<<

. 41
( 54 .)



>>

c.±µ°°) and T (Codex Taurinensis B, ii.±) re¬‚ect a more positive attitude to
Byzantine Romans, and this seems a natural re¬‚ection of the state of affairs
in the ¬fteenth century; nevertheless, the overall picture of considerable
ethnic assimilation remains strong in the later versions.
One obvious point is that the audience for the Greek Chronicle was
now more Greek-speaking. Thus, of the two references in H to things
˜the Romans say™ (the hamotsoukin, or picnic, and the hiereis, or Roman
priests), the former is omitted in both T and P, and the hiereis reference
does not appear in P. Moreover, some items of vocabulary of French origin
which appear in H are replaced with Greek terms in P and T: T replaces the
parlamŽ (parlama: French ˜parlement™) of H with sunthci† (syntechia)
(±), and P speaks of the Suntrof©a of the Catalans, rather than H™s
Koump†nia (··, ·, ·µ). These linguistic changes may thus signal a
diminution in the non-Roman contingent of the audience over time. Again,
of the two authorial references in the H to the Franks as ˜our people™ ()
and ˜we Franks™ (), the ¬rst is altered in P to ˜their people™ and the
µ
The long defeat
second is omitted; both are omitted in T. Hence, the audiences did not
include any signi¬cant contingent who would have identi¬ed themselves
as Franks.
Similarly, most anti-Roman comments are omitted or toned down in
both P and T. Of the lengthy polemical passages, all bar the ¬rst are omitted
or abridged in both P and T (see above, pp. ±µ“±·). Moreover, several
incidents of anti-Roman sentiment which are more in the way of passing
comments are also toned down or omitted. Thus, where in H™s account
of the battle of Prinitsa ˜God gave victory to the Franks and was angry
with the Romans™, P omits the divine wrath (°). H makes this battle
a victory of °° Franks over ±µ,°°° Romans, in P the Romans numbered
a much less shameful ±,°°° (µ°±±). Dealing with Prince William™s return
from Apulia in ± to deal with a Roman revolt in the Peloponnese, H
speaks of ˜the lawless Romans . . . who never hold to their truth or oath™ and
had ˜become foresworn™ (·±, ·±µ·, ·±°); these comments are omitted in
P. However, when criticism of Romans is put directly into the mouth of
the prince (·±µ“), there is only minimal change in P whereby Špistwn
(apiston: faithless) in H becomes tapein¤n (tapeinon: wretched) in P and
the Romans are still presented as disloyal. This reveals a relatively subtle
understanding of the text in this version: scribe and audience can appreciate
that the prince may well have seen the Romans as untrustworthy.
The treatment of such comments in T is less careful, but betrays a
stronger pro-Roman sentiment. In T, the Romans of the Peloponnese are
the victors against the Franks at the battle of Koundouras (±·µ), and the
whole account of the Frankish victories at Prinitsa and Makry Plagi in
the late ±°s is omitted (°“µ·°). In its account of Prince William™s
return to the Peloponnese, all the anti-Roman comments cited above are
omitted and the passages have been rewritten to minimise any blame on
the Romans. Thus, H tells how ˜the Romans trampled on their oath and
began the war™, while T says that ˜they quarrelled and began to ¬ght, the
people of the prince together with the Romans™ (·±“); again, in T, Prince
William™s criticism of Romans is replaced by a rueful ˜quarrels are the way
of the world!™ (·±µ“). But T, which presents as a far less impressive version
by a far less careful scribe, is not as thoroughgoing as P. The latter typically
tones down H™s laudatory tone in dealing with Franks: Princes Geoffrey I,
Geoffrey II and William are each described in turn in H as ˜a wise man™
but not in P (±µ·, ·µ and µ·°±), yet the ¬rst two of these epithets survive
intact in T.
It is also noticeable that P rewrites the ˜obituary notices™ on all three
Villehardouin princes, and not to their credit. In P, Geoffrey I is no longer
said to have died ˜as a Christian™ (°), and angels no longer take the soul
° Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
of Geoffrey II (·µ); P omits the reference to William going to Paradise
(··°) and to ˜there where are all the just™ (·°µ “ although his soul is at least
taken by angels). This may re¬‚ect a more Orthodox perspective in P, which
is also less deferential about the pope and furthermore has no truck with
the idea of crusade as a religious observance, omitting all such references
(cf. °“µ). Moreover, in its account of the compromise between Geof-
frey de Villehardouin and the Peloponnesian Romans, P focuses on religion,
with the reference to custom and law (°µ) entirely omitted. In H the
Romans ask that the Franks ˜not force us to change our faith for the faith
of the Franks™, which in P becomes ˜not force us to change our faith and to
become Franks™ (°“). However, this Orthodox perspective is peculiar
to P, and all re¬‚ections of Catholic practice in the earlier H have survived
in T, which is also closer to the original with regard to the Villehardouin
princes.
P has a more careful attitude to the apparatus of Byzantine Roman
rule. Michael Palaiologos is addressed as ˜lord, holy emperor™ in P, instead
of the simple ˜lord™ of H and T (·) and is again ˜holy™ only in P at
µ·. Revealingly, P is far more careful with the term basileus (emperor),
not allowing it to be applied to Prince William, even in the mouth of a
Turk (µ°, µ·°), and P similarly correctly avoids the use of ˜despot™ for
the early Byzantine Roman commanders at Mistra (cf. °, µ±±). Gen-
erally speaking, T follows H in this respect; however, both later versions
display a friendlier attitude to speci¬c Byzantine Roman ¬gures. Both P
and T omit elements of the un¬‚attering portrayal of the Nikaian sevas-
tokrator ordering the slaughter of his own troops at Pelagonia (°·“µ°).
In H, the sevastokrator is ˜greatly shamed and made angry™ by Prince
William™s attitude after the battle, while in P he is ˜vexed, much grieved
and made very angry™; the shame is similarly omitted in T (±“). Again,
H gives a highly hostile account of the (supposed) slaughter of John IV
Laskaris by Michael Palaiologos, which is wholly omitted in T and heav-
ily abridged in P (°ff.). Correspondingly, as we have seen, there is a
less positive approach in P at least to the leaders of the Franks. In addi-
tion to the Villehardouins, the portrayal of Geoffrey de Briel is toned
down in P: his description as ˜that wonderful acclaimed soldier™ (µ·)
is omitted and the lament on his death (·“) is cut short. Maybe
the folk memory of this ¬gure had diminished, as it is worth noting that
the later Erard de Maure is remembered in similarly glowing terms in
P (·°“).
Indeed, much of the material noted above as evidence for a good work-
ing relationship between Franks and Romans in the Peloponnese of the
±
The long defeat
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is lacking in P and in T. In neither do
the Peloponnesian Romans come over to the Franks in ±° ˜with eager-
ness™ (±), and P tones down the joy felt by William™s subjects when he
returned from Apulia in ± (·±·“). P presents the death of Geoffrey de
Briel as a misfortune for the Franks, where H makes the grief more general
(·±“); T attaches no blame to the men of Skorta who went over to the
side of the Byzantine Romans of Mistra in ±, where in H their action is
˜a great sin™ and in P ˜a great mistake™ (·). P rewrites the battle of Makry
Plagi to play up Roman successes against the Franks (µ·, µ°), and so
on. It is clear from all this, ¬rstly, that the scribes of the later versions, and
so perhaps also the members of the ¬fteenth-century audience, associated
themselves more strongly with the name of Romans and rejected any neg-
ative characterisations of Romans in the Chronicle. Secondly, the Chronicle
was no longer a work meant explicitly for an audience within the Frankish
principality. P especially betrays signs of being produced in a Byzantine
Roman context with, ¬rstly, its greater knowledge of and respect for impe-
rial institutions and Orthodoxy and, secondly, its lack of sureness on the
minutiae of the Frankish state. P makes mistakes about feudal practice
(e.g. at µ“ or ) and also tends to collapse H™s collections of ranks
(lieges, bannerets, burgesses, knights etc.) into simpler formulations, and
this again may re¬‚ect a lack of understanding (e.g. ·±, ±“°, ±“).
All these changes seem unsurprising in the context of the later fourteenth
and ¬fteenth centuries.
Nevertheless, it is still important not to overstate the levels of ethnic
identi¬cation in the later versions of the Chronicle. Firstly, plenty of French
language had been retained among the audiences of the Chronicle. At
·, where H uses the French komes©oun (komesioun) as a translation of
the Greek pr»stagma (prostagma: order), both P and T omit this explicit
translation; however, at  P actually employs komesioun in place of H™s
prostagma. P™s use of western mpast†rdov (mpastardos: bastard) in place
of H™s Greek n»{ov (nothos) is also striking (°).± More subtly, western
languages pervade the Greek Chronicle in all its versions.± Feudal terms,
names for titles and of¬ces, and terms associated with warfare, travel or the
Roman church by and large survive into P and T, thus in a sample but far
from exhaustive list:


± Spadaro ±±:  and  for P™s use of French terminology additional to that of H.
± Discussed extensively, though primarily with reference to H, in Lurier ±: “µ; Spadaro ±°
and ±±; Jeffreys ±·µ: °·“±; Kahane and Kahane ±: ±“°.
 Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
H f©e, R f”h, T f»ei at ±± (and passim in this list of ¬efs)
¬ef
H mparoun©a, R mparoun©a, T mparoun©a at ±
barony
H ¾m†ntzo, R ¾m†ntze, T t¼ mazw at ±µµ and cf. ±µµ, ±·,
homage
±µ
H ritz”nstro, R ritz©stro, T reg©stro at °··
register
H nt†ma, R mant†ma, T nt†ea at ·µ
lady
H kibitŽnov, R kibitŽnov, T khbot†no, at  and cf. µ,
castellan
µ°
H kougk”sta, R kogk©sta, T gkonkou”sta at ±° and cf.
conquest
±µ, µ
H tr”ba, R tr”ba, T tr”ba at  (and cf. °± not T, ·°
truce
not P)
H tripouts”to, R trimpouts”to, T trempouz”to at ±±
trebuchet
and cf. ±·°°
H garden†rin, R gardin†leon, T garden”le at µ.
cardinal

Most of these words are of French origin, but Italian in¬‚uence is also
clear and is more noticeable in T and P than in H. For example, P and T
make general use of mis¤”r (miser) from the Italian missere/missier in place
of H™s mis©r (misir) from the French messier; see also in P:
kantsili”rhv from the Italian cancelliere, in place of H™s kl”rhv ()
gat©a from the Italian gatto, in place of H™s kats©a ().
This shift again re¬‚ects the changing ethnic patterns in the Peloponnese
of the fourteenth and ¬fteenth centuries, where most western immigrants
were now Italian rather than French or Flemish, but also indicates the
continuing currency of western imports into the spoken Greek of the
Peloponnese into the ¬fteenth century. This should be taken as con¬rming
the patterns of mixed language acquisition and knowledge at the courts
of the Peloponnese where such a work as the Chronicle might be heard or
read.
Mazaris can give some sketchy con¬rmation of this. Although the satirist
devotes considerable space to his portrait of a Peloponnese racked by ethnic
division and continual quarrels, the Journey to Hades nevertheless provides
evidence for cross-ethnic friendships and working associations in the ¬f-
teenth century, and also for the blurring of ethnic markers. The Journey
suggests that court Romans had a working familiarity with western lan-
guages: the Italian ˜Syrbartholomaios Ntealagkaskos™ (almost certainly the
Italian Bartholomew de Langosco) greets Mazaris in Italian, and the dead

The long defeat
Romans Padiates and Pepagomenos use western words, commenting ˜as the
Latins say™ (.µ, .). Moreover, Bartholomew™s son was working along-
side Mazaris at the Byzantine Roman court (Journey .ff.); Bartholomew
and his son clearly both spoke Greek, and the father at least had also con-
verted to Orthodoxy “ in fact, Bartholomew prides himself on speaking
better Greek, and being more purely Orthodox than at least one Roman
(.“). It is worth considering, then, that many Franks could now (as the
¬fteenth century progressed) be speaking Greek as a ¬rst language, going
to Orthodox churches and even be subjects of the Roman despotate. The
Frankish heritage was one element in the Peloponnesian identity, which
could be remembered with pride by some at least as a part of the past.±
Most basically, the Chronicle of the Morea must remain a story of the
deeds of the Franks, and plenty of material remains which is positive about
the westerners. P™s lament on Erard le Maure, Frankish lord of the barony of
Arkadia in Messenia, has already been mentioned: ˜he enriched the orphans,
the widows were made happy, the poor and unfortunate became wealthy
in the time of which I speak, the time of the lord of Arkadia. Remember
him, all of you, he was a good lord™ (P·°“). It is clear that the le Maure
family held special associations for the author/scribe of both H and P, and
it has been posited that the Greek Chronicle was a product of their baronial
court. A French family who had settled in the principality after the fall
of Constantinople, the le Maures held Arkadia on the western coast of
Messenia and St Sauveur in the south-west near Modon. Such baronies
were comparatively secure from Byzantine Roman incursions, and the le
Maure family rose to greater prominence over the fourteenth century as
the principality shrank. On the death of Erard III in ±, the le Maure
baronies went to Andronikos Asen Zaccaria, under whose son, Centurione
II, the barony of Arkadia was the last fragment of the Frankish principality
to fall into the hands of the Byzantine Romans. The le Maures certainly
did not hold themselves aloof from the Romans: in the ±°s Erard III le
Maure™s daughter was married to John Laskaris Kalopheros, an Orthodox
convert to Catholicism. The author/scribe of P presents as an Orthodox
Roman who was nevertheless ready to acknowledge the le Maure barons as
having been a legitimate power. Furthermore, although the author/scribe
of P does not appeal to his audience as much as that of H, he is capable of a
direct appeal to listening westerners: ˜Listen, archons, Franks and Romans™

± Cf. Claude ±: ±·“° on the aristocratic ˜Gothic consciousness™ in largely Romanised Visigothic
Spain.
 Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
(·), and, in the words on Erard, P™s author/scribe invited his audience
to think kindly of a Frankish lord, while also clearly expecting them to be
pro-Roman in outlook. The Arkadian court, the longest-lasting remnant
of the Frankish principality, which was on friendly terms with Romans and
may well have continued in the same hands under the Byzantine Roman
despotate and even into the Turkish era, is thus a credible point of origin
for the Greek Chronicle.

being roman in the ¬fteenth-century peloponnese
In conclusion, we have seen that the educated writers, including Mazaris,
were concerned to minimise if not deny the Roman identity of the provin-
cial ethnic Romans of the Peloponnese. However, the evidence of the Greek
Chronicle shows that these provincials themselves had no dif¬culty think-
ing of themselves as Romans: this was, in fact, the dominant ethnonym
for those who were not of western, Slavic, Turkish or Albanian origin
in the Peloponnese, and this dominance of the centuries-old ethnonym
should not be surprising. The Romans of the Peloponnese called themselves
Rhomaioi based on a nexus of transgenerational ethnic criteria including
law, language and religion; loyalty to the emperor in Constantinople had
formed an important part of this identity, but this had already been consid-
erably undermined at the time of the Frankish conquest. By the ¬fteenth
century, the Romans of the Peloponnese were forgetting the Frankish ele-
ments of their past, and the success of Mistra may well have encouraged the
kind of greater familiarity with Byzantine Roman norms that is detectable
in P, while not guaranteeing any political loyalty to the Roman state. Over-
all, the Peloponnese of the later versions of the Greek Chronicle presents
as a society content with its past but gradually forgetting the Frankish
elements.
Is it possible to reconcile the Greek Chronicle with Manuel Palaiologos
and Mazaris? Certainly, the later versions (which after all tell the story of
the thirteenth century and re¬‚ect the ¬fteenth only in scribal detail) cannot
be used to support the story of continual enmity and revolt that appears in
the elite writers. However, as we have seen, the Chronicle generally re¬‚ects
the kind of picture of cross-ethnic allegiances and lack of ethnic solidarity
that might lie at the heart of Palaiologos™ and Mazaris™ complaints. Perhaps
most of all, the Chronicle underlines an insularity and dislike of outsiders
that had come to be characteristic of the Peloponnese.

<<

. 41
( 54 .)



>>