Download PDF | Empresses of Late Byzantium Foreign Brides, Mediators and Pious Women, ByPetra Melichar, Berlin 2019.
588 Pages
Foreword
About six years ago, the Slavonic Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences announced a vacancy in the Department of Paleoslavonic and Byzantine Studies. Among the applicants for the position was a young lady who was virtually unknown to us. She had studied history not in Prague but at Masaryk University in Brno and then dropped out of sight for several years as she furthered her education abroad. After a year of study in Chicago and one and three semesters respectively at the Institutes of Byzantine Studies in Munich and Vienna, she completed her graduate education under the guidance of Peter Van Deun at Katholieke Universiteit in Leuven. Such an academic record was unique in the Czech Republic at that time, something that was only dreamed of by my generation and all those whose degrees were completed in Czechoslovakia under the communist regime. It was proof of the new possibilities that had opened up for young people after the Velvet Revolution in November 1989. A gifted student, Petra Melichar had taken advantage of the opportunities available to her with her characteristic strength of will and a substantial measure of selfdiscipline.
The doctoral dissertation she successfully defended in Leuven was titled Faith and Fate of Palaiologan Women: Female Piety in Late Byzantium, and the work was truly impressive — not only in its breadth (597 pages) but also in the way it dealt with its topic and in its contribution to humanities and the social sciences. Based on an analysis of the experiences of more than three hundred women in addition to a wide range of secondary literature, her dissertation offered a truly original overview of the spirituality of an otherwise obscure segment of late Byzantine society.
Doubtless owing to the knowledge base she had acquired in researching her dissertation, Petra Melichar was able to submit a well-formulated research aim (in respect to content and methodology) that she planned to investigate contingent on her admission to the Slavonic Institute: to elucidate the position and role of empresses in the society of the Palaiologan era. When I remarked in jest, as is my wont, that Byzantine history ends in 1204 as far as I am concerned and expressed my doubts as to whether there was any reason to study the final years of the Byzantine Empire, the young scholar, as yet unfamiliar with my sense of humor, launched into enthusiastic defense of her project and of the cultural significance of the Palaiologan period as such. Her passionate response not only demonstrated her expertise in the field but also showcased her abilities in debate and discourse as well as her determined self-assurance. Her presentation was absolutely convincing, and the committee voted to admit her to the Institute.
We soon saw that we had made the correct decision. Petra Melichar took her place among her fellow scholars, and it was with particular enthusiasm that she joined the editorial board of the journal Byzantinoslavica. A year later, she became editor-in-chief when a senior colleague retired. From the outset, she had a clear concept of what she wanted to achieve as editor, and thanks to her tireless efforts to widen the circle of contacts she had already formed in her time abroad, she managed to attract a number of new contributors. Of equal importance was the creation of a community of specialists from various areas of Byzantine Studies who were willing to assess the quality of the articles the journal was receiving in order to assure that the high standards and professionalism of the publication were maintained.
The majority of her time and efforts, however, were spent on her declared research aim: to produce a study describing the position and social role of the empresses of the late Byzantine period. Having secured a grant to finance her project, she was able to organize an international workshop called Lives, Roles and Actions of the Byzantine Empresses (4th — 15th c.) in Villa Lanna, the impressive conference center of the Czech Academy of Sciences, in September 2015. The purpose of the conference was to map the state of existing research, thereby indicating a starting point for her own work. The gathering was a success. One Australian and seventeen European scholars presented their papers, most of which gradually appeared in subsequent volumes of Byzantinoslavica in a revised, occasionally expanded, format.
Despite various challenges, not the least of which was the birth of a lively baby boy, Petra Melichar has completed her monograph. The result is now presented to the scholarly public, who will judge its quality. Over the years, she has consulted her observations, doubts, questions, and new ideas with me, and I must use this opportunity to acknowledge her thoughtful and reasoned approach to her research. As new questions arose from her findings, she continued in her search for answers, and her meticulousness as she investigated the available sources could almost be described as immoderate. She not only read but also made critical use of a varied sample of secondary sources, including monographs, studies, and articles from journals and conference proceedings.
While I found the fifteen sketches contained in the biographical chapters interesting, I particularly appreciated the chapters that analyze the position of the Palaiologan empresses in the various phases of their lives, their role at the imperial court and in Byzantine society, their relationship to the ecclesiastical establishment, their behavior and place in dynastic conflicts, their engagement in diplomatic relations, and their educational opportunities. Petra Melichar has fleshed out and enriched our image of late Byzantine society, offered here from a female perspective, and her work helps to fill a noticeable lacuna in current Byzantine research. Although excellent monographs dedicated to empresses of the early and middle Byzantine periods have been published in recent decades, a comprehensive work of this nature for the Palaiologan period was lacking. In this respect as well, the monograph of Petra Melichar represents an important contribution to the field.
Vladimir Vavrinek
Acknowledgments
When artists began signing their paintings towards the end of the Middle Ages, it was only the master who placed his name on the piece. The names of his helpers, who painted parts of the image and performed tasks without which the work could never have been created, often remain unknown. Likewise, the present study could not have been completed without a great deal of external support, and I would like to acknowledge those who helped me with this project in its various stages.
My thanks belong to Vladimir Vavrinek, my honored colleague from the Slavonic Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague, who was a constant support and encouragement to me, reading and commenting on individual chapters. I was also very fortunate that Lynda Garland, a specialist in the field of Byzantine empresses (and a wonderful person), was willing to review the manuscript. I am thankful for her notes, suggestions, and bibliographical recommendations, all of which greatly improved the text. I would also like to thank my other reviewer, Pavel Bocek from Masaryk University in Brno, for reading the manuscript and bringing to my attention relevant literature and artifacts. As English is not my mother tongue, I would like to express my deep thanks to Cindy Palacka, who not only corrected the text but, by her stimulating feedback and questions, frequently helped me improve the content as well. I am likewise much obliged to Jan Dvorak for his advice regarding images, to Karel Sklenär and Petr Prenosil for preparing the maps, and to Jirka Mikulášek for putting the finishing touches on the family trees of important late Byzantine dynasties.
I am also grateful to the Director of the Slavonic Institute, Vaclav Cermak, and the Vice Director, Helena Ulbrechtova, for their help in negotiating the publication of this work. Furthermore, I am much obliged to my colleagues from the Library of the Slavonic Institute, Jaroslav Zitka, Hana Volkova, Jana Sukova and Dana Pilátová, for bringing books and studies to my attention and for allowing me to access various publications both during and outside opening hours. I am also thankful for the friendship, support and encouragement of my colleague Martina Cechová. Finally, I would like to thank Jana Slechtová and Dagmar Stépánková for taking care of the administrative matters related to this project.
My sincere thanks also go to the Institute of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies of the University of Vienna, which generously allowed me free access to their library resources. As far as the images are concerned, I must acknowledge the Library of Dumbarton Oaks, Musées d'art et d'histoire, Ville de Geneve, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, the British National Library, and Musée du Louvre and their excellent staff, who provided high-definition images. I am also very grateful to many fellow Byzantinists and scholars who generously shared their knowledge, sent me articles I could not have accessed otherwise, and gave me valuable advice on sources and literature. Concerning the publication of this monograph, I am very thankful to my editors, Ms. Ute Winkelkótter, Ms. Katharina Wlost and Ms. Sharmila Kirouchenadassou for all their help, notes and suggestions.
My final thanks belong to my family, especially to my husband, Richard, and to my parents, Helena and Vladimír, without whose support and willingness to sacrifice their free time to look after our children this project could never have come into being. I am also grateful to my parents-in-law, Richard and Burgi, for their many kindnesses. Finally, I would also like to express my gratitude to Deborah Nelson for her friendship and for everything she modelled and taught me.
About the author
Petra Melichar earned her PhD from Katholieke Universiteit in Leuven in 2012. At present, she is a fellow of the Slavonic Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague and editor-in-chief of the journal Byzantinoslavica (since 2015). Her recent work centers on elite women in the Palaiologan period (1261 — 1453).
About the book
With the exception of the wife of Andronikos III Palaiologos, Anna of Savoy, who acted as regent of Byzantium from 1341 to 1347, the lives of the late Byzantine empresses have so far received little scholarly attention. This study presents the biographies of all fifteen empresses of the Palaiologan dynasty and, based on their experiences, follows the development of the role and position of an empress in the last centuries of the empire. The final analysis considers the selection process for imperial brides and the rituals accompanying their arrival in Constantinople. The author also inquires into their role in public, ritual, and ecclesiastical life and their most important social roles at various stages of life.
Introduction
On the Feast of Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodox Christians come together to celebrate the beliefs proclaimed by their church, but they also use the occasion to commemorate the Byzantine emperors, empresses, and patriarchs who held fast to those doctrines until death. Among them are the names of nine late Byzantine empresses:
Theodora, who assuming the divine and angelic dress became the nun Eugenia, eternal be her memory. Eirene (...) Eirene (...) Maria our lady, who assuming the divine and angelic dress became the nun Xene (...) Anna (...) our lady who assuming the divine and angelic dress became the nun Anastasia, who by her actions and words fought throughout her life and with all her soul to confirm the ecclesiastical teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers and to exterminate the evil and godless heresies of Barlaam and Akindynos and their partisans (...) Eirene, our (...) lady, who assuming the divine and angelic dress became the nun Eugenia (...) Anna (...) Helene our (...) lady, who assuming the divine and angelic dress became the nun Hypomone (...) Maria our (...) lady, who
assuming the divine and angelic dress became the nun Makaria, eternal be her memory.!
Set within the dramatic, final centuries of the Byzantine Empire, the stories of these empresses (and six others who are not mentioned in the list) not only reveal the realities of life as they experienced it but also offer unique perspectives from which to view Byzantine society and history from the emergence of the Palaiologan dynasty until the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453. As Kazhdan and Epstein persuasively argued in their monograph Change in the Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,* the empire evolved under the Komnenos dynasty, moving away from the legacy of Late Antiquity and acquiring the features of a medieval state even though it never developed some of its forms (such as a feudal system in the Western sense). Kinship with the emperor became an increasingly valuable commodity, and members of the imperial family who had remained in the background in earlier centuries began to play important roles in the political, religious, and cultural life of the empire with growing frequency.
After the initial revival following the Byzantine reconquest of Constantinople in 1261, the empire suffered a progressive loss of territory under the Palaiologans, especially in Asia Minor. This loss contributed to a decrease in the number of important noble families that could be expected to contend for the imperial throne. It is certainly no accident that during the nearly two hundred years of Palaiologan rule, no emperor was killed fighting against a usurper. While the struggle for the throne persisted, it now took place mostly within the imperial family itself (as the conflicts and/or rivalry between John V and Matthew Kantakouzenos, John V and Andronikos IV, or John VII and Manuel II demonstrate).
This concept of imperial power resting firmly in the hands of one dynasty also affected the standing of the female members of the ruling family. When so many members of the court were connected to the reigning house by blood or marriage, public matters often became family matters. Family conflicts, in turn, could develop into civil strife or even civil war as the prolonged struggle between Andronikos II and Andronikos III demonstrated. At the same time, it was this blurred boundary between the private and the public spheres that frequently brought the women of the imperial family, who had been carefully protected in the seclusion of the women’s quarters (gynaecea) in earlier times, into new roles in the political arena.
The mere notion of a ruling empress was traditionally a problematic one in Byzantium. In the first place, women were deemed unfit for military leadership, which constituted a significant handicap, considering that defending and, when the opportunity presented itself, expanding the boundaries of the empire was one of the central tasks of a ruler. While occasionally an empress was able to overcome this obstacle with the aid of capable eunuchs (Eirene the Athenian), the basic skepticism regarding the ability of a female to govern remained firmly entrenched in Byzantine society and found expression in the derisive comments made by several Palaiologan historians. One of them was Doukas, who while describing the reign of Anna of Savoy, scathingly noted that “the empire, in female hands, is like a weaver’s shuttle spinning awry and twisting the thread of the purple robe.” ? Their disapproval was no doubt connected with the prevalent medieval perception of women as weak, unstable, prone to sin, and given to excessive emotion. Coupled with misunderstood Biblical ideas regarding women and leadership, these notions certainly reflected on the standing of the empress, causing her to be regarded as a less-than-desirable choice for the position of sovereign.^
Despite this unfavorable predisposition of Byzantine society towards female rulers, women ascended the imperial throne in the early and middle periods time and again.? Most notably, when an emperor had only female offspring, his eldest daughter succeeded him and either legitimized a new dynasty by marriage (e.g.,
Ariadne or Zoe the Macedonian) or named a successor towards the end of her life (Theodora the Macedonian). On other occasions, an imperial widow married a pretender to the throne and, in so doing, lent legitimacy to his rule (Maria of ‘Alania’). Finally, imperial widows and mothers could assume power on behalf of a minor son (e.g., Eirene, the mother of Constantine VI, or Theodora, the mother of Michael III).
As premature death was rare among the emperors of the Palaiologan dynasty and male offspring abundant, the paths by which earlier generations of empresses had entered the political limelight were closed to the empresses of late Byzantium (the only exception being Anna of Savoy, the wife of Andronikos III, who became a regent until her son came of age). Furthermore, a dynasty with an adequate supply of male heirs had no domestic political use for its female children, who became pawns in the external politics of the empire as a result, marrying neighboring rulers in order to secure Byzantium’s borders and create desperately needed military alliances.
Even though only one of the fifteen empresses of this period ruled autonomously (and that for only five and a half years), historical sources portray the imperial consorts of the Palaiologan era in a variety of situations and roles that imply their relatively frequent and direct participation in public life. EireneYolanda and Maria-Rita ruled Thessalonike independently (as did the aforementioned Anna of Savoy) while Eirene Kantakouzene, Helene Palaiologina, and Helene Dragaš were charged with governing Constantinople and other cities of the empire in the absence of their husbands and, later, their sons. On at least one occasion, Anna of Savoy led an international peace mission and negotiated with the ruling couple of Serbia. Other imperial consorts were called on to mediate quarrels within the imperial family.° Eirene Kantakouzene, for example, negotiated with her brothers, son, and son-in-law on behalf of her husband, and Maria-Rita brokered peace between her father-in-law and son in the course of the First Civil War. Empresses also acted as patrons of scholars, and at least one of these women, Helene Palaiologina, was involved in scholarly pursuits of her own.’ In addition to showing an interest in scholarship, Theodora Palaiologina refounded two convents in Constantinople and provided them with monastic rules.
The participation of the late Byzantine empresses in politics, society, and culture was not an isolated phenomenon but was paralleled in the activities of princesses and noblewomen, most of whom were related to the imperial family. In recent decades, scholars have frequently remarked on the social status and
prominent position of these women.® Representative examples include the two sisters of Michael VIII, Maria? and Eirene,!° who were deeply involved in the opposition to the Union of Lyons (which attempted to effect a reconciliation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism). Theodora Synadene Palaiologina!! and Eirene Choumnaina!* founded prominent monastic foundations while Theodora Raoulaina,'” an important patron of scholarship, copied at least one manuscript and wrote the Life of St. Theodore and St. Theophanes.!* These and other noblewomen also sponsored artists and scholars, rebuilt monastic houses, ordered poems, and commissioned icons and copies of manuscripts. As preserved nunnery rules reveal, noblewomen also became involved in the social issues of their day, allowing destitute women and perhaps even refugees to enter their monastic foundations, providing free medical care, and distributing food to the poor on certain feast days.
01 Briefly on the sources
The main sources!” of information on the lives of the Palaiologan empresses are textual in nature: chronicles, correspondence, monastic rules, hagiographic texts, poetry, and monastic registers. Findings from auxiliary historical disciplines, including sigillography, numismatics, and codicology as well as modern archeological research, architecture, and art history, also provide valuable information. While it is impossible to introduce each of the primary sources, the following passage mentions the ones most relevant to this study.
Several late Byzantine chronicles include references to imperial consorts. The work of George Akropolites,'° Chronike syngraphe, covers events that occurred between 1203 and 1261. A scholar and a politician, Akropolites was the prime minister (megas logothetes) and close associate of Michael VIII Palaiologos. His work details the history of the Nicene Empire and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire following the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261. It also provides valuable information concerning the marriage and family situation of Theodora Palaiologina as well as a description of her Nicene coronation. His writings are complemented by several other accounts, including the chronicle of Theodore Skoutariotes, the metropolitan of Kyzikos (1277-1282). Though more compiler than historian, his work supplies important information and confirms events described by other authors. Another source for this period is the chronicle of Ephraim.!? Written in dodecasyllabic verse, it recounts Late Roman and Byzantine history from the first century until 1261; however, most of the information is merely repeated from other sources.
Focusing on events following the reconquest of Constantinople, the large body of work by George Pachymeres,!? a member of the patriarchal clergy, covers roughly the period from 1260 to 1308. Pachymeres describes the reign of Michael VIII and, in part, that of his son, Andronikos II. A versatile scholar and perspicacious observer, he was not fond of Michael VIII (unlike his mentor, George Akropolites) and strongly opposed the Union of Lyons. He was also critical of Patriarch Athanasios I and his policies. The writings of Pachymeres furnish, for example, information on Theodora Palaiologina, such as her signing the Confession of Faith at the Synod of Blacherns in 1283 and her intervention on behalf of the opponents of the Union. The author also noted the support offered by Anna of Hungary to the persecuted anti-Unionists in Asia Minor and the circumstances of her death and burial.
Another important historian of late Byzantium was the polymath Nikephoros Gregoras,?? who described the events of the reigns of Andronikos II, Michael IX, Andronikos III, John V, and John VI. Gregoras’s Roman History (Rhomaike historia) covers a lengthy period from approximately 1204 until 1359. This broad and generally reliable account offers details on economic, administrative, and constitutional aspects of the Byzantine Empire of Gregoras’s day. The final part of the account narrows its focus to Gregoras’s struggle against Gregory Palamas. In respect to empresses, the historian had little to say about Theodora, whom he did not know, and he only mentions Anna of Hungary in passing. On the other hand, he is the author of the infamous image of Eirene-Yolanda of Montferrat, whom he depicted as a shameless gossip and a foreigner bent on dividing the empire among her sons. Nor did he favor Anna of Savoy, another foreign-born empress, whom he criticized for the part she played in the Second Civil War (1341-1347) as well as in the dissemination of the doctrine of Gregory Palamas, his theological opponent. Not a true misogynist, Gregoras praised Maria-Rita of Armenia for her conversion to Orthodoxy and openly celebrated the intelligence, abilities, perseverance, and piety of Eirene Kantakouzene; however, Eirene’s daughter, Helene Palaiologina, incurred the historian’s displeasure for promoting the Palamite cause.*!
The account of John Kantakouzenos,** Historiai (Memoires), represents another important source on the history of fourteenth-century Byzantium. It is not, however, an ordinary historical account; the desire of the author to prove himself at once a hero and a victim of circumstance is impossible to overlook. In spite of this bias, his eyewitness accounts and firsthand knowledge of people and situations in the period from 1320 to 1365 provide a wealth of valuable information from a historical perspective. Concerning the empresses, Kantakouzenos did not slander Maria-Rita, who was jealous of his influence over her son, nor did he openly criticize Anna of Savoy, who doubtless belonged among his most bitter enemies for a time. Nevertheless, he took surreptitious revenge on these women by being selective regarding the information he chose to emphasize in connection with them. A good example is his description of the events surrounding the illness of Andronikos HI in 1329/1330. Kantakouzenos carefully details Andronikos’s repeated refusal to allow his mother, Maria-Rita, to participate in the regency for his unborn child, including Andronikos’s reasoning that it would be impossible for two women to jointly rule the empire. Interestingly, Kantakouzenos has little to say about the women of his own family. Though he concedes the intelligence of his wife Eirene and speaks honorably about her (as one might expect), his praise sounds dim when compared with that of Gregoras or Kantakouzenos’s ally, Umur of Aydin. Likewise, the recognition he gives to his loyal and learned daughter, Empress Helene, is insubstantial.
After a significant pause in the historical record, George Sphrantzes?? took up his pen to describe the final decades of the Byzantine Empire. As a court official and ambassador for both Manuel II and Constantine XI, he witnessed many of the events included in his writings. After fighting alongside Constantine XI in Constantinople in May 1453, Sphrantzes was taken captive by the Turks and later released. Toward the end of his life, he took monastic vows on Kerkyra, adopting the name Gregory. His record, which spans the years 1413-1477, maintains a decidedly anti-Latin perspective throughout. Sphrantzes mentions Empress Helene as well as the wives of John VIII, but (probably due to his frequent absences from the capital) he does not devote much attention to their lives or activities.
A few details from the empire's final years also appear in the work of Doukas.** Born at the beginning of the fifteenth century, he entered the service of the powerful Gattilusio^? family and undertook several diplomatic missions on their behalf. His writings cover the period from 1341 to 1462, only to break off suddenly in the middle of an account of the siege of Mytilene. Doukas was strongly opposed to the Ottoman sultan, whom he depicted as cruel and immoral. He also believed that a union between the Orthodox and Catholic churches was a necessary sacrifice for the preservation of Byzantium. While he rarely mentioned the empresses, it seems he knew Sophia of Montferrat personally, and he composed a detailed description, quite rare in late Byzantine historiography, of the appearance of this unfortunate woman.
In addition to the chronicles, which present historical events systematically, the so-called short chronicles are another source that has proven useful in the study of the late Byzantine empresses. They provide a variety of information in succinct statements, often mentioning where weddings and coronations took place or noting the (monastic) names of the empresses. Occasionally, they also record the dates of imperial funerals and the locations of the empresses’ tombs.
Another category of textual sources are letters, most of which were written by emperors, patriarchs, court officials, or scholars. The elaborate missives that the scholar, translator, and courtier Demetrios Kydones addressed to Helene Palaiologina”® offer several interesting details on the family life and scholarly interests of the empress as well as a description of the historical events that accompanied her decision to take the veil. Another body of correspondence, this one penned by Patriarch Athanasios,*’ provides important information on the lives of Eirene-Yolanda and her husband following their separation.
As none of the Palaiologan empresses became a saint of the Orthodox Church, there are no saints’ vitas describing their lives. Nevertheless, hagiographical accounts do provide some information on these women. The list of miracles inscribed in the Life of St. Euphrosyne the Younger’? claims that both wives of Andronikos II conceived after coming to pray at the saint’s tomb and performing other ritual practices necessary to effect a miracle. The Vita of St. Michael of Chalcedon” reports a failed attempt by Theodora Palaiologina to acquire some of the saint’s relics.
Various official documents provide further information on the late Byzantine empresses. The Confession of Faith signed by Empress Theodora”? reveals her role in stabilizing the position of the Palaiologan dynasty after the death of her powerful but controversial husband, Michael VIII. Other documents published by the empresses (or their male relatives) reveal the privileges and donations conferred by imperial women on churches and monasteries. In his detailed study, Barišić described and analyzed a number of documents published by the late Byzantine empresses. His primary focus was on codicological information, which can often furnish researchers with important historical details 2 The typika, or monastic rules, issued by Theodora Palaiologina for the nunneries of Lips and Anargyroi reflect not only the quality of life in late Byzantine female monastic communities but also the personality and intentions of the founder.?? Praktika (registers of monastic property and pious bequests to monasteries) offer a secondary source of information on the generosity of imperial consorts and their connections with late Byzantine monastic houses.
Monodies (speeches dedicated to the deceased, mostly rulers and their family members) represent another, albeit vague, source of information. Frequently written by court officials, clerics, or esteemed scholars, these compositions rarely contain any useful information about the empresses although even ambiguous hints can sometimes be used to confirm scholarly suppositions. Alice-Mary Talbot, for example, made creative use of information included in the monody on Theodora Palaiologina to support the claim that this empress was the mysterious patron of at least some of the de luxe manuscripts known as the Palaiologina group.
A few additional sources are worthy of note: the inscriptions found in some manuscripts supply vital information on events like coronations and burials. For instance, the inscription in a Gospel Book owned by the Milanese archbishop who later became Pope Alexander V confirms the fact that Empress Maria of Bulgaria, by then the nun Makaria, visited Italy together with John VII in 1392.7? From time to time, minor details may also be gleaned from reports on specific events, such as the Memoirs of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, written by Sylvester Syropoulos,** who noted the roles of Helene Dragaš and Maria of Trebizond in the events surrounding that council. Another notable source are the poetries that noble ladies received or ordered from contemporary poets. The most celebrated poet of the Palaiologan era was Manuel Philes, who wrote a poem lamenting the tragic death of Manuel Palaiologos (killed by his brother's bodyguard). The composition was requested by Manuel's mother, Maria-Rita, who figures in the poem as a mourner.?? A final source that has been used by researchers to clarify the ritual role of the empresses in the festivities of the Byzantine court are the ceremonial texts. Of the available sources, it is the tenthcentury work of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos,?? De cerimoniis, and the fourteenth-century treatise of Pseudo-Kodinos”’ that capture the widest range of ceremonies as they were performed at the imperial court, including, for example, the welcome ceremonies for an imperial bride, the coronation ceremony, and the wedding ceremony.
02 The state of existing research
Byzantine empresses have inspired a number of historical studies and articles, of
which only a few can be mentioned here.?? The first writer to express an interest in the lives of these women (and that as early as 1893) was Paul Adams, who wrote a book titled Princesses byzantines. This rather romantic work was soon followed by the first scholarly treatise on the subject, Figures
byzantines? (1906), written by Charles Diehl. In a series of entertaining vignettes, Diehl outlined the lives of important Byzantine empresses, including several from the Palaiologan period. Although his research was based on the Greek primary sources, Diehl’s colorful presentation of the characters and personalities of these women was perhaps oversimplified and cannot always be accepted as fact.
Despite the popularity of Diehl’s work, empresses did not capture the attention of Byzantine scholars for most of the twentieth century. In 1997, Liz James complained that no monograph had yet been written on imperial consorts, which she interpreted as
[...] a result of the almost unspoken belief that empresses are unique women and so we, as historians, should focus on women who are not exceptional; partly it is a legacy of feminist scholarship which has remained concentrated on the working-class woman above all others, leaving those of us who do
not work on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to feel slightly guilty when we study elite
women. ^?
In respect to more contemporary research, several important monographs concerning the lives of the early and middle Byzantine empresses have been written in recent years. These include Empress and Power in Early Byzantium*'by Liz James (2001), which presents the various means employed by early Byzantine empresses in acquiring political power and asserts that an empress could secure honor and recognition by preserving traditional virtues, sponsoring pious projects, and performing rituals. An intriguing study by Anne McClanan published in 2002, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses: Image and Empire, focuses primarily on art historical evidence and the various aspects of the presentation of early Byzantine empresses (from the families of Constantine I and Theodosios I). These works have recently been joined by Anja Busch's monograph, titled Die Frauen der theodosianischen Dynastie: Macht
und Repräsentation kaiserlichen Frauen im 5. Jahrhundert, which endeavors to “investigate the social and symbolic power"? of individual imperial women of this era.
Also covering both the early and middle Byzantine periods, Lynda Garland wrote an extensive monograph, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527-1204** (1999), in which she considers the lives of thirteen notable empresses. Dividing these women into three groups — the ‘founders’ of imperial power, the regents, and the autocrats — she sets their lives and deeds against the backdrop of the political and cultural events of the period. Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025-1204: Power, Patronage and Ideology,^? authored by Barbara Hill, is another study on Byzantine empresses that was published in 1999. Focusing mainly on the Komnenian dynasty, the author considers the gender aspect of the power exercised by empresses of the middle period as well as their political strategies and the ideologies they used to facilitate their goals. Soon after these two pioneering works appeared, Judith Herrin published Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium*® (2001), in which she describes the lives of three important empresses of the middle period: Eirene the Athenian, Euphrosyne, and Theodora, the wife of Theophilos. Essentially, her work examines how the iconoclast conflict, which created serious division in Byzantine society during the eighth and ninth centuries, framed and partly determined the course of these women’s lives.
In addition to the works mentioned so far, there exist any number of articles describing various aspects of the lives of female rulers in Byzantium, so many, in fact, that there is not room enough to list them all here.*” One of the initial studies, penned by Angeliki Laiou, was “The Role of Women in the Byzantine Society” (1981), which outlined the basic expectations Byzantine society placed on its female members. In 1985, she followed up this study with another groundbreaking work titled “Observations on the Life and Ideology of Byzantine Women,“ wherein she made an important contribution to the concept of a ‘female world’ by recognizing that Byzantine women had consistent long-term roles, norms, and ideologies. Her study utilized the basic areas of modern research as it pertains to Byzantine women, primarily to their familial and monastic roles and the specificities of female patronage.
In respect to the Palaiologan empresses, no comprehensive work has been published to date although several important monographs and articles have been dedicated to this topic. Of these works, only a few will be mentioned here with further references to be found in the biographical and analytical chapters. Lacinniczki nad Bosforem. Malzen’stwa bizantyn’sko-lacin’skie w cesarskiej rodzinie Paleologow (XIII-XV w.),? the study by Malgorzata Dabrowska published in 1996, focused mainly on the five Latin princesses who married into the Palaiologan house; however, it also mentioned the non-Latin imperial wives. The author explored the political relations between Byzantium and the West and the cultural aspects of these mixed marriages while paying particular attention to the various physical and cultural changes the foreign princesses faced after their arrival in the East. Two years earlier, the British historian Donald Nicol wrote a thin volume containing the biographies of ten prominent Palaiologan women. His detailed yet entertaining narrative, titled The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits, 1250-1500, included three empresses: Eirene-Yolanda of Montferrat, Eirene Kantakouzene, and Anna of Savoy. While some of Professor Nicol’s interpretations of the Byzantine ladies’ characters and actions are debatable, his work offered insightful perspectives on the realities of the Palaiologan period not only in the Byzantine Empire but also in the Despotate of Epiros and the Empire of Trebizond. Biographical articles have also been devoted to Empress Theodora, the wife of Michael VIIL?! Yolanda of Montferrat, the Italian-born second wife of Andronikos II;°* Anna of Savoy, °° Helene Dragas,°* and her daughter-in-law, Sophia of Montferrat.°°
Anna of Savoy has clearly received more attention from historians than any other empress. Besides the two biographical sketches mentioned above, Sandra Origone dedicated a monograph called Giovanna di Savoia, alias Anna Paleologina: latina a Bisanzio (c. 1306—c. 1365) to this important empress.°” Her work offered a number of details on Anna’s early life in Savoy and corrected and complemented an earlier monograph on the empress penned by
Dino Muratore.>®
03 A note on methodology
Although publications from the area of gender studies provided frequent inspiration, as a historian, my predominant approach to this study has been from the perspective of history. The aim of the present monograph is to inquire into the lives of the late Byzantine imperial consorts and, drawing on their unique experiences, characterize in particular the political, ecclesiastical and ceremonial roles of the empress in the selected time period. In studying Byzantine empresses, scholars have often focused on the most prominent and/or most active imperial consorts, especially on those who (at least for a time) ruled the empire autonomously. While most of the female rulers of the Palaiologan period, excepting Anna of Savoy and, perhaps, Eirene Kantakouzene and Theodora Palaiologina, fall outside these categories, inquiring into a larger number of cases provides not only a more authentic composite image of the lives, both public and private, of the late Byzantine imperial consorts but also new perspectives on various events and characteristics of the Palaiologan era.
04 A brief overview of the history of the empire”?
Even though not all empresses were actively involved in politics, their lives and destinies were often strongly impacted by internal and external political events as well as religious controversies involving the Orthodox Church. The following summary of the essential historical information related to this period is meant to provide the reader with a general overview.
Born in the ruins of the Roman Empire in the fourth century AD, Byzantium as a political entity inherited its predecessor’s administrative and legal systems, which provided the necessary organizational structure for the fledgling empire. Christianity, the new state religion, allowed the numerous ethnicities with their varying cultural contexts to forge a mutual identity. As the generally accepted version has it, the civilization which thus emerged revolved around an Orthodox emperor seated on the throne in Constantinople (sometimes termed the ‘new Rome’ or, later, the ‘new Jerusalem’) and an Orthodox patriarch celebrating holy mysteries in the majestic spaces of Hagia Sophia. Greek, the language of the New Testament, was not only the medium of writers and poets but also the lingua franca of the Eastern world.
The capital city, Constantinople, was strategically located between Europe and Asia, enabling its rulers to control extensive territories on both continents. The fate of this city was deeply entwined with the fate of the empire, and its significance is underlined by the fact that its seizure by the Ottoman Turks is considered the end of Byzantium. As is often the case in the rise and fall of mighty states, however, the empire’s decline was gradual, and what had been a perfect location for a conqueror became the defender’s nightmare. Originally multicultural and multilingual, the society of middle and late medieval Byzantium became increasingly monolithic and self-absorbed, focused on survival and the preservation of its cultural and religious heritage.
As far as the middle period of Byzantine history is concerned, both the Great Schism and the Crusades deserve particular attention as both are strongly
reflected in the position and views of the Orthodox Church and the political events of the empire's final centuries. The so-called Great Schism® was the result of a rather insignificant conflict?! between a papal legate, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, and Michael I Keroularios, the patriarch of Constantinople, marking the growing rift that eventually gave rise to two separate entities: the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The fundamental issues were political, a question of Roman primacy, rather than theological in nature. As this ecclesiastic split never really healed, it provided Western rulers with an excellent pretext for refusing Byzantium military support against (mostly) Muslim invaders and supplied the pope with a useful bargaining chip in his negotiations with the Byzantine emperors. The struggle for an uncontaminated Orthodox faith on the one hand and for the preservation of the empire on the other had serious repercussions for Byzantine society, eventually resulting in factions, alienation, and increasing isolation.
Besides the separation of the churches, the mutual distrust of Eastern and Western Europe was further promoted by the Crusades, a series of military campaigns to aid the Christian Orient? When the Seljuk Turks and the Normans attacked the Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century, Alexios I Komnenos requested help from the West. Subsequently, several expeditions took place, but instead of fostering a sense of solidarity, they served to fuel the antipathy between East and West. The Latins perceived the Byzantines as treacherous and inhospitable whereas the Byzantines accused the Crusaders of looting and burning. The crisis culminated in the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182% and, soon afterwards, in the sad events of the Fourth Crusade (1204).°* The Latin lords created the so-called Latin Empire along with a number of Latin principalities in central and eastern Greece while the Byzantine nobility formed three exile states: the Nicene Empire in western Anatolia,’ the Despotate of Epiros® in western Greece, and the Komnenian Empire of Trebizond? on the Black Sea coast.°® Of these, it was the Nicene Empire that gradually acquired the dominant position and became the residence of an Orthodox patriarch, who crowned Theodore (I) Laskaris emperor-in-exile in 1208.
This first Theodore’s grandson, Theodore II Laskaris, died when his heir was only seven years old, and Michael Palaiologos, one of Theodore’s generals, became co-emperor with the young John IV, the last ruler of the Laskarid dynasty, in 1259. Michael was a shrewd and able leader but not immune to the temptations of power. He effectively destroyed the joint forces of Epiros, Achaia, and Sicily in the Battle of Pelagonia (1259) and systematically made treaties with his neighbors — the Seljuk Turks, the Mongols, the Bulgarians, and the Republic of Genoa — in order to secure peace for the conquest of the ancient capital of his people. Having achieved this goal with unexpected ease by 1261, Michael decided there was room for only one emperor on the throne in Constantinople. He had the Laskarid prince blinded and left him behind in Asia Minor. Michael’s ascent to the throne inaugurated a new imperial dynasty (see Tab. 2), which would also be the last dynasty to rule the Byzantine Empire.
The wounds of 1204 were not easily healed. Although the Byzantines from Nicea re-established control over the former capital city, it took several decades before they regained some of the territories held by the Greek and Latin nobility. The Despotate of Epiros had an especially dramatic fate. For a time, it was reincluded among the territories of the empire with its various parts being held on occasion by Serbia, Venice, and Bulgaria before it was finally conquered by the Ottomans. The Empire of Trebizond, on the other hand, was never reunited to Palaiologan Byzantium, which it briefly survived.
At the beginning of his reign, Michael VIIIS’ faced the tremendous task of reconstructing the empire and rebuilding the navy. In order to proceed, he started the long process of devaluating the nomisma, which negatively impacted the Byzantine economy and increased the importance of Italian coinage in international trade. Reconstruction was further hindered by the continuing internal division of the empire between partisans of the Palaiologan and Laskarid dynasties. Michael’s cruel treatment of John IV and his sisters scandalized supporters of the former imperial family, especially Patriarch Arsenios, who expressed his displeasure by excommunicating the emperor. In response, Michael found a new patriarch, Joseph (I) of Galesion, who lifted the excommunication. The change on the patriarchal throne resulted in yet another controversy, known as the Arsenite schism."?
Despite the successful reconquest of Constantinople, the external situation of the empire remained turbulent. Besides struggles with the pro-Laskarid Bulgarians as well as the Mongols and the Despotate of Epiros, the emperor had to defend his territories from Western rulers unwilling to renounce their claims on the lands of the former Latin Empire and a pope who was eager to reunite the churches.
Ultimately, the Union of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was celebrated in Lyons on July 6, 1274.’! Although this meant that the pope was no longer able to sanction a crusade against Byzantium, the issue sharply divided Byzantine society and Michael remained trapped between opposing ideologies. When Pope Nicholas III died in 1280, Charles I of Anjou, the king of Sicily and the leader of an anti-Byzantine coalition, immediately set in motion his plans for reconquering the Latin Empire by launching an army (aided by the allied despots of Thessaly and Epiros) against Constantinople. Michael hastily dispatched his ablest generals to meet the invaders, and their defense proved successful. This setback did not deter an enemy as determined as Charles, however. He soon secured the election of a French pope, Martin IV, who excommunicated Michael and gave Charles a free hand in organizing another crusade.
Once again, Byzantium faced pending disaster. Although the emperor's diplomacy was conducted in secret, there is some evidence to indicate that he played a role in the event known as the Sicilian Vespers in 1282.72 Shortly before Charles set out to conquer Byzantium, the overtaxed Sicilians, assisted by Peter III of Aragon,” rebelled against, slew, or evicted the French soldiers stationed on the island and destroyed the fleet already assembled in Messina. Having saved Byzantium yet again, thwarting Charles and humiliating the pope in the process, Michael’s rule had reached its zenith. He died soon afterwards on a military campaign in Thessaly in December 1282. Despite his undeniable political successes, the policy of rapprochement with the pope and the blinding of the Laskarid heir estranged Michael from many of his subjects (not to mention the Orthodox Church, to which he was never reconciled). Perhaps his only praise was written later by the historian Nikephoros Gregoras: “The empire would easily have fallen under the domination of Charles, King of Italy [sic] had such an emperor not been at the helm of the Greek affairs."/^
The first political decision of Michael's oldest surviving son, Andronikos II Palaiologos,/ was to cancel the Union of Lyons and re-establish Orthodoxy. The exiled and the persecuted were called back, the great Church of Hagia Sophia was purified, and the Unionist patriarch, John Bekkos, was imprisoned. The aged Patriarch Joseph regained his former position, a fact that aggravated the Arsenites, who had hoped for a leader from among their own numbers. When Joseph died a year later in 1283, the emperor nominated Gregory II Kyprios to the vacated see. Under his rule, the Arsenite issue became increasingly complex, and in 1284, Andronikos II paid for a synod to convene in Adramyttion in the hope of ending the Arsenite schism. The presence of a number of the persecuted and mutilated followers of Arsenios caused past wounds to resurface, however, and the strife continued. To placate the Arsenites, the emperor gave one of their leaders, Hyakinthos, the monastery of Mosele, which subsequently became the center of the Arsenite opposition.
In 1289, the emperor selected a new patriarch, Athanasios I. Athanasios was an upright man who was more concerned with social justice than with theological arguments. He confiscated the surpluses of the monasteries in order to feed the poor, sent home members of the permanent synod to take care of their dioceses, and even went so far as to denounce the avarice of his own priests. Needless to say, he soon lost the support of everyone except the poor. It was only under his successor, Niphon, that the Arsenite schism finally ended. A plot uncovered in the Mosele Monastery sent many Arsenites to prison, and the patriarch, acting as a good diplomat, found a way to reconcile them to the Orthodox Church without losing face. In addition to subduing the Arsenites, Niphon took the Holy Mountain of Athos under direct patriarchal authority. This important step encouraged development in the area, increasing its significance.
Recognizing the need to economize, Andronikos disbanded the navy (leaving the empire at the mercy of the Venetians and the Genoese), greatly reduced the army, and further devaluated the currency. The richest members of Byzantine society, the landowners and the monasteries, kept their privileges and properties while often using dependent peasants as a source of funds to pay their increased taxes. As Turkish incursions into the empire’s Asian territories continued, there was a considerable influx of refugees, swelling the numbers of the poor in the larger cities.
By this time, Byzantium was almost entirely dependent on Italian shipments of food and other basic necessities, a situation that both Genoa and Venice intended to exploit. In the absence of a Byzantine fleet, their monopolies enabled them to keep the emperor in check while adventurers of Italian origin made themselves the masters of several Greek islands, including Chios, Lesbos, and Tenedos.” At the same time, northern Greece gradually fell under the control of an expanding Serbia. In order to secure his borders peacefully, the emperor offered the Serbian king the hand of his five-year-old daughter, who brought her husband the territory he had conquered as her dowry. On the eastern frontier, the Osmanli Turks began raids into Bithynia, and Andronikos employed the Alans and, later, the Catalan Company to stop their progress. After a few minor victories, these mercenaries turned back on Byzantium, causing considerable damage and finally seizing the French Duchy of Athens and Thebes, which they held until 1388. In the meantime, the Turks continued to settle in Asia Minor, creating several emirates.
The situation within the Palaiologan family mirrored the turmoil at the empire’s borders. Andronikos II married Anna of Hungary by whom he had Michael, later known as Michael IX, and another son, Constantine the Porphyrogennetos. By his second wife, Eirene-Yolanda of Montferrat, he had three sons and a daughter. Michael IX, who predeceased his father, had four children: Andronikos (the future Andronikos III), Manuel, and two daughters. Empress Eirene resented the fact that her stepchildren were to have precedence over her own sons, and the issue divided the imperial family. Moreover, in 1321 Andronikos III led the young noblemen who supported him in a rebellion against his grandfather, and the country was soon engaged in a civil war, known as the First Civil War, that was to last for seven years. In 1328, Andronikos III entered Constantinople, and his grandfather abdicated and retired to a monastery.
Despite the toll taken by war, the reign of Andronikos III’? (1328-1341) was constructive in many ways. On the European side, he made peace with the Bulgarians (1329) and Serbians (1334) and reconquered Thessaly (1333) and Epiros (1340). In Asia Minor, he agreed to pay an annual tribute to the Osmanlis for the remaining Byzantine cities and lands in Bithynia. The emperor also rebuilt the navy, regained the islands of Chios and Lesbos, and won over the emirs of Saruchan and Aydin as allies against the Genoese and the Ottoman Turks. Andronikos III was also active in domestic affairs. He reformed the courts, and it was under his rule that two influential treatises on law, the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares and the Hexabiblos of Constantine Harmenopoulos, were compiled. Unfortunately, these promising developments were cut short by the emperor's untimely death on the night of June 14-15, 1341.
Because John V was still too young to rule, the empress (Anna of Savoy), Patriarch John XIV Kalekas, and a loyal friend of the late emperor, John Kantakouzenos, formed a regency. Their government was influenced by Alexios Apokaukos, a former protégé of Kantakouzenos, who used cunning and intrigue
to turn the empress and the patriarch against his former benefactor. The ensuing conflict resulted in a protracted civil war (the Second Civil War),”° which decimated the population and drained the treasury as the rulers of Serbia, Bulgaria, and the Turkish emirates became increasingly involved in the affairs of the empire. Byzantine society was split in two: the nobility sided with Kantakouzenos while the lower classes supported the Palaiologan dynasty. In May 1346, Kantakouzenos was crowned in Adrianople, and he entered Constantinople in February of the following year. He made peace with the empress, agreeing to rule together with John V, who became his son-in-law.
In the course of the Second Civil War, another religious controversy convulsed the empire. It originated with a group of Athonite monks, who revived the practice of hesychia, seeking spiritual development through the Jesus prayer, meditation, frequent Communion, and controlled breathing. These practices, combined with a certain disdain for secular education, brought the monks substantial opposition from theologians and scholars in the capital. The hesychasts,"? as they came to be known, were represented by Gregory Palamas. The opposing party had several leaders in succession: Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos and the historian Nikephoros Gregoras. As politics and religion were notoriously intertwined in the Byzantine Empire, Palamas became a supporter of Kantakouzenos while the patriarch and Empress Anna joined the opposition. Kantakouzenos’s eventual political victory influenced the outcome of the hesychast controversy: the patriarch was deposed in 1347 and Palamas was proclaimed Orthodox (and, after his death, a saint).
John VI faced a number of difficulties in the course of his reign. In the first year, the plague swept over the country, and soon afterwards, Byzantium became embroiled in a war against the Genoese. In 1348, Nikephoros Gregoras, supported by several important bishops, reopened the hesychast controversy, but his hopes were disappointed when a synod recognized Palamas as Orthodox for the third time (1351). Following the earthquake of 1354, the Turks initiated a massive expansion to the European coast and rebuilt the strategic stronghold of Gallipolis. Eventually, John V forced his father-in-law to abdicate and enter a monastery, there to spend the rest of his life as a monk, writing his memoirs and occasionally politically supporting John V. John VI Kantakouzenos died at an advanced age in 1383.
John V Palaiologos?! inherited an empire beset with problems that were beyond his ability to solve. Stephan Uroš IV Dušan, the ruler of Serbia, came close to materializing the Slavic dream of making Constantinople a Slavic-Greek capital before his death in December 1355. In the same year, John attempted to win allies by giving Lesbos to Francesco Gattilusio and Chios to the Genoese. He also coveted an alliance with the pope; however, although numerous legates were exchanged, nothing was ever accomplished except John’s personal conversion to Catholicism. The Turks continued their inexorable conquest, reaching Didymoteichon by 1362, and in the 1370s, John had to make a treaty with the Osmanlis, agreeing to participate in their military ventures. By 1377, the strategic strongholds of Gallipolis and Adrianople were under Turkish control, marking the beginning of the isolation of Constantinople. Civil war had become a way of life for the Palaiologan family, and John was forced to take arms against his rebellious son, Andronikos IV, several times. Andronikos IV (along with his son, John VII) was later blinded and formally disinherited (1373), and John V’s second son, Manuel, became co-emperor instead.
In the meantime, the Turkish conquest reached its zenith in the victory over Serbian and Bosnian troops at Kosovo (1389). Sultan Murad died in the battle, but his son Bayezid stood ready to take his place. He made Serbia a vassal kingdom and put the Athos monasteries under his jurisdiction. At the same time, he united Asia Minor by dismissing the leading emirs of Aydin, Saruchan, and Menteshe and kept Byzantium divided by playing the members of the imperial family against one another. For a time, he supported John VII and blackmailed the emperor by threatening to blind and imprison Manuel. It was during this time that John V died in 1391.
Manuel II®* was an intelligent man, both ruler and philosopher; however, the ongoing Turkish conquest as well as conflict with his nephew, John VII, cast a shadow over his reign. Gradually, the empire was becoming an island within Ottoman territory. In 1393, Bulgaria became the first Turkish pashalik (a province governed by a pasha) in Europe. A year later, Bayezid initiated an eight-year siege of Constantinople and went on to crush the last Western alliance at Nikopolis in 1396. The existence of that coalition had given Manuel hope, however, and he traveled west seeking aid in 1399. Although he was welcomed in Italy, France, and England, he received no substantial promises. In the end, help came from an unexpected source.
In the 1390s, Timur Lenk (Tamerlane) and his armies had crossed from the Far East into western Asia and, after taking Georgia and Armenia, they challenged the power of the Ottomans. The sultan quickly abandoned the siege of Constantinople, turning his attention to this new threat. Nonetheless, his army was utterly destroyed in a battle fought near Ankara in July 1402. Bayezid himself was taken captive and died the following year. Timur Lenk reestablished the former non-Ottoman emirates in Asia Minor and managed to set the four sons of the deceased sultan against one another. Despite these successes, his power in western Asia was as short-lived as his appearance there, for the legendary fighter soon died on his way to conquer China. The immediate danger to the Byzantine Empire had passed.
In Manuel’s absence, John VII made a treaty with Suleiman, Bayezid’s heir in Rumelia. The terms were favorable to the Byzantines and included the cancellation of tribute and the return of Thessalonike, Mount Athos, and other territories to the empire. When Manuel II returned late in the spring of 1403, he continued the policy of amicable relations with the Ottomans, supporting the ascension of Mehmed I to the throne. Although the two rulers remained on friendly terms, Manuel felt it was necessary to repair the Hexamilion wall to protect the Morea. He also held the sultan’s opponents as prisoners, refusing to hand them over.
When Mehmed I died in May 1421, he was succeeded by his son, Murad II. In the same year, Manuel II suffered a stroke and was unable to govern the empire for some time. While John VIII was governing in his father’s place, he decided to release a relative of the sultan from prison. The unfortunate man was soon caught and killed, but the incident had angered Murad, who retaliated by besieging Constantinople, prolonging the blockade of Thessalonike, and launching an attack on the Morea. The situation in Thessalonike became critical, and the governor offered the city to Venice. The republic accepted but was unable to break the Turkish blockade. In the meantime, the empire had shrunk to encompass the city of Constantinople and its environs, for which the emperor had to pay 100,000 ducats as tribute to the sultanate. In 1425, Emperor Manuel died at the advanced age of seventy-five, deeply mourned by his subjects.
John VIII®® (1425-1448) had five brothers, all of whom had inherited the unfortunate Palaiologan propensity for quarreling over power. With Constantinople and Thessalonike often besieged or preparing for a blockade, the only part of the empire that did not fall into stagnation was the Morea. Late Palaiologan Mistra became a great center of learning and art. Scholars like George Gemisthos Plethon, Isidore (later bishop of Kiev), the future Cardinal Bessarion, and Gennadios Scholarios (a future patriarch) all studied or taught there. Despite its relative prosperity, the Morea had its problems: too many princes resided there, and the local landlords mostly quarreled with them instead of joining them in mounting an effective defense against the Ottomans. From this point on, the decline of the empire progressed with fatal speed. In 1430, the Turks conquered Thessalonike. The city was captured and plundered but soon rebuilt by the sultan, who bought many of the city’s important citizens out of slavery and even restored their property. In the same year, a strategic Epirote city named Ioannina capitulated and was granted significant privileges within the Ottoman Empire.
In the West, the situation of the Catholic Church seemed to play into the hands of the emperor. By challenging the power of the pope, the conciliarist movement had led the two opposing parties to compete for the support of the Constantinopolitan patriarch. The Byzantines, however, failed to capitalize on the situation. They joined the papal council (called to Ferrara in 1438 and moved to Florence the following year), but the outcome was disappointing. Instead of offering assistance to the beleaguered empire, the pope insisted that the patriarch
recognize his supremacy while learned theologians spent months trying to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son rather than from the Father alone. Although another union was signed on July 5, 1439, its results were negligible. Back in Byzantium, it was immediately rejected by the Orthodox clergy and the common people alike while some members of the Unionist intellectual elite decided to relocate to the West, mainly to Italy.
In the meantime, Murad II continued his conquest of Eastern Europe. Belgrade surrendered in 1440. A year later, the Turks entered Transylvania, and the crusade organized by Wtadystaw III of Poland, General Hunyadi, and Cardinal Caesarini was crushed by the Ottoman army at Varna in November 1444. Byzantium found itself completely cut off. In December 1446, the sultan’s troops got past the Hexamilion, and the rulers of the Morea (Constantine and Thomas) became Ottoman vassals. In October 1448, John VIII died, having appointed his brother Constantine XI®* his successor. Constantine’s mother, Helene Dragaš, prevented her younger sons from claiming the imperial title and persuaded them to accept the rank of despot and a share of the Morea. The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Draga’,°° was not crowned in Constantinople but in Mistra in January 1449. Soon after he entered the capital, the city was divided by the pope's insistence on a proper honoring of the Union of Florence. Despite numerous protests on the part of the Orthodox clergy, a festive celebration of the Orthodox and Catholic liturgy took place in Hagia Sophia in December 1452, bringing further bitterness and humiliation to the Byzantine people.
After Murad's death in 1451, his son Mehmed II became sultan in his place. A learned, capable, ambitious young man whose dream was to make the city on the Bosphorus his capital, Mehmed commanded his troops to besiege Constantinople in the winter of 1451. As the blockade continued, growing hunger and fear among the city's inhabitants prompted a continuous exodus. In May 1453, the Byzantines still refused to surrender, and the sultan promised his soldiers three days of plunder when Constantinople was taken. The Byzantine capital was conquered on Tuesday, May 29, 1453, and the emperor died in the fighting. Sacked and plundered, the city ‘ran with blood,’ and many aristocrats were among the slain. After his triumphant entry, Mehmed entered Hagia Sophia, which was destined to become a mosque, to pray. In January 1454, Gennadios Scholarios was ordained patriarch of Constantinople, becoming the religious leader of the sultan’s Christian subjects.
Hopes for continued prosperity under Ottoman rule, so cherished by the cities of Italy, were severely disappointed. The Genoese had to pull down the walls and fortifications of Pera (Galata) and pay a tax for every male inhabitant. The tribute they paid for their colonies increased while the safety of their sea routes deteriorated. Gradually, the Turks captured Chios, Naxos, and Negroponte. In the Morea, Demetrios and Thomas Palaiologos continued their struggle for power. Mistra was occupied in May 1460, and Thomas escaped to Corfu. He later sailed to Italy where he received support from the pope and from the city of Venice. Demetrios went to the sultan and enjoyed his favor for a short time. When he lost it, he became a monk and died in a monastery. The Palaiologan family line continued through Thomas’s children. The final Byzantine center of power, the Komnenian Empire of Trebizond, fell to the Turks in August 1461.
05 Anna, Eirene, Maria and Helene — but which one?
Late Byzantine empresses often used the same first names, and when they married, they adopted the surnames of their husbands. Consequently, they appear on seals and documents as Anna Palaiologina (Anna of Hungary, Anna of Savoy, and Anna of Moscow), Maria Palaiologina (Maria-Rita of Armenia, Maria of Bulgaria, and Maria of Trebizond), or Eirene Palaiologina (EireneYolanda of Montferrat, Eirene of Braunschweig-Grubenhagen, Eirene Palaiologina, and Eirene Gattilusio). In order to distinguish among them, they appear (outside their biographical chapters and for the purposes of this study) under the following names (see Tab. 1)
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق