking his oath one more time and Pachymeres does not miss the
opportunity to demonstrate this.
The highest amount of emphasis Pachymeres puts on the wows that Michael
had broken was during his first coronation along with John IV and later after his
blinding of John IV Laskaris. When Michael’s claim for the rank of co-emperor was
accepted by many, they bind the two with vows to not plot against each other.256
Michael was the first one to swore the oaths to the emperor John as he was still
254 Pachymeres, Historia, 17-21.
255 Pachymeres, Historia, 21-23.
256 Pachymeres, Historia, 44-45.
73
inferior to him; he swore to “counsel him and attempt no deadly plot against him.” In
this way he raised to the imperial level and now was the co-emperor.257 There were
some who reminded the vows of Michael about not engaging in any plot against the
dynasty.
As it is prominently displayed in this narrative, the concern for a possible plot
against the emperor was always present. Even though Michael was supported and
accepted as the co-emperor, he was bounded by serious oaths whose main purpose
was to prevent him to engage in a plot against the young emperor. It can also be seen
in the narrative that his previous rebellious actions against the former rulers was
brought into question and reminded, this might be a sign of the lack of trust on him
and his words. However, at the end of the day, Michael managed to achieve what he
always wanted as a result of a good strategy not a plot. Moreover, he used the
concerns raised against him to his advantage by demanding the required oath to be
mutual and accordingly demanding subjects to swear an oath to protect both of the
two emperors against a plot from one another. This was to create a legal basis for
himself that he can use against his opponents. This last point is also emphasized by
Pachymeres: according to him this last addition was made because it opens up a
ground for Michael to accuse whomever he wishes to for supporting civil disorder.258
Finally, when he blinded the John Laskaris, once again Michael acted against the
oaths that he had sworn; Pachymeres says Michael ate up all the oaths and
agreements like as if they were nothing.259
Nevertheless, when it comes to Laskarids, Pachymeres seems like he avoids
from attaching any negative personality traits to them. For instance, while he
257 Pachymeres, Historia, 46.
258 Pachymeres, Historia, 46.
259 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 256.
74
mentions the ill-tempered character and rash decisions of Theodore II, he straightly
tries to explain the reason behind this. Pachymeres devotes a couple of pages of his
account to explain the situation of the emperor Theodore II which was, according to
him, the reason behind the emperor’s rash decisions. Theodore was having frequent
seizures260 which Pachymeres thinks was the result of some kind of a heart condition
which affects his brain and thinking as well; this effect on his brain was causing him
to have some disproportioned thoughts sometimes.261 When, after the flight of
Michael to the Turks, emperor Theodore forgave and pardoned Michael, Pachymeres
states that his quickly changing attitudes and thoughts was also the result of his
illness. As it can be seen from the above account, when it comes to Theodore II’s
wrong doings, Pachymeres seems to not blame him for them; but instead tries to
explain the possible reason behind his acts and how his illness affected his decisions.
3.3.2 Michael VIII as usurper
To begin with, Pachymeres’ account draws a clear image of Michael as a passionate
man who can do anything to get the throne he always wanted. Pachymeres depicts
Michael as someone who was always disobedient to the rulers to whom he swore
oaths of loyalty and he always planned to plot against them to take the throne for
himself. He is further introduced as being someone who was “always suspected of
aspiring to the throne,” and it was evident from his “stealthy behavior” that if he had
the chance, he would take the opportunity.262 Moreover, the first events that
Pachymeres makes mention of is the acts of treason that Michael committed against
different members of the Laskarid dynasty. This, in a sense, shows how Pachymeres
260 Cassidy, based on the symptoms described by Pachymeres and others, thinks his illness to be
temporal lobe epilepsy. See Cassidy, 103-104.
261 Pachymeres, Historia, 12-13
262 Pachymeres, Historia, 6.
75
was actually devoted to reveal Michael’s character and he wanted to make sure that
his usurpation is well-known and recorded for the future.
For instance, even though Pachymeres’ history starts with the reign of
Theodore II Laskaris, Michael is the main character of these parts along with
Theodore. The section on the reign of Theodore II Laskaris starts with introducing
Michael Palaiologos: who he was and the office he held at that time. Then comes his
acts of treason, he was first suspected at the time of Theodore’s father John III
Vatatzes for conspiring against the emperor. He rejected the accusations, but he was
not believed –Pachymeres also seems to agree with those who did not believe—.
However, the tensions between Michael and the Laskarid did not stop there. The next
incident happened at the reign of Theodore II. Because of a fear caused by the illtempered
and rash decisions of the emperor, Michael was warned by a friend as he
was still under suspicion. Being afraid for his life, he fled to Turks; then, after being
assured by the emperor that he would not be harmed, he returned back and welcomed
by him.263
From its beginning to the end Pachymeres’ account of the reign of Theodore
II was actually about the relations between the Laskarid dynasty and Michael
Palaiologos. The story was centered around the things that were directly about
Michael or things somehow related to him. Pachymeres does not actually offer a
detailed account about the deeds and rule of Laskaris, but only mentions the events
which prepares the stage for the upcoming story of Michael being a usurper of the
throne. As it was suggested, one of Pachymeres’ motives for writing his history
seems like to record the wrong-doings of Michael for the future, it makes sense that
he ignores other things irrelevant to his account of Michael Palaiologos. Also, one
263 Pachymeres, Historia, 8-9.
76
should question that if Pachymeres ‘remained silent’ for the reign of Theodore to not
draw a bad image of the Laskarid which would not complement his main story
centered around the tension between the good and the bad –namely Laskarids vs.
Michael.
As the reign of Theodore ends, Michael takes the center stage of the narrative
in a more direct way. He appears this time as the main actor behind the plot against
the regent Mouzalon. Pachymeres, after explaining the existing hatred against the
Mouzalon, mentions that a plot was expected to happen against Mouzalon, especially
by the Latin troops. These soldiers were ready to kill Mouzalon “if given only a little
encouragement;” and the man who gave that encouragement was no one other than
Michael Palaiologos who was the commander of the mentioned troop.264 Therefore,
with this act Michael had taken the first step in his way to throne by ensuring his
regency instead of Mouzalon.
Later on, when Pachymeres relates the coronation of Michael as co-emperor,
he draws an image that Michael was again engaging in behaviors not fitting for an
emperor. When it was the time for their coronation, Michael had a plan of making
himself crowned first. His plan was to force the patriarch to do this; and to be able to
force him Michael again used the foreign mercenaries who was involved in his
previous action against Mouzalon. Under the circumstances of such treats he was
crowned.265 Pachymeres, once more, makes it apparent that Michael was acting in a
‘stealthy’ way and made his way to the throne with intrigues. According to
Pachymeres, Michael’s attitude there and his overshadowing of the little John was
just “the beginning of the plot of one against the other.”266 Pachymeres, as
264 Pachymeres, Historia, 23-24.
265 Pachymeres, Historia, 49-50.
266 Pachymeres, Historia, 50.
77
anticipated, does not hide his opinion and enounces his disapproval openly.
In his narration of the following years Pachymeres continues to remind the
reader about the situation of John IV and Michael’s gradual usurpation. Even though
Pachymeres narrates the way that Michael is dealing with the state affairs and his
military campaigns and those topics are not directly related with the John, he inserts
a passage about the little emperor in between the other events. This is also pointed
out by Nathan Cassidy in the following manner: “Pachymeres wishes to ensure that
his readers do not forget that Ioannes was the legitimate basileus, and to inform them
of his life under Michael VIII’s authority.”267 Pachymeres wanted to show how
Michael slowly took John out of the stage in every sense and he openly calls what
Michael was doing as “sidelining” the little John. Michael, even started to not treat to
John in accordance with his imperial dignity.268 Thus Pachymeres wants to make
sure that the reader knows about his situation and how he is being treated by Michael
which, as it is already said before, is a key feature of Pachymeres’ story about
Michael being a usurper.
After the capture of Constantinople, Michael advocated that the capture of the
City was itself enough for him to have the imperial throne; since he “alone” was
responsible for the capture, he should rule “alone” as well. He was no more willing
to regard John “even in name, as his colleague in the empire,” thus he did try to get
rid of him completely.269 He also wanted to make his own son Andronikos his coemperor,
which required Michael to be the sole ruler first. Pachymeres here states
that “the plan” was always in his mind as he was engaged in plots before.270
Pachymeres’ use of the word “the plan” is significant as it shows that this plan was in
267 Cassidy, Historia, 279.
268 Pachymeres, Historia, 63.
269 Pachymeres, Historia, 82.
270 Pachymeres, Historia, 82.
78
Michael’s mind since the beginning; and Pachymeres, being aware of that Michael’s
actions in the meantime were parts of this plan, tried to construct the whole plot of
the story which leads to the end of Michael achieving his goal. Therefore, it is not
surprising to see that Pachymeres, from the beginning of his story, foreshadowed the
final of the scheme by emphasizing every step of it. Pachymeres also states that it
was possible to understand Michael’s plan of plotting if one pays attention to his
actions: there were many clues of it like John not being able to enter to the City
along with Michael. He seems like criticizing those who did not understood this and
did not take any action against him. By breaking his oath Michael committed a major
sin and “this was the beginning of great evil and … disturbance.”271
Pachymeres, once again, does not hesitate to state his opinion; for him the
things Michael did to make his way to the throne was illegal. In the end, what
Michael wanted to do was both to get rid of the “real/legitimate” emperor.
Pachymeres here refers to John as “…τήν του γνησίου βασιλέως …,”272 which can
be translated as real/authentic emperor, legitimate emperor, or emperor by race (birth
right);273 regardless, all these options show his emphasis was put on the right of John
as being the legitimate emperor from whom Michael wanted to take the throne
“illegally.”
After his second coronation, Michael engaged in, what Pachymeres calls, a
shameful decision: he ordered John to be blinded and sent him away to be locked in a
fortress.274 Even though Pachymeres does not openly expresses his frustration, his
statement of John being only trusted in the patriarch might be his accusation of
Arsenios for not saving the child; because he was the only one who could save him,
271 Pachymeres, Historia, 82.
272 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 229.
273 Here Failler goes with the “authentique” option. See 228.
274 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 254-256.
79
but he was not there for the child. Pachymeres shows his grief by stating that John
was just a little tender child who was not aware of the things going on about him,
who does not know what was to be sad or what an oath is. This in a sense, marks the
end of the plot which was set over the tension between the Laskarid and Michael and
Michael’s way to the total control of the throne.
Event thought it was not his intention, Pachymeres’ account reveals that what
makes Michael’s usurpation different was the way he followed. He tried to keep
things legal. Coronation by the patriarch was an essential factor in the making of an
emperor; since its introduction in 450, it became an “institution” of the empire.275
This is the reason why Michael tried to win the support of the clergy, because it was
the church that could legalize his action and power which also expected to influence
the people.276 Michael’s usurpation of the throne was achieved as legally as possible,
he first waited to be crowned by the patriarch to get rid of the little John totally, and
he also made sure that John was not crowned by the patriarch. Therefore, Michael
was not usurping the rights of a ruling emperor whose imperial rank was recognized
with a coronation by patriarch; in this way Michael kept his act legal.277
It is evident from the above account that Pachymeres put a great emphasis on
Michael VIII’s usurpation of the throne. Also, he clearly wanted to add the adjective
‘usurper’ among the other negative traits that he accused Michael Palaiologos as
having.
275 Charanis, “Coronation and its Constitutional Significance in the Late Roman Empire,” 64-66.
276 Charanis, “Coronation and its Constitutional Significance,” 62.
277 Charanis, “Coronation and its Constitutional Significance,” 62.
80
3.4 Twelfth-century patterns of kaiserkritik in the Historia of Pachymeres
Along with his criticism of characteristic traits of Michael as opposed to the ideal
rulers of the Nicaean past, Pachymeres also uses the patterns of kaiserkritik that were
introduced by the twelfth-century historians. The main themes he had involved in the
criticism were the fiscal policies of Palaiologans, sales of offices and succession
practices.
3.4.1 Taxation system and public accountability
The most prominent feature of Pachymeres’ twelfth-century inspired criticism
directed to Palaiologans was about their fiscal policies and use of public sources. For
this critique too Pachymeres uses the rhetorical device of ‘comparison’ with the
Laskarids to show their different government of economy than the Palaiologans. This
comparison of him between the two different approaches to the imperial treasury and
taxes is related to aforementioned patterns of twelfth-century kaiserkritik. His
criticism of fiscal policies of Palaiologans continues throughout his work. According
to Pachymeres, Palaiologans were responsible for the “fiscal mismanagement” of the
state.278 Pachymeres shows how Laskarids, especially John III Vatatzes, filled the
treasury as a result of their wise fiscal policies; however, Michael, on the other hand,
spent what was collected by the Nicaeans starting from the time of his regency. And
most importantly, Pachymeres makes a differentiation between the use of imperial
treasury for the good of state and public and the use of it for the emperor’s own
expenses and good. This was another similar aspect of his criticism to the twelfthcentury
one as he makes a distinction between the public good and imperial interests.
278 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 270-271.
81
In the account of Pachymeres, it is emphasized and showed that Michael
Palaiologos used the ‘public fisc’ according to his will and he mostly used it for his
own good: to attach supporters and win over important people. Whereas Laskarid
rulers had approached tax money as public property and used them only for the state
and public. For their own expenses they used the money that was coming from their
own land.279
The first incidence that Pachymeres mentions was during the appointment of
Michael Palaiologos as the regent of John IV Laskaris. To guarantee the support of
aristocrats and clergy, Michael had used gifts and bribes. However, for these gifts he
did not use his own finances but made use of the treasury. Apparently what Michael
did was to use the imperial treasury for his own good. Even though he was not able
to operate the money as he wished, he found a solution for that. He was fabricating
false needs and was instructing treasurers to pay to certain people in return for that.
In this way he was able to distribute money to those who supported him and gain
more supporters among the aristocrats. The important point here, according to
Pachymeres, was that since Michael himself did not possess much wealth, he
definitely was not rich enough to distribute gifts to aristocrats from his own assets.
Therefore, he would reject any accusation of gaining support via gifts.280 Once again
Pachymeres openly reveals one of Michael’s ‘stealthy’ behaviors; and to make his
wrongdoing more apparent Pachymeres compares Michael with the past rulers to
show how he was unfitting for the task.
Nevertheless, Michael’s use of the public treasury did not come to an end
there. When it was the day for the patriarch Arsenios to arrive at Magnesia to
organize an assembly in which the final decision about the regency was going to be
279 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 271.
280 Pachymeres, Historia, 32-33.
82
taken, it was not enough for Michael to only have the support of some nobles. Thus,
what he did was to make sure he also won the support of the patriarch and the
bishops in his retinue. He tried to gain the support of bishops with gifts for which he
once again used the imperial treasury.281
In comparison to Michael’s use of the treasury, Pachymeres stresses how
Vatatzes had used his own estates and had separated them from public sources as a
good model for financial administration.282 In the middle of his account of Michael’s
regency, Pachymeres interrupts the story and turns back in time to talk about the
situation of the imperial treasury under the rule of Laskaris. Even though he states in
his preface that he will not be writing about the past times and events, he breaks his
rule when it is for the good of Laskaris or, it is better to say, when he wants to show
how Palaiologos mismanaged the affairs. Pachymeres describes how Laskarid –
especially John III Vatatzes— dealt with the imperial treasury. In the imperial
treasury at Magnesia there was “a great amount of money” which was collected
mostly by John III. He was able to collect such amounts thanks to his good
management of affairs, not as a result of unjust and heavy taxation.
When it came to the spending, Vatatzes spent the money wisely for the
expenses of the state, military, and foreign relations. Beside this, Pachymeres also
exemplifies his point with some anecdotes: one was about Vatatzes’ philanthropy
and the other was a conversation of him with his son. Vatatzes was highly engaged in
philanthropic activities; however, for these activities he did not use the imperial
treasury, instead he used the money that was coming from his own land and animals.
Moreover, he wanted his action of using his own money to be witnessed by the
patriarch so that no one would accuse him of using public sources for his own
281 Pachymeres, Historia, 33-34.
282 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 272.
83
expenses.283 The second incident happened when one day his son Theodore was
coming back from hunting. When Vatatzes had seen his son dressed in imperial gold
clothes, he immediately fell into anger, and explained to him how “inappropriate” his
attire was. Those garments were paid with subjects’ taxes, thus, must be used only in
their service on the arrival of foreign embassies.284 Theodore II Laskaris was also
praised by Pachymeres as he distributed the taxes fairly among his subjects.285 As it
is expected, the reason of Pachymeres’ mention of Laskarids and their attitude of not
using the public money for their own good was to demonstrate how Palaiologans
acted in a different way. Michael’s finances was the opposite; he used tax wealth and
public treasury as his own from the very beginning. Thus, one more time
Pachymeres prepares the necessary ground for the reader to judge Michael about his
wrong-doing.
Another significant issue in Pachymeres’ criticism of Palaiologans was the
loss of Asia Minor as it is discussed above. One of the reasons why Asia Minor was
lost, according to Pachymeres, was the economic policies and taxation system of
Michael. Pachymeres makes it clear right from the beginning of his work the tax
policy that Michael had imposed on eastern frontiers was just wrong in ‘comparison’
with the policies of Laskarids. While Laskarids had provided those living in the
frontiers tax exemptions and granted pronoia to the for their living, Michael had
reversed this policy. Apart from abolishing the tax exemptions, Michael imposed
further taxes on them.
Between the Anatolian Turks and the Byzantines there were high mountains;
occupying those places, fortifying them, and having good relations with the dwellers
283 Pachymeres, Historia, 31-32.
284 Pachymeres, Historia, 6; Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 272.
285 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 275.
84
to use them as some sort of a safety blanket was the policy of the Laskarids. The
people of the mountains were very much open to attacks from the enemy and they
did not have the necessary means to resist nor the courage to do so. Accordingly,
what Laskarids made was to bind those people to their state both by showing them
the support of state and the emperor as well as by giving certain exemptions and
gifts. These people were given tax exemptions, and some among them was given
pronoia by imperial order. As a result, having the support of the Nicaean state behind
them, “their fortunes grew” and with the “abundance of livelihood” they became
more courageous against the enemy.286
Being loyal and tied to the Nicaean state, the dwellers of the mountains did
constant attacks against the enemy which according to Pachymeres was something
discouraging for the enemy. Also, these attacks provide them further wealth in the
form of booty. If any sort of attack was about to come from the enemy, these people
were so willing to protect their land against them. Their command was local, and
they had a good amount of wealth which made them more willing to defend their
land against the enemy.287 At the end of the day, this was a win-win situation for
both the inhabitants of frontiers and The Nicaean state as the mainland was safe of
any attacks from the east; Pachymeres seems to consider this to be a proper policy.
Nonetheless, what happened after the reconquest of Constantinople lead to the spoil
of this perfect balance at the eastern frontiers. Military service was imposed on the
frontiersmen apart from their own service and they were put under a new tax
payment to be sent directly to the imperial treasury. Hence, being cut of their wealth
and support, they lost their strength, courage and will to serve the state. Being weak
in wealth and courage, they were no more able to attack against the eastern enemies,
286 Pachymeres, Historia,3-4.
287 Pachymeres, Historia, 4.
85
they could only defend their land against the enemies’ attacks for a time. However,
by the time, as they became more and more defenseless, they left their lands and
fortifications to the enemy.288 Thus, according to Pachymeres the reason behind the
loss of eastern frontiers to Turks and the present unsafe situation of the state from
outer attacks was the misdirected policy of Michael Palaiologos.
Later on in his work, Pachymeres again and again mentions that the heavy
taxes that Michael VIII had imposed on the population was among the reasons why
Asia Minor was lost. For instance, while talking about the loss of Paphlagonia,
Pachymeres states that the population voluntarily subjected themselves to the enemy
as they were tired of taxes.289
3.4.2 Foreign relations and frontiers
Pachymeres’ work starts with a criticism of the foreign policies of the current
dynasty. As Pachymeres points it out, Nicaean State was surrounded by two enemies:
Turks290 in the east and Italians291 in the west. Hence, they had to secure the fronts to
strengthen the mainland. Since it was not possible to fight with the two enemies at
the same time, with a wise decision, Laskarid tried to deal one at the time by making
alliances with the other. First, by making an agreement with eastern enemies, they
fought against the Italians in the coastal regions; getting them out of costs enabled
the Nicaeans to secure their western frontiers.292 At that point, they turned their faces
to the eastern enemy and what they did there seems to impress Pachymeres a lot.
288 Pachymeres, Historia,5-6.
289 Pachymeres, Relations historique, 366; Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 274.
290 In the text Pachymeres refers to them as the Persians. As it was a common practice among the
Byzantine writers, they used the archaic names of places and people living in those lands. Concerning
this practice, see Herbert Hunger, On the Imitation (ΜΙΜΗΣΙΣ) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature.
291 Pachymeres uses the name Italian as an umbrella term to refer to Western Europeans of different
nationalities.
292 Pachymeres, Historia, 3
86
However, what Palaiologans did was trying to fight in the both fronts at the same
time which resulted with the loss of many lands.
3.4.3 Sales of offices
Another criticism Pachymeres directed towards the government of Palaiologans was
about the policy of selling offices which became widespread during the reign of
Andronikos II. He states: “the affairs of the Roman state turned completely for the
worse… many (offices) are sold by the imperial ministers for pay or gifts.”293 While
talking about this issue Pachymeres once again contrasts a Palaiologan ruler with a
Laskarid by comparing Andronikos II’ government with that of Theodore II. The
sale of offices made the men of merit and those who were suitable for offices
alienated and excluded them from services. Whereas Theodore II favored the men of
merit over those with money or friend at court which made his government function
better.294
Even though, Pachymeres seems to be criticizing the ministers of Andronikos
II for the sales, his real target must be the emperor himself. As it is mentioned
earlier, when the authors were not able to criticize the ruler directly, they criticized
those in their service. Since Pachymeres was writing during the reign of Andronikos
it is not surprising to see such devices for ‘hidden criticism’ were used. Moreover, he
also criticizes the officials for not paying the salaries of soldiers in time. At the end,
he openly directs his arrows to Andronikos by stating that he did not punish the
“corrupt officials.”295
293 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 277.
294 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 278.
295 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 278.
87
3.4.4 Succession practices
It is possible to see a little example on the discussion of succession in the history of
Pachymeres. Herakleios was the one who introduced the system of coronating the
sons as co-emperors to secure the establishment and continuation of a dynasty.296
This model was followed by many others later on and Palaiologans were definitely
an important representative of that. When Michael had coronated for a second time
in the City, he made his son Andronikos coronated as co-emperor along with
himself. And it was continued later on by almost all the members of the dynasty; this
is among the things Palaiologans were criticized for. It was also a common theme in
twelfth-century kaiserkritik.
Pachymeres was not like his twelfth-century colleagues: neither he did openly
question or oppose the succession practices, nor he did defend another alternative
model. However, what he did was he inserted a passage in which it is possible to see
existence of ideas that questions the imperial system. Pachymeres puts such ideas
into the mouth of Michael’s supporters. Concerning his coronation, his supporters
tried to convince others with questions like what if little John dies before his
maturity297 or by claiming that he was worthy of rule by stating that:
“For the best basileis … are not those who succeed by right of birth, nor
indeed those chosen by lot… Rather, the best are those who come to rule
through merit and by proving that they are best fitted to rule.”298
Pachymeres’ inclusion of this ideas in his work might be related to a hidden criticism
directed the Palaiologans. Pachymeres was writing during the reign of Andronikos II
who was made co-emperor by his father during his reign to make sure his succession.
296 Dagron, Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium, 29-31.
297 Pachymeres, Historia,38.
298 Pachymeres, Historia, 43.
88
Also, at the time Pachymeres was writing his history, Andronikos II also appointed
his son Michael IV as co-emperor to himself.299 This pattern also continued by later
emperors of the Palaiologan times. Therefore, Pachymeres might be trying to show
that how Michael once came to rule with a criticism of the succession practices; but
then he continued to do the same. Concerning this passage Pachymeres makes no
direct comment, he neither agrees nor disagrees with it; it looks like to be included
for the reader to comprehend and judge themselves. Moreover, the criticism of
succession practices was also another aspect of twelfth-century kaiserkritik against
the Komnenians. Advocation of ideas criticizing the succession among the nobles of
the empire might be also a sign of the fact that twelfth-century ideas of systemkritik
continued to live among the certain classes of Byzantines. In either case, it is
significant to see such ideas being spoken and recorded for the future.
Pachymeres’ work is full of many more examples of criticism directed to
Palaiologan rulers; the ones that we just discussed, however, can be counted among
the most significant ones that are also the examples for the use of Nicaean memory
as a tool for criticism and opposition.
3.5 Later references to the Laskarids in late Byzantine literature
Even though the armed revolts and plots against the Palaiologans in the name of
Laskarids had come to an end in the reign of Andronikos II, the memory of the
Laskarids had continued to live in the minds of people as the saints and model
emperors. Their memory was associated with the good policies and order of their
time as opposed to failures and instabilities of the Palaiologan times. The name of
Laskarid continued to live especially in the literature taking a subversive form. Just
299 Pachymeres, Relations historique II, 218.
89
like in the history of Pachymeres that is discussed above some later sources as well
used Nicaean rulers as the symbols of ideal emperor and had compared them with the
Palaiologan rulers of their time.
The members of 14th century ecclesiastical hierarchy used John Vatatzes’
name as a reminder of what an ideal emperor is. For instance, Patriarch Kallistos
uses John Vatatzes as the “fitting and proper” example of a generous emperor.
However, he gives the example of John III to compare him with a Bulgarian ruler of
Kallistos’ own day; this leaves the impression of him not being able to find a
contemporary example to compare.300 Thus, even after more than a hundred year of
his death John was still in the memories of Byzantines as a model emperor.
Hagiographies were also another source for critical content, they used to
criticize the current rule either in an intended or a direct way. For the time period of
Michael VIII hagiographies was used to express dislike by “avoiding direct
statements.”301 For example the period of iconoclasm was very much reminded
during the reign of Michael VIII as that period provides the perfect example of
punishing and imprisoning those who opposed the emperor.302 But this was not the
only case past was used to criticize the present in hagiographies; the Nicaean past
was also used as a tool for criticism in the hagiographical works. One example is
Georgios of Pelagonia’s vita of John Vatatzes written in 1271, in which also he
describes John as an imperial model for the current rulers of his time who are
obviously the members of Palaiologan dynasty. In his work he compares the virtues
of John Vatatzes with the opposite character of the rulers of his time.303 This text was
300 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
301 Galaki, “Ideological Conflicts in Veiled Language as Seen by the Palaiologan Hagiographers. The
Lives of St. Theodosia as a Case Study,” 405.
302 Galaki, “Ideological Conflicts,” 406.
303 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
90
written like an imperial panegyric in which he praises the John and likens him to
important biblical and classical figures.304 In the introduction he declares that his aim
was to provide an example to his contemporaries to “judge the Palaiologoi,” and
throughout the work he does not hesitate criticize Palaiologans in a direct way.305
In the work Georgios of Pelagonia praises John Vatatzes by saying that he
truly showed to be worthy of the rule. He had a noble soul, a good family, good
appearance, and high education306 as well as he showed his love of God through his
hospitality, his care for the poor and his building activities.307 This according to
Georgios must be the features of a good emperor.
Beside their character, Georgios also draws attention to the accession of John
Vatatzes to the throne: he was not an heir to the throne by blood, but he was the sonin-
law of the previous emperor. This was important for Georgios of Pelagonia to
display because he claims that blood heirs do not always have the features of a good
emperor, instead they were often “corrupted by luxury” and other things that comes
with their situation as being born into that luxurious world.308 He instead proposes a
system of election to pick the best candidate: an emperor must be someone who by
the way of his manners, appearance, soul and mind can receive the votes of everyone
meaning the “generals, governors, army, magistrates, public servants, and finally the
patriarch.309 This kind of a criticism was not peculiar to him as it was among the
common themes of twelfth-century kaiserkritik, and the succession practices of the
Palaiologan rule was among the main issues that the dynasty was criticized for. They
were criticized for appointing their sons as co-emperor to ensure their succession to
304 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 266.
305 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 267.
306 Georgios of Pelagonia, Βίος του άγίου ’Ιωάννου Βασιλέως του ’Ελεήμονος ed. Heisenberg, 197.
307 Georgios of Pelagonia, Βίος του άγίου ’Ιωάννου, 199.
308 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
309 Georgios of Pelagonia, Βίος του άγίου ’Ιωάννου, 196-197.
91
the throne.310 Thus, Georgios also criticizes this by saying that those who received
the rule from their fathers are not worthy of any praise; but those who do not –like
Vatatzes— deserve to be praised.311 Consequently, those who do not deserve the rule
and any praise were the emperors of the Palaiologan dynasty.
In the middle of the fourteenth century, when Kantakouzenos had his
ambitions for the imperial throne, the name of John IV Laskaris come to the stage
once again. This time it was the historian Gregoras who reminded the name of
Laskaris, but he used their memory to defend the Palaiologans. While there was a
civil war going on and Kantakouzenos was about the take the throne, Gregoras
reminds the fate of John IV. He equates the ambitions of Kantakouzenos with those
of Michael VIII and associates John V Palaiologos with John IV Laskaris whose
right to the throne was usurped by Michael.312 Therefore, it is evident that the
usurpation by Michael VIII of the Laskarid throne lived in the minds of the people
and was equated with the unjust claims to the throne.
The members of 14th century ecclesiastical hierarchy used John Vatatzes’
name as a reminder of what an ideal emperor is. For instance, Patriarch Kallistos
uses John Vatatzes as the “fitting and proper” example of a generous emperor.
However, he gives the example of John III to compare him with a Bulgarian ruler of
Kallistos’ own day; this leaves the impression of him not being able to find a
contemporary example to compare.313 Thus, even after more than a hundred year of
his death John was still in the memories of Byzantines as a model emperor. These
examples demonstrate once again that even years after their rule had ended, Laskarid
310 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 280-281.
311 Georgios of Pelagonia, Βίος του άγίου ’Ιωάννου, 197.
312 Shawcross, “In the name of True Emperor,” 226-227.
313 Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 70.
92
emperors still continued to be used as the model image of a good ruler and their
memory used to criticize the current rule within different contexts.
3.6 Conclusion
The usurpation of the Nicaean throne by Michael VIII had created a new discourse
for the kaiserkritik of the time period in which the Laskarids were the representatives
of the good rule and Palaiologans –especially Michael— were the representatives of
the bad. Laskarids became an historical foil for the criticism of Palaiologans in many
ways from their policies to personal traits.
To have a better understanding of the use of Laskarid memory as a tool for
criticism in literature we had examined the Historia written by Pachymeres in this
chapter. The Historia of Georgios Pachymeres is an important work for the history of
Michael VIII and Andronikos II Palaiologos as it describes their reigns in detail. The
account, however, is more significant for this thesis in terms of its value as a piece of
criticism towards the Palaiologans. Throughout the work Pachymeres takes a critical
stand against Palaiologans and Laskarids are represented as the ideal rulers. An
analysis of the work in terms of its use of critical phrases and judgments reveals the
importance of Nicaean memory as a tool for kaiserkritik. Therefore, by analyzing the
work within the frames of Byzantine kaiserkritik, we had seen how Pachymeres used
already established patterns of criticism and rhetorical devices to criticize
Palaiologans but mixed those with his own themes and created an impressive piece
of subversive literature.
We had also discussed later references to Laskarids in several written sources
to have a more comprehensive picture concerning the use of Nicaean memory as a
tool for literary subversion. Some later sources like the vita written by Georgios of
93
Pelagonia, following the path of Pachymeres, had also used the dichotomy between
Laskarids and Palaiologans as the good and the bad ones in their works to criticize
their current rule. All these examples that we have seen in this chapter, when taken
into consideration with the examples that were discussed in the previous chapter,
reveal that the name of Laskarids was really a tool for political opposition and
literary criticism.
94
CHAPTER 4
NICAEAN MEMORY FROM THE PALAIOLOGAN PERSPECTIVE
In this chapter we will try to provide the viewpoint of the imperial side, both the
emperors themselves and their supporters. We will endeavor to comprehend what
were the tools that these people were using to support their claim of power and how
did they responded to the criticism directed to them based on the Nicaean memory.
First, we will start with the reign of Michael and his statements concerning his
seizure of the throne in his typika written for two monasteries. Then we will have a
look at the historical account written by Georgios Akropolites which has a pro-
Palaiologan stance as it was written under the patronage of Michael VIII. We will
examine the work as in the example of Pachymeres to search for the instances of
kaiserkritik directed to Laskarids and propaganda of the Palaiologan rule. From there
we will move to the reign of Andronikos II to see how he reacted to the situation that
emerged as a result of his father’s usurpation and his policy of union.
4.1 Michael Palaiologos on his accession to the throne
The most explicit example of Michael VIII Palaiologos’ stand concerning his seizure
of the throne, and how he reacted to the past events and his perception of the
Laskarid rule can be drawn from the two typika that he issued for the monasteries he
reestablished. The typikon of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael and the
typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios were the two documents issued by
Michael for his monastic patronage. In addition to his regulations concerning the
monasteries and the life in there, the two documents also contain autobiographical
95
information314 which can be examined to understand Michael’s perception of his
situation and his efforts to legitimize his seizure of the throne by associating himself
with the Laskarids.
The first thing that he emphasizes to justify his take of the throne is his
glorious ancestry that made him a worthy candidate for the office of emperor. In both
of the documents he repeatedly mentions that God had granted him many favors and
beautiful things among which his family was. He makes references to his ancestry
which can be considered as an attempt to establish an imperial image that had
continued in his family and reached its peak with himself. He states that God given
him “earthly nobility,” and he was born of noble and virtuous parents; also his family
was holding many possessions and honors.315 Moreover, his family was related to the
emperors from both side: his father’s side was related to emperors and empresses by
the way of marriage whereas his mother’s side was directly imperial.316 He states that
the illustrious past of his family was the basis for his present rule; therefore, it was
important for him to stress his families imperial relations to legitimize his take of the
throne.
He also emphasizes the high ranks that his ancestors hold in both documents.
His grandfather was megas doux and his father was megas domestikos. He says each
generation of his family was awarded with a greater honor,317 which must be
reference to his imperial dignity as the peak level of ranks following the path of his
ancestors. While talking about the commemoration services, he again emphasizes
314 To only see the autobiographical information on the documents please refer to Gregoire,
“Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de Vita Sua: Opusculum necnon Regulae quam ipse monasterio S.
Demetrii praescripsit fragmentum.”
315 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1215.
316 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1242.
317 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1242.
96
their ranks and both of those and their wives Michael ordered to be commemorated.
Hence, it is clear that he uses the reputation of his family to legitimize himself as
someone worthy of being the emperor.
Another point that he stresses was his upbringing in the palace and his
relationship with the ruling dynasty of the time which was a more important tool to
legitimize his action by associating himself with their memory. Concerning himself
he emphasizes his upbringing in the “imperial court”318 in the palace. He declares
that John III whom he calls as “my uncle” was the one who took Michael to the
palace.319 He says John III cared about him and made sure he was raised and
instructed carefully as if Michael was “his own son.”320 Moreover, John III was
“more loving than a father” for Michael.321 When he turned eighteen, he was given
military tasks322 and it was John III who considered Michael as worthy of
command.323 Furthermore, emperor John had pleasure while listening the
achievements of Michael as he claims. Also, John’s love for Michael was so much
that he desired to attach Michael to himself with marriage ties and married him to his
niece who “he loved as his daughter.” While mentioning this marriage bond, Michael
does not give any reference to his accusation of a plot against the emperor as a result
of which this marriage took place; but, instead he draws a very positive image of the
relationship between him and the emperor John III. It is worth noting that he makes
several references to kinship relations between him and John by calling him uncle,
and by emphasizing that he married his niece; moreover, he is even trying to portray
318 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1230.
319 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
320 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
321 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
322 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1230.
323 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
97
their intimacy as a father and son relationship. All of these was the result of his
efforts to relate himself to the Laskarids with kinship relations. Since the reputation
of Laskarids among the Anatolian populace was very positive he might had wanted
to stress his relation to the family so that he would be accepted like them. Beside
this, by stressing such kinship relations with the Laskarids he might had hoped to
resolve the problems caused by his usurpation of the throne from a Laskarid.
He says he was appointed by John III himself as commander and to other
services various times and he performed his duties “loyally.”324 He emphasizes his
loyalty to the emperors John III and Theodore II in both of the typika. His emphasis
on his loyalty must not be overlooked; this can be considered as a direct response to
many accusations directed to him for disloyalty to the Laskarids. Therefore, by
emphasizing that he was loyal to them throughout his life, and even when he was not
in the Roman lands, he clearly wants to demonstrate himself as a loyal subject of
them who did nothing wrong to them.
Related to his claim of loyalty, he also wished to justify his flight to the Turks
by explaining his reason of doing so. While everything was good during the reign of
John III, when it was the time of Theodore II, he says he was tested by jealousy.325
He claims that the envy which was directed to him might had caused terrible things
and that was the reason why he did what he did.326 However, again it was God who
protected him by sending him away,327 Michael had to leave his native land and fled
324 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1231.
325 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
326 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1231.
327 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
98
to the Turks in the east. Concerning the time he spent there, he makes an important
statement saying the following:
“During the time I spent in Persia I engaged in absolutely nothing, in word, in
deed, in plot, or in attempt against the ruler of the Romans at that time, the
blessed late emperor, my cousin (Theodore II Laskaris) or against the realm
of the Romans.”328
Rather, he claims to always protect the benefit of Romans and always being with
Theodore in spirit; to made readers believe this statement he writes “I swear by God
that this is true”329. One more time he states that when he turned back to his country
he, by subjecting himself to the emperor, “loyally” performed all the services that he
was given.330 Therefore, in addition to creating kinship relations with the Laskarids,
he also repeatedly emphasizes his loyalty to them and even swears to prove that. It is
possible to claim that he was trying to invalidate the accusations against him
concerning his stand against the Laskarids.
Concerning his accession to the throne, he emphasizes the intervention of
God. He claims that it was clear he was raised to become emperor of the Romans.331
He says it was God who granted him the power that he holds “in an unexpected
manner,” and the reason of which only God knows.332 He claims to achieve imperial
power by the “wonderous”333 work of God without giving any details of what
happened. He claims to be persuaded and forced to take the imperial power, and he
did not force or tried to persuade anyone.334 He does not mention the name of John
IV in none of the documents as if he never existed. He just confines himself to
328 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1231.
329 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1243.
330 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1231.
331 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1244.
332 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1216.
333 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1231.
334 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios,” 1244.
99
mention that after the death of Theodore II, he became the new emperor of the
Romans. He does not give any detail about the process, about his regency or what
happened to Theodore’s son –he does not even mention that he had a son—; but
according to his narrative he just became emperor by the miraculous intervention of
God. His omitting the name of John IV Laskaris totally and after stressing his
kinship relations with the former Laskarid rulers as his “uncle” and “cousin,”
creating a direct succession line from Theodore to himself can be considered as an
attempt to portray himself as the direct and rightful heir of the Laskarid throne.
In addition to these, he does not forget to point out the most important
achievement of his reign which he used as a tool to strengthen his place in the throne.
According to him, the most significant gift that God granted to him was the
reconquest of Constantinople from the Latins.335 He emphasizes that this happened in
the first years of his emperorship and happened without a war and bloodshed;336 he
seems to emphasize this to demonstrate that his accession to the throne was directly
related to this accomplishment337 and God’s plan for him as it happened in the earlier
stages of his rule. As if he was destined to become emperor to save the City from
Latins.
As a consequence, it is apparent from the above examples of Michael’s
autobiographical typika that he used these documents to reveal his basis of
335 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1216.
336 Palaiologos, “Typikon of the Monastery of Archangel Michael,” 1216.
337 The importance Michael devoted to the conquest of Constantinople as a tool for justification of his
usurpation can also be observed in the coinage that he issued. In the obverse side of his coinage there
is a representation of the Virgin within Constantinople as she was the protector of the city. Penna and
Morrison, “Usurpers and Rebels in Byzantium, 34-35. Another sign that supports this idea was the
fact that Michael VIII had been called as “New Constantine” and he called himself as such from the
time of his conquest of the City. Macrides, “The New Constantine and the New Constantinople-
1261?,”
100
legitimization of his usurpation of the throne. His claim for the throne was based on
several arguments. The most important of them is that it was the God who chose
Michael as the emperor, thus who could question his decisions? Moreover, he was
coming from a very noble and glorious ancestry which was already related with the
emperors and worthy of high honors that prepared Michael to become the emperor
one day. And lastly, he was also related to the previous ruling dynasty of the
Romans; John III –whom the pro-Laskarid/anti-Palaiologan parties respected the
most— was his uncle, and he was loving Michael so much that he was personally
involved in his upbringing and gave his niece who was like a daughter to him in
marriage to Michael to create stronger ties with him. Theodore II was also his
relative as being the son of his “uncle” John III and he was Michael’s “cousin.” Even
though usurpers generally wanted to differentiate themselves from the ones that they
replaced,338 Michael wanted to emphasize his relationship with the Laskarids and
establish a link between him and them. Michael, being aware of the bad reputation he
had and the existence of a strong pro-Laskarid opposition to him, wanted to create an
image of him related with the name of the Laskarids. Therefore, among the points
that he made, the most important one seems to be his efforts of associating himself
with the Laskarids to portray himself as a rightful heir to the throne which would be
the main tool for his legitimization of the usurpation.
338 Angelov, “Power and Subversion,” 9.
101
4.2 Laskarids and Palaiologans in the History of Georgios Akropolites: a kaiserkritik
of the Laskarids
The History written by Akropolites covers the period from 1203 to 1261, thus it can
be called as the history of the Nicaean State. His narrative contains many
autobiographical information as he is one of the active characters in the narrative. He
wrote his account during the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos and he wrote under
his patronage; he was the grand logothete in Michael’s court while writing his
history.339 It is probably as a result of this fact that, unlike the account of
Pachymeres, in Akropolites the good and the bad in the Laskarids versus Palaiologan
dichotomy changes sides; this time the faulty Laskarids are compared with the
excellence of Palaiologans. His main aim was to justify Michael Palaiologos’ rule as
the proper emperor, and the role of the Nicaean State for the continuation of imperial
succession.340 His account resembles the autobiographical information that Michael
provides in his typika: he also emphasizes the noble ancestry of Michael VIII and
God’s intervention in his accession to the throne. However, the additional aspect of
Akropolites’ account was his criticism directed to the Laskarids, especially to
Theodore II after whom Michael Palaiologos took hold of the throne.
In the preface, just like Pachymeres, Akropolites states that he does not write
because of hatred or favor but only for the sake of history so the things will not be
forgotten by time. His favor for Michael, however, makes itself felt in the account
even though Akropolites’ claim of no such inclination. For example, Akropolites
demonstrates dislike for the people who were appointed by or close to Theodore II
whereas he favors the ones around Michael VIII Palaiologos.341 Also his preference
339 Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought, 257.
340 Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, 31.
341 Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, 41.
102
for mentioning or omitting certain things, and his explanation of the events seems to
be affected by his favor as well. He does not mention things like justice, patronage,
charities, or the orthodoxy of emperors in his account; Macrides believes this could
be the result of the fact that John III Vatatzes excels Michael in these regards.342 Also
his explanation of events with the divine intervention is highly related with his pro-
Palaiologan stance. In the History he does not give many references to divine
intervention, he rather prefers to explain things rationally; however, divine
intervention seems to be at work when it comes to the affairs of Palaiologans. As
Macrides points that ten out of fourteen references for divine intervention in
Akropolites are related with Palaiologans and their relatives.343 For example
Michael’s reconquest of Constantinople was a result of God’s intervention.
4.2.1 Portrayal of Laskarids in the History
The first of the Laskarids receives quite a mixed evaluation from Akropolites, he is
portrayed neither in a fully negative way nor in a positive one. Concerning his
appearance Akropolites relates him as someone “small in body” and “quite dark”
with “eyes differing slightly in color.”344 Regarding his character, Akropolites says
his “temper” and “sexual pleasures” overcomes him. Whereas in matters of war he
was “fierce,” he gained many successes in the east and west; moreover, he was the
one who ensured the continuation of Roman rule thus Romans must show him
“gratitude.”345 Throughout the account Akropolites refers to the Nicaean State as the
real continuator of Roman imperial rule; this attitude of him can be understood as he
was a subject of that empire; moreover, Michael was an emperor of the Nicaean
342 Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, 44.
343 Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, 55.
344 Akropolites, The History, 18, 157.
345 Akropolites, The History, 18, 157.
103
State. Therefore, it was a must for Akropolites to acknowledge the legitimacy of the
Nicaean State as the Roman rule. Therefore, this attitude of Akropolites can be
linked to his portrayal of Theodore I; he needed to acknowledge him to a certain
degree to acknowledge the state he created. However, he also had to belittle
Theodore’s character so that he might portray Laskarid dynasty as a negative counter
of the Palaiologans.
When it comes to John III, the first notice of his reign starts with his military
successes, and with a comment on his “brave spirit” in matters of war.346 In the
following pages he is also praised as being “most suited for command” and as
someone who can govern well; and this praise was put in the mouth of a Latin
ruler.347 In addition to his military engagements, John was also “skillful” at solving
problems with diplomacy. Akropolites states that the military successes of the
emperor were a source of great pleasure for the subjects. He also describes John as a
gentle and compassionate man and says that he ruled “well and wisely.”348
Even though Akropolites seems to be praising John’s military achievements,
John cannot escape to be criticized for his preferences in the battlefield; Akropolites
states that John was afraid of close combats and he was mostly able to win victories
as a result of his stubborn characteristic that made him wait for a long time in the
lands of the enemy so that the enemy gets exhausted.349 Hence, Akropolites both
seems to be praising his military successes and questioning his victories.
Beside this, John was also described by Akropolites as a man with passion for
women, even worse he was acting like a “slave” for the desires of his mistress. In
346 Akropolites, The History, 22, 166.
347 Akropolites, 27,184. According to Akropolites, John of Brienne, the king of Jerusalem after his
arrival at Constantinople had thought in such a way concerning John III Vatatzes.
348 Akropolites, The History,
349 Akropolites, The History, 52, 271.
104
one occasion Akropolites compares John III with his wife Eirene and this
comparison seems like a hidden criticism for John. Eirene was more “manly” and
“imperial” than her husband,350 which can be considered as a pun intended for John;
both a reminder of the fact he was not imperial by blood, and a reference on him not
acting accordingly to his imperial dignity. Moreover, describing him as being less
manly than his wife must be considered as a kind of insult for the man.
Moreover, Akropolites also criticizes John for showing much generosity to
the foreign ambassadors that he did not show to his own subjects.351 However, as it is
discussed above in this thesis John III Vatatzes had a reputation for being so
generous to the people and engaging in many philanthropic activities. Moreover,
Akropolites also disregards John’s reputation as a blessed person which caused by
his good treatment of his subjects; Akropolites claims that John’s son Theodore
treated his subjects so bad that people regarded John as a blessed person in
comparison.352 Therefore, it must be questioned why Akropolites chose to portray
him differently. Regarding this, one can claim it to be related to his portrayal of
Michael as the representation of good ruler as opposed to the Laskarids.
He also adds that everyone, but especially the ones in the army and the palace
had lost many things in the time of John III like being troubled in terms of money
and properties.353 This statement reveals the tension between the noble families and
aristocrats of the empire and the Laskarids. Considering that these noble families that
were treated bad by the Laskarids had supported Michael’s usurpation, it is important
to see here a reference to that people’s dislike for the Laskarids. It is also among the
proofs that support the argument that the tension between the supporters of Laskarids
350 Akropolites, The History, 23, 170. Macrides, 57.
351 Akropolites, The History, 52, 271. Macrides, 56.
352 Akropolites, The History, 52, 271. Macrides, 57.
353 Akropolites, The History, 52, 271.
105
and Palaiologans was a tension of lower and higher classes along with being a
tension of center and periphery. It is not surprising that someone like Akropolites
who portrays himself as a noble person sides with the other noble families in support
of Palaiologan side. Consequently, when we examine his account on the reign of
John III Vatatzes it is clear that he receives quite a negative representation than a
positive one compared to his predecessor.
When it comes to the reign of Theodore II Laskaris, his account starts with a
negative preview of the reign. Akropolites states that those who had lost things in the
reign of his father expected Theodore to fix their situation; however, it did not turn
out as they hoped. According to Akropolites what made them to hope in this way
was Theodore’s “cheerful” manners and “his gentle behavior;” however, all these
were “deceptive” gestures of the emperor and he acted “hypocritical.”354
Akropolites also emphasizes that Theodore treated his subjects and those who
were under his comment so badly; which can be read in the light of his class
consciousness.355 Akropolites criticizes Laskarids in several occasions concerning
their treatment of the nobles or title holders, and their preference for the men of
lower origins. As it is discussed before in this thesis, John III and Theodore II
Laskaris preferred men of merit to the members of noble families; this seems to be a
disturbing move for the consideration of Akropolites. It can be clearly observed in
the following example: while Akropolites mentions one of the expeditions of
Theodore early in his reign, he mentions the names of several people appointed by
Theodore to high offices. One of such men was Constantine Margarites whom
Theodore appointed him as a commander. Akropolites says he was previously a
354 Akropolites, The History, 52, 282-283.
355 Imperial criticism that is driven by the personal interests and class consciousness of the author is
among the characteristic features of Byzantine kaiserkritik according to Tinnefeld. See Tinnefeld
Kategorien der Kaiserkritik and chapter 3 of this thesis.
106
soldier in a theme, but Theodore considered him as a capable man to serve in the
palace; this shows how Theodore based his decision of appointing to the capability
of the man. However, while describing him, Akropolites says he was “a peasant born
of peasants” who was raised with “barley and bran.”356 It is evident that Akropolites
regarded a man of such origins as someone unworthy of high honors and titles. He
also makes similar comments for many others who were raised in the ranks by
Theodore II. For example, Georgios Mouzalon and his brother Andronikos were also
hated by Akropolites; he emphasizes that Theodore loved Georgios Mouzalon the
most357 and even calls him as “his beloved Mouzalon.”358 While relating that
Theodore appointed the Mouzalon brothers to high ranks Akropolites says they were
“pitiful men,” not worthy of such honors but “worth no more than three obols”.359
The same applies to the appointment of the patriarch Arsenios by Theodore II
as well. Regarding the appointment of a new patriarch, Akropolites says that
emperors want to find someone who fits their liking, someone who would not oppose
the emperor. He repeats the same judgment concerning the appointment of Arsenios.
Akropolites says that the most suited person for the title was Blemmydes –being
whose student Akropolites took a great pride in—, but both Blemmydes and
Theodore were not willing. Blemmydes was unwilling because he knew the character
of the emperor; Theodore, on the other hand, would rather prefer someone that could
listen to his wishes. To achieve his goal, Theodore preferred a man named Arsenios,
who was just a simple monk at the time and who only had a little education. The
emperor ordered bishops to raise Arsenios to the throne; to do so he was made first
356 Akropolites, The History, 60, 297.
357 Akropolites The History, 60, 297.
358 Akropolites, The History, 59, 292.
359 Akropolites, The History, 60, 298.
107
deacon, then priest, and finally patriarch only within a day, claims Akropolites.360
Therefore, Akropolites both criticizes the Laskarid emperor for his appointment of an
unworthy man to such a high office, while at the same time he belittles Arsenios and
reveals the inappropriateness of the process of his accession as he was one of the
main rivals of Michael VIII Palaiologos.
Among the emperors he narrates about, Theodore II was the one who was
closest to Akropolites and whom Akropolites knew the most as Theodore was his
student. However, what made him so rival against Theodore might be an incident
that took place between the two that ended up with Akropolites being beaten by the
order of Theodore. It was concerning the Russian ruler Ouros’ break of his oath to
the emperor that somehow Theodore blamed Akropolites for. Akropolites refuses
emperor’s accusation and stop answering to his insistent questions on the matter.
Theodore getting mad and filled with anger ordered him to be beaten.361 After this
event, Akropolites states that he never acted intimate to emperor as he was before.362
The last incident Akropolites mentions concerning Theodore II was his
appointment of Georgios Mouzalon as regent for his little son John. He claims, even
though Theodore claimed this to be for the benefit of his son, it was actually for the
benefit of Mouzalon.363 Therefore, for one last time Akropolites showcases his
hatred for Mouzalon and appointments of Theodore. This marks the end of his
account of the reign of Theodore II.
When we examine the overall image depicted by Akropolites concerning the
Laskarids we encounter with a negative portrait. The one who gets the least amount
of criticism was the first of the Laskarids both because Akropolites did not know
360 Akropolites, The History, 53, 277-278.
361 Akropolites, The History, 63, 305-307.
362 Akropolites, The History, 66, 319.
363 Akropolites, The History, 75, 339.
108
much about him and because he respected him as the continuator and savior of
Roman imperial tradition. However, as we discussed before this attitude of him is
highly related with his relationship with Michael and his efforts to legitimize
Michael’s rule as the emperor of the Romans whose claim for the throne was based
on his Nicaean past. John III cannot escape from receiving criticism from
Akropolites, even though he was the one who introduced him into palace and granted
him the education he received. His negative portrayal especially show itself in and
after the narration of his court for Michael’s case. Therefore, his criticism was highly
related to his treatment of Michael. Among the three Theodore II receives the highest
amount of criticism. This was because he treated the nobles/higher classes,
Akropolites, and Michael badly. Akropolites himself could not run away from the
wrath of the emperor, the class that Akropolites portrays himself as belonging to also
was the target of Theodore’s mistreatment, and finally Michael Palaiologos who
Akropolites was a supporter of and who sponsored Akropolites was also treated
badly by him. Moreover, it was Theodore II following whose reign Michael usurped
the throne by disregarding his appointment of the regent; this Akropolites also had to
legitimize by portraying him as a mad person and a bad ruler. Unlike Pachymeres,
who depicts the Laskarids rulers as the example of ideal emperor, Akropolites’
narrative does not depict such an image as it would not serve for the purpose of his
writing. He depicted the Laskarids in a way it might serve for the propaganda of the
current rule of Michael. As a consequence, Akropolites kaiserkritik directed to the
Laskarids was connected to his personal interest, his class consciousness, and the
legitimization of the party he supports.
109
4.2.2 Portrayal of Palaiologans in the History
The first appearance of a Palaiologan happens in the first pages of Akropolites’
account along with the Laskarids; Alexios Palaiologos –great grandfather of Michael
VIII— is mentioned as the son-in-law of the emperor just like Theodore Laskaris
was.364 Akropolites also mentions the grandfather of Michael, Andronikos
Palaiologos, who was married to the eldest daughter of Theodore I and was given the
title of despot.365 It might not be a coincidence that Akropolites mentions the names
of grandfathers of Michael as the first sons-in-law of ruling emperors; thus showing
that the Palaiologan family was considered as the suitable heirs for the throne.
However, both of the cases ended with the death of Palaiologans and a second
marriage of the emperors’ daughters.
It is not surprising to see Michael’s father Andronikos Palaiologos was also
mentioned in the narrative. Akropolites says he was the megas domestikos under
John III and he was trusted in military affairs by the emperor.366 He was counted
among the “distinguished men” that accompanies the emperor in his expeditions as
the director of the army.367 Akropolites mentions his name again and again in several
occasions which shows his stand in political and military affairs as a respected man
by the emperor. One of such occasions is about his advice about an attack to the
town of Serres; while others advised the opposite way, Andronikos Palaiologos
advised the emperor to attack on the town by supporting his advice with several
arguments. This, Akropolites concludes by stating that, the emperor considered as an
“excellent advice.”368 The last occasion Andronikos appears in the narrative is the
364 Akropolites, The History, 5, 114.
365 Akropolites, The History, 15, 148.
366 Akropolites, The History, 28, 187.
367 Akropolites, The History, 40,215.
368 Akropolites, The History, 43, 225-226.
110
one that we are introduced with Michael as his eldest son. It was after the capture of
Thessaloniki in 1246 that Akropolites narrates that Andronikos was left in there to
govern as he was the “most intelligent and gentle man, well-acquainted with arming
for battle and governing…”369 The use of the adjective ‘most gentle’ for a subject of
the emperor is an exceptional situation, and Macrides suggests that this shows how
Akropolites wanted to attribute imperial qualities to him.370 Akropolites ends the
narration of Akropolites with such comments and establishing an imperial outlook he
paves the way for the introduction of Michael.
Michael’s first mention in the narrative comes along with his father’s stay in
Thessaloniki; Michael was left in Serres and Melenikon to guard the towns under the
command of his father. Akropolites does not miss the opportunity to manifest
Michael’s future office from his first appearance in the account. Introducing him as
Michael Komnenos –thus he demonstrates his descendance from the former
dynasty—, Akropolites states that he will be the future ruler of the Roman state in
whose control the imperial office was raised with fortune and honor.371
Second appearance of Michael is related to an accusation of plot. He was
reported to the emperor John III by Manglavites, a powerful local of the town
Melenikon. Emperor arrange a court to investigate the accusation. Akropolites says
he was involved in the court as a judge, and his account is clearly defending the side
of Michael as the victim of a false-accusation resulted by a misunderstanding.
Akropolites narrates this event with details in a quite long section, thus, it is better to
follow his account and look into details he shares to clear Michael.
369 Akropolites, The History, 46,241-242.
370 Macrides, The History, 243 see note 3.
371 Akropolites, The History, 46, 242.
111
Following the death of Demetrios Tornikes, who was a relative of Michael,
Michael was sorry, feeling “distressed” and he looked “sullen.” This appearance of
him lead a questioning among some of the people around him; one person expressed
his suggestion that his distress cannot be solely related to Tornikes, he might have
some plans regarding the emperor that distresses him. And the other suggested that if
he really has any plan against the emperor it would not be bad for the people, and
Michael would be able to create a marriage alliance with Bulgars which is beneficial
for the population of western regions. Then, one of these men went to the
abovementioned Manglavites and related the conversation; Manglavites reported this
to the emperor as a plan of plot. The men were questioned but they declare that
Michael had nothing to do with it, it was just their supposition. They were tortured to
learn the truth, but they stayed true to their words.372 Even though here Akropolites
provides an account that tries to reveal the misunderstanding concerning the
accusation against Michael; it is strange that he makes the two men approach to such
a plot by Michael in a positive way by declaring that it would not be bad for the
people as he was a great man. Thus, even though he is trying to prove Michael
innocent of any plot, he is inserting the idea that he would make a good ruler.
However, the accusation against him did not came to an end there and
Michael was called to prove his innocence by an ordeal with red-hot iron. He refused
it by saying that he was innocent and there was no one accusing him. He continued
by stating that no living being could be able to not burn from a red-hot iron placed in
their hands; and he was no exception to this since he was not a man who could show
miracles. He also replied the metropolitan Phokas, who insisted him to engage in
ordeal for his own good, by saying that if he wants Michael to prove his innocence
372 Akropolites, The History, 50, 260-261.
112
by such an ordeal, he –as a holy man— himself must hand the iron to Michael with
his own hands which must not burn him according to his logic. This was refused by
Phokas, he said it was a barbarian practice and not a divine thing to perform, but it
was practiced as a result of imperial order.373 Through this conversation Akropolites
both shows the logical and clever character of Michael as well as he indirectly
accuses the emperor for performing barbarian practices.
He also accuses the emperor John III for not caring about the truth but
wanting to found Michael guilty without any proof. Akropolites claims that the
emperor wanted everyone to vote with him against Michael, but those who were the
lovers of truth like Akropolites himself did not do so. Akropolites states that many
sided with Michael because he was “gentle,” “gracious,” “skillful,” “mature,” and
intelligent. Moreover, Akropolites states his belief that God wanted to prepare
Michael for the future; having lived this experience, when he will be the emperor he
might not immediately believe in false accusations.374 With this account Akropolites
situates Michael and John III in opposing sides. Michael here portrayed as an
innocent man whereas John is the one who accuses him without an evidence.
Michael was the one who stated his cause with logical words whereas John
demanded for illogical ordeal. Michael defends himself by stating that there is no one
accusing him whereas John is torturing the abovementioned two men to make them
witness against Michael.
Comparing this account with the Pachymeres’ one makes it clearer that
Akropolites only dwells on certain aspects of the trial to make Michael look
innocent. He is only concerned with the way he is judged with illogical means, but
he does not really reveal what he was accused of. The end result that Michael was
373 Akropolites, The History, 50, 261-262.
374 Akropolites, The History, 50, 262-263.
113
married to a niece of the emperor John III and he was moved to a place in Asia
Minor shows that he was really suspected of creating a marriage alliance with a
western power to plot against the emperor. Moreover, Akropolites states that the
reason why Michael was not punished is his family relations and his “intimacy with
the magnates;” therefore, even he himself reveals that there might be other reasons to
close the case rather than only his alleged innocence. In addition to this, Michael was
also required to swore oaths of loyalty to the emperor in the presence of the
patriarch.375 All these makes it look like the accusation was stronger than
Akropolites narrates it and emperor tried to take measures against a future threat
from Michael.
A later mention of Michael was again related to an alleged plot; it was the
time when he fled to the Turks. After hearing the incident, Akropolites says that
emperor Theodore II called him and asked him his opinion about the matter. He
claims to defend Michael against Theodore by stating that Michael would never act
against the Romans, and the reason of his escape was the threats and mistreatment of
the emperor which made Michael to fear for his life.376 It is clear here that
Akropolites provides a similar explanation for the escape of Michael to the Turks
and his loyalty for the Romans as Michael himself provides in his typika. Therefore,
it is evident one more time that Akropolites wrote his work from the viewpoint of
Michael to legitimize his actions.
Concerning Michael’s accession to the throne, Akropolites does not held him
responsible from the murder of Mouzalon by the army; instead he indicates it was a
group of people from army and nobles that lost many things under the rule of
375 Akropolites, The History, 51, 268.
376 Akropolites, The History, 64, 312-313.
114
Laskarids.377 Then, it was an assembly of members of clergy, military and senate that
agreed on Michael Palaiologos as the most suitable candidate for the duty.378
Moreover, it was not Michael who asked for receiving higher dignities and
proclaiming as co-emperor, but it was the ones who concerned for public affairs
raised him to this ranks.379 Just like the typika of Michael VIII, Akropolites also does
not mention John IV and what happened to him in his account after the murder of
Mouzalon. Therefore, once again his account provides a similar narrative to those of
Michael as both omit John IV and both mention that Michael was offered these
dignities by others.
Michael gets praise from Akropolites in several occasions. Michael was
rational according to Akropolites, this characteristic of him situates Michael against
the irrational nature of Theodore II as he was depicted by Akropolites. Michael was
also someone who is “strong in arm and brave in disposition.”380 Beside this, unlike
the former rulers Michael was generous to everyone,381 Akropolites does not specify
his ‘generous’ approach to the members of senate. Michael also possessed
“goodness” and was ready “to do good”.382 And it was Michael who brought the
“light of the sun,” calmness, spring, and pleasure to the Romans.383
Consequently, Akropolites’ History can be considered as a work of
propaganda written for Michael VIII to legitimize his rule and justify his actions as
in the case of typika that are discussed above. He provides a kritik for the Laskarids
in his account, especially for Theodore II. Keeping in mind the events that took place
377 Akropolites, The History, 75, 339.
378 Akropolites, The History, 75, 339-340.
379 Akropolites, The History, 77, 346.
380 Akropolites, The History,71, 330.
381 Akropolites, The History, 78, 351.
382 Akropolites, The History, 84, 371.
383 Akropolites, The History, 78, 351.
115
after the usurpation of throne by Michael VIII that were discussed previously in this
thesis, one would not expect Akropolites to not being aware of the existence of an
anti-Palaiologan party that were mainly pro-Laskarid as a reaction to Michael’s
usurpation. He also must be aware of the use of the name and memory of the
Nicaean rule as a tool for criticism against Michael. Therefore, it is not surprising to
encounter a negative portrayal of Laskarids in a work written for the propaganda of
Michael.
As opposed to the criticism that Laskarid rulers receive Palaiologans are
praised in the account of Akropolites. He devotes several references to the ancestors
of Michael and they always depicted in a constructive way. He describes them as
men being worthy of imperial dignity. Thus, just like his ancestors, Michael was a
man that is worthy of the office that he occupies. He was destined to be the ruler of
the empire; it was God who opened the way for him and tested him in several
occasions to prepare him for the future. Michael was the definition of the ideal ruler
with everything he achieved and depicted in a good light. Hence, Akropolites’ work
reveals the standpoint of pro-Palaiologan party and it coincides with the official
propaganda of Michael delivered by himself.
4.3 Andronikos II’s interference for resolution
Andronikos II had to face the bad reputation of his father as a result of his acts of
usurpation, excommunication, and the union of churches which also threated the
legitimacy and continuity of his dynasty. Andronikos II had to overcome all the
threats posed by anti-Palaiologan factions: both the supporters of Laskarids and
Arsenites. To find a middle ground between the opposing parties he engaged in many
116
mild policies towards his opponents and tried to dissociate themselves from his
father.
Michael’s policy of Union was so hated among his subjects; Andronikos had
embraced the union when his father was still alive, but after the death of his father he
took an opposing stand. He tried to dissociate himself from his father’s religious
policies.384 He did not arrange an imperial funeral for his father, not even he was
buried with any religious rite or ceremony which was due to Michael’s unorthodox
stance.385 After his death who opposed his stance became much more vocal in their
opposition and the first maneuver of Andronikos II as the emperor was to restore the
Orthodoxy.386
Andronikos was opposite of his father in character and he was not a good
soldier. Michael was not pleased with him and he wanted his younger son
Constantine as the heir to the throne. What stopped Michael from appointing
Constantine as the heir was his status as a usurper, Laiou claims; being aware of his
reception as the usurper, Michael did not want to open the legitimacy of his dynasty
for further questioning.387 Laiou believes that it is not a coincidence that Andronikos
II replaced all the men who was close to his father after his death; and “his tolerance
for the religious and political groups” that were opponents of his father was a result
of his emotional reaction to his father.388
Moreover, as opposed to his father, Andronikos’ interest was mostly based in
Asia Minor. He tried to defend Asia Minor and reorganize state policies concerning
384 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 21.
385 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 30-31.
386 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 32.
387 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 6.
388 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 7.
117
the region.389 Andronikos spent three years of his reign in Asia Minor from 1290 to
1293, his motivation must be a political one: to make his presence –thus, the
presence and interest of the state— felt in the region.390 However, his efforts does not
seems to be received well by the population of the region as they continued their
anti-Palaiologan stance.
As we discussed before, Andronikos also showed his respect for the Laskarid
figures that considered to be holy by their supporters. It was Andronikos who
transported the body of John IV Laskaris to the Monastery of St. Demetrios which
was an establishment of his father Michael VIII. This can be considered to done with
a purpose of a compromise between the pro-Laskarid and Palaiologan parties,391 and
as an apology for the deeds of his father. Considering that Andronikos even visited
John Laskaris when he was alive while he was going to Asia Minor; asked for his
forgiveness regarding the wrongdoings of his father against John and wanted John to
recognize him as emperor392 supports the above argument. These, one can argue, are
the indicators of the fact that to strengthen his stand in the throne Andronikos II had
to acknowledge the past mistakes and dissociate himself from them by showing his
respect to the John and his memory.
Another similar example was Andronikos’ transportation of the body of the
patriarch Arsenios. Andronikos’ action might have two political aims: one is about
the current crisis, so he wanted to ease Arsenites to end the schism, and the other is
again might be about his trying to dissociate himself from the wrongdoings of his
father.
389 For details see Laiou, Constantinople and Latins.
390 Laiou, Constantinople and Latins, 79.
391 Sevcenko, “Notes on Stephen,” 173-175.
392 Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 99.
118
His own reputation and the fame of his family was troubled by both the acts
of his father and his own support to his father’s policy –along with his father, he also
signed the agreement made with the Pope—. It cannot be a coincidence the
sanctification of all the afore mentioned saints took place in the time of Andronikos
and their relics were transferred to Constantinople by him. Also, we observe the
revival of hagiographies and miracle collections during the reign of Andronikos II,393
being related to the restoration of Orthodoxy. Therefore, all these reasons led
Andronikos II to recognize the respect that this people deserved and, in a way,
condemn his father by this sort of acts to guarantee the future of his and his family’s
rule, and may be to save his soul from his former sin of acknowledging the union.
Andronikos was not the only member of Michael’s family that dissociated
themselves from the memory of Michael. Michael’s wife Theodora also engaged in a
similar action. She does not mention the name of her husband in the typikon she
issued for the Monastery of Lips.394 The only reference to Michael mentions him not
as her husband but as the father of Andronikos. Talbot claims this to be related with
the policy of union adopted by Michael in his lifetime. When Michael died, she
reconfessed her Orthodox beliefs for the salvation of her soul from sin.395 When the
Union of Lyons was accepted by Michael VIII, Theodora was sympathized with the
anti-unionists; however, officially she followed the policy of her husband.396
After the death of her husband, she renounced her decision and returned to
her Orthodox belief; moreover, she agreed that Michael will never receive a
Christian burial.397 She designed the church of St. John the Baptist as a mausoleum
393 Talbot, “Hagiography in Late Byzantium,” 179.
394 Palaiologina, “Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips in Constantinople.”
395 Talbot, “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VIII.”
396 Talbot, “Empress Theodora,” 297.
397 Talbot, “Empress Theodora,” 298.
119
for her family; she mentions herself, her mother and her children as the ones that can
be buried in the monastery.398 Since Michael was denied Christian burial his name is
not mentioned among those who can be buried there, his name is also not in the list
of those to be commemorated in the monastery.399
Therefore, being aware of the threat that the reputation of Michael poses to
their family; the relatives of Michael chose the way of dissociating themselves from
his memory. And in the case of Andronikos II, he even embraced the memory of
Laskarids by paying his respect to them which can be considered as an attempt to
associate his name with the memory of the Laskarids to secure his rule from any
oppositional movements in the name of abovementioned figures.
4.4 Conclusion
An examination of the two typika issued by Michael Palaiologos along with the
History written by Akropolites, and the steps taken by Andronikos II had enabled us
to see the ways in which Palaiologans themselves made use of the Nicaean memory
as a tool for their own propaganda. It is evident in Michael’ autobiographical account
that he tries to create a kinship association with himself and the Laskarids hoping it
would justify himself as the rightful heir of the throne after the Laskarids. To
strengthen his stand he makes no mention of John IV in his accounts, and he portrays
close links between himself and former Laskarid emperors. He also justifies his
actions taken against the Laskarids and emphasizes his loyalty to their rule all of
which served his goal to legitimize his usurpation of the throne.
398 Talbot, “Empress Theodora”, 299. For a detailed account on the burials there see Marinis, “Tombs
and Burials in the monastery tou Libos in Constantinople.”
399 Talbot, “Empress Theodora,” 303.
120
Akropolites’ account provides also a similar narrative to the one of Michael
VIII. In his work he praises the ancestors of Michael and emphasizes that all his
ancestry including him are worthy of imperial dignity. Moreover, he depicts a
positive image of Michael as Pachymeres did for Laskarid rulers. Whereas, his
depiction of Laskarids is highly different than the one Pachymeres provides. He
mostly criticizes the members of the previous dynasty both in terms of their
personality and their rule of the state. His criticism especially directed to the last
reigned emperor of the Laskarids, Theodore II, who Akropolites portrays in
comparison with Michael in a dichotomy of bad and good ruler. Just like Michael,
Akropolites also does not mention the events took place during the usurpation of
Michael nor he mentions what happened to John IV Laskaris. His account reveals his
stand in favor of Michael VIII Palaiologos just like many other high rank and noble
originated supporters of him. Akropolites’ stance is influenced by his own interest
and his class consciousness as Laskarids were associated with the lower classes
more. Therefore, combined with his personal interest and Michael’ patronage his
account offers a negative image of Laskarids as opposed to a positive one of
Michael.
Lastly, Andronikos II also tried to legitimize his rule with creating an
association with the Laskarids but his approach was different than the two above
examples. What he did was an attempt of dissociating himself from the memory and
bad reputation of his own father and associating his rule with the memory of
Laskarids. What he did to achieve this end was that he asked for forgiveness and
recognition as emperor from John IV and he showed his respect for his memory by
placing his body in the monastery that was built for his father. Moreover, he also
showed his respect for the patriarch Arsenios in a similar fashion by transporting his
121
body to Hagia Sophia hoping that it would create a resolution for the Arsenite
opposition.
Consequently, Palaiologans and pro-Palaiologans also made use of the
memory of Nicaean rule in different ways for their own good and propaganda. While
one tried to make peace with their memory and supporters, the other tried to create
bonds between themselves and Laskarids, and also supported the criticism directed
towards them from an unofficial point both of which would serve for their
legitimization in the end.
122
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This thesis has attempted to analyze the importance of the Laskarid name for the
opposition of Palaiologan rule in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century
Byzantium. The ways in which Byzantines reacted to the usurpation of the throne by
Michael VIII Palaiologos and how their reaction took different shapes were among
the main questions of this study. Several sources have been examined in an attempt
to understand the creation of a Laskarid versus Palaiologan dichotomy as the
representatives of good and bad government that was used as a tool for political
opposition and criticism. Besides this, the Palaiologan reaction to the opposition in
the name of the Laskarids has also been analyzed.
To have a more comprehensive understanding of the situation, the thesis first
provided a brief historical background of the Nicaean state and its political and social
conditions. Then, an account of Michael Palaiologos’ usurpation of the throne from
John IV Laskaris has been given. The given context enables the reader to
comprehend the reasons behind the existence of such an opposition against the
Palaiologan rule in the name of the Laskarids.
After the historical background, the thesis dealt with the political opposition
and reactions that emerged after the act of usurpation. It started from immediate
political and social opposition against the act of usurpation in the form of defending
the right of John Laskaris; this defense sometimes took the form of a revolt in the
name of John Laskaris, or the emergence of the Arsenite schism. The first one is the
Nicaean/Anatolian revolt that took place in 1262 at a frontier zone near Nicaea
123
where a pseudo-John appeared and gained the support of people to defend his rights.
This event is important as it shows the inhabitant of the Anatolian borders were
highly attached and loyal to the Laskarids due to the Laskarids’ good treatment of
them as opposed to Michael’s distancing from them. Besides this, another pseudo-
John was also used as a political tool against Palaiologans. The second pseudo-John
appeared this time in the west, at the court of Charles d’Anjou. The significance of
this incident comes from the fact that even a foreign enemy of Michael VIII had
brought the name of Laskaris to the front. This can be considered as a clear
indication that Charles was aware of the interval problems that Michael VIII was
facing; the support of Laskarids must have been strong within the Byzantine realms
so that Charles thought having John with him can assure support from within.
The immediate reactions then took the form of a general opposition against
Palaiologans and the memory of the Laskarid rulers was used for this. This is evident
in the later revolts and oppositions that took place to restore the Laskarid dynasty or
the sanctification of Laskarid related figures as the victims of Palaiologan
mistreatment as if they were martyrs. The revolts of Philanthropenos and John
Drimys can be taken as proper examples of this. Even though the first one was not
directly related to the name of Laskarids, it was supported by those who sympathized
with the Laskarids and wee opponents of Michael for that reason. Its importance lies
in the fact that one more time it shows the anti-Palaiologan stand of the Anatolian
population. The latter, however, was directly related to the cause of the Laskarids.
John Drimys claimed to be a member of the Laskarid dynasty and the legitimate heir
of the throne. He managed to gather huge support from different strata of the society.
Even though his claim of being a Laskarid was not strong, people chose to support
124
him anyway; this is another sign that anti-Palaiologan parties united under the name
of Laskarids as it represented an important foil for their opposition.
Another important issue was the sanctification of political figures in the early
Palaiologan period. These new saints were not related to the religious realm or
recognized for their ascetic value; instead, they were the faces of anti-Palaiologan
opposition. This sanctification also demonstrates the perception of the Laskarids in
the minds of people; they were related to the ‘good old days’ and ‘the ideal model of
a good rule.’ Therefore, the first chapter revealed the ways in which the memory of
Nicaean rule was used both by internal and external enemies of the Palaiologans. The
sympathy towards the Laskarids and the positive image of their reign was still
apparent in people’s minds so that their name continued to be a significant device for
the people who opposed the Palaiologans.
Laskarids also became a historical foil of criticism for the policies of the
Palaiologans and the memory of the Nicaean rule served aa a tool for kaiserkritik.
Social, fiscal, and military policies of the Nicaeans were compared with the policies
of the Palaiologans along with their personal traits to criticize the latter. Nicaean
rulers and their policies were used as the ideal model to define while relating the
mismanagement of Palaiologan rule. Their memory on its own became a tool for the
imperial criticism of the time period. All these things were analyzed in the third
chapter of this thesis. Chapter three examined the written criticism, and the main
source that was analyzed was the Historia of Georgios Pachymeres. Pachymeres’
work was analyzed in terms of its critical stand. After providing information on the
patterns and methods of Byzantine kaiserkritik, and the life and motives of
Pachymeres to compose his history, Historia was analyzed within the given
framework of Byzantine kaiserkritik.
125
The patterns of Byzantine kaiserkritik can be divided into two categories: the
traditional one, which was followed from the sixth century onwards and the new
themes that were introduced in the twelfth century as a response to Komnenian
politics. Traditional criticism was mainly based on the personality of the emperor
along with a moral and ideological judgment of the emperor based on an image of an
ideal ruler. Whereas, in the twelfth century, criticism changed its direction from the
persona of the ruler to a criticism of the system in which the emperor uses his power
and the policies of the rulers. New themes like the emperor’s treatment of his
subjects, his favoritism, and public accountability on financial matters emerged at the
time.
Pachymeres’ history provided a great number of critical statements about the
Palaiologan administration. Pachymeres’ account merged the two models into one:
he both criticized the emperor as a person as well as the way the system operated
during his reign. Concerning the traditional patterns, immoral acts of Michael and
some of his personality traits were criticized; while doing this Pachymeres’ model
for the ideal ruler to compare was the Laskarids. On the other hand, Pachymeres also
criticized the financial and political policies of the emperors, like taxation practices,
use of public sources, sales of offices all of which resemble the twelfth-century
themes of kaiserkritik. For these matters too, Laskarids and their government were
the foil to compare with the Palaiologans; their memory was associated with the
good policies and order as opposed to instabilities and failures of the Palaiologans.
Besides Pachymeres’ Historia, the chapter also mentioned other references to
the Laskarids as the representatives of ideal rule in literary sources in the following
decades. For instance, patriarch Kallistos used John Vatatzes’ name as a ‘fitting and
proper’ example of a generous emperor. Another example was Georgios of
126
Pelagonia’s vita of John Vatatzes in which he described John as an imperial model
for the current rulers of his time. In the preface of his work, he stated that his aim
was to provide an example to his contemporaries to judge the Palaiologans; and in
the work, he compared the virtues of John Vatatzes with the opposite character of the
rulers of his time. Thus, even after more than a hundred years, the Laskarid memory
was in the stage of politics as an oppositional and critical tool.
In the fourth chapter of the thesis, the use of Nicaean memory for the
propaganda of their rule by the Palaiologans and their supporters has been examined.
The ways in which the Palaiologans themselves reacted to this opposition were
analyzed via some written sources and a few examples of events that took place at
the time. How they tried to associate themselves with the memory of the Laskarids
and emphasized their kinship relations to legitimize their hold of power was
examined based on the documents issued by Michael himself. To achieve this end,
two typika of Michael that he had issued for his monasteries were analyzed. These
documents contain autobiographical information, and they were analyzed to see how
Michael portrayed his take of the throne and how he tried to create a link between
himself and the Laskarids by emphasizing their kinship relations, and how he
legitimized his usurpation by emphasizing God’s intervention. This analysis
demonstrated his intention of portraying himself as the direct and rightful heir to the
throne.
In addition to this, Akropolites’ history was also analyzed in terms of its
critical value and treatment of Laskarids and Michael. Akropolites’ account provided
us a portrait of a different take on the Nicaean memory as the bad ones to legitimize
the Palaiologan rule unlike the account of Pachymeres. This time the criticism was
directed to the Laskarids especially to Theodore II as the work aimed to propagate
127
Michael. To legitimize Michael, Akropolites also provided a similar account to the
one that is provided in Michael’s autobiography; however, unlike Michael, he
criticized the Laskarids and created an overall negative image of them.
Then, chapter four closed with an analysis of Andronikos II’s reign to see
how he reacted to the situation. He was aware of the strong opposition that was
directed to his family and the threat it posed. He tried to find a middle ground
between the opposing party and his family and tried to dissociate himself from his
father’s policies by reversing most of them.
All these things and the emergence of a Laskarid versus Palaiologan
dichotomy were the result of the usurpation of the throne from John IV Laskaris by
Michael VIII Palaiologos. Michael helped to the creation of a symbol for the
opposition of his own dynasty. His act of usurpation was the reason behind the
emergence of Nicaean memory as a tool and foil for opposition and criticism. Even
though he ended the physical presence of the Laskarid dynasty in the politics of the
empire, he caused the creation of a discourse that positioned Laskarids against his
dynasty. Thus, their name continued to live for decades, even for centuries in the
minds of the opponents of Palaiologan rule. The memory of the Laskarids as a
subversive means of criticism and opposition reached such a high level that even
some members of Michael’s own dynasty embraced the Laskarids and tried to
dissociate themselves from Michael’s memory.
This thesis aimed to provide an introduction for a discussion on the
emergence and use of Nicaean memory as an oppositional tool and a means of
kaiserkritik. For the purposes of precision within the limits of a master’s thesis, two
main historical works have been analyzed in this work along with some other written
sources. For further studies on this subject, other written sources can be included and
128
analyzed like the histories of Blemmydes, Skoutariotes, and Gregoras, as well as
orations, poems, hagiographies, etc. Also, the creation of a dichotomy between the
two dynasties and the motivation of the pro-Laskarid party can be analyzed within
the frame of class conflict and center-periphery relations with reference to the mainly
Anatolian characteristics of the opposition.
129
REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
Akropolites, Georgios. (2007). The History (Ruth Macrides ed. and trans.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Athanasios. (1975). The Correspondence of Athanasius I Patriarch of
Constantinople: Letters to the Emperor Andronicus II, Members of the
Imperial Family, and Officials (A.-M. Talbot, Ed. & Trans.).
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Clavijo, R. G. (2005). Embassy to Tamerlane 1403-1406 (G. la Strange). London and
New Yok: Routledge Curzon.
Majeska, G. P. (1984). Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Pachymeres, G. (1984-2000). Relations Historique (A. Failler & V. Laurent, Ed.; V.
Laurent, Trans.). Paris: Societe D’edition Les Belles Lettres.
Pachymeres, G. (2004). Historia. In Nathan Cassidy (Trans.), A Translation and
historical commentary of the book one and book two of the Historia of
Georgios Pachymeres (Unpublished PhD. Thesis). University of Western
Australia, Australia.
Palaiologina, T. (2000). Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of
Lips in Constantinople (A.M. Talbot, Trans.). In J. Thomas & A. C. Hero
(Eds.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents (pp. 1254-1286).
Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Palaiologos, M. (1959-1960). Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de Vita Sua:
Opusculum necnon Regulae quam ipse monasterio S. Demetrii praescripsit
fragmentum (Henri Gregoire Ed. and Trans.). Byzantion 29/30, 447-476.
Palaiologos, M. (2000). Auxentios: Typikon of Michael VIII Palaiologos for the
Monastery of the Archangel Michael on Mount Auxentios near Chalcedon
(G. Dennis, Trans.). In J. Thomas & A.C. Hero (Eds.), Byzantine Monastic
Foundation Documents (pp. 1207-1236). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
Palaiologos, M. (2000). Kellibara I: Typikon of Michael VIII Palaiologos for the
Monastery of St. Demetrios of the Palaiologoi-Kellibara in Constantinople
(G. Dennis, Trans.). In J. Thomas & A.C. Hero (Eds.), Byzantine Monastic
Foundation Documents (pp. 1237-1253). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
130
Pelagonia, G. (1905). Βίος του άγίου ’Ιωάννου Βασιλέως του ’Ελεήμονος. In A.
Heisenberg (Ed.) “Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige,” Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 14, 160-233.
Pseudo-Kodinos. (2013). De Officiis (Ruth Macrides Trans.). In R. Macrides, J.A.
Munitz & D. Angelov (Eds.), Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan
Court: Offices and Ceremonies. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Alexiou, M. (1982). Literary subversion and the aristocracy in twelfth-century
Byzantium: A stylistic analysis of the Timarion (ch.6-10). BMGS 8, 29-45.
Alexiou, M. (1999). Ploys of performance: games and play in the ptochoprodromic
Poems. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53, 91-111.
Angelov, D. (2003). Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204
1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Angelov, D. (2005). Byzantine Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of
Constantinople. In A. E. Laiou (Ed.), Urbs Capta: the Fourth Crusade and its
consequences (pp. 293-310). Paris: Lethielleux.
Angelov, D. (2013). Power and Subversion in Byzantium: approaches and
frameworks. In D. Angelov & M. Saxby (Eds.), Power and Subversion in
Byzantium (1-20). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Angelov, D. (2019). Byzantine Hellene, The Life of Theodore Laskaris and
Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Angelov, D., & Saxby, M. (2013). Power and Subversion in Byzantium. Farnham:
Ashgate Publishing.
Angold, M. (1975). A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society
under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Angold, M. (1975). Byzantine Nationalism in the Nicaean Empire. BMGS 1, 49-70.
Arnakis, G.G. (1966-67). George Pachymeres – a Byzantine Humanist. Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 12, 161-167.
Cameron, A. (1977). Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories. BMGS 3,
1-17.
Charanis, P. (1940-41). Coronation and its Constitutional Significance in the
Later Roman Empire. Byzantion 15, 49-66.
131
Constantelos, D. (1972). Emperor John Vatatzes’ Social Concern: Basis for
Canonisation. Klhronomia 4, 165-74.
Constantinides, C. N. (1982). Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and
Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204-ca.1310). Nicosia: Zavallis Press.
Dagron, G. (2003). Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Failler, A. (1996). Le complot antidynastique de Jean Drimys. Revue des etudes
byzantines 54, 235-244.
Foss, C. (1996). Nicaea: A Byzantine Capital and Its Praises. Brookline: Hellenic
College Press.
Galaki, E. K. (2018). Ideological Conflicts in Veiled Language as Seen by the
Palaiologan Hagiographers. The Lives of St. Theodosia as a Case Study.
In A. Rigo (Ed.), Byzantine Hagiography: Texts, Themes and Projects
(pp.401418). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.
Gardner, A. (1912). The Lascarids of Nicaea: The Story of an Empire in Exile.
London: Methuen & Co.
Geanakoplos, D. (1953). The Nicene Revolution of 1258 and the Usurpation of
Michael VIII Palaeologos. Traditio 9, 420-29.
Geanakoplos, D. (1959). Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Hunger, H. (1969-1970) On the imitation (μίμησις) of antiquity in Byzantine
Literature. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24, 17-38.
Kaldellis, A. (2013). How to usurp the throne in Byzantium: The role of public
opinion in sedition and rebellion. In D. Angelov & M. Saxby (Eds.), Power
and Subversion in Byzantium (pp. 43-56). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Karabeinikov, D. (2014). Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kazhdan, P. (1982). People and Power in Byzantium: an introduction to modern
Byzantine studies. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Kazhdan, P. (1984). The Social Views of Michael Attaleiates. In P. Kazhdan (Ed.),
Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
(pp. 23-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kazhdan, P. (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York: Oxford
University Press.
132
Kennedy, G. A. (2003). Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition
and Rhetoric. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Laiou, A. E. (1972). Constantinople and the Latins; The Foreign Policy of
Andronicus II 1282-1328. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Laiou, A.E. (1973). The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Palaeologan Period: A Story of
Arrested Development, In A. E. Laiou (Ed.) Gender, Society, and Economic
Life in Byzantium (131-152). Hampshire: Variorum.
Laiou, A.E. (1978). Some Observations on Alexios Philanthropenos and Maximos
Planoudes. BMGS 4, 89-99.
Laiou, A. E. (2005). Urbs Capta: the Fourth Crusade and its consequences. Paris:
Lethielleux.
Lampakis, S. (2004). Γεώργιος Παχυμερης: προτεκδικος και δικαιοφυλαξ. Athens:
The National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Lampakis, S. (2008). Some Considerations on the Historiographical Work of
Georgios Pachymeris. Byzantina Symmetika 16: 133-138.
Langdon, J. (1978). John III Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Imperium in Anatolian Exile,
1222-54: The Legacy of His Diplomatic, Military and Internal Program for the
Restitutio Urbis. (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of California, Los
Angeles.
Langdon, J. (1992). Byzantium’s last imperial offensive in Asia Minor: the
documentary evidence and hagiographical lore about John III Ducas Vatatzes’
crusade against Turks, 1222 or 1223 to 1231. New York: A.D. Caratzas.
Macrides, R. (1980). The New Constantine and the New Constantinople – 1261?.
BMGS 6, 13-41.
Macrides, R. (2001). Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period. In
Sergei Hackel (ed.) The Byzantine Saint (67-87). New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminar Press.
Magdalino, P. (1983). Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik.
Speculum 58: 326-346.
Majeska, G. P. (1973). St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: The
Russian Travelers on the Relics. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27, 69-87.
Majeska, G. P. (2002). Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople. Dumbarton Oaks
Paper 56, 93-108.
Marinis, V. (2009). Tombs and Burials in the Monastery tou Libos in
Constantinople. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63, 147-166.
133
Mullett, M. (2013). How to criticize the laudandus. In D. Angelov & M. Saxby
(Eds.), Power and Subversion in Byzantium (pp. 247-262). Farnham: Ashgate
Publishing.
Neville, L. (2018). Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nicol, D. (1962-64). The Greeks and the Union of the Churches the Report of
Ogerius, Protonotarius of Michael VIII Palaiologos, in 1280. Proceedings of
the Royal Irish Academy: Archeology, Culture, History, Literature, 1-16.
Nicol, D. (1979). Church and Society in the Last Centuries of Byzantium: The
Birkbeck Lectures,1977. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nicol, D. (1993). The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Penna V. and Morrison C. (2013). Usurpers and rebels in Byzantium: image and
message through coins. In D. Angelov & M. Saxby (Eds.), Power and
Subversion in Byzantium (pp. 21-42). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Polemis, D. (1983). Remains of an Acoluthia for the emperor John Ducas Batatzes.
Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 7, 542-547.
Sevcenko, I. (1952). The Imprisonment of Manuel Moschopoulos in the Year
1305 or 1306. Speculum 27: 133-157.
Sevcenko, I. (1953). Notes on Stephen the Novgorodian Pilgrim to
Constantinople in the XIV Century. Südost-Forschungen 12: 165-175.
Shawcross, T. (2008). In the Name of True Emperor: Politics of Resistance
after the Palaiologan Usurpation. Byzantinoslavica 66: 203-227.
Sinogowitz, B. (1952). Über das Byzantinische Kaisertum Nach dem Vierten
Kreuzzuge. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 45: 345-356.
Talbot, A. M. (1992). Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VIII.
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46: 295-303.
Talbot, A. M. (2011). Hagiography in Late Byzantium. In Stephanos Efthymiadis
(ed.) Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography (pp.173-195).
Routledge: Ashgate Publication.
Talbot, A.-M. (2015). The Relics of New Saints: Deposition, Translation, and
Veneration in Middle and Late Byzantium. In H. Klein & C. Hahn (Eds.)
Saints and Sacred Matters: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond
(pp. 215-230). Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
134
Tinnefeld, Franz. (1971). Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen
Historiographie. Munich: Wilhelm Verlag.