Download PDF | Orthodox Cyprus under the Latins, 1191–1571 (Byzantium: A European Empire and Its Legacy) by Chrysovalantis Kyriacou (Author), 2021.
519 Pages
Byzantium: A European Empire and Its Legacy Series Editor: Vlada Stanković (University of Belgrade) The series explores the rich and complex history, culture, and legacy of the longest lasting European state, its place in the Middle Ages, and in European civilization. Through positioning Byzantine history in a wider medieval context, the series will include new perspectives on the place of the eastern Mediterranean; Central, Eastern, and South Europe; and the Near East in the medieval period. The intention is not simply to place the Byzantine Empire in the Western sphere, but rather to call for a reorientation away from the traditional East-West divide and to bring Byzantium out of its isolation from the rest of the medieval world. Byzantium: A European Empire and Its Legacy seeks both monographs and edited collections that bring Byzantine studies into conversation with scholarship on the Western medieval world, as well as other works on the place of the Byzantine Empire in the global Middle Ages.
Acknowledgments This book began as a doctoral dissertation at the Hellenic Institute of Royal Holloway, University of London (2012–16). First of all, I would like to thank my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Charalambos Dendrinos, for his continuous support and encouragement. Insightful comments and suggestions were kindly put forth by my advisors, Drs. David Gwynn and Georgios Christodoulou. My deep thanks are also extended to my examiners, Professors Richard Price and Costas N. Constantinides, for their constructive criticisms and valuable corrections.
I gratefully acknowledge the financial support I received from the A. G. Leventis Foundation and the Holy Church of Panaghia Phanerōmenē (2012–14) during my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank the Hellenic Institute for awarding me The Joan Mervyn Hussey Memorial Prize (2012) and The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomaios I Postgraduate Studentship (2012–13). In the course of my writing I received encouragement and expert advice from a number of scholars, whom I would like to thank: Professors Jonathan Phillips, Aristeides Papadakis, Demetrios D. Triantaphyllopoulos, Nikolaos Moschonas, Graeme Murdock, Tassos Kaplanis, Maria Gabriella Arru, Christopher D. Schabel, Angel Nicolaou-Konnari, and Michalis Olympios; Drs. Nasa Patapiou, Ioanna Hadjicosti, Christodoulos Hadjichristodoulou, Panos Christodoulou, Despoina Ariantzi, and Giorgos Papantoniou; Mr. Andreas Loizou, Mrs. Margarita Papantoniou, and Fr. Gregorios Ioannides. I am also deeply indebted to Mrs. Jacqueline Westwood Demetriades for her linguistic services, and to Mrs. Naso Kalli Stergenaki for designing the maps.
I am particularly grateful to the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, and Eton College Library for granting their permission for the reproduction of images. The examination and critical edition of the Greek texts in Appendices I–III was based on digital facsimiles provided by the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, the Stauronikēta Monastery Library, and Eton College Library. The Stauronikēta monks also kindly offered their hospitality during my preliminary examination of the manuscript containing Patriarch Kallistos’ Encyclical in 2012. Special thanks should be given to Vlada Stanković for his proposal to publish with Lexington Books, and for his helpful suggestions in how to turn my dissertation into a monograph.
Brian Hill and Eric Kuntzman oversaw production of the book, providing expert assistance and editorial advice. I owe many thanks to the anonymous reviewers of Lexington Books for their valuable comments and remarks. The present book would have been impossible to write without my family’s support; it is to them that this study is dedicated. To Fr. Marios Demosthenous, my πνευματικὸς πατήρ, I owe deep and sincere thanks for helping me keep my life in balance, even when things seemed to go wrong. To my parents, sister, and grandfather, I owe my deepest gratitude: their unconditional love has been a constant source of moral strength. Baby Evridiki closely oversaw the final stages of the revision process, offering editorial assistance. Finally, my wife Maria has been an indefatigable companion throughout my journeys in the footsteps of medieval monks, bishops, and pilgrims. She was patient when I was not, and she lovingly understood that, like the mythical Antaeus, I too, draw strength from the land where I was born.
Introduction Eagle, Cross, and Lion: Historiography and Orthodox Cypriot Identities The Hadjigeorgakis Kornesios mansion is situated in a quiet street in intra muros Nicosia. Named after its powerful owner, who served the Ottomans as an interpreter before his downfall and execution in 1809, the fortress-like mansion (today Nicosia’s Ethnological Museum) is one of the most emblematic buildings of the Cypriot capital. The visitor or passerby often stands for a moment to gaze at the relief decorating the upper part of the entrance (see cover image). Being a visible reminder of the Podocataro (the wealthy Greek family of merchants, nobles, scholars, and cardinals who lived there during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), the relief becomes itself a symbolic gateway to the lost world of Latin-ruled Cyprus, a world of symbiosis and tension, tolerance and intolerance, identity preservation and identity adaptation.1
Three elements in the relief deserve particular attention. The shield in its central part encloses a two-headed eagle, probably alluding to the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire that ruled Cyprus for almost nine centuries, before the Crusader conquest of 1191.2 The cross displayed at the eagle’s chest brings to mind the island’s close links with Palestine and the local tradition of devotion to the True Cross, promoted by both Byzantium and the Crusader overlords of Cyprus.3 The winged lion of St. Mark, anemblem of Venetian authority, stands upon the shield’s upper part, holding with its right foot an open Gospel book.4
These three symbols―eagle, cross, and lion―seem to encapsulate the multiplicity of Orthodox Cypriot identities under the Crusaders and the Venetians: a crucial, although often ignored, element in earlier and more recent discussions among historians of Cypriot Orthodoxy during the period of the Latin rule (1191–1571). The examination of Cypriot identities is a sensitive subject. Interpretations of Cypriot ethnoreligious awareness have been shaped (often unconsciously) by political developments and the influence of British colonialism on historiography. The British Empire assumed control of Cyprus in 1878, following nearly seven centuries of Crusader, Venetian, and Ottoman occupation (1191– 1878); this gradually led to the intensification of nationalist calls for Union with Greece among the Greek Cypriots, the island’s largest community. By the early twentieth century, the Unionist movement was widely embraced by people of all ages and social groups, with the local Orthodox Church being “both the symbol and functional core” of demands for liberation.5 As a response to the Greek Cypriot Uprising of October 1931, the British pursued a repressive policy, employing methods of social engineering: interventions in Greek Cypriot elementary education presented the history and geography of Cyprus in a Near Eastern context, excluding references to Hellenism; the fields of archaeology, architecture, and numismatic iconography were also manipulated in order to promote an “authentic” (denationalized) Cypriot identity, so as to reaffirm Cypriot colonial loyalty to the British Empire.6
The monumental History of Cyprus by Sir George F. Hill (1867– 1948) is representative of this policy. Published in four volumes between 1940 and 1952, Hill’s History brilliantly provides a detailed account of Cypriot history, from the Stone Age to 1948 Reacting, however, to Greek Cypriot nationalism, Hill adopts a racial perception of Cypriot Hellenism: although religion and language “[had] foster[ed] the idea that the Cypriotes were Greeks in origin,” there was absolutely no evidence of “real racial affinity with the Hellenic stock.”7 Hill’s contribution to the understanding of Latin-ruled Cypriot society is that he viewed religious tension as triggered by the intervention of non-Cypriot Latins in Cypriot affairs.8 This, however, is only partly correct: religious tension was also the result of conscious and unconscious boundary building coming from within the Cypriot society. Hill’s distinction between Cypriots living together in peace and non-Cypriots causing problems on the island was perhaps paralleled by the pro-Union role and activities of the Greek Consulate in Nicosia during the Uprising of 1931, which later developed (with Athens’ blessings) into support toward the EOKA, the Greek Cypriot guerilla organization fighting the British between 1955 and 1959.9
The fact that the Greek Cypriot struggle was led by the Orthodox Church of Cyprus and was sanctioned by the Orthodox Church of Greece did not improve the image of Greek Orthodoxy in the eyes of British colonial officials, who (unsuccessfully) attempted to “encourage moderate opinion to break loose from domination by the Church.”10 The years following the liberation of Cyprus from the British and the founding of the independent Republic of Cyprus in 1960 witnessed the enduring legacy of colonial perceptions in the works of eminent non-Cypriot Byzantinists.11 The controversial adoption of these views by Greek Cypriot historians of a younger generation suggests the striking influence exercised by the colonial past on modern Cypriot historiography. 12 In 1974, the culmination of tension between the island’s Greek and Turkish communities (the result of a coup d’état orchestrated by the Greek Junta and Greek Cypriot nationalists against the Cypriot government, leading to a military invasion by Turkey, supported by Turkish Cypriot nationalists) brought bitter division that continues to the present day. The traumatic consequences of these events enhanced the ethnocentric approach of a number of leading Greek and Greek Cypriot scholars, who attempted to provide a different version of Cypriot history by stressing the historical presence of Hellenism and Orthodoxy on the island.13 The most influential studies on the period of Latin rule in Cyprus by members of the ethnocentric group (associated with governmental or ecclesiastical research institutions) are those by Theodoros Papadopoullos (1921–2016), Costas P. Kyrris (1927– 2009), and Benediktos (later Archimandrite Paul) Englezakis (1947–92).14
Their work covers various social, ecclesiastical, and ideological issues, shedding light on the preservation and adaptation of Greek Orthodox identity under Latin rule, against an Ultramontane-like policy of Latinization.15 Not surprisingly, these scholars maintained a generally negative perception of the Latin rule and its impact on Orthodox ecclesiastical affairs, apparently echoing Archimandrite Kyprianos (d. 1802/1805), the well-known Greek Cypriot historian of the eighteenth century, who had argued that the diachronic survival of Cypriot Hellenism under foreign occupation could guide the Greek Cypriots of his time to endure the island’s tribulations under the Ottomans.16 Revisionist historians have criticized the ethnocentric scholars for occasionally ignoring or misinterpreting the Latin ecclesiastical sources: by lacking the perspective of a medievalist, the ethnocentric school was inevitably led to wrong conclusions, underplaying, for example, the role of the Latin political and ecclesiastical regime in the preservation of Byzantine Orthodox ethnoreligious identity. 17 The contribution of ethnocentric historians is that by focusing on hitherto unexplored aspects of the island’s religion, society, and culture, they gave new impetus to the examination of the Latin period. More importantly, they internationally promoted, in collaboration with their non-Cypriot colleagues, the study of Cypriot ecclesiastical history, disconnecting it from earlier colonial misinterpretations.18
The renewed interest in the history and culture of Latin-ruled Cyprus led a number of scholars to the systematic investigation of Latin literary sources and archaeological material. In the 1980s, historical revisionism gradually began to challenge the ethnocentric model by presenting a less bipolar and more interactive picture of multiethnic coexistence and collaboration under the Latins. It is mainly due to the labors of Jean Richard, Peter Edbury, Benjamin Arbel, Annemarie Weyl Carr, Nicholas Coureas, Gilles Grivaud, Christopher D. Schabel, Angel Nicolaou-Konnari, Tassos Papacostas, Alexander Beihammer, and others, that Cypriot ecclesiastical history has shifted away from the paradigm of interreligious tension toward a more balanced understanding of the complex and multidimensional relationship between Latins and non-Latins on the island.19 I should state beforehand that I do not imply that this group of academic historians and archaeologists (medievalists, Byzantinists, and early modernists) is homogenous in personal background, methodology, or ideology; their common element is that their research and analyses revised the views of ethnocentric historians, who stressed interreligious tension and national continuity. The development of revisionist scholarship in the 1990s and 2000s, with its emphasis in multiculturalism and diversity, seems to have been facilitated by recent political developments.20 The accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union (2004), the intensification of efforts to resolve the Cyprus Issue and the emergence of a Greek Cypriot governmental policy of rapprochement with the Turkish Cypriots (since 2008), led to attempts to revise history curricula in public education, in order to promote reconciliation between the two communities.21
Regardless of the intentions of the scholars named above, their arguments are sometimes involved in the dialogue between Cypriot politics and historiography. For example, Andrekos Varnava, a historian of the modern period, argued (based on the findings of revisionist medievalists) that “a discussion of communal developments and relations in Cyprus must take into account . . . that since 1191 Cyprus exhibits a significant degree of cosmopolitanism, integration and, at least until the twentieth century . . ., peaceful relations between its various inhabitants.”22 In their treatment of the modern Orthodox Church of Cyprus, Varnava and Michalis N. Michael (an Ottomanist) wonder whether this institution should play “the role of a Cypriot Church, as it evidently did pre-1900 [rather than] continue to represent a chauvinist brand of Cypriot Hellenism.”23 In the same vein, earlier ethnocentric historiography emphasizing the survival of Orthodox Cypriot identity under the Latins has been viewed by Schabel, a leading medievalist, as shaped by chauvinism and self-victimization.24 Focusing on the thorny issue of Cypriotness during the Latin period, revisionist works accept language and religion as the most important criteria of ethnic identity and argue for the existence of a process of gradual identity fusion, leading to the emergence of an inclusive Cypriot identity that embraced Greeks, Latins, and Oriental Christians.25
The strong emphasis on peaceful symbiosis and local Cypriot identity has been criticized by ethnocentric scholars for echoing the position of British colonial historiography. 26 Moreover, as Anthony Kaldellis has recently shown, “the Byzantines failed (or rather never tried) to define themselves in purely religious terms against the Latins,” which suggests that Greek Cypriot identity in this period was not determined by culture and religion alone, but also by political allegiance to Byzantium and awareness of participation to the Byzantine “body politic.”27 These observations invite a new paradigm shift toward a “postrevisionist” understanding of the complexities of Cypriot Orthodoxy, one that will overcome traditional boundaries between the ethnocentric and revisionist approaches. It is important to examine, for example, the extent of Orthodox Cypriot ethnoreligious survival under the Latins (if any), moving beyond the axiom that “the idea of national identity . . . is not easily applied to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries” (unless what it is implied here is that the modern, post-Enlightenment version of nationalism could not have existed in medieval times, in which case I agree).28
Needless to say that if we are to explore Latin-ruled Cypriot Orthodoxy in a deeper and more systematic way, we can hardly afford to ignore the conclusions of historical revisionism. This highlights the contribution of revisionist scholarship, particularly in recognizing the role of Christianity as a unifying factor among the island’s ethnoreligious communities.29 Equally significant concerning the process of boundary building is the revisionist argument that despite their long symbiosis with other communities and the emergence of an inclusive Cypriot identity, the island’s Franks “maintained their Frankish ethnicity and cultural identity, . . . stressing their connection with France and the West even after the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus.”30 Perhaps the most important (yet largely undeveloped) idea in revisionist historiography concerns the existence of “a plurality of sub-identities or layered identities within one or more inclusive identities, corresponding to different social and cultural groups . . . and depending on the spheres of contact and interaction.”31 This is, clearly, not far from the ethnocentric point that the preservation of Cypriot Orthodoxy coexisted with phenomena of interdependence and interaction between Greeks and non-Greeks.32 Although the notion of “multilayered” or “multiple” identities is crucial for a fresh reading of the sources, it has not been adequately stressed in previous historiography.
This book is the first attempt in this direction. Its aim, however, is not to conveniently reconcile the two aforementioned approaches, but to investigate fundamental questions related to faith, ideology, and identity in a distinct, independent, and more holistic way, in order to understand “people and institutions, ideas, beliefs, emotions, and the needs of individuals who no longer exist.”33 To what extent, if any, did Latin-ruled Greek Cypriots preserve a Byzantine Orthodox awareness? What was the impact of political and socioeconomic developments in their ideological and spiritual orientation? And how can spirituality, this combination of “fundamental values, lifestyles, and spiritual practices [that] reflect particular understandings of God, human identity, and the material world as the context for human transformation,” be critically examined from the perspective of the historian of Latin-ruled Cyprus?34 To answer these questions, we would have to sail the sea of a Cypriot Byzance après Byzance, 35 exploring the rich heritage of Byzantine Orthodoxy on the island after its political alienation from Byzantium, and mapping the dynamic adaptation of this legacy throughout the changing and overlapping contexts that marked the shift from Byzantine to Crusader and Venetian rule.
The wide chronological spectrum and scope of this book require the examination of a variety of Greek and Latin literary sources, including patriarchal and papal letters, canonical collections, synodal proceedings, theological treatises, liturgical texts, chronicles, and traveler accounts. The discussion is also enriched by the survey and interpretation of related archaeological material (e.g., icons, frescoes, and inscriptions). New insights into Byzantine Orthodox ethnoreligiosity in Latin-ruled Cyprus are provided by the editio princeps (in Appendices I–III) of three important sources: the Confession of faith of the Monks of Kantara and a synaxary on their memory, the Encyclical letter to the Cypriots by Patriarch Kallistos I of Constantinople (1350–53 and 1354–63), and the partial edition of a Florilegium on Purgatory and the Afterlife by Francis the Cypriot. In order to analyze and interpret the material in a more precise and comprehensive way, I have pursued a comparative and interdisciplinary approach, systematically applying modern theories from the fields of sociology, psychology, and social anthropology. 36
This methodological framework, I believe, will enable a deeper examination of phenomena of identity preservation and adaptation by enriching “the historian’s palette [with the] indispensable means of understanding the totality of human experience.”37 The use of ambiguous terminology in the sources and previous historiography with reference to different ethnoreligious categories requires a more precise definition of different spiritual identities within the Cypriot society. The Greeks of Cyprus generally described themselves as Ῥωμαῖοι (“Byzantine Romans”), a term that reveals their ethnic, cultural, and religious bonds with Byzantium.38 I have decided to employ the modern term “Greek Cypriots” or simply “Greeks” to denote the Ῥωμαῖοι of Cyprus in general, while using “Byzantines” to refer to subjects of the Byzantine Empire. The term “Latins” denotes followers of the Latin liturgical rite and doctrines under papal jurisdiction, including “Latinized” Christians, namely non-Latin Christians who adopted the Latin rite and doctrines.
The capitalized term “Orthodox” (which, at the time, was not specific to any group) is used to define Cypriot lay and ecclesiastical followers of the Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox liturgical rite and doctrines, including both Greeks and non-Greeks; lowercased “orthodox” denotes perceptions of doctrinal correctness regardless of religious affiliation. “Oriental Christian” is used as an umbrella term for non-Byzantine Orthodox Christian groups, including Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians. Scholars have also been using the terms “Uniates,” “Greek-rite Catholics,” or “Latinizers” to describe the “Latin-minded” (Λατινόφρονες in the sources) as a separate and well-defined group of Greek Eastern Catholics, who followed the Byzantine liturgical rite and customs but adopted the Latin doctrines and accepted papal ecclesiastical supremacy. 39 At least in the case of Latin-ruled Greek Cypriots, it is doubtful whether we can clearly identify “Latinizers” as a concrete group; so far, there is no evidence to ascertain their existence as a separate wing or party in the period under discussion.40 What the evidence concerning pro-Latin Greeks shows is the existence of attitudes rather than groups, for the simple reason that allegiance to the one or the other side fluctuated depending on particular circumstances. This does not mean that “Latinizers” did not exist; it is simply difficult to detect them both individually and as a body, which justifies my reluctance to refer to “Latinizers” in the present study Given that Cypriot Orthodoxy during the period of the Latin rule developed certain cryptoreligious characteristics, the concept of “anti-Latinism” (namely manifestations of open or covert resistance against the status quo) becomes a useful criterion for the examination of boundary maintenance under the Latins.
However, “anti-Latinism” should not be misinterpreted as part of the very definition of Orthodoxy; in the context of this book it simply denotes the expression of specific attitudes that are not always directly detectable in the sources, but are considered as important indications of identity preservation. Having seen that “antiLatinism” does not imply a Hellenocentric, Westernophobic, and ultimately ahistorical perception of Orthodoxy, 42 it should be noted that “Orthodox” also includes Orthodox Christians who, while not criticizing the Western Church for a variety of practical reasons (e.g., socioeconomic circumstances, involvement in public life, and wish or need to secure papal protection, etc.), remained faithful to their own tradition. Rather than being monolithic, Cypriot Orthodoxy under the Latins is colored by a multiplicity of identities, attitudes, perceptions, and reactions, which often varied according to particular circumstances. My insistence to speak of a Byzantine Orthodox ethnoreligious identity is based on the acknowledgment that, despite the development of regional identities as a result of the political fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, a sense of unity between the free and conquered Ῥωμαῖοι continued to exist, growing stronger toward the midfifteenth century.
Admittedly, the criteria applied for the definition of ethnic self in late Byzantium primarily correspond to the understanding and aims of the Byzantine literati (emperors, statesmen, scholars, and churchmen) who formulated them; the extent to which these identity markers were communicated to the masses of the illiterati and the latter’s response to them is difficult to know. Yet, there is no reason to believe that the criteria of ethnic identity were thoroughly invented, and that the Byzantine dominant class managed at some point to inject them into the collective consciousness of the lower masses. These criteria (e.g., Greek language, loyalty to the Byzantine emperor, observance of common habits, laws, and customs) offer insights to an already-existing cultural stratum of collective identity, developed through long-term historical experiences.43 Τhe Orthodox Cypriot community included not only Greeks, but also Syrian Melkites and Georgians (on Latin converts to Orthodoxy, see chapter 5). This book focuses on the Greek Cypriots, the oldest and largest group of Byzantine Orthodox Christians on the island, for whom we possess a clearer picture based on literary and archaeological evidence. This is not to deny that the Byzantine Orthodox identity was shared to some degree by Syrian Melkites and Georgians, namely groups with their own ethnoreligious characteristics:
the Syrian Melkites were mostly Arabic speakers originating from a Byzantine cultural milieu in Muslim- (and for some time Crusader-) ruled Syria and Palestine, while the Georgians had their own cultural tradition, the product of Caucasian, Byzantine, and Persian influences. Doctrinal and liturgical unity between these Orthodox groups led to a degree of homogenization with the Greek Cypriots, which can explain why the religious presence of Syrian Melkites and Georgians as separate communities is hardly detectable (e.g., they had no bishops of their own and some of their monasteries gradually passed to Greek control).
Thus, the inclusive label “Byzantine Orthodox” could also be applied to describe the bonds of non-Greek Orthodox groups with their Greek Cypriot brethren and the politically fragmented Byzantine Orthodox world, including their places of origin (Syria Palestine, and Georgia) that adhered to the Byzantine sphere of influence. This is a strong indication that Byzantine Orthodoxy was part of the ethnoreligious identities of non-Greek Orthodox Christians, although perhaps to a lesser degree than in the case of the Greek Cypriots. At the same time, the Syrian Melkites and Georgians interacted with the Latins within the framework created by the conditions of Western political and ecclesiastical domination. An exhaustive analysis of how non-Greek Orthodox Cypriots negotiated their multiple identities in different contexts is beyond the scope of this book; yet, as in the case of the Greek Cypriots, the development and management of various group memberships probably permitted both adaptation and boundary building.44
The arrangement of chapters is chronological, covering the whole period of the Latin rule in Cyprus, from the Crusader conquest of 1191 to the Ottoman conquest of 1571. Chapter 1 invites readers to explore the multiplicity of Orthodox reactions vis-à-vis the establishment of the Lusignan Kingdom and Latin Church on the island from 1191 to the implementation of the Bulla Cypria in 1260. Chapter 2 captures the Sitz im Leben of the fascinating coexistence of cultures and ethnoreligious communities in Cyprus between 1260 and ca. 1330. This chapter redefines the crucial notion of “anti-Latinism” as not being necessarily violent or coercive, and reveals the existence of covert mechanisms of resistance and identity preservation among the Orthodox population of Cyprus. Chapter 3 focuses on a significant, yet largely unexplored, episode in the relations between the Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, namely the controversy over Palamite Hesychasm between the 1330s and 1400s.
The shifting dynamics of the controversy unveil the emergence of an elite Greek Cypriot group with pro-Orthodox and pro-Byzantine orientation. The activities of this group had impact on the relations between Greeks and Latins in Cyprus during the second half of the fourteenth century, leading to closer contacts with Constantinople and the Orthodox world. The renegotiation of existing bonds with Byzantium emphasizes the place of Cyprus as part of the Byzantine Orthodox “sphere of influence.”45 Chapter 4 focuses on the Bryennios affair (1406 and 1412), an important incident that marked the de jure exclusion of Cyprus from the Byzantine Orthodox ecumene at a time of global transformations. The chapter also explores the Cypriot reception of the “Union” of Florence (1439), which enhanced the status of Latin-ruled Orthodox as members of the Western Church and sanctioned the preservation of non-Latin doctrines, practices, and customs. Chapter 5 provides a kaleidoscopic view of Venice’s ecclesiastical Realpolitik in Cyprus, and maps Orthodox Cypriot expressions of both resistance and political loyalty. The chapter also discusses the encounter of Cypriot Orthodoxy with the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation, closing with a presentation of the cultural achievements of Orthodox Cypriot revival in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Any pretense to absolute historical objectivity is misleading. “
The historian,” writes Arnaldo Momigliano (1908–87), “is above all free to bring to historical research all the richness of his own convictions and experience . . ., interpret[ing] the reality of which the sources are indicative signs, or fragments.”46 Rather than questing for (or claiming to possess) the utopian absolute objectivity, I acknowledge the limitations of my examination: this is a book written from the perspective of a British-trained Byzantinist, who is also a Greek Cypriot and a practicing member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, I recognize that my inherent point of view is unavoidably (partly) subjective: no historian is completely objective, no historian is completely unbiased; idealized historical objectivity is a chimera. Needless to say that I do not consider the historian’s work to be entirely personal and subjective. “The most unMarxist historian,” notes Norman Hampson (1922–2011), “cannot write now as though Marx had never existed. . . . New views emerge from the old, even when they are intended to refute them.”47
This realization is at the heart of my critique of previous historiography on the subject: the successively overwhelming dominance in scholarship of the ethnocentric and revisionist viewpoints has been the result of different readings of the sources (and of different sources!) by scholars of different backgrounds, who reacted and responded (consciously or unconsciously) to different political and ideological contexts. Readers must judge the degree to which my interpretation of Byzantine Orthodox Christianity in Latin-ruled Cyprus was shaped by who I am; they should do the same for the scholars whose views this book partially challenges.48 Orthodox Cyprus under the Latins invites readers to see Cyprus, the most important Crusader stronghold and Venetian colony in the Eastern Mediterranean, as a religious, cultural, and ideological part of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine Orthodox world. Like the relief decorating the Hadjigeorgakis mansion, this book tells the story of multiple, coexisting, and often contradicting identities; the story of All that man is, All mere complexities, The fury and the mire of human veins What follows in the next pages is not only a journey to the world of Byzantine, Crusader, and Renaissance Cyprus, but also a journey into the depths of the historical experience of a conquered people, who, as we shall see, managed to survive under foreign occupation and reclaim their place in the land of their forefathers.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق