Back to Homepage Annuario 2002
p. 69
The Venetians in the 15th
Century Byzantine people Songs
University
of Bucharest
In order to apprehend the historical past, and especially the human
conceptions, aspirations or reactions regarding a particular event, the people literature
represents a specific category among the sources at the historian's hand.
Nevertheless, the reactions connected to it were extremely different during the
19th and 20th centuries. Thus, respecting the Byzantine
people literature, one could remark the development of the historians' interest
for the people creations, for the discovering of the manuscripts that preserved
them and for their publication. It was to occur towards 1820, along with the
beginning of a new period in the Byzantine studies, that is the romantic stage,
characterized by a mighty sympathy for the Greek people's cause. This interest
would subsequently materialize in the issue of a relatively great number of
works comprising especially Greek people legends and songs, under the endeavor
of Ch. Fauriel, A. Ellissen, C. Sathas or E. Legrand. Anyway, at the passing
from the 19th to the 20th century, it is noticed an
important reaction against this category of sources, under the circumstance of
the historical critical school's promotion. This one focuses on the documents
and on the narrative works, generally considering the people legends and
creations as the result of a people's imagination[1].
The people creations' rehabilitation occurs in the inter-war period, commencing
with the activity of the "School of Annales". They are now
regarded as important sources that define a people's identity. As a consequence
of this new attitude, especially after the Second World War, the interest for
publication of such a sources manifests itself. At the same time, the works
referring to the neo-Greek literature's history numerically grow up and
naturally deal with the 10th-15th Byzantine people
literature.
The detectable beginnings of the
Byzantine people literature are to be placed in the 10th century, period
that is characterized by the epic of Digenis Akritas, which glorifies the
hero's deeds, fighting against the Arabs at the Eastern Byzantine state's
borders[2].
Other documents in the people language come from the Comnenus emperors' period,
although they are not numerous. However, they confirm that, along with the
official literature, there is a people literature that has especially the
commoners into account, apart of the intellectual literary currents[3].
Their number would augment since the end of the 13th century. In
this period, consequent to the crusades and especially because of the conquest
of an important part of the Byzantine territory by the Latins settled there, it
is to be remarked to renaissance of the
p. 70
Hellenism
and the strengthening of the Orthodoxy, elements that produced a new ideology,
known in the modern period as "The Great Idea", as the basis of the
neo-Greek patriotism[4].
However, in the people literature field, this is the period that the Western
influences penetrate, through the agency of the Franks, Venetians and Genoese.
There is a poem known as "the Chronicle of Morea", dated in the first
years of the 14th century, which expresses the new political and
cultural realities. It is a chronicle in verses that refers to the conquest of
Peloponesus by the Franks, and the author is the eye-witness of the coexistence
between the Byzantine and the Western civilizations on the Greek territory[5].
Under the circumstances created by the
meeting between East and West, although the Frankish literature was not simply
accepted by the Greeks, they often admire and imitate it[6].
Thus, there are some novels in verses dated between the middle of the 13th
and the beginning of the 15th centuries, which are obviously under
Western influence. For some of them, the French patterns are even detected.
That is Callimachos and Chrysorrhoe, Belthandros and Chrysantza, Lybistros and Rhodamme, Imberios and Margarona, Florios and Platziaflora. All of them are
love stories and have a similar subject matter: there are two separated young
lovers, who are involved in different adventures that do not lack the
supernatural element, and who finally they are together again. The characters
do not fight against the barbarians anymore, but against the monsters or a
foreign king that had kidnapped the heroine[7].
Although two of them, that is Imberios
and Margarona and Florios and
Platziaflora, probably dated from the 15th century and are
written in Greek, they do not present a major importance from our viewpoint,
since the anonymous authors do not offer any information to sustain the
establishment of the Byzantine image on the Venetians. That is why we
especially focused upon the people poems.
First and foremost, our purpose was to
look for the information about the Venetians, detectable in the 15th
century people songs that we have had at our disposal. C. Th. Dimaras
classified the people poems in three cycles. There are: a) songs referring to
moments and respects from the human life, including here the love songs, death
songs or the ones focused on different ceremonies; b) songs which feature and
provenience are obvious, being inspired by a particular event or historical
character; c) other kind of songs, which could comprise also those poems that
nobody knows when and where they came into sight[8].
Taking this classification into consideration, we first insisted on the people
love poems. One of the traditional subject matters is the lover's praise or the
praise of some parts of the
p. 71
body
(the head, the hair, the lips), generally of the woman lover or of the wife,
but sometimes of a man[9].
Thus, in a 15th century love poem, which we did not have the
original at our disposal, there is a girl longing for a "brown hair, angel
looking" young man. Advised by three girl friends, she answers them that
the man whom she loves, that is Iannakis, is not a commoner, but the most
elegant among all, having "the slenderness of a Frank, the grace of a
Venetian"[10].
Among the death songs, we focused on the
one referring to Constantine IX Paleolog, ¢O qanatoV
tou Konstantinou Dragazh, which narrates the misfortunes provoked by the entrance of the Agar's
sons (oi Agarhnoi) in
Constantinople and the heroic death of the emperor. From our viewpoint, the
importance relies on the fact that, at the beginning of this song, the
anonymous author addresses to the Christians in East and West (cristianoi AnatolhV kai DuseV), so that to the Venetians either, who have to
lament for a great misfortune: the taking of the Holy City, the robbery and the defiling of the churches, the
destruction of the holy icons and the heroical death of the Constantinople's basileus, who implores
the allmighty God to have mercy to his people[11].
As for the historical songs, the most ancient are dated in
the times of the conquest of Constantinople, being dedicated to this event and
to the occupation of St. Sophia Church or to the last Byzantine emperor, that
is Constantine XI Paleolog. It is natural, since there is not probably any other
event to shock the Greek people to such a degree as the conquest of the capital
and the dissolution of the Christ's Great Church. From the viewpoint of the
proposed topic, the so called lamentations (qrênoß) or the complaints (anakálhma) about the conquest of
Constantinople and the faith of the 'Romans', composed immediately after the
catastrophe, are more important. Thus, in 'Anakálhma
têß Kwnstantinópolhß, which origins are under controversy, either Cypriot or more probable
Cretan, it is narrated that the sadness came upon the Romans that lost their Holy
City (qlîyiß ˜paramúqhtoß Épesen toîß Rwmaíoiß / 'Exásasin tó spítin touß, tçn Pólhn tçn ¡gía)[12]
in the favor of the Turks that killed all the Christians (˜pýlesan toùß xristianoùß ™keî kaì pantaxóqen)[13].
The emperor remained alone against them, being abandoned by the Cretans,
Venetians and Genoese that ran away from the battlefield, discarding him alone:
feúgousin o¥ Benétikoi k' ™keînoß ˜poménei...[14]
The emperor addresses to everyone,
naming them as his children (paidiá mou), displaying them that they
abandon him in front of the dogs, in the monster's mouth and asking his
subjects (xristianoì Rwmaîoi) to cur his own head and to
bring it to Crete[15].
In the very end of this song, after he had grieved about the Christian 'Roman'
faith falled in the
p. 72
Turks' hands and even sold as slaves[16],
the anonymous author refers also to the two emperors whose deeds had been
special in the Byzantine history. First, it is about Constantine the Great, the
emperor that founded Constantinople and had given his name to the famous city:
Autòß loipòn ™kósmhse ¦ Mégaß
Kwnstantînoß
tçn Pólhn tçn ™cákousthn, ºn blépeiß
kaì ˜koúeiß
kaqõß tçn klêsin Élaben
kaì tçn ™pwnumían...[17]
Secondly, it is about Justinian, the emperor that had built
the renown church of St. Sophia, considered by the author as a performance as
impressive as the St. Sion:
‘Omoíwß ‘Oustinianòß ™kósmhsen
megálwß,
Éktisen tçn ‘Agiàn Sofià,
tò qéaman tò mégaÿ
Paraplhsíon gégone Siõn têß
panagíaß.[18]
These
divine and devoted basilei had been the ones that had brought light to the most
holy city, the West, the East and the entire workd (...™fwtízasin
tçn panagían Pólhn, / tçn Dúshn, tçn
'Anatolën, †lhn tçn oœkouménhn)[19].
In another people production, this time
a threnos, Venice is mentioned as
interlocutor that participate to the Constantinople's pain, "the eye of
the East and of the Christendom" (tò máti têß
'Anatolêß kaì têß xristianosúnhß)[20]
that made Genua and Germany to light (lámpruneß tçn Génouban
kaì tçn 'Alamanían)[21]. In the
dialog between the two cities, Venice shares the pain and suffers along with
the Byzantine capital (Pólh, tò pásxeiß pásxw to, kaì
tò poneîß ponô to / kaì £ pollë sou sumforá, kaì mè pikrç ™fánh)[22],
considering the latter as "the Christians' vanity and the saints'
pride" (xristianôn tò kaúxhma kaì
tôn ¡gíwn dóca)[23]
and the one that surpasses all the others in beauty. The answer of
Constantinople is also interesting: since it had been founded by Constantine
the Great, it has have as the Virgin as protector, but she left them and lifted
to the heavens during the present times. Moreover, the throne of Constantinople
felt because of his sins and vices, through the agency of God[24].
This imaginary
conversation between the two cities and especially the anonymous author's idea
to select exactly Venice is as interesting as it is well known that the
Constantinople's ruin in its last centuries of existence was to a significant
extent due to the Italian republic' control over the Byzantine economy and also
over some key points in the Greek territories, especially in Crete. A possible
explanation for the selection operated by the author could be that Venice was
more known by the 'Romans', because of the unceasing contacts in the 13th-15th
centuries, but also that it was expected its and its fleet's assistance against
the Turks. Venice had many reasons, primarily economic, to reject the Turkish
installment in Constantinople. Nevertheless, since we don know anything about
the author and the
p. 73
place where this song appeared, a more credible
hypothesis should be that it is a work belonging to a Greek living under
Venetian domination, either in Venice, where it was already constituted an
important Greek colony[25],
or in the Greek territories controlled by the Italian republic, possibily even
in one of the islands.
Sometimes
the catastrophe in 1453 is attributed to an internal enemy, to a treason. This
is the case of a people song in Pont, where the responsability of the city's
capture is applied to the 'great' Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, to the cowardice
of the ones that were to defend the city (including the Venetians) and to the
treason of the 12 emperor's counsellors that surrendered the city's keys:
Tçn Pólhn †ntan Šrizen ¦ ‘´Ellhn Kwstantînou,
eÎxe
portárouß díklwpouß,˜féntouß fobetsárouß,
eÎxen
afénthn seraskér' tòn mégan 'Iwánnhn.
'Ekeînoß
eÎce súnodon
Rwmaíouß
dwdekáran,
™keînoß
eÎxe mekxemèn Rwmaíouß
˜fentádeß.
'Ekeîn' 'k' ™krínnan díkaia, ™dôkan tà kleidía...[26]
The anonymous author of another Qrênoß
Kwnstantinoupólewß,
after he presents the emperor's and his subjects' desperate situation,
demonstrating an enough well knowledge about the Western political realities,
he refers to the hopes of the Christians in the city towards the Pope, his
cardinals, the Venetian doge
and the king of France, the German basileus and all the dukes, counts, princes:
… tòn ¡giýtaton tòn pápan
têß ‘Rýmhß,
kaì
eœß toùß gkardinalíouß tou, nà dýsousi boëqeianÿ
eϧ
toûß ÿegádaiß têß Fragkiâß tôn auqentôn tôn †lwn,
doukadáiß,
koúntouß, prígkipaiß, kaì tà koumoúnia †la,
metà
toû basiléwß te toû têß 'Alamaní`aß...
...˜pò
tçn Benetiàn tçn poluxrusowménhn,
karábi'
˜pò tçn Génoban, triëreiß k' £ libiéra,
kaì ˜pò tçn Katelýnian kaì ˜p' †lhn tçn 'Itálian...[27]
We are to find the same idea again, more
amplified, in another Qrênoß têß Konstantinoupólewß, conserved in 16th
century manuscript. It had been probably created immediately after the fall of
Constantinople under the Turks and seemingly written by a Greek in Rhodes[28].
The author laments about the end of the unlucky 'Roman' believers and the
misfortune that destroyed their empire, that is the city that protected both
the Latins and the 'Romans' and all these should be regreted by the Latin
peoples:
'Eni
toû kósmou xalasmòß kaì sunteleià megálh,
Suntelesmòß
tôn Xristianôn tôn tapeinôn ‘Rwmaíwn;
‘Omôß
Àß tò qliboûn pollà kaì tà génh
Latínwn
Dià
toûto poû sunébhken basileían ‘Rwmaíwn,
Diat'
Êton spëtion ¦lonôn, ‘Rwmaíwn kaì Latínwn
p. 74
‘H Póliß £ kakótuxoß kœ²¦ basileùß ¦mádhn...[29]
Actually,
this work is an advice to the Western leaders to cease the conflicts among them
and to unite themselves in order to sustain the 'Roman' Empire. The author considers
that this is to be the real proof of their prestige and power (Auqéntaiß
eugenéstatoi, têß Dúshß megistâneß; / 'Edõ²Áß
fanñ £ dóca saß, †lh £ dúnamíß saß)[30].
Then, there are enumerated and appealed the Western states and their leaders,
one by one (têß Dúshß o¥ auqéntaiß: /
‘Rhgádeß, kóntoi, prígkipeß, doukádeß, kab`llároi[31]), who were able to come in
the Roman assistance against the pagans. First, the praised Venice and her
illustrious noblemen, who had mistaken towards the 'Romans' and by this error
facilitating the Constantinople's misfortune, are required for their aid:
'W Benetía foumistç, murioxaritwménh,
Auqéntaiß eugenéstatoi ,láqoß megálon Êton,
Eœß tçn Kwnstantinoúpolin megálon kríma
Êton.
Poû Êton £ boëqeiá saß, auqéntaiß Benetziánoi...[32]
Subsequently,
the author refers again to Venice, strengthened by God in her pride domination
(Tçn auqentián sou tçn kalçn ¦ Qeòß nà tçn stereýnü)[33],
and to her wise, experienced and skilled inhabitants (W
Benetziánoi frónimoi, praktaîoi k' ™pidécioi)[34].
These latter have to demonstrate the skill offered by God and the courage (n.n.
- obviously, participating to the recapturre of Constantinople from the Turks),
in order to obtain the proeminence and a great glory and to take plenty from
the achieved victory[35].
Later, in another passage, the author addresses again to the "wise
Venetians", sustained by God, despising the fraud, the robbery and any
injustice, wishful to preserve the peace:
'W benetziánoi ponhroì,...
Blépw ¦ Qeòß sâß
bohtæ mè tçn decián tou xeîra,
‘´Oti kleyiaîß dèn qélete,
¡rpagaîß, ˜dikíaiß,
’Agáphn pánta qélete, mè
™xqroùß kaì mè fílouß...[36].
In
order to sustain Constantinople, there are then called one by one the "the
wise citizens of Genua"[37];
the king in Paris, the first among the Western monarchs and ruler of the
Frenchmen[38]; the wise
sons of England, honored through their deeds[39];
the noble duke of Burgundy, full of honor and illustrious military commander,
and the brave Burgundian warriors that have always shown friendship to the
'Roman" Empire, to the basileus and honored St. Sophia[40];
the noblemen in Provence, experienced warriors, together with the
p. 75
Spaniards and the Portuguese[41].
Finally, there could not be forgotten the emperor of Germany, honored by
everybody and everywheren renowned, the king of Hungary, who have to enarm and
to begin the struggle against the unbelievers[42].
According to the author's judgement, all these Christians only wait for a sign
from their princes wearing the flag with the Savior's cross and leading their
own armies, to begin the war against the pagans[43].
Still, according to the threnos
published by Ellissen, they have to prove that they are real Christians,
ceasing the fights among themselves and concentrating all the forces in order
to organize a crusade to liberate Constantinople. It was because, as the author
comments, the Christians quarrel and fight among themselves, while God must
reconcile them, so that all of them, Frenchmen, English, Spaniards and Germans,
any kingdom in the West (Frazzézouß kaì 'Agklézideß,
Spaniólouß, 'Alamánouß, / Pâß' auqentía, pâß' ˜rxç,
têß Dúsewß tà mérh...[44]) should go together against
the pagan peoples in order to wring the city of the Christians, of the 'Romans'
and Latins (Tçn Pólin tôn Xristianôn, Latínwn kaì
‘Rwmaíwn[45]) from the Pagan hands.
Thus, confronted with the peril represented by the unbeliever Turks, this
song's author is not afraid anymore of the drawbacks that the crusaders could
eventually provoke and advice them to come in the East. In connection with this
threnos, there must be also specified
that the poet demonstrates a very good knowledge of the Western political
realities, even of the relationship among the Western states. However, the
attentive analyzing of this poem could provoke another demand: to what an
extent is the unknown author a representative of the 15th century
Byzantine people literature? Because of his knowledge, of the expressions, he
seems rather close to the intellectual Greek milieu in this period, his work
recalling to a certain extent the place that Chalkokondylos possesses among the
15th century Byzantine historians.
Finally,
there is another event that had marked the Byzantine society, occurred only two
decades before the fall of Constantinople and thus casted into the shade by
this latter. It is the fall of Thesalonic by the Ottoman Turks. In connection
to this, we are not to leave three people songs (monwdiai) aside. Their feature and historical origin are obvious, being
inspired by this city’s capture by the Turks in 1430 and created a short time
after the event. They were discorvered by Spiridon Lambros in different
manuscripts and published at the beginning of the 20th century[46].
We also regard them as being interesting for the exploration of the mental
structures in the general Byzantine society and especially in the provincial
Byzantine milieu. For one of the anonymous authors, Thesalonic is a Christian
city, the second capital of the Orthodoxy after the imperial city. In a little
different shape, this idea is present in one of the people works published by
Lambros, where Thesalonic is presented as a city superior to the others by
faith, placed immediately after Constantinople, the imperial city beyond all
the others: †sö mía a‰th kaì mónh póliß ‘áma mèn
˜rísth kaì qaumasía kaì tôn Állwn ™cürhménh sofíä kaì
eusebeíä kaì ˜retñ tàß Állaß nikôsa kaì
metà tçn basilída toîß pâsin euqùß[47].
p. 76
In another anonymous work, entitled Monödía
eœß tçn Qessaloníkhn dià stíxwn £rw<kwn (although its text is
sometimes difficult to be lectured and understood), the anonymous poet also
refers to the part taken by the Venetians in the events that preceded the
conquest of Thessalonic by the Ottomans. The Venetians are named as Latins (Latînoi). Thus, it is mentioned
that the Latin nation (tò Latínwn Éqnoß), leaving their own city,
came in the Thessalonicians’ assistance for seven years in order to impede the
assaults of the Ismaelites (o¥
Ismaîlhtai)
and to keep them away from the city as far as possible (‘Eptà
mèn Latínwn Étea Ésxon / o…d' ™ß ™pikouríhn
Éqnoß, …n' ªß ™kàß ‘álma / tçn Éfodon sustéllwsin
'Ismaîlhtwn).
These Latins, as the poet asserts,
demonstrated a great courage, taking the decision to solve the matter in front
of the Ottomans[48].
In the
enumeration of the people sources, although not very numerous, we are not to
finish without mentioning the fact that we insisted upon those that are dated
in the 15th century and was created in their majority by anonymous
authors, in people language. In his last period of existence, Byzantium is more
and more threatened by the Ottoman advancement. The human beings reacted, but
depending on anyone’s social condition, cultural degree and own interests.
Thus, the historians that have approached this matter consider that, on the eve
of the catastrophe, the Byzantines were divided in two different camps, on the
basis of the political and religious ideas. While a part of the Byzantine
society regarded the West as the only source of military aid and even intended
to favor the religious united with Rome as the only mean to save the state,
there was an anti-Western group that comprised the greatest part of the
Byzantine society, including especially the commoners. Under the clergy’s
influence, this latter group rejected the Papal supremacy and did not forgotten
the resentiments provoked by the Latins’
behavior during the crusades and subsequent to them[49]. There are two problems
difficult to be specify for this period: first, to what extent belong these
works to the ‘people’ or are only addressed to it (since the authors are
anonymous); second, whether there exists a connection between them and the
Byzantine intellectuals. However, we are able to assert that the 15th
century sources considered as people do not reflect to a significant extent the
beliefs and the aspirations of the anti-Western group. A proof in this sense is
the very fact that we could not find any people work to regard the Westerners
and particularly the Venetians as barbarians or schismatics, as they had been
considered during the preceding centuries. On the contrary, they are often
regarded as conchristiani, « the
Western christians » that are supposed to give assistance against the
unbeliever Turks.
Relying
upon the above reflections, we consider that there are some statements in
connection to the way in which the Venetians was regarded in the 15th
century Byzantine people milieus. Having the image of the Other as topic for our study, there some
respects that could attract in a specific way, that is the examination of the
political, religious and cultural identity and alterity. Since the images do
not represent only the most formed expressions of the alterity, the always begin from a
referent, depicting its features, fears
p. 77
and aspirations. That is why they deal with the ones
that propagate them, their identitary
respect being complementary to the other and being in interraction with him[50].
Thus, it is necessary to examine the alterity
in connection to the identity,
to be first defined the Byzantine
citizen’s typical features before taking the Other into discussion. During their empire’s existence,
the Byzantines defined themselves raporting to the realities that the Byzantine
world’s unity relied on, that is the State, the culture, and especially the
Church. Consequently, the characterization of the alterity supposes the same respects’ approaching, although
together with the physical and moral features[51],
also important in the process of the
Other’s comprehension.
Judging
upon the level of the physical-moral features, it could be first remarked that
the authors rarely reffer to their concitizens’ physical aspect, and when we
are confronted with such a situation, then the referals are indirect. Thus, we
are informed about Iannakis’ physical features from the comparison with
« a Frank"s slimness » and « a Venetian"s
grace ». Another observation is connected to the favorable image regarding
the Westerners’ physical aspect in general, since we take into consideration
that even from the first direct contacts with those Anna Comnena had praised
the physical beauty of the knight at his father’s court[52]. Anyhow, one could not say
the same thing about the Venetians’ moral features, since the Byzantine
historians in 12th-13th centuries had often underlined
the definite differences between them and the Westerners, these latter
characterized by hipocrisy, avarice, arrogance, insolence etc. [53] Although they are not accentuated and negative anymore as they had been in
the precedent centuries, the moral features raise a question mark, as they are
noticed by two of the people poems mentioned above. First, during the difficult
moments of the fights against the Turks after their entrance in the city, the
Emperor Constantine XI[54]
is abandoned not only by the Cretens, but also by the Genoese and the
Venetians, who prefers to retire and to take shelter on their navies, proving
thus their cowardice. The same idea is to be refound in the author of the threnos in Pontus that makes the Genoese
Giovanni Giustiniani Longo responsable and the cowardice of the ones around
him, thus including the Venetians and the Genoese on the city’s walls, and also
the treason of the emperor’s twelve counsellors. Concerning the Venetians, even
the threnos published by Ellissen
specifies that they mistook in front of the ‘Roman’ Empire and his emperor,
mistake that balanced in the perspective of the confrontation with the Turks
and of the siege of Constantinople, without specifying what kind of mistake is
about. This threnos is obviously
written in order to stimulate the Westerners to mobilize for the liberation of
Constantinople, so that the Venetian virtues (the wisdom, the honor, the
bravor, the courage, the disgust against fraud
p. 78
and against robbery) are
more clearly affirmed, in the attempt to convince them to organize an
anti-Turkish crusade.
Politically, Byzantium is the successor of the Roman Empire.
He considered himself as the rightly heir of Rome, where he retook the
political theory from, the ecumenical idea that the latter had invoked after
Alexander the Great in order to govern the world[55]. The Byzantine political theory is best illustrated by the terminology
utilized to design the empire, its inhabitants and institutions. Thus, between
4th and 15th centuries, the Byzantines has always called
themselved as Romans (‘Rwmaîoi), their capital was the New Rome (Néa
‘Rýmh), or,
more frequently during the 15th century, it was simply named as the City (Póliß), their state was the Roman Empire or the Empire of the Romans (£ basileía ‘Rwmaíwn), while their emperor’s title
has always been of basileus ton Rhomaion
(basileúß tôn ‘Rwmaíwn), sometimes simply named as basileus or megas basileus
– the universal emperor, the God’s choice to rule the entire terrestrial world.
Anyhow, this is also the opinion of the 15th century people works,
which frequently name the Byzantine state as £ basileía
‘Rwmaíwn,
expression that includes the term of ‘Rwmaîoi as defining the Roman
feature of the state, having thus a prevailing political connotation.
Nevetheless, the anonymous author in the threnos
published by Ellissen also refers to the slavery imposed by the Turks to the
Roman people (tò génoß tò ‘Rwmaikòn) [56].
Being known the empire’s situation in the 15th century, we suppose that
we are able to affirm that the expression has primarily an ethnical
connotation, meaning the people of the Greek-speaking and Orthodox faith Romans
(thus, similar to génoß ‘Rwmaíwn from the historian Doukas’
work[57]).
The meaning was gradually identified with the medieval hellenism and was
preserved during the centuries as usual denomination, common to the Greeks[58].
As the
terminology utilized at this level to denominate the Venetians, we consider
that there are some observations to be noticed. Whether during the end of the
11th century and the subsequent period, the Christian West was
regarded globally, while the christian peoples in the Latin West were
collectively nominated under the term of Latins,
thus supposing their submission to the Roman pontiff[59].
On the contrary, during the 15th century, the situation is radically
changed, so that the people works’ authors, just like the contemporary
historians, make the distinction among those peoples, speaking about Frenchmen,
English, Germans, Spaniards, and so on. This modification is the result of a
better knowledge of the Western realities, as a consequence of the continuous
contacts between the two worlds, intensified especially in the 14th-15th
centuries. Under these new circumstances, the Byzantines’ political and
geographical horizon enlarges and the West ceases to be regarded globally.
Then, another observation refers to the name of Latins, which continues to be utilized by 15th century
Byzantines. This time, it has first and foremost a religious meaning, referring
to the Western Christians
and their dogma, in report with the Orthodox Romans. The difference is that the dissappearance of the pejorative
connotation that had regarded the
p. 79
name of Latins
as a synonym for Barbarian
and Scismatic,
especially during the 12th-13th centuries.
Finally,
a third observation is connected to the expression of tò
Latínwn Éqnoß,
used by the anonymous author in Monödía eœß tçn
Qessaloníkhn dià stíxwn £rw<kwn, a people work that names
the Venetians as Latins. Under our opinion,
the term has in this case also a political background. The term of Éqnh, utilized for Gentiles in the New Testament, was
frequently used by the Byzantines in order to define the ones beyond the
empire’s boundaries. Although considered as less polite than bárbaroß, it was not usually applied
to the ‘Romans’, thus being underlined the difference between they and other
peoples[60].
We
could not bring the discussion to an end without referring briefly to the title
utilized by the people works’ authors for the Western princes. Naturally,
respecting the imperial tradition that did not recognize the existence of any
other universal empire, these authors regard the Byzantine emperor as basileus of the ‘Romans’ (basileúß
tôn ‘Rwmaíwn)
or simply basileúß – universal emperor. Any other political state has
a limited existentce in time and space. Thus, the doge of Venice is named as dýsousi
boëqeian,
expression that, upon our opinion, underlines the temporary feature of his power
and presupposes obviously a territorial limitation of his authority. It is not
out of importance and relevance that it is often utilized the title of aúqénthß to nominate the Western
princes, including the Venetian doge. The same title had been used during the
former century by the Patriarchy of Constantinople in the two documents
referring to the Wallachian metropolitan’s foundation, where the prince
Nicholas Alexander is named as mégaß boÍbodaß kai
aúqénthß[61]. In both cases, the term is
utilized under the meaning of absolute,
legitime lord, having the same connotation as the form of rex est imperator in regno suo, or with
the distinction of aútokrátwr in the Byzantine emperors’ official title,
that is the affirmation of the sovereigns’ absolute power, either internal, or
international[62]. It is not
difficult to understand why the dignity of autocrator
could not be used, being reserved exclusively to the sovereign in
Constantinople, but the fact that it has the meaning of aúqénthß is confirmed, also in the
15th century, by the Byzantine historian George Sphrantzes, who
often refers to the Emperor Constantine XI as aúqénthß mou kai
basileúß[63]. Still, in the case of the threnos published by Ellissen, when the author
asks the inhabitants in the laggons where is their assistance, the term aúqénthß is also used in a more
restrict sense, to designate the powerful Venetian noblemen (Poû
Êton £ boëqeiá saß, auqéntaiß Benetziánoi) [64].
Beside
the political theory and even more than this, another typical structure of the
medieval common mentality, and particularly to the Byzantine one, is naturally
the religious one, the profoundly religious spirit of the medieval man
representing actually a specific shape of identity[65].
It is well known that, since the very beginnings of its existence, the
p. 80
Byzantine empire’s basis were represented by the
Roman heritage’s prestige and legitimity on the one hand, and the Christian
faith’s power on the other. Thos two represented in fact the two features
specific to the Byzantine world, composed by citizens that are subjects to the
Roman authority represented by the emperor of Constantinople and that belong to
the Christian church (Orthodox in the final centuries of the Byzantine state) )[66].
For the 15th century Byzantine people works’ authors either, their
concitizens are, despite their sins, named often as xristianoí, while their empire is the
Christian empire of the ‘Romans’. Still, in the threnos published by A. Ellissen, this empire suffered the divine
punishment and was transformed into ruins just because the evil deeds, the
revolts, the lies and the frauds, together with all the other Christians’ sins[67]. The capital of the ‘Roman’
empire, Constantinople, is first identified as the centre of the Christian
world. As we specified above, it is the
eye of the East and of the Christendom, the Christians’ pride and the saints’
vanity. Making referals to Constantine the Great, the first Christian
emperor and also founder of the city, the historical basis for the primacy were
assured together with the Constantinople’s superiority in front of all the
other cities[68]. Its
conquest by the Ottomans represent an awarning for all the entire Christendom,
which from now on had to protect itself against the lion that drinks the Christian blood[69].
While the imperial city is settled above all the other cities, Thessalonic on
its turn is placed immediately after him because of its faith. The
Thessalonicians represent a religious Orthodox comunity, under the divine protection
and especially under the one more visible of St Demetrius, whose miracles made
in the favor of this comunity and many times encouraging its members are
mentioned by the anonymous author[70].
In the threnos published by Ellissen,
Constantinople is not only the city of the Christian ‘Romans’, but also of the Latins (Tçn
Pólin tôn Xristianôn, Latínwn kaì ‘Rwmaíwn), this denomination having
first, as we indicated above, a religious meaning, involving their submission
to the Roman pontiff. It is because the pope, on the St. Peter’s seat, is not
only the lord of the ancient Rome, but also the honored leader of the Roman
Church. Through his holy action, he had to gather all the Christian princes
around the Cross in order to fight against the unbeliever[71].
Although there were divergencies in the religious field that they surely
perceived, the Byzantines, confronted with « the sons of Agar », now
realize that both them and the Westerners belong to the same Christian world. A
somehow more radical attitude is to be detected in Monödía
eœß tçn Qessaloníkhn dià stíxwn £rw<kwn, where the anonymous poet
reminds about the arrogance of the Latins
(Venetians) who, by their dogma, estranged from God. This is an obvious
allusion to the schism existed between the rightful Byzantine church and the
Roman one, which the Venetians belonged to.
Finally,
a final respect that we proposed to investigare is the cultural one, although
the anonymous authors’ referals are quite few from this viewpoint. We consider
that there is one thing that should be underlined. That is that in a people
song from Pontus, mentioned
p. 81
above, although the subjects are named as ‘Romans’, the last Byzantine emperor is
called as ¦ ‘´Ellhn Kwstantînou[72]. The utilization of the
term of hellens is not a novelty in the Byzantine intellectual milieus.
Frequently used in the period at the beginnings of the Christianity as a
synonym for the pagans, this term gains gradually, beginning with the 13th
century, a new meaning, a political-ethnic one. The Byzantines, who had been
named themselves for centuries as ‘Romans’,
citizens of the christian Roman empire, commence to call themselves as Helens. This evolution of the
political-ethnic terminology was profoundly influenced the Fourth Crusade’s
events and its political-economic consequences that convinced the ‘Romans’ that there are two things that
make them different and even superior to the Latins : theOrthodox belief and the ancient Helenism’s
heritage[73]. The
reappearance of the name of Helens is
not by chance. It announces a changing in the Empire’s life that should be
attributed especially to the intellectual life’s manifestations, since the
renaissance of the Helenism is not the result of the enflourishment of the
Byzantine material civilization as it is rather the reflex of a period of
accentuated crisis culminating with the fall of the Roman state.
Concluding,
one could assert that, under the circumstances of the crisis produced by the
Turkish conquests and especially of the fall of Constantinople, as the event
that especially marked the Byzantine world in the 15th century, the
attitude towards the Westerners, and especially towards the Venetians is
radically changed in comparison to the precedent centuries, at least at the
level of a part of the Greek society, which aspirations are reflected in the
people songs. Between two perils, the Byzantine chose the lesser one. They
chose the ones that, despite the differences, are also Christians.
Conclusively, the political and cultural discrepancies between the Byzantines
and the inhabitants from the lagoons gradually lose their importance, although
the religious ones are still significant. The Venetians are not in the field of
the Barbarian alterity
anymore and, even they remain hostile and fierceful from some viewpoint, they
represent a dialogue alterity[74].
Obviously, the real Barbarians, the ones that are settled beyond the civilized
world and that represent the absolute,
Barbarian alterity are still the Turks.
For this material, permission is granted
for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and
personal use.
Whether you intend to utilize it in
scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Annuario.
Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4 (2002), edited by ªerban
Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2002
No permission is granted for commercial
use.
© ªerban Marin, August 2002, Bucharest,
Romania
Back to
Homepage Annuario 2002
[1] In this sense, see
Gh. Brãtianu, Tradiþia istoricã despre întemeierea
statelor româneºti, Bucharest, 1945: 15-20.
[2] For this, see C.
Th. Dimaras, Istoria literaturii neogreceºti, Bucharest, 1968: 42-48; H. Grégoire, "Epopeea bizantinã ºi
raporturile ei cu epopeea turcã", in Literatura
Bizanþului (ed. by N. ª. Tanaºoca,
Bucharest, 1971: 291-295; Bruno Lavagnini,
La letteratura neoellenica, Milan,
1969: 9-26; L. Politis, A History of Modern Greek Literature,
Oxford, 1975: 23-25; H. G. Beck, Geschichte der Byzantinische Volksliteratur,
Munich, 1971: 63-97.
[3] In this sense, see
B. Knös, Histoire de la littérature néo-grecque. La période jusqu’en 1821,
Stockholm-Göteborg-Upsala, 1962: 71-88; E. Kriaras,
"Diglosia în ultimele secole ale Bizanþului. Naºterea literaturii
neogreceºti", in Literatura
Bizanþului: 260-287; Beck, op. cit.: 101-109 and especially
110-113.
[4] Knös, op. cit.: 42, 87; See also H. Ahrweiler,
L’idéologie politique de l’Empire
byzantin, Paris, 1975: 103-114; J. Voyatzidis, "La Grande Idée",
in "1453-1953. Le cinq-centieme anniversaire de la prise de
Constantinople", L’Hellénisme
contemporain, II, 7, fasc. hors série, Atena, 29 mai 1953: 280-282.
[5] Dimaras, op.cit.: 48-49; Politis,
op. cit.: 28-29; B. Lavagnini, op. cit.: 28-31; Beck,
op. cit.: 157-159.
[6] D. C. Hesseling, Histoire de la littérature grecque moderne, Paris, 1924: IX.
[7] For the Byzantine
novels in verses, see Politis, op. cit.: 28-33; Dimaras, op. cit.:
51-55; the introduction in A. Trypanis,
Medieval and Modern Greek Poetry,
Oxford, 1951: xxxii-xxxiv; about the
Western influence, see D. Geanakoplos,
Byzantine East and Latin West: two Worlds
of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance, Oxford, 1966: 29; for the
text, see Politis, Poihtikç 'Antológia, B. META THN ALWSH 15oß kai
16oß aœýnaß, Athens, 1967:
85-129; translation in S. Lambros,
Collection de romans grecs, Paris,
1880; text and translation in R. Cantarella,
Poeti bizantini, I. Testi; II.
Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento, Milan, 1948, more recent, Beck, op. cit.: 117-135, and about the Western influence: 140-147; E. M. Jeffreys,
"Imberios and Margarona: the Manuscripts, Sources and Edition of a
Byzantine Verse Romance", in Popular
Literature in Late Byzantium, vol. 1, London: Variorum Reprints, 1983.
[8] Dimaras, op. cit.: 30-31.
[9] Anthologie des chansons populaires grecques,
Paris: Collection UNESCO d’oeuvres représentatives, 1967: 178.
[10] Ibidem: 183.
[11] E. Legrand, op. cit.: 74-76, with the text's translation; in French, G. Walter, La ruine de Byzance, Paris, 1958: 330-331.
[12] Politis, Poihtikh Antologia,B., Athens: 13, 2-3; Walter, op. cit.:
328; Ta
sumbola thV eqnikhV
pistewV - KwnstantinoupoliV kai
Agia Sofia: 73-74; A. Pertusi,
La caduta di Constantinopoli: II,
366, 2-3, with the text's Italian translation.
[13] Pertusi, op. cit.: 366, 15.
[14] Ibidem: 368, 31-32.
[15] Ibidem: 368, 34-38.
[16] Ibidem: 372, 71-79.
[17] Ibidem: 374, 95-97.
[18] Ibidem: 98-100.
[19] Ibidem: 103-105.
[20] Pertusi, La caduta di Constantinopoli: II, 378, 6; for the same threnos, see also A. Papadopoulos-Kerameos, "Qrênoß têß Kwnstantinoupólewß", Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
12 (1903): 267-272.
[21] Pertusi, op. cit.: 380, 26.
[22] Ibidem: 34-35.
[23] Ibidem: 37.
[24] Ibidem: 382, 63-71.
[25] In this sense, see Geanakoplos, op. cit.: 112-138; Idem,
Bisanzio e il rinascimento. Umanisti
greci a Venezia e la diffusione del greco in Occidente (1400-1535), Rome,
1967; Idem, Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the Dissemination of Greek
Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe, Cambridge, 1962.
[26] Knös, op. cit.: 161 ff.; Pertusi, La caduta di Constantinopoli:
II, 400-401.
[27] Ta sumbola thV
eqnikhV
pistewV - KwnstantinoupoliV kai
Agia Sofia: 71-72.
[28] In this sense, see Beck, op. cit.: 164, with the
bibliography connected to this song's author in note 1. This song also mentions
John the Hunyad, "the wise hero from the Wallachian land".
[29] A. Ellissen, Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur. III. Anecdota
Graecobarbara, Leipzig, 1857: 124, 130-135.
[30] Ibidem: 140, 248-249.
[31] Ibidem: 144, 284-285.
[32] Ibidem: 146, 296-299.
[33] Ibidem: 226, 873.
[34] Ibidem: 875.
[35] Ibidem: 876-884.
[36] Ibidem: 230, 910-913.
[37] Ibidem: 148, 311-317.
[38] Ibidem: 150-152, 331-339.
[39] Ibidem: 152, 345-346.
[40] Ibidem: 156, 365-369.
[41] Ibidem: 160, 400-401.
[42] Ibidem: 176-178.
[43] Ibidem : 236, 947-960.
[44] Ibidem : 154, 354-355.
[45] Ibidem : 154, 357.
[46] Lambros, « TreiV anekdotoi
monwdiai eiV thn
upo twn Tourkon alwsin thV
QessalonikhV »,
NeoV Ellhnomnhmwn, tom E’,
Athens, 1908: 369-391.
[47] Ibidem : 390-391.
[48] Ibidem : 380, 260-265.
[49] About the
Byzantines’ attitude towards the West after the Fourth Crusade, see v. D. Zakythinos, “Ideologikai sugkrouseiV eiV thn poliorkoumenhn Kwnstantinoupolin”, Nea ¢Estia, 47 (1950) : 794-799; Ahrweiler, L’idéologie politique de l’Empire byzantin, Paris, 1975 :
122-124; I. Sevcenko, « Society and Intellectual Life in the XIVth century »,
in Actes du XIVe Congrès
International des Etudes Byzantines, Bucarest, 1971. Rapports”, vol.
I : 69-92; Idem,
« Intellectual repercussions of the Council of Florence », Church History 24 (1955) : 291-301.
[50] Al. F. Platon, Societate ºi mentalitãþi în Europa medievalã. O introducere în
antropologia istoricã, Iaºi, 2000 : 41-42.
[51] Lucian Boia, Entre l’ange et la bête. Le mythe de l’homme différent de
l’Antiquité à nos jours, Paris, 1995 : 16.
[52] Ana Comnena, Alexiada, vol. I, Bucharest, 1982.
[53] Herbert Hunger, Graeculus Perfidus – italos itamos. Il senso dell’alterita nei rapporti
greco-romani ed italo-bizantini, Rome, 1987 : 37-46.
[54] Althoug the ‘Roman’
features are many times considered as implicit, for many of the authors of the
people songs mentioned above, the pattern is represented by even Constantine
XI, the emperor that demonstrated his bravor, force and courage fighting
against the Turks and whose heroic death on the city’s walls represents the
origin for many legends (in this sense, see D. M. Nicol, The Immortal
Emperor: the Life and Legend of Constantin Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the
Romans, Cambridge, 1994).
[55] Zakythinos, « Continuité de
l’Empire Romain à Constantinople: 330-1453 », in La nozione di “Romano” tra cittadinanza e
universalità, “Da Roma alla Terza Roma”, Documenti e studi, vol. 2,
Naples, 1984 : 231.
[56] Ellissen, op. cit. : 188, 602.
[57] Doucas, Istoria turcobizantinã (1341-1462) (ed. by V. Grecu), Bucharest, 1958 : 157, 20.
[58] K. Krumbacher, « Literatura greacã
medievalã », in Literatura
Bizanþului, Bucharest, 1971 : 69.
[59] In this sense, see S. Kindlimann, Die Eroberung von Konstantinopel als politische Forderung des Westens im Hochmittelalter, Zurich, 1969; Nicol, « The Byzantine View of Western Europe », in Idem, Byzantium: it’s Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World, London : Variorum Reprints, 1972.
[60] Nicol, op. cit.: 317.
[61] Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, IV,
Bucharest, 1982 : 196-202.
[62] In this sense, see
S. Brezeanu, « “Domn a toatã
Þara Româneascã”. Originea ºi semnificaþia unei formule medievale de
cancelarie », in Idem, Romanitatea orientalã în evul mediu. De la
cetãþenii romani la naþiunea medievalã, Bucharest, 1999 : 199; Idem, « Model european ºi
realitate localã în întemeierile statale medievale româneºti. Un caz: “Terra
Bazarab” », in loc. cit. :
222.
[63] Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii, 1401-1477 (ed. by V. Grecu), Bucharest, 1966 : for
instance 96, 34.
[64] Ellissen, op. cit. : 146, 299.
[65] Platon, op. cit. : 68.
[66] Ahrweiler, « Citoyens et étrangers
dans l’Empire Romain d’Orient », in La
nozione di “Romano” tra cittadinanza e universalità, “Da Roma alla
Terza Roma”, Documenti e studi, vol. II, Naples, 1984 : 343.
[67] Ellissen, op. cit. : 196, 665-669.
[68] For this idea, see Ahrweiler, L’idéologie
politique: 48.
[69] Ellissen : 176, 519; 170, 468.
[70] Lambros, op. cit. : 391.
[71] Ellissen, op. cit. : 180, 538-544.
[72] Pertusi, La caduta di Constantinopoli, II: 400, II.
[73] For this matter,
see Nicol, « The Byzantine
Church and Hellenic Learning in the Fourteenth Century », in Byzantium:
it’s Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World : 23
- 57; see also S. Runciman,
« Byzantine and Hellene in the Fourteenth century », in TomoV Kwnstantinou Armenopoulou, Thessalonic,
1952 : 27 – 31; Idem, The Last Byzantine Renaissance,
Cambridge, 1970 : 1-23.
[74] Ahrweiler « L'Image de l'Autre et
les mécanismes de l'altérité », in
XVe Congres international des sciences
historiques, Rapports, I, Stuttgart, 1985 : 64.