What, then, was the historical importance of the period of exile?27 Later
generations remembered it as a heroic period. In retrospect it seemed a time
of hope, when the body politic was purged of the corruption that characterised
Byzantium before 1204, when imperial autocracy was curbed and
a more equitable society came into being. The emperor was no longer
above society but responsible to it. The historian George Pachymeres
illustrated this with a single anecdote. Emperor John Vatatzes caught his
son Theodore Laskaris out hunting dressed in cloth of gold. He rebuked
the young prince: ‘Did he not realise that these vestments of gold and
silk were the “blood of the Romans” and should be employed for their
benefit, because they were their property?’ They were not to be wasted
on frivolous pursuits.28 Public utility was the justification for imperial
authority.
Expulsion from Constantinople compelled a reassessment of the limits
of imperial authority. Without the validation of the capital emperors
needed the moral support of the orthodox church more than ever. This
was symbolised by the introduction during the period of exile of the patriarch’s
anointing with myrrh as a regular feature of the coronation ordo. Its
meaning was made clear by Patriarch Joseph I (1266–75, 1282–3). In his will
he refused to accord Michael VIII Palaiologos the epithet ‘holy’, much to
the latter’s indignation. The emperor insisted that it was his by virtue of
his unction with myrrh. The patriarch was dismissing him as unworthy
of the imperial office. In other words, the rite of unction conferred moral
authority on the emperor, but it also left the emperor more vulnerable to
ecclesiastical censure29 – a situation reminiscent of experiences in the west
over several centuries.
During the period of exile orthodox patriarchs continued to pay lip
service to imperial tutelage. Germanos II’s defence of the rights of the
patriarchate over the church in Epiros was couched in the traditional terms
of ‘one church, one empire’. But George Bardanes, the spokesman for the
people of Epiros, was far more realistic. He made it clear that the church in
Epiros would gladly recognise the authority of the patriarch at Nicaea, but
not that of the emperor.He did not understand why imperial authority was
necessary to a unit based on common adherence to the orthodox faith. Why
was co-existence not possible? ‘Let each come to an understanding on these
terms and “let each enjoy the Sparta which it has been allotted”, not stupidly
gazing on the ends of the earth, but being satisfied with one’s own territory,
fearing God, and honouring in a spirit of brotherly love the appropriate
ruler.’30 It seemed a reasonable plea: the unity of the Byzantine world after
1204 was essentially religious and cultural and no longer dependent upon
imperial authority. Political unity was irrelevant or would have to wait until
Constantinople was recovered.
It was a point of view that also had its adherents at the Nicaean court.
Its leading intellectual and theologian Nikephoros Blemmydes defended
the political independence of the Greek ruler of Rhodes; the only unity
that mattered was that provided by orthodoxy. He was outraged when
in 1256 Theodore II Laskaris compelled the patriarch of the day to place
the territories of Michael II of Epiros under interdict.31 This was blatant
exploitation of ecclesiastical power for political purposes. In a quite different
way Theodore II Laskaris also recognised the divisions of the Byzantine
world that exile had fixed. He dedicated his victories in Europe to ‘our
Holy Mother Anatolia’.32
The fall of Constantinople necessitated a reassessment of Byzantine identity.
It could hardly be otherwise, since it was so closely bound up with the
imperial and universalist pretensions of the capital. In exile the core of the
Byzantine identity remained orthodoxy, but it was given a more obviously
nationalist twist. In the past, the Byzantines had defined themselves against
Hellenes (or pagans) and Jews, and occasionally against Armenians. From
the time of the First Crusade the Latins featured more prominently, but it
was only after 1204 that they became the ‘other’ against which the Byzantines
measured themselves. This was a negative shift.More positive was the
re-evaluation of the meaning of Hellene. It came to be identified with the
cultural legacy of classical Greece, stripped of its pagan connotation. This
had begun before 1204, but it only received coherent expression after the
fall of Constantinople. It is set out most clearly in a letter of Emperor John
III Vatatzes to Pope Gregory IX (1227–41). He claimed that his imperial
authority had a double validity. On the one hand, it could be traced back
to Constantine the Great and, on the other, it was founded in Hellenic
wisdom. Orthodoxy and imperial authority fused with a cultural tradition
to produce a shift in the Byzantine identity.33
This shift inspired the achievements of Byzantine scholars during the
period of exile. They were able to recover the intellectual heritage of Byzantium
which was threatened by the fall of Constantinople to the Latins. John
Vatatzes organised a palace school, which preserved the traditions of higher
education.34 But the most eloquent testimony to Hellenic wisdom’s power
to inspire comes in the shape of the autobiography of the future patriarch
Gregory of Cyprus. He describes how bitterly he resented the Latin conquerors
of his native island. They made it virtually impossible for him to get
a proper education. Hearing of the fame of Nicaea as a centre of Hellenic
education, he ran away from home and made his way to Nicaea. Whatever
his disappointments, he treats his search forHellenic illumination as a form
of conversion.35
Cultivation of Hellenic wisdom defined the Byzantine elite culturally
against the Latins. In 1254 there was a disputation betweenNicaean scholars
and members of a Hohenstaufen embassy. Theodore II Laskaris presided.
He adjudged victory to theNicaeans and thought it reflected great credit on
the Hellenes. Consciousness of a Hellenic past became an integral part of
the Byzantine identity, but its expression was the preserve of an intellectual
elite. There was surprisingly little friction between Hellenism and orthodoxy
despite their apparent incompatibility. Patriarch Germanos II could
compare John Vatatzes’ victories over the Latins toMarathon and Salamis.
This illustrates how Hellenism gave orthodoxy during the period of exile
a more obviously Greek complexion. The orthodox patriarchate did not
hesitate to abandon its rights over the orthodox church in both Serbia and
Bulgaria and came close to doing so in Russia. This was in contrast to the
stubborn and eventually successful defence of its authority over the church
in Epiros. Whatever claims Patriarch Germanos may have continued to
make to universal authority, his stance over the Epirot church indicates a
more obviously nationalist understanding of orthodoxy: it was the faith of
the Greeks.
Although the recovery of Constantinople from the hated Latins was
always the goal, Constantinople itself became less and less relevant to the
sense of identity that evolved during the period of exile. Political loyalties
became more localised. A sense of common purpose was provided by the
orthodox church and of cultural unity by theHellenic tradition.At the same
time a rather different structure of government and society was crystallising.
Many of its features can be traced back before 1204, but they were held
in check by the power and tradition of Constantinople. Its fall produced
of necessity a simplification of the machinery of government. Even the
tradition ofRoman lawweakened, allowing the introduction of the ordeal.36
There was a devolution of authority. This took the form of a marked growth
of immunities and pronoiai, but it can also be seen in the widespread grant
of urban privileges. Power became increasingly localised.
Michael VIII ignored these changes at his peril. He was proud to be
hailed as the ‘new Constantine’, but his autocratic style of government
created many difficulties.37 His attempt to restore the old ideological and
institutional foundations of the Byzantine empire went counter to the
changes that had occurred during the period of exile. The restored Byzantine
empire was not able to escape the legacy of exile. It remained a conglomeration
of independent or semi-independent political units. Except
very briefly, Epiros was never persuaded to return under the direct authority
of Constantinople, while AsiaMinor was never reconciled to Palaiologan
rule. Still more seriously, Michael VIII’s efforts to impose union with the
Latin church alienated all sections of orthodox society. This reflected a
shift in attitudes that occurred over the period of exile. An emperor could
no longer use the orthodox faith as a diplomatic bargaining counter with
the Latin west without provoking bitter opposition. The church could
now count on popular support. This had not been the case before 1204.
Michael VIII’s attempt to restore imperial authority to its former eminence
only left Byzantine society hopelessly divided. To bewail the recovery of
Constantinople, as one Nicaean official did in the summer of 1261, was to
show uncanny prescience.38
World History
