<<

. 32
( 54 .)



>>

erance of everyday Orthodoxy among the ˜native™ population, alongside a
formal relegation of the Orthodox hierarchy to a junior position behind
the Latin.µ
As in all the Latin crusader states, then, a Catholic hierarchy was soon in
place in the Peloponnese, and after ±° most senior Orthodox churchmen
are thought to have refused to take the required oath of submission to the
pope and consequently to have left the areas of Frankish rule at an early
stage; only four speci¬c exceptions are known from papal correspondence
and none of these compromisers were from the Peloponnese. It is in
fact impossible to say whether any Orthodox hierarchy remained in place
in the principality. In a letter of ±±°, Pope Innocent III declared that
on the imminent submission of Corinth he would be willing to accept
a vow of submission from the Orthodox bishop of that city, but the
conclusion of this matter is not known.· That dual Latin and Orthodox
hierarchies in fact emerged in some places (not necessarily the Peloponnese)
is strongly suggested by the provision of the fourth Lateran Council (±±µ),
outlawing the existence of multiple bishops in a single diocese. In Cyprus,
for example, this had been a very contentious issue in the ¬rst decades
of the thirteenth century; eventually, however, a pragmatic settlement had
been reached whereby an Orthodox bishop could remain as a junior to the
Latin, tending only to the Orthodox in the diocese. This was very like the
situation that had pertained in the kingdom of Jerusalem, and there were


µ Cf. for Jerusalem Hamilton ±°: ±µ“·; for Crete, McKee °°°: ±°“±µ; for Cyprus, Coureas
±·: µ±“±·. Angold ± is a useful survey.
 Lock ±µ: °·; Richard ±: ·. See also Kolbaba °°±: ±“°; Kolbaba emphasises the degree
of Roman cooperation with the Latin church.
· PL ccxvi: col. °±.
± Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
clear advantages to this solution in terms of language and the minimising
of unproductive doctrinal disagreement.
The Orthodox bishops on Cyprus lived in obscure villages in each of
the four Latin dioceses, and this is reminiscent of the position in the far
south of the Peloponnese in Venetian-ruled Modon and Coron, where
the Orthodox bishops were permitted to remain alongside their Latin
counterparts as long as they lived outside the actual cities, the seats of the
dioceses. It is possible that a similar solution prevailed in the neighbouring
Frankish Morea, but there is regrettably no conclusive evidence either way.
There is one tantalising mention of ˜the bishop of Maina, who was a
Roman™ in the account given by Demetrios Chomatianos of the trials of
John Chamaretos, the distinguished refugee from the Peloponnese.° This
bishop is likely to have been based in the far south of the Peloponnese,
in or near the peninsula of the Mani, and may thus have been at this
date, probably around ±°, outside or at least on the margins of Frankish
in¬‚uence in the region.
The imposition of the western church on the Peloponnese must never-
theless have had some negative impact. One should distinguish between
the impact on the countryside, dominated by the Orthodox and largely
left alone, and the towns such as Glarentsa, Andravida, Kalamata, Patras or
Corinth where there were marked changes, with churches, cathedrals and
monastic houses. The Frankish population in such towns was signi¬cantly
greater and the religious aspect to this manifested itself more strongly,
with some western churches actually replacing or reusing Orthodox estab-
lishments.± In the Orthodox-dominated countryside, the impact was less
concrete but perhaps more provocative. Successive agreements laid down
the obligation on peasants of paying the tithe to the Latin church, a custom
that was wholly new to the Orthodox, although there is now a general con-
sensus that this rule was probably largely ignored. Apart from this, there
were at least two western monastic establishments in the Peloponnesian
countryside, both Cistercian: Isova in the valley of the Alpheios in Arkadia
and Zaraka on Lake Stymphalia west of Corinth. All other known monas-
tic houses were situated in towns with substantial western populations.
One may speculate that these rural establishments may have seemed basi-
cally familiar in principle to the local Romans, although their Gothic form

 Coureas ±·: ·µ.  Cf. Richard ±: µ“; Coureas ±·: ±, ·±, °.
° Pitra ±± vi: col. µ. ± Cooper ±; Coulson ±.
 Cf. Wolff ±µ: ·“·, and more recently Coureas ±·: ··“; Lock ±µ: ±µ“±; Richard ±:
µ“·.
 Lock ±µ: “.
±
Meanwhile, a long way from Constantinople . . .
and the appearance of the monks may have been more disconcerting. The
Franciscans and Dominicans made most impact in Orthodox territories,
having a more proactive approach to the conversion of the Orthodox;
their zeal led to at least one incident of Orthodox martyrdom in Cyprus.
However, there is no information on their speci¬c impact in the Pelopon-
nese. Alongside the Latin houses, Orthodox monastic life continued in the
Peloponnesian countryside, as it did also in Crete and Cyprus.µ
As a ¬nal comment on religion for the present, we should be wary of
assuming that all Romans were necessarily Orthodox. In Venetian Crete,
the choice of rite went a long way to determine a person™s ethnicity, and
this could have major social implications. Thus it is likely that in Crete
some at least of the local gentry who prospered under Venetian rule may
well have gone over to the Latin rite to re¬‚ect or promote their perceived
social status; this had also happened in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
where, initially at least, ¬ef-holding was restricted to those of the Latin
church. In the Peloponnese in ±, four Romans (two Katomerites, a
Cyriaque and a Genople) were involved with a majority of Franks in the
donation of lands to a Catholic monastery in Andravida, while in ±µ
Manuel Mourmouras built a Catholic church in the Argolid.· Thus, not
all Peloponnesian Romans were equally determined to stick to their faith
and their customs; even in the matter of religion some seem very early to
have adopted Frankish ways.

As for the other side of the Villehardouin™s quid pro quo with their Roman
subjects, the latter were expected to be actively loyal. There was thus a
Roman presence in the army of the principality. The Chronicle says that
the Roman archontes agreed to provide military service in return for their
pronoies, and in its account of the conquest of the Peloponnese, the Greek
Chronicle has Romans campaigning with the Frankish army at the siege
of Amykli (°±“). As Prince William subjugated the Slavic mountain
tribes of the Taygetos, they were bound to provide service to him as they
had previously done to the imperial power of Constantinople: ˜they would
never give the despotikon, just as their parents had never done so, but they
would give allegiance, armed service, as they had likewise fought for the
emperor™ (Greek Chronicle °“): this note of continuity is typical. As
noted, Article ·± of the Assizes of Romania clearly implies that Roman
archontes were expected to provide military services in just the same way

 Coureas ±·: ·“. µ Coureas ±·: µµ“, °.
 McKee °°°: ±°; Riley-Smith ±·: ±°“±±. · Bon ±: ±±µ.
°° Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
as any other landholder. Akropolites, as noted above, explicitly states that
the prince™s army on the Pelagonia campaign included Romans of the
Peloponnese, indeed many ˜Lakonians™ from the recently conquered south-
eastern quadrant (History ±.±“), and the recruitment of Lakonians is
also suggested by the French Chronicle (·). The Greek Chronicle agrees
that the army at Pelagonia included both ethnic groups: Prince William
addresses ˜ . . . all the knights, both Franks and Romans™ (µ“°).
Moreover, in its account of the battle, the Greek Chronicle also twice
makes use of the term Mora¹tev (Mora¨tes: ˜Moreots™), on both occasions
±
to make a contrast with the army ˜of the despotate™, that is, the Epirot
army which was ostensibly in alliance with the Moreot army. Mora¨tes is ±
typically used in the Greek Chronicle to make a contrast between the people
of the principality and various outsiders, and this term, which appears only
in the Greek Chronicle (°°, ±µ, ·±, , µ and °), is most
probably to be understood as inclusive of both Franks and Romans. The
¬rst two uses refer to Moreot troops at Pelagonia; the French Chronicle
has no comparable phrase and thus it may be signi¬cant that only the
Greek version explicitly has both Romans and Franks in this army. At
Greek Chronicle ·±,  and µ the French Chronicle has as its closest
equivalent ˜the people from all parts™ or ˜of this land™ (of the Morea), while
for H° the French Chronicle has no directly equivalent phrase but,
unusually, speci¬es ˜everyone, as much Latins as Greeks™. This suggests that
the French author might have understood Mora¨tes as including Romans
±
(˜Greeks™ to him), even if he did not always make it explicit.
Franks and Romans were thus mixing together, in the army at the very
least. They were therefore able to communicate with each other, and in
this respect the Chronicle also provides strong suggestions of bilingualism
in the thirteenth century. Prince William himself, the ¬rst prince of the
Morea to be born in the Peloponnese, was bilingual in French and Greek:
negotiating with the Nikaians after Pelagonia, ˜the prince, as a wise man,
answered him in Roman™ (Greek Chronicle ±°). The French Chronicle
makes more of the prince™s linguistic ability, saying he spoke Greek well “
auques bien (°). One wonders how many other Peloponnesian Franks
spoke Greek, and indeed how many Peloponnesian Romans spoke French,
and the Chronicle™s story of Geoffrey de Briel, who laid an unsuccessful
claim to the ¬ef of Karytaina in the late ±·°s, gives some hints (Greek
Chronicle ±±°“·µ, French µµ·“µ). Geoffrey had just arrived from France
and cannot have known any Greek, nevertheless he was able to befriend the
castellan of Araklova, a Roman called Philokalos. He and Geoffrey must
have spoken French together: we thus have here a native Roman working
°±
Meanwhile, a long way from Constantinople . . .
for the Franks in a position of military responsibility and speaking French.
Philokalos was also ¬‚uent in Greek, as he apparently spent most evenings in
the village taverna. Having taken the castle, Geoffrey releases the prisoners,
who are ˜villagers and Romans™, and sends two of these to negotiate with
the Romans of Mistra. Presumably at least one of these prisoners spoke
French, or Geoffrey used an interpreter. The story suggests a high degree
of bilingualism among the Moreots.
Prince William II at least spoke Greek, but he was also plainly at home
in French culture, working himself in the trouv`re style; love of French
e
and ¬‚uency in Greek were not, therefore, incompatible. The minority
Franks would have had to speak Greek to their subjects, and as successive
generations were born they were likely to acquire Greek at an early age
from their carers. Furthermore, the stories of disputes between Franks and
Romans, to be discussed below with reference to the fourteenth century,
show that by the end of the thirteenth century Franks and Romans had
become used to consorting together at markets and fairs. Greek may thus
have functioned as a useful everyday means of communication, while
French was reserved for of¬cial affairs, and perhaps for interactions between
Franks “ thus the trouv`re songs of Prince William in the Manuscrit de Roi.
e
There is, however, the matter of castle names. Many castles seem to
have borne both a French and a Greek name: Akova Castle was also
˜Matagriffon™, i.e. ˜Kill-Greek™; there were also Pontikos/Beauvoir, Chle-
moutsi/Clermont, Leftron/Beaufort and Araklova/Bucelet. The Greek and
French versions of the Chronicle stick to the names in their respective lan-
guages, with the notable exception of the French Chronicle, °·: the prince
built a castle ˜which is called Beaufort in French and Lefftro in Greek™. This
phenomenon of double-naming seems indicative of a long-lasting favour-
ing of French by the conquerors; indeed, the Aragonese Chronicle often
gives both names (see, for example, the register of ¬efs, ±±·“±), suggesting
that both versions were current in the later fourteenth century. It is possible
that the dual naming arose very early in the history of the principality but
that its use became progressively less ethnically determined over time, with
both versions becoming current over time with different ethnic groups.
As suggested by the detail of the tavern in the story of Geoffrey and
Philokalos, most Frankish castles were centres of settlement where Romans
and Franks mixed freely. Until recently, apart from the larger sites like
Mistra or Monemvasia, the evidence for settlement patterns has been mostly

 Bi- or multilingualism is not a guarantee of ethnic harmony, cf. Dagron ±: “.
 Longnon ±; Mayer ±: °.
° Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
documentary. The Acciajuoli documents edited by Longnon and Topping
give details of settlements at the towers of Krestena and Voulkano and at the
castle of Archangelos; there is also the bourg at Santameri, a substantial town
which was itself walled and situated to the north of the main forti¬cation;
in a survey of ±± this was said to house µ°° hearths, making it the largest
settlement in the principality at that time.µ° This question of settlement
is an area where archaeological investigation would be useful, but until
recently the archaeology of Frankish Greece has remained of subsidiary
interest to the ancient.µ± This is now changing, with the investigation
of Frankish Corinth begun in ±, and much signi¬cant ground and
architectural survey work undertaken in Boiotia and Evia, and now Elis and
Messenia.µ The Morea Vernacular Architecture Survey has more recently
looked at vernacular settlements in the north-west of the Peloponnese from
the Frankish to early modern period. For the Frankish period the survey
focused on sites including Frankish forti¬cations revealing, in most cases,
a pattern of settlement around the forti¬ed building situated at the highest
point. Settlements varied in size from ±µ to °° buildings.
One of the sites examined was Santameri, and the survey con¬rmed
the documentary evidence that this was indeed a substantial settlement,
with ± buildings recorded on a site of some ·°° — µ° metres. At
Minthe Palaiokastro in Elis, tentatively identi¬ed as Frankish Crevecour,
the tower is again at the highest point with over one hundred houses
scattered down the hill and surrounded by a forti¬ed defensive circuit. At
the ruins of the castle of Akova, twenty-¬ve buildings can be detected,
among them a chapel and houses. Similar patterns of occupation have
been surveyed at Kalidona, Smernakastro, Portes, Salmeniko, Agia Triada
Gatsiko, Kastro tes Ochias, Misovouni and Kastelli, and this suggests a
fairly dense occupation by the ruling Franks, who lived closely alongside
the Romans of the villages. As has been illustrated by Ronnie Ellenblum,
in relation to the Frankish settlement in the Holy Land, the Franks who
moved east were likely to, and in fact did, maintain the fundamentally
rural way of life with which they had been familiar in the west.µ Again,
clauses of the Assizes of Romania clearly point to rural activity on the part
of the ruling Franks. Moreover, the evidence points towards an expansion
of the rural economy in the Peloponnese in the Frankish period, and this


µ° Longnon and Topping ±: µ, , ; Bon ±: ±“. µ± Vroom °°: ±“·.
µ Cooper °°; McDonald and Rapp ±·; Lock ±; Bintliff ±.
µ Ellenblum ±: ±; Hirschbickler °°µ: ·“µ°.
°
Meanwhile, a long way from Constantinople . . .
would not have been surprising given the stronger links with the west and
particularly Italy.
Outside this north-western corner of the Peloponnese, the many cas-
tles of the Peloponnese await systematic archaeological examination, but
what has been done supports a pattern of settlements clinging to fortresses,
whether for the economic bene¬ts, protection or both. In Geraki in Lako-
nia, where the medieval site has been preserved thanks to the movement
of the village in the early modern period, there is again the castle on the
height with churches and houses scattered down the slope. Peter Burridge
has similarly drawn attention to the buildings clustered within and to the
north of the castle of Vardounia in the hills above Gytheio, a castle which is
credibly seen as a guard on the Panayia Pass over the Taygetos, linked to the
Frankish castle of Leftron at Stoupa south of Kalamata. Timothy Gregory
has described the site on Mount Tsalika, south-east of Corinth, where the
remains of as many as °° separate structures can be detected, situated
outside the forti¬cations; this site can be dated by ceramic evidence to the
Frankish period, but cannot be securely identi¬ed as any named location
within the documentary record. At Mount Tsalika, there does not seem
to have been any signi¬cant settlement before the Frankish period, but
we unfortunately cannot be sure to what extent either the Franks forti¬ed
existing settlements or, alternatively, settlement followed upon forti¬ca-
tion. Certainly, the Morea survey has con¬rmed that many Frankish castles
were occupations or rebuildings of existing Byzantine Roman structures.
In conclusion, then, we may say that these forti¬ed structures were not
isolated outposts of Franks divorced from the rural Romans living around
them.µ
The existence of the Roman castellan Philokalos also indicates a Roman

<<

. 32
( 54 .)



>>