Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese 9780884023906, 2012042878

Citation preview

Viewing the Morea KL

Du m ba rton Oa k s By z a n t i n e S y m p o si a a n d Col l o qu i a

Series Editor Margaret Mullett Editorial Board John Duffy John Haldon Ioli Kalavrezou

Viewing the Morea

Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese KL Edited by

Sharon E. J. Gerstel

Du m ba rto n Oa k s R e s e a rc h L i b r a ry a n d C ol l e c t io n

Copyright © 2013 by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, DC All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Morea: The Land and Its People in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade (Symposium) (2009 : Dumbarton Oaks) Viewing the Morea : land and people in the late medieval Peloponnese /edited by Sharon E. J. Gerstel. pages cm. — (Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine symposia and colloquia) “The majority of the chapters in this volume were presented as papers at the 2009 Dumbarton Oaks symposium ‘Morea: The Land and Its People in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade’.” Includes index. isbn 978-0-88402-390-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Peloponnesus (Greece : Peninsula)—Civilization—Congresses. 2. Peloponnesus (Greece : Peninsula)—Antiquities—Congresses. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece—Peloponnesus—Congresses. 4. Franks—Greece—Peloponnesus—History—Congresses. 5. Crusades—Fourth, 1202–1204—Congresses. 6. Civilization, Medieval—13thcentury—Congresses. 7. Civilization, Medieval—14th century—Congresses. I. Gerstel, Sharon E. J., author, editor of compilation. II. Dumbarton Oaks, issuing body. III. Title. df901.p4m66 2013 949.5´203—dc23 2012042878

www.doaks.org/publications Designed and typeset by Melissa Tandysh Cover: View from the Villehardouin Castle at Mystras toward Sparta and the hills of Parnon (photo: S. Gerstel) Frontispiece: Church of the Virgin Hodegetria, Mystras, ornamental detail (photo: S. Gerstel)

CONTENTS

KL Acknowledgments L ix Introduction L 1 sharon e. j. gerstel The Morea through the Prism of the Past L 9 Elizabeth Jeffreys The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea: Monuments, Memory, and Fragments of the Past L 23 Amy Papalexandrou The Songbook for William of Villehardouin, Prince of the Morea (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds français 844): A Crucial Case in the History of Vernacular Song Collections L 57 John Haines The Triangle of Power: Building Projects in the Metropolitan Area of the Crusader Principality of the Morea L 111 Demetrios Athanasoulis Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade L 153 Julian Baker and Alan M. Stahl The Frankish Morea: Evidence Provided by Acts of Private Transactions L 187 Helen G. Saradi

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese L 213 David Jacoby People and Settlements of the Northeastern Peloponnese in the Late Middle Ages: An Archaeological Exploration L 277 Timothy E. Gregory Greek, Frank, Other: Differentiating Cultural and Ancestral Groups in the Frankish Morea Using Human Remains Analysis L 309 Sandra J. Garvie-Lok Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village: Ecclesiastical and Rural Landscapes in the Late Byzantine Peloponnese L 335 Sharon E. J. Gerstel Reflections of Constantinople: The Iconographic Program of the South Portico of the Hodegetria Church, Mystras L 371 Titos Papamastorakis † A Brief “History of the Morea” as Seen through the Eyes of an Emperor-Rhetorician: Manuel II Palaiologos’s Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea L 397 Florin Leonte A New Lykourgos for a New Sparta: George Gemistos Plethon and the Despotate of the Morea L 419 Teresa Shawcross Mapping “Melancholy-Pleasing Remains”: The Morea as a Renaissance Memory Theater L 455 Veronica della Dora Abbreviations L 477 About the Authors L 481 Index L 485

Ac k now l e dgm e n ts

KL

The majority of the chapters in this volume wer e pr esented as papers at the 2009 Dumbarton Oaks symposium “Morea: The Land and Its People in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade.” On behalf of the authors, the editor would like to acknowledge the support of Jan M. Ziolkowski, Director of Dumbarton Oaks. The editor also warmly thanks Alice-Mary Talbot, former Director of Byzantine Studies, for organizing a wonderful symposium and Margaret Mullett, current Director of Byzantine Studies, for helping to bring this volume to fruition. With this publication we honor the memory of Titos Papamastorakis, one of the contributors to this volume. A joyful friend and innovative thinker, Titos devoted his career to writing about Byzantine art in the Peloponnese. May his memory be eternal.

Thebes

Patras

Glarentza Blachernai Andravida Chlemoutzi

Corinth Isthmia Nemea Ayios Vasileios Argos Mouchli

Merbaka Nauplion

2000 m 1500 m Kalamata

1000 m

Mystras Sparta Parori

Pylos

500 m

Methone

200 m

Geraki Zaraka

Korone

Monemvasia

100 m

Tigani

0m

Mani Peninsula

Kythera

N

0

100

200 km

Athens

Introduction KL Sh a ron E . J. Ge r st e l

I’m going to tell you a great tale, and if you will listen to me, I hope it will please you.1 It is not possible to find a land more appropriate and suited to Greeks than the Peloponnese, the land bordering Europe and its outlying islands. It seems that the Greeks have always inhabited this area as far as people remember.2

P

eloponnese, Mor ea, A mor ea, la Mor ée, Moréh. The long duration of the region’s occupancy and the linguistic and cultural diversity of its habitants are first proclaimed through nomenclature. Derived from Pelops (Πέλοψ), the “dark-faced” son of Tantalus, grandson of Zeus and founder of the House of Atreus, the name Peloponnese holds within it the memory of an ancient time and place and binds the land inescapably to its heroic past. The name would endure throughout the Byzantine period and, indeed, past the empire’s fall. Morea was a name introduced later to the region.3 Originally associated with the northwest corner of the Peloponnese, the area of Frankish habitation, Morea would come to stand for the land in its entirety. In its various forms the name would be used equally by Latin, Greek, Italian, and Turk. Yet the origins of the name remain

1  “Θέλω νὰ σὲ ἀφηγηθῶ ἀφήγησιν μεγάλην· κι ἂν θέλῃς νὰ μὲ ἀκροαστῇς, ὀλπίζω νὰ σ᾽ ἀρέσῃ.” J. Schmitt, Introduction to the Chronicle of the Morea (London, 1904; repr., Groningen, 1967), 3. 2  “Ἕλλησι δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἥτις ἄλλη οἰκειοτέρα χώρα οὐδὲν μᾶλλον προσήκουσα ἢ Πελοπόννησός τε καὶ ὅση δὴ ταύτῃ τῆς Εὐρώπης προσεχὴς τῶν τε αὖ νήσων αἱ ἐπικείμεναι. Ταύτην γὰρ δὴ φαίνονται τὴν χώραν Ἕλληνες ἀεὶ οἰκοῦντες οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐξ ὅτου περ ἄνθρωποι διαμνημονεύουσιν . . .” George Gemistos Plethon, “Address to Manuel Palaiologos concerning the Affairs in the Peloponnese,” in S. P. Lampros, Παλαιολόγεια καὶ Πελοποννησιακά (Athens, 1926; repr., 1972), 3:247.15–248.4. 3  The name is associated with a bishopric in a notitia of the tenth century. J. Darrouzès, ed., Notitiae episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981), 7.554.

1

obscure. Scholars have linked it to a settlement on the coast of Elis, as yet unidentified through physical remains.4 But contemplation of the name has given rise to more imaginative associations. Topographically, the irregular shape of the Morea, with its jutting capes and peninsulas, recalls the distinctive lobed leaves of the mulberry tree, ὁ μορέας, that still cover the land. Alternatively, according to some the intentional transposition of the name’s letters create a mystical link between Morea and Romaia (Romea), distant Constanti­ nople, or New Rome.5 Peloponnese, Morea: the names reflect history and topography, simultaneously embodying a mythological past and evoking, through visual association, the very landscape that sustained the vital agrarian economy. A consideration of the region’s names and their broader associations frames the discussion that will follow in this volume. Viewing the region through a wide range of sources and perspectives, the authors of the collected chapters examine the land and people of the Morea/Peloponnese in the wake of the Fourth Crusade of 1204, an event of critical importance for the region’s medieval history. The assault on the Byzantine capital was the catalyst for the arrival in the Peloponnese of Geoffrey I of Villehardouin, who was carried off course by “wind and chance,” landing at the port of Modon (Methone) in the region’s southwest corner.6 Far from their ancestral homelands in distant France, Geoffrey and his fellow crusaders found a land that “was fertile, spacious and delightful with its fields and waters and multitude of pastures.”7 Here the knights carved out

a territory that was French in character, though Greek in nature. Frankish reign over the Pelo­ ponnese was short-lived, however. In 1261, as a result of Geoffrey’s imprisonment following the battle of Pelagonia, his son was forced to cede to the Byzantines the southeastern Peloponnese, a triangle of land marked by the castles of Maina, Monemvasia, and Mystras. The physical and written remains of this knightly adventure—the bold attempt to plant a Western feudal kingdom on the fertile island of Pelops—have been a subject of study since the nineteenth century. The tall mountains and rugged landscape that formed the atmosphere for ancient myth and legend also set the stage for medieval chronicle and adventure. Jean Buchon, who first published the text of the Chronicle of the Morea, in 1825, collapsed history, relating the knightly lords to the region’s ancient legends, comparing the Frankish barons to “the kings of Homer.”8 Medieval settlers from the West also used the land’s ancient past for their own benefit. The walls of the Latin archbishop’s guesthouse in Patras, reported Niccolò de Martoni in 1395, were painted with scenes of the fall of Troy, a tale that held enormous appeal for the Latin crusaders not only as a work of romance and chivalry but also as an expression of crusader ideology.9 But the subject also had resonance for Byzantine authors. The twelfth-century Byzantine poet John Tzetzes notes in his commentaries that during the Trojan War the giant ivory shoulder blade of dark-faced Pelops was the talisman that had enabled the Greeks to conquer Troy.10 The Greek version of

4  Both Cape Ichthys and the area of ancient Dyme have been proposed as the original sites of Morea. See A. Chatzes, “Μορεὰς—Ἰχθύς,” BNJ 9 (1932): 80–86; D. Georgakas, “The Post-Classical Names Designating the Peninsula of the Peloponnesus (MOREAS),” Studia onomastica Monacensia 3 (1961): 302–7. 5  V. M. Coronelli, An Historical and Geographical Account of the Morea, Negropont, and the Maritime Places, as Far as Thessalonica: Illustrated with 42 Maps of the Countries, Plains, Draughts of the Cities, Towns and Fortifications, trans. R. W. Gent (London, 1687), 2. See the chapter by V. della Dora in this volume. 6  Geoffrey of Villehardouin, “On the Conquest of Con­ stantinople,” in Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. M. Shaw (New York, 1963), 80. 7  “Ἀφόντου ἐκερδίσασιν τὴν Καλαμάτα οἱ Φράγκοι, εἷδαν τὸν τόπον ἔμνοστον, καλόν, χαριτωμένον, τοὺς κάμπους γὰρ

καὶ τὰ νερά, τὸ πλῆθος τῶν λιβάδων.” Schmitt, Introduction to the Chronicle of Morea, 1739–41. English translation in H. E. Lurier, Crusaders as Conquerors: The Chronicle of Morea (New York and London, 1964), 121. 8  J.-A. Buchon, La Grèce continentale et la Morée: Voyage, séjour et études historiques en 1840 et 1841 (Paris, 1843), 474. 9  “Habet unam salam longam paxus XXV, in cujus sale parietibus est picta in circuytu tota ystoria destructionis civitatis Troye.” L. Legrand, “Relation du pèlerinage à Jérusalem de Nicolas de Martoni, notaire italien (1394–1395),” ROL 3 (1895): 661. On connections to Troy, see T. Shawcross, “Re-Inventing the Homeland in the Historiography of Frankish Greece: The Fourth Crusade and the Legend of the Trojan War,” BMGS 27 (2003): 120–52. 10  F. Jacobs, ed., Ioannis Tzetzae Antehomerica, Homerica et posthomerica (Leipzig, 1793), 577. On this story, see

2

sharon e. j. gerstel

the War of Troy, written in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, also seems to indicate an awareness of the Peloponnese and its history.11 An interest in the past was, perhaps, inescapable in a land marked by the ruins of ancient and medieval buildings. Considering the evidence of literature and architecture, two of the chapters in this volume examine how the past informed the writings and thoughts of those who lived in the Morea. Elizabeth Jeffreys investigates the role that conceptions of the ancient past played in literary construction. Looking at those who lived in the Peloponnese—Greeks, Franks, and others from the West, or those who traveled through the region—Jeffreys demonstrates that attitudes toward the ancient past varied enormously, at least in their representation in literature. It is only when one probes the cultural roots of authors and audiences that one can determine whether references to the past are reflexive—a sign of learning—or genuine in their admiration and appreciation. The incorporation of spolia and inscriptions into the building fabric of new constructions also consciously and conspicuously evoked the past, both ancient and medieval. Amy Papalexandrou looks at four sites in order to question how spolia functioned as aides-mémoire. Here the roles of patrons and communities were essential in decoding a language of ancient and medieval signs that could hold a variety of meanings for the viewer. Spolia are read through literary associations, as touchstones to buildings and communities long gone, or as signboards carved with ancient or medieval words of personal or communal resonance. Central to both chapters is the notion of memory and the role that memory plays in creating history. Once settled on ancient soil, the Franks introduced medieval Western culture and ways into the region, adding a layer of history to a land that was already stratigraphically rich. Witnessed most enduringly in the standing remains of fortresses, monasteries, and churches, the influence of the West is less obviously, though no less importantly, manifested in the Frankish law codes, acts, and A. Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times (Princeton, 2000), 104–10. 11  See the views expressed in M. Papathomopoulos and E. M. Jeffreys, eds., Ὁ Πόλεμος τῆς Τρωάδος: The War of Troy (Athens, 1996).

manuscripts that survive in European libraries. Works such as the luxuriously illustrated songbook of William of Villehardouin (Paris, Biblio­ thèque nationale de France, fonds français 844), examined in this volume by John Haines, reveal the attempts of Frankish rulers to create a court that mirrored those in the West, and in other crusader kingdoms in the East. Preserved today with its gatherings reordered and with many of its images cut out and dispersed, the songbook, in Haines’s view, was a precious gift to the prince of the Morea. Its story mirrors, in a sense, the fortunes of the prince and of the Frankish Morea where, according to one witness, “they speak as beautiful French as in Paris.”12 Like the songbook, the castles, churches, and capital city the French rulers of the Morea built were, from the outset, closely linked to architecture in France. Through painstaking archaeological research, Demetrios Athanasoulis reconstructs the triangle of power of the Moreote rulers, both mapping critical sites and setting questions for future research. In his analysis, Athanasoulis demonstrates the close connections of the new Frankish constructions in the Morea and to similar constructions in Cyprus and France, urging us to consider the broader meaning of architectural evocations of French construction and planning, particularly in the period of Philip II Augustus (r. 1180–1223) and Louis IX (r. 1226– 1270). For Athanasoulis, Glarentza (Clarentza, Chi­arenza), built at the northwest corner of the Morea in closest proximity to Western Europe, mirrors Louis’s bastide of Aigues-Mortes, France’s only Mediterranean port in the thirteenth century. Such visible links between the Morea and France are visualized, as well, in the coinage that circulated in the region. Julian Baker and Alan Stahl, examining coin hoards and excavated single pieces, provide a comprehensive history of the coinage of the Morea following the Fourth Cru­ sade. Numismatic evidence reveals a close connection to France, es­­pecially in the shared imagery of tournois coinage. Information about mints, particularly the mint of Glarentza, provides valuable insight into political vicissitudes in the Morea and indicates through material remains the rising power of Venice, whose economic dominance is 12  A. Goodenough, trans., The Chronicle of Muntaner (Lon­­ don, 1921), 2:627.

Introduction

3

witnessed in the proliferation of soldini and torneselli in the region. The minting of a Byzantine tornesi in Mystras or Monemvasia in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century hints at the Greek attempt to undercut Venetian dominance by producing a coin that imitated the foreign issue. Although the Latin settlers in the region quickly established dominion over the northwestern Pelopon­nese, they hardly lived in isolation from the indigenous population. Many of the chapters in this volume investigate how differing communities in the Morea were interrelated through common economies, shared commodities, and cohabitation of settlements. Moving away from more traditional scholarship that divides the population into the binaries of “Frank” and “Greek,” these chapters look across boundaries and seek to identify common ground. Looking broadly at deeds, Helen Saradi seeks to understand how the Franks’ legal practice became integrated with preexisting Byzantine laws governing private transactions. Moving away from a focus on the elite, her chapter introduces the local notary and his clients, who while clearly of different ethnic groups shared common concerns that included securing property deeds, contracting marriages, and guaranteeing wills. The transactions, written in Greek or Latin, are recorded in Gospel books, on church walls, and in archival documents. Saradi’s indepth analysis of the acts, reading across the traditional lines that divided communities, questions how deeply Frankish laws regarding private transactions penetrated Moreote society and suggests the degree to which new institutions supplanted or merged with preexisting ones. In his chapter, David Jacoby examines the entire Peloponnese, synthesizing written and archaeological data to look at the Frankish Morea, the Venetian-ruled territories, and the Byzantine province, which was autonomous from 1348. Focusing on the agrarian economy, Jacoby examines several aspects of rural exploitation and integrates them within the broader context of commercialization and distribution. Specific commodities, including olive oil, cotton, and wine, are thoroughly investigated in this monumental study. Chapters on archaeology and the analysis of human remains provide new information on the people and settlements in the Morea. Unlike those who commissioned books or signed deeds, these 4

sharon e. j. gerstel

are often the anonymous residents of the Morea. By looking at their skeletal remains, Sandra GarvieLok asks questions about identity based on the direct evidence of diet and its associated effects on health. Approaching remains through the analysis of skeletal morphology, ancient DNA, and stable isotope analysis, Garvie-Lok discusses identity and mobility in the Frankish Morea and also provides insights into diet and infant feeding practices. Timothy Gregory analyzes settlements in the northeastern Peloponnese, using ceramic and building remains to reveal the populations that inhabited certain sites and their place within networks of settlements. Reading the complicated archaeological record, Gregory draws parallels between settlements across boundaries and considers how specific sites were inhabited. The territory that would come to be known as the Despotate of the Morea was ceded to the Byzantines in 1262. This region had its own complex history, one closely linked to Constan­ tinople and the fortunes of the imperial family. Initially governed by appointed administrators (kephalai), it was ruled from 1349 by the son of the Byzantine emperor, Manuel Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenos). The last of its despots, Thomas and Demetrios Palaiologos, surrendered to the Turks in 1460. At the center of any discussion of the despotate is the city of Mystras, whose painted churches continue to draw the interest of scholars who see the artistic productions of this city as the last great phase of Byzantine painting. Although the city was grafted to the branch of Constantinople, it remained deeply rooted in the territory at its base, the lush valley that lay between Taygetos and Parnon. Large numbers of Orthodox villagers and town dwellers shared the region and created their own myths of an eternal and sacred empire generated by the pains of loss and the hopes of refoundation. These villagers are the concern of the volume editor. In my chapter, I situate these men and women within the territory owned by the monasteries and metropolitans of Mystras, a territory that was geographically separated from lands and villages endowed to the metropolitan of Monemvasia. Considering archaeological data, the evidence of standing monuments, their monumental decoration, and preserved chrysobulls, I look carefully at the place of the Orthodox

villager within a multitude of landscapes. Titos Papamastorakis looks toward Constantinople in his chapter, linking the decoration of the church of the Hodegetria (Aphendiko) at Mystras with important cult centers in the Byzantine capital. In this first comprehensive examination of the iconography of the south portico of that church, Papamastorakis uncovers the textual roots of the chapel’s unusual decoration and suggests a new date for its imagery. Wandering through the streets of Mystras one envisions the city through reconstructions of its multistoried houses and its great and beautiful churches. To revisit Mystras as it was, one needs to hear the swish of silk clothing and listen for the chatter of its intellectuals, who once populated the city’s libraries and court. Florin Leonte sees the city through the eyes of Manuel II Palaiologos, whose Funeral Oration for his brother, the despot of the Morea, provides insight into the mind of its author, who hoped to circulate the text in the West. Leonte explores and evaluates the ideological implications of the oration by carefully separating interwoven narrative strands. The works of Plutarch, Herodotus, Aristotle, Isocrates, Xeno­­ phon, and others were copied at Mystras in the late fourteenth and fifteenth century, as well as service books for its many churches, many of those books bearing colophons mentioning scribes and donors.13 The names of the intellectuals who inhabited or passed through the city still dazzle: Bessarion, George Scholarios, and, of course, George Gemistos Plethon. Writing at a distance from Constantinople, many of the great intellects of Mystras were deeply concerned with the waning fortunes of the empire. Chief among them was Gemistos Plethon, whose proposals for reforming the despotate are of principal concern to Teresa Shawcross. Carefully analyzing his plans for social, economic, and military reconstruction and reorganization, Shawcross provides an in-depth portrait of Gemistos Plethon as a man whose advocacy of a second Spartan golden age was deeply rooted in his hope for the survival of the despotate. Following Gemistos Plethon to Italy, we are placed in the court of

the Medici, where the Morea is reimagined and romanticized. Although this volume focuses primarily on the Latin crusaders who came to inhabit the Morea and the Byzantines who remained or who resettled in the area, it is important to recognize that the region was also shared by others, who, due to the constraints of space, play a less prominent role in this study. The story of Ottoman rule over the Peloponnese, revealed in standing fortresses, toponyms, vernacular poetry, and pottery, also left deep traces on the ground and remain in collective memory. By necessity, we have left the close examination of this period and its material remains for another study, but simply note here the overbuilding of Mystras as a Turkish city, the renaming of settlements that have since been reverted to preOttoman nomenclature, and the remains of fortifications along the coast that stood as the physical guardians of another empire’s border. Others who shared the land include the Melingoi, who in­­habited the western slopes of Taygetos and are recalled through inscriptions found in a number of the region’s painted churches.14 Also layered upon the historical and physical topography of the Morea are the traces of the Venetians, whose “right eye,” Modon (Methone), was strategically situated at the southwestern tip of the peninsula, and whose soldini and torneselli formed the means of trade between the Pelopon­­ nese and the Serenissima. So, too, one must em­­ phasize the importance of the Florentine bankers, the Acciajuoli, who, from 1341 controlled vast properties in the western part of the peninsula. As David Jacoby and Timothy Gregory note, detailed inventories of their estates, listing the Greek villagers and Latin residents by name and recording their fiscal obligations, are critical sources for understanding the agrarian economy and settlements of the Morea. This phase of the Morea’s history is of particular interest to Veronica della Dora who, in looking at cartographic evidence, sees the evocation and manipulation of the region’s past. Seeing the Morea as a “memory theater,” della Dora carefully analyzes the staging of historical events in the performance of a new narrative. Her

13  S. Lampros, “Λακεδαιμόνιοι βιβλιογράφοι καὶ κτήτορες κωδίκων κατὰ τοὺς μέσους αἰῶνας καὶ ἐπὶ τουρκοκρατίας,” Νέος Ἑλλ. 4 (1907): 152–87, 303–57.

14  S. Kougeas, “Περὶ τῶν Μελιγκῶν τοῦ Ταϋγέτου ἐξ ἀφορμῆς ἀνεκδότου βυζαντινῆς ἐπιγραφῆς ἐκ Λακωνίας,” Πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν 15, no. 3 (1950): 1–34.

Introduction

5

chapter, like that of Teresa Shawcross, moves our discussion into the Renaissance, evoking a new set of actors with interests in the region. Viewing the Morea from so many disciplinary perspectives opens several new vistas on a complicated land. In this volume, the Pelopon­­nese is fully populated. Chivalric knight and Orthodox villager equally share the stage, a reflection of new directions in scholarship. Buildings and paintings are redated and recontextualized. Authors and texts are introduced and placed in dialogue. Archaeological data and skeletal remains recover the voice of human interactions and reconstruct landscapes. Coins and kerns reveal aspects of the rural and Mediterranean economy. This volume emphasizes crossing boundaries—reading across disciplinary divides, regional limits, linguistic and ethnic boundaries, and the threshold between the ancient and medieval worlds. At the

6

sharon e. j. gerstel

center of this volume is a concern for the people— the wide range of men and women who shared the Morea. But this volume is also concerned with the land. “A paradoxical geographical object,” Veronica della Dora reminds us, the Peloponnese “is a peninsula that became an island and an is­land that is called a peninsula.” It is a land “bordering Europe and its outlying islands,” but one that is washed by the Mediterranean and in close connection to Constantinople. It is a land di­­ vided by mountain ranges that acted as natural fences between communities, a land whose soil enabled the production of wine and olives, and a land that held deep within it the treasures of the ancients while also giving rise to the finest medieval constructions. Viewing the land and people of the late medieval Peloponnese, the chapters in this volume tell “a great tale . . . I hope it will please you.”

he Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea Monuments, Memory, and Fragments of the Past

KL A M y PA PA L e x A n drou

I

t seems only fitting to begin a discussion of architecture in the medieval Morea from inside one of its remarkable thirteenth-century monuments. Situated at the westernmost point of the Peloponnese overlooking the Ionian Sea, the castle of Chlemoutsi, now a museum, houses an array of medieval antiquities that presents the modern-day visitor to Greece’s southern peninsula with a spectacular and, for many, surprising ofering: a leeting glimpse of East and West in collision, a panoply of material objects that embody the cultural interchange witnessed during the so-called Frankokratia, or Frankish occupation, in the peninsula even as it underscores the divergent traditions of local and foreign elements. Among the noteworthy items on display is a sculpted cover slab from a medieval tomb (ig. 1).1 he panel could be taken as a purely Byzantine creation—and indeed it was certainly the product of a local sculptor or workshop—were it not for the banded inscription in perfect French letering that surrounds the central composition: + •ICI • GIST •MADAME • AGNES •JADIS •FILLE •|DOU •DESPOT •KIUR •MIAILLE. ET[. . . MCCL] XXX •VI • AS •IIII •JOURS •DE •JANVIER •. 2 Found in the Frankish capital of Andravida, the plaque was K I would like to thank Sharon Gerstel for including me in this publication. I am also grateful to the two anonymous readers, to Guy Sanders, Nassos Papalexandrou, and to Irfan Shahîd and Lee Striker for insightful comments. All errors of fact or judgment remain my own. Many of the photographs used here were obtained by others—namely, Glenn Bugh and especially Sharon Gerstel. hose of the church at Blachernai were obtained by my husband in an act of selless heroism that will long be remembered, and appreciated. 1 he panel was found in the church of St. Sophia but probably derives from the (now disappeared) church of St. James, the burial place of the Latin rulers. Antoine Bon, who has given us this object’s fullest publication so far, provides description and dimensions of 0.82 meter in length × 0.68 meter in width. See A. Bon, La Morée ranque (Paris, 1969), 1:590–91 and 2: pl. 21. 2 Agnes may have been the daughter of Peter II of Courtenay and his second wife, Yolanda of Flanders, on whom see E. J. Gilles, “‘Nova francia?’: Kinship and Identity among the Frankish Aristocracy in Conquered Byzantium, 1204–1282” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2010), 106–8. Salamanders are unknown in Byzantine sculpture but were common in French bestiaries and heraldic imagery. hey were thought to represent the righteous and, alone of all animals, were imbued with the ability to emerge unharmed from ire. he knoted cross is, by contrast, common in Byzantine carving of the period, as for example in a sculpted icon of the enthroned Christ in the museum at Mystras and in a panel immured in the church

23

Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, south facade, spolium at southeast corner (photo: S. Gerstel)

Figure 1

Sculpted cover slab of Madame Agnes, obverse, 1286, Museum of the 6th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Chlemoutsi Castle. Photo after Bon, La Morée franque, vol. 2, pl. 21a.

inscribed in 1286 for one Agnes, presumably a member of the Villehardouin family by marriage. he panel features a large cross made of tripartite straps with looped terminations and a central bead-and-reel motif. A second frame of straps is woven into this, creating smaller panels at the center, where spoted salamanders have of St. John the Baptist at Argos. On the later, perhaps best redated to the thirteenth century, see I. Varales and G. Tsekes, “Μεσοβυζαντινά Γλυπτά από την Αργολίδα,” in La sculpture byzantine, VII e –XIIe siècles: Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École rançaise d’Athènes (6–8 septembre 2000), ed. C. Pennas and C. Vanderheyde, BCH suppl. 49 (Athens, 2008), 359–73, illus. 4.

24

 

been diagonally positioned. Peacocks perch symmetrically on the corners of the large square, their heads bowed low in veneration of the cross, and their rounded bodies and dangling tail feathers illing the letover space. he surrounding French inscription frames this centerpiece with great care. Along the top we read its irst line: “Here lies Madame Agnes, in former times the daughter. . . .”3 he name is carefully integrated into the overall iconographic scheme through its perfect alignment directly above the long crossarm and confronted birds. In other words, there can be little doubt that word and image were intended to 3

Author’s translation.

go together, as a piece, despite the contrast of its “Frenchness” (language, leterforms, and perhaps the salamanders) with its “Byzantine” style and iconography (knoted cross and peacocks). It is not quite one and not quite the other, but a convolution that evokes the nearly sixty years of foreign presence in the region. By the late thirteenth century, a Frankish princess who passed away in the Morea could rely on the visual language of imagery—not of her own but of her foreign and perhaps adopted homeland—for embellishment and self-expression in her inal resting place. If one were to examine the Agnes panel through the lens of modern, postcolonial discourse, one could use it as a starting point to explore the theoretical implications that the Morea and its monuments hold for discussions of liminality, anxiety, and hybridity.4 In these pages, however, I prefer to focus on the situation on the ground, that is, on surviving monuments and material objects of the region and the various notions they may have engendered for their creators and viewers. hese notions include mutual appropriation, common interests, atitudes toward the past, and a culture of viewing that was perhaps similar to both “conquered” and “conquering” parties. In this context the Agnes panel becomes relevant as one turns it over, so to speak. A photograph of its reverse reveals its origins as a common spolium, a reused block that was carefully chiseled away for sloting into the wall sarcophagus of its new owner (ig. 2).5 Here the carving is clearly 4 he key theorist is H. Bhabha, he Location of Culture (London, 1994). Heather Grossman has begun this conversation but utilizes instead methods and terminologies derived speciically from anthropology. See H. Grossman, “Syncretism Made Concrete: he Case for a Hybrid Moreote Architecture in Post–Fourth Crusade Greece,” in Archaeology in Architecture: Studies in Honor of Cecil L. Striker, ed. J. Emerick and D. Deliyannis (Mainz, 2005), 65–73. he topic is more recently taken up by William Caraher in Beyond Icons: heory and Method in Byzantine Archaeology, ed. W. Caraher and K. Kourelis (forthcoming). he later, especially, is a welcome addition to an as-yet undertheorized area of Byzantine studies. On the need to irst lesh out issues of visuality as it pertains to premodern cultures before indiscreetly applying postcolonial theories to them, see the remarks of N. Papalexandrou, “Are here Hybrid Visual Cultures? Relections on the Orientalizing Phenomena in the Mediterranean of the Early First Millennium BCE,” Ars Orientalis 38 (2010): 31–49. 5 Bon took the photographs in the 1950s.

earlier and perhaps uninished. he double-strap roundel with its central cross and trilobed leaves, simple palm motif, and birds all suggest a date and iconography common to the late antique period throughout Greece. At irst glance it would seem that this hidden bit of sculpture on the lid’s underside must have been deemed unsightly or irrelevant. Yet it may have been chosen speciically for the decorative or symbolic potential the carving held for the tomb’s occupant. he roundel is, in fact, centered, its trilobed leaves (rather like a leur-de-lis?) lending a vague air of heraldry to the overall aspect of the sculpture. We can never know, of course, whether this was the intention, but it is precisely these possibilities and the questions they engender that make the Agnes panel a compelling case with which to begin an examination of later medieval monuments in the Morea. In what follows I pose the question of how the ancient past of the Byzantines, along with its ailiated physical fragments, or spolia, were looked upon, utilized, and at times even admired by the various peoples who were present in the medieval Peloponnese from the thirteenth century. I ask whether it is reasonable to expect similarities in the way patrons and builders from East and West incorporated the detritus of antiquity into important buildings of the age. Was the antique past a common denominator in the meeting of Latin

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

25

Figure 2

Sculpted cover slab of Madame Agnes, reverse, 1286, Museum of the 6th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Chlemoutsi Castle. Photo after Bon, La Morée franque, vol. 2, pl. 21b.

West and Greek East in the Byzantine world ater 1204? Can the surviving buildings of this era serve to elucidate the question? At stake is the potential ideological content of ancient spolia, the content’s reception across cultures, and its transformation when introduced into new setings.

Spolia and Sacred Space he sacred buildings of the Mediterranean were oten articulated and embellished in new and interesting ways in the decades ater 1204. As the most prominent commemorative context in the Middle Ages, churches ofered the most logical place to project or encounter messages pertaining to a distant past. In Byzantine territories, interior walls were covered with pictorial frescoes depicting scenes from the most important and memorable events of Christian history. hese surfaces have traditionally received the full atention of beholders and scholars, who have rightly understood their central role in deining the church as the supreme receptacle not only of Christian faith but also of Christian memory. Exterior walls, by contrast, along with other areas generally devoid of painted narrative, have been less well documented or understood in terms of original appearance, interpretation, or intention of builders and patrons.6 I focus on several Moreote churches, the walls of which contain ancient spolia, and I entertain the possibility that their external surfaces were intended to project a new memory network, one that ran parallel to and perhaps complemented the Christian narrative of the interior. he examples I have chosen are among the most well known and illustrative monuments of Lakonia, the Argolid, and Elis. All are typically “Byzantine” in planning and appearance as 6 he question of whether external walls were in fact visible is an important one. Evidence for plastering during the Byzantine period does exist, on which see S. Ćurčić, Middle Byzantine Architecture on Cyprus: Provincial or Regional? (Nicosia, 2000), 21–31. In most cases, however, we lack surviving proof of the practice, which likely varied from one place to another according to local tradition. Even in instances where masonry was obscured, immured fragments may have remained visible. Questions of meaning and symbolism are relevant regardless of visibility, as concealment merely narrows the issue from beholders to patron and/or builder.

26

 

opposed to the handful of French Gothic transplants built in the region during the early years of the thirteenth century and discussed in this volume by Demetrios Athanasoulis.7 Of the latter, reused materials are in abundance but seldom as conspicuous and so are not included here. he geographically scatered location of the churches in question relects not only the survival of the best exemplars but also the fragmented and decentralized state of the Peloponnese at this time.8 I have chosen to focus on a variety of case studies because they demonstrate the tendency to incorporate spolia as a widespread phenomenon, one that likely depended on the coexistence of a nearby ancient site and an exceptional patron or builder who was free to enjoy the economic advantages, aesthetic possibilities, and legendary connections they ofered. In terms of chronological parameters I consider monuments dating primarily to the last three decades of the thirteenth century into the early years of the fourteenth. By this time the new political and social order had been in place for more than a half century, with the initial collision of cultures resulting in a gradual intermingling and, in some instances, tacit acceptance of foreign inluence.9 Efects of this contact can be seen in the realm of architecture, where the notion and especially the degree of Western inluence has been a scholarly preoccupation for decades.10 Discussion has focused mainly on architectural sculpture, paterned brickwork, and 7 he best account of the medieval Peloponnesian churches remains that of B. K. Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece (Chicago and London, 1979). See additionally H. Grossman, “Building Identity: Architecture as Evidence of Cultural Interaction between Latins and Byzantines in Medieval Greece” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2004). 8 On which, see A. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins (Cambridge, MA, 1972), 256–57 for the political situation. 9 A. Ilieva, Frankish Morea (1205–1262): Socio-Cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population (Athens, 1991); D. Jacoby, “Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byzantines of the Peloponnesus ater the Fourth Crusacde,” AHR 78, no. 4 (1973): 873–906. 10 C. Bouras, “he Impact of Frankish Architecture on hirteenth-Century Byzantine Architecture,” in he Crusades rom the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. A. E. Laiou and R. Motahedeh (Washington, DC, 2001), 247–62, with relevant bibliography on the Moreote churches.

immured ceramics, the later providing crucial archaeological evidence for the redating of many churches—formerly considered staunch bulwarks of an alleged, twelth-century (“classical”) middle Byzantine style—into this late thirteenth-century group.11 he recent discovery of dated inscriptions within one of these churches, that of the Virgin at Gastouni, near Glarentza in Elis, has ofered strong reasons not only to accept a later chronology for many monuments but also to reevaluate patrons, ethnic identities, and even religious rites celebrated within churches.12 Indeed, the discovery of this inscriptional evidence and the new date for Gastouni of 1278–79—a full century later than was formerly reckoned—has been crucial for butressing the archaeological data supplied by immured bowls in this and other churches. All of this allows a strong measure of comfort in considering many of the Moreote buildings together and as members within a group of buildings that relects the aesthetic values of a culturally mixed landscape.13 he use of spolia is typical of post-antique construction and points up the most utilitarian aspect of medieval building practices. he eastern Mediterranean was brimming with dilapidated monuments that handily stood in for less convenient stone quarries, and the corpus of Byzantine buildings constructed of ancient spolia 11 G. Sanders, “hree Peloponnesian Churches and heir Importance for the Chronology of Late 13th and Early 14th Century Potery in the Eastern Mediterranean,” BCH 18, suppl. 17 (1989): 189–99. Sanders followed the lead of Peter Megaw, who had begun to examine the immured bowls in medieval churches twenty years before and to push the dates of construction into the early thirteenth century: A. H. S. Megaw, “Glazed Bowls in Byzantine Churches,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 4 (1964): 145–62. Many scholars, notably Bon, La Morée ranque, thought in terms of distinct traits (“Western” vs. “Byzantine”) in the medieval architecture of the region. Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” 249, has emphasized the existence of a third, mixed type and accepted a thirteenth-century date for many buildings. he later date has also been advanced by Mary Lee Coulson, “Re: Protomaiolica in 12th Century Corinth,” Eighteenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers (Madison, 1992), 75. 12 D. Athanasoulis, “Η Αναχρονολόγηση του Ναού της Παναγίας της Καθολικής στη Γαστούνη,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 23 (2003): 63–78. 13 As has been advanced by Grossman, “Building Identity,” and eadem, “Syncretism Made Concrete.”

is correspondingly vast. he tendency to recycle was of course not limited to any particular region or time period, and the Latin interlopers had certainly witnessed a comparable exploitation of material remains in their home environment of Burgundy and Champagne.14 In the Morea this material resource was now theirs for the taking as it had been for local inhabitants over the centuries. What the French found, however, must have been exceptionally pleasing. While the Morea’s hard limestone spolia may have resembled the now dwindling stock of antiquities back home, here it was found in abundance and was sometimes supplemented, depending on the importance and wealth of the ancient site from which it derived, with blocks of imported marble.15 he Morea’s resources came with the added beneit of inely sculpted ornament, inished edges, and smoothed, “gleaming” surfaces. his is to say nothing of the igural sculpture and ancient inscriptions that were plentiful and may have verged on the exotic for medieval beholders. Surely these carved and sculpted stones were counted among the found “treasures” of the region, the division and distribution of which required legislation in the fourteenth-century Frankish law code of the Peloponnese.16 14 M. Greenhalgh, Marble Past, Monumental Present: Building with Antiquities in the Mediaeval Mediterranean (Leiden and Boston, 2009) ofers the most comprehensive study to date of the phenomenon of spoliation for the Middle Ages. He considers the ancient landscape of the Mediterranean at 526, notably its appearance to foreigners whose heritage back home had already been exploited. General discussions of spolia have multiplied in recent years, much of it cited in Greenhalgh’s exhaustive bibliographies. For Greece see also J.-P. Sodini, “Marble and Stoneworking in Byzantium, Seventh–Fiteenth Centuries,” in EHB 1:129– 46, especially 137–38 on the issue of limited quarrying and the recycling of materials. Ilieva, Frankish Morea, 203, briely treats the issue of the French and their tendency to despoil the ruins, in part as a means to “reproduce their own material environment.” 15 With the notable exception of the Mani peninsula, marble quarries are rare in the Peloponnese. In antiquity, highquality imported marbles were used primarily for signiicant architectural members in the major sanctuaries. For the Argolid, see I. Mavrommatides, Ὁι δομικοί λίθοι του ασκληπιείου της επιδαύρου (Athens, 1988), 8. 16 P. Topping, Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assize of Romania: he Law Code of Frankish Greece (Philadelphia, 1949), 77, no. 155 titled: “When a Treasure Is Found, or Has Been Found, What Must Be Done?”

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

27

Scholarly interest in the reuse of ancient spolia during the Middle Ages has by now assumed a long history, characterized by various interpretations and approaches to the material. Modern characterizations of “medieval superstition” have given way to the detection of Christian reinterpretation and triumphalism as well as apotropaic underpinnings. In more recent scholarship, negative assumptions are oten dispensed with altogether as spolia are understood to have carried signiicant intrinsic value and symbolic meaning.17 In this context, identity and memory have emerged as active concepts worth thinking about in relation to these ancient remains. In what follows I examine a series of monuments, two of which— the churches of Merbaka and Blachernai in the northern regions of the peninsula—are commonly believed to have ties with Western patrons who, as I try to show, may have been inspired by a syncretic culture of cross-fertilization. By contrast, the remaining monuments I analyze, located in the setlements of Geraki and Mystras far to the south, were constructed with Byzantine initiative. All, however, demonstrate an aesthetic and perhaps a culture that was by now invested in the ancient past, with some patrons prepared to “display” their regard for it in the highly visible walls 17 C. Mango’s classic study, which hinged on perceived notions of superstition in the interpretation of statues, provided the inspiration for later scholarship: “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,” DOP 17 (1963): 55–77. his was updated in a more recent study examining reused antiquities in a variety of contexts: C. Mango, “L’atitude byzantine à l’égard des antiquités gréco-romaines,” in Byzance et les images, ed. A. Guillou and J. Durand (Paris, 1994), 95–120. he studies of H. Saradi-Mendelovici remain seminal: “Christian Atitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and heir Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries,” DOP 44 (1990): 47–61; eadem, “he Use of Ancient Spolia in Byzantine Monuments: he Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 3, no. 4 (1997): 395–423. For spoliated masonry in Byzantine churches, see A. Papalexandrou, “Memory Tatered and Torn: Spolia in the Heartland of Byzantine Hellenism,” in Archaeologies of Memory, ed. R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock (Oxford, 2003), 56–80. he apotropaic interpretation is best exempliied by H. Maguire for the Litle Metropolis, “he Cage of Crosses: Ancient and Mediaeval Sculptures on the ‘Litle Metropolis’ in Athens,” in Θυμίαμα στη Μνήμη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα (Athens, 1994), 169–72. Greenhalgh, Marble Past, Monumental Present, has much additional bibliography at 531–98, especially 541–46 for “Byzantium and Her Empire.”

28

 

of their commissioned churches. I argue that this culture is evident in contemporary sources of the period, such as the Chronicle of the Morea, a document that hints at the fascination, dialogues, and responses of patrons—whether Latin or Byzantine—with the visible ruins in their midst.

Latin Patrons, exceptional Monuments I begin not with the Byzantines in their home environment but rather with the Latin newcomers, especially those groups that remained in the northern Peloponnese following the medieval Romans’ successful campaigns to reclaim their territory ater 1259.18 Although the peninsula was subjected to years of pitched batles in the 1260s, gradual recovery is suggested by the construction of churches following this diicult period. Unlike the small collection of earlier monastic foundations built in a purely French style, however, these churches were “Byzantine” in form and planning, with a veneer of Western inluence apparent by way of ornamental vocabulary.19 Of these, two stand out as larger, more elegant and gemlike in their external articulation. hese are the churches known today as the church of the Koimesis at Merbaka (present-day Hagia Triada) near Argos, and the monastery church of Blachernai, just outside Killini in western Elis. Both are well known and bear some relationship to each other by virtue of their similar stone carving and cloisonné masonry (stone blocks carefully outlined by brick tiles inserted into the surrounding mortar joints). hey may in fact have been built and embellished by the same atelier, which seems to have been active not only at these two sites but also in more remote locations and in smaller, less ostentatious churches throughout the Peloponnese.20 18 P. Lock, he Franks in the Aegean, 1204–1500 (London, 1995), 82–86, on the victorious Batle of Pelagonia and its repercussions. 19 Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” 247–51; Grossman, “Building Identity.” 20 he smaller foundations are undated, so inclusion within this group remains speculative. Similarities in sculpted form, motifs, and style, however, recommend their potential ailiation. hey include the church of St. George at Androusa, the Koimesis at Anilio, the church of Rachiotissa at Phlious, the monastic church of the Paliomonastero near Corinth,

I also reinforce the notion, proposed by others before me, that these buildings may have been ailiated with members of the Franciscan and Dominican orders who were active in small numbers in Greece from the middle of the thirteenth century. I consider the two buildings as contemporary structures, built by local artisans but for Western patrons in the years ater 1270.21 Existing Orthodox churches may have ofered prototypes or, in the case of the Blachernai church, builders may have reused a preexisting structure that was modiied.22 In any case, the two buildings are fascinating for their aesthetic, which combines forms and articulating motifs from both east and west. I focus on them because of the exceptional use of spolia that was masterfully integrated into the surrounding masonry with balance and restraint in each case. Connections to the Mendicants are not conclusive, but the possibilities are strong in each case. Archaeological evidence for dating the church at Merbaka relies on the chronology of the ceramic bowls immured in its external walls, persuasively connected by Guy Sanders to late thirteenth-century wares excavated at Corinth.23 he irm redating to 1278–79 of the aforementioned church at Gastouni, related to Merbaka and St. George at Aipeia (Messenia). hese are conveniently listed, with bibliography, in Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” 249–51. Grossman, “Building Identity,” also proposes their membership within a single group. 21 Grossman, “Syncretism Made Concrete,” 72–73, ofers a bold statement of the relationship between the two buildings. Megaw was the irst to emphatically state the connection, though at the time (before his study of the immured bowls at Merbaka) he dated both buildings to the last quarter of the twelth century: Megaw, “Chronology,” 90–130, esp. 114–15, 129. 22 he theory of a refurbished Byzantine church at Blachernai was proposed by A. Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι τῆς Ἠλείας,” Ἀρχ.Ἐφ. (1923): 5–35, still the most complete and useful publication of the building, and followed by Bon, La Morée ranque, 561–74. his remains the generally accepted version of its foundation. In the case of Merbaka, its relationship to a group of nearby buildings in the Argolid, traditionally considered to be “classic” twelth-century Byzantine foundations, was irst proposed by A. Struck, “Vier Byzantinische Kirchen der Argolis,” αΜ 34 (1909): 189–236. 23 Sanders, “hree Peloponnesian Churches,” 189–99; Megaw, “Glazed Bowls”; G. Nicolacopoulos, “Céramiques encastrées de anciennes églises de Grèce,” Faenza 67 (1981): 160–78, especially 176.

by virtue of its masonry and immured bowls, has now virtually sealed its date to around 1280.24 his late date coincides with the residence in Greece of the Dominican cleric William of Moerbeke, Latin Archbishop of Corinth from 1278, with whom the site of Ayia Triada (Merbaka) has had a long onomastic ailiation. While not indisputable proof of his patronage, the coincidence of these factors makes it a very strong possibility. At Blachernai a later Franciscan presence is documented by two Latin inscriptions of 1358 and the iteenth century.25 Neither inscription is early enough to conirm Western patronage at the time of construction, however, and so the notion remains hypothetical. Stylistic similarities of sculpted motifs between it and Merbaka are compelling, however, and the use of spolia in the two buildings ofers additional means to draw connections between them. he following analysis is therefore based on the working assumption of Western patronage.

The Church of Merbaka In plan, the church of Merbaka is a typical Byzantine structure (ig. 3). Its cross-in-square, or quincunx, plan is demarcated by four reused ancient columns supporting vaulting and a dome raised on a high octagonal drum over the central bay. he naos is framed by a shallow narthex to the west and a tripartite sanctuary to the east, the latter expressed on the exterior by three polygonal apses.26 Although canonical in planning and formal composition, the exterior walls of the building are boldly conceived and suggest the hand of patron and artisans operating in an atmosphere of borrowing and experimentation. Typically Byzantine motifs (cloisonné masonry, trilobed windows, brick saw-tooth and meander friezes, a marble sundial on the south wall) are placed side by side with what we tend to consider “Frankish” 24 Sanders, “hree Peloponnesian Churches.” 25 Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι,” 12 and 34; Bon, La Morée ranque, 572–73. 26 G. Hadji-Minaglou, L’église de la Dormition de la Vierge à Merbaka (Hagia Triada) (Paris, 1992). M. L. Coulson, “he Church of Merbaka: Cultural Diversity and Integration in the hirteenth-Century Peloponnese” (PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, 2003), is unfortunately unavailable for consultation.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

29

Figure 3

Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, general view from south (photo: S. Gerstel)

embellishment (crocket capitals, poros stone carvings, a grotesque in the central apse). In addition, there were no fewer than ity-three colorful glazed bowls immured in the upper walls, some still in situ, yielding a veritable explosion of baccini on the east facade.27 he building is given an air of prominence through its elevation on a krepis of two steps, with stone platforms extending from the north and west entrances. Most noticeable in the facades of Merbaka is the impressive array of spolia. Large worked stones were brought from the nearby site of ancient Argos, neatly arranged as orthostates in the lowest zone and separated from the cloisonné masonry above by a newly carved, poros limestone string course. hat atention was paid to the recycled material is clear from a white marble architectural block built into the central apse as the sill of the sanctuary window (ig. 4). It derives from the Argive Heraion, as its running swastika motif betrays.28 Especially noteworthy is the care 27 Megaw, “Glazed Bowls,” 147–48, with emphasis on the character, variety, and large number of bowls on or near the east facade. 28 Hadji-Minaglou, Merbaka, 53. G. Roux, L’architecture de l’Argolide au IV e et IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (Paris, 1961), 11,

30

 

with which it was integrated into the surrounding string course by the medieval masons. Indeed, the fragment served as its centerpiece and provided the template; not only was it situated at the apex of the apse but also its form determined the dimensions and design of the later carving, with upper and lower astragals and setbacks conforming precisely to the fasciae and cyma of its ancient predecessor. he medieval molding’s skillful transition to a slightly raised level at the southeast corner—this in order to continue its path around the building at the desired height—emphasized the signiicance and centrality of the apse fragment within the overall conceptualization of the building (ig. 5).29 Hence spolia were envisioned, from 62–64, identiies its precise derivation from the altar of the temple, some 10 kilometers away. 29 A. Bon, “Monuments d’art byzantin et d’art occidental dans le Péloponnèse au XIIIe siècle,” in Χαριστήριον εις α. Κ. Όρλάνδον, vol. 3 (Athens, 1965–68), 86–93. Bon paid much atention, at 92, to this detail of the building that signaled for him a brilliant innovation completely unlike typical Byzantine carving of the time. A section of architrave from the Parthenon in Athens was similarly built into the central apse window of the later medieval church there. See M. Korres, “he Parthenon from Antiquity to the 19th Century,” in he Parthenon and Its Impact in Modern Times, ed. P. Tournikiotis (Athens, 1994), 148 and ig. 13.

the beginning, as integral members of the building fabric of the facades. he positioning of four reused panels near corner points of the church was equally important. All were placed in pendant locations on the north and south walls. hose near the western corners— a carved panel from a templon screen on the north facade and a reused sundial on the south—are Byzantine and probably date to the eleventh or twelth century.30 he remaining two, at the east end near the sanctuary, are ancient funerary stelai. All four panels are conspicuous, placed high up on the walls, isolated, and carefully framed within the surrounding brick and stone. he two at the east end are especially striking, with himationclad igures, standing frontally at 0.75 meter high, peering out of their raised frames at the spectator below (ig. 6 and p. 22). An additional panel is now dislodged but was recorded before its removal from the north facet of the north apse sometime before 1897.31 A late classical votive relief, it was probably brought from Argos or Epidauros. It depicts a dedicant and his family ofering a sacriicial ram to Asklepios and Hygeia, who recline at a banquet table (ig. 7). A ministrant atends with a krater of wine at the right, while the head of a horse is visible behind the familial procession. A coiled snake in the foreground solidiies identiication with the god Asklepios. It is worth noting that a medieval relief immured just above the apse panel cleverly echoes the ancient serpent; the former, which is also coiled, wraps around the cornice as it devours a sinuous grapevine. Perhaps the 30 Struck, “Vier Byzantinishe Kirchen,” 209. he sundial is discussed in M.-L. Coulson, “Ηλιακά ρολόγια στη Βυζαντινή Ελάδα: Ανάλημα η ανάθημα?” αρχαιολογία 74 (2000): 46–54. Hadji-Minaglou, Merbaka, 109, dates the closure panel to the eleventh century. 31 he panel was lost by the time Struck visited in 1908 but had been recorded in situ by Cyriacus of Ancona in 1448 and later by G.-A. Blouet, Expédition scientiique de Morée, ordonnée par le gouvernement rançais: Architecture, sculptures, inscriptions, et vues du Péloponèse, des Cyclades et de l’Atlantique, 3 vols. (Paris, 1831–38), 2:109, pl. 62. It was acquired in 1897 by the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Inv. no. 1594), where it remains today. he north stele (with two igures, IG IV, 647) is probably Roman in date, and the south (with three igures, IG IV, 539) is Hellenistic: Struck, “Vier Byzantinische Kirchen,” 208–9. he drawing of Cyriacus of Ancona showing all three sculpted panels survives: E. W. Bodnar, Cyriac of Ancona: Later Travels (Cambridge and London, 2003), 337 and pl. X.

medieval artisan implied a conversation between his own creation and its ancient counterpart. Scholars have atempted to decipher various underlying meanings and symbolism in the immured spolia at Merbaka. It is important to note that the overtly pagan images of the sculptures have not been Christianized through purposeful mutilation or the addition of crosses as they sometimes were in the Middle Ages, encouraging us to consider positive rather than purely superstitious meanings. As Helen Saradi has pointed out, the iconography of the panels may have been laden with signiicance in their location near the sanctuary, where theological connections to the Incarnation and to the preparation of the Eucharist would have been strongest.32 Perhaps this is what the medieval serpent hovering above the panel of “the Hellenes” implied—that the sacramental vine has the power to transform even the pagan past.33 But Saradi has also correctly reminded us that ancient culture, along with Judaism, was oten considered by theologians as part of the divine plan that ultimately paved the way for Christianity. Here we might remember the typical sprinkling of saints’ vitae with passages and excerpts quarried from ancient texts and mythology.34 his practice of borrowing fragments was fully acceptable for ediicatory purposes while also providing interest and raising the literary level of the writing. In this sense the immured panels at Merbaka could have functioned in a similar way, as general evocations of the past that, through their presence and visual gravitas, elevated the perceived status, authority, and beauty of the newly constructed building.35 32 Saradi, “he Use of Ancient Spolia,” with discussion at 418–19 of the Merbaka reliefs and the relationship of antiquity (whether Jewish or classical) to Christianity. 33 he multitudinous ways in which such images might have been interpreted is ably handled in E. D. Maguire and H. Maguire, Other Icons: Art and Power in Byzantine Secular Culture (Princeton, 2007), esp. 125–31. 34 As in the Life of St. Nikon, where they are especially prominent, on which see below. 35 For a diferent approach, which assigns speciic references to the various spolia based on the sociopolitical and theological concerns of the church’s patron, see G. D. R. Sanders, “Use of Ancient Spolia to Make Personal and Policital Statements: William of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka (Agia Triada, Argolida),” forthcoming. I am most grateful to Dr. Sanders for sharing the text of his article with me.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

31

Figure 4 Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, east facade, detail of spolium in apse (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

Figure 5 Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, southeast corner, detail of medieval molding (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

Figure 7

Blouet, Expédition scientifique, vol. 2, pl. 62, votive relief originally in the apse of the church of the Koimesis at Merbaka 32

 

Figure 6 Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, south facade, spolium at southeast corner (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

On the other hand, it may be possible to detect faint traces of the patron in the immured antiquities at Merbaka. Low down on the west facade, an ancient inscribed block was strategically positioned just let of the main west entrance into the narthex (ig. 8). It bears a Latin inscription that is right-side up, inely carved, and completely legible. As I have suggested elsewhere, its message may have appealed to the antiquarian interests of this non-Greek cleric, recently arrived following a sojourn in Italy (in Viterbo and Orvieto) as papal chaplain.36 Moerbeke was one of the foremost translators of the works of Aristotle into Latin, working directly from Greek manuscripts. His philological interest in the classics must have played a role in his outlook while he was assigned to this region of the Argolid, itself rich in lore and antiquities. he inscription in question refers speciically to an “imperator of Italicum” who was also “negotiator with the people of Argos.”37 Hence it recalls the nearby ancient city but also the culture and history of a non-Greek dedicant of the Roman period. I suspect the block may have resonated with Moerbeke, or with those who knew him, and was reused in this location as a tongue-in-cheek reference to this Latin archbishop—himself a renowned scholar and a Western foreigner in Greece of his own day. Moerbeke’s philological interests may also come into play for some of the contemporary elements in the building’s external articulation. A number of stone blocks were freshly sculpted not only with vegetal motifs but also with animals and especially ish. hese are not characteristically “Byzantine” in style and were immured in various locations across the building facades. hey were sometimes set individually, while on the north facade they appear as a truncated frieze of blocks just above the stone string course. he creatures depicted include a quadruped, the aforementioned 36 Papalexandrou, “Memory Tatered and Torn,” 70– 71. For the biography of Moerbeke, see M. Grabmann, Guglielmo di Moerbeke, O. P., Il Tradutore delle Opere di Aristotele (Rome, 1946); A. Paravicini Bagliani, “Guillaume de Moerbeke et la cour pontiicale,” in Guillaume de Moerbeke: Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286), ed. J. Brams and W. Vanhamel (Leuven, 1989), 23–52. 37 CIL III, 531. his is taken much further by Sanders, “Use of Ancient Spolia.”

serpent, and a number of whimsical ish swimming either within rinceaux or unencumbered, sometimes in a school and among seashells (ig. 9).38 hese carvings are very unlike their ancient spoliated counterparts, yet they have been similarly installed in visible locations where they appear uncommon and isolated. In other words, they were immured in a spirit that recalled the inclusion of ancient fragments. As “new spolia,” however, their iconographic content could have been tailored to meet the speciic needs or desires of those who commissioned them. My inclination is to see these contemporary carvings as possible expressions of Moerbeke’s intellectual concerns or, alternatively, as part of a system or network of mnemonics that varied according to the viewer. he passerby might interpret ish, for example, as a simple reference to Christ, but ish could be equally meaningful to a patron whose interests combined theology and philology. Moerbeke’s impeccable translations fueled the rediscovery of Aristotle’s natural philosophy and scientiic inquiry in the West, with the ancient philosopher’s precepts reemerging in public debate and theological studies, especially among Dominicans.39 If the church is indeed ailiated with Moerbeke, perhaps the discrete and unusual motifs functioned as vague allusions to his scholarly pursuits. his is not to say that there are overt references in the facades. here are not; medieval patrons and artisans were far too sophisticated for this. So, while a ish can represent Christ to some, it might also refer to scriptural creation, or the Apostles as ishers of men. And this may have difered according to the spiritual or even ethnic background of the viewer. For the patron himself, might these also have been a sly reference to Aristotle’s natural world as it was then being reconciled (in the West) with biblical teaching? While this may seem far-fetched, it is worth remembering that Moerbeke had only recently translated Aristotle’s treatises concerning natural phenomena while resident in hebes in the 1260s, and that the ancient philosopher’s 38 Hadji-Minaglou, Merbaka, 92–96, 110–14, pls. VI–VII. 39 R. Rubenstein, Aristotle’s Children (Orlando, 2003), 176–84 on the importance of the Mendicants from the midthirteenth century in overthrowing the earlier ban on Aristotle’s natural philosophy.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

33

Figure 8

Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, west facade, detail showing location of Latin inscription, “Q.CAECILIO.C.F.ME ELO | IMPERATORI . ITALICI | QVEI . ARGEIS.NEGOTIA” (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

Figure 9

Church of the Koimesis, Merbaka, east facade, detail of sculpture with fish (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

detailed observations featured ish and marine life.40 Moerbeke’s intensive and solitary interaction with Aristotle’s most important zoological 40 P. Beullens and F. Bossier, De historia animalium: Translatio Guillelmi de Morbeka (Leiden, 2000). J. Brams, “he Latin Aristotle and Medieval Latin Commentaries on Aristotle,” Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 44 (2002): 3–6.

34

 

works should be seen against a (Western) intellectual environment, where mankind’s place in the natural world was now a worthy subject of inquiry as well as doctrine to be incorporated into moral teaching.41 Perhaps the unusual contemporary 41 M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelth Century (Chicago, 1968), 4–9; C. F. Briggs, “Moral Philosophy

carvings on the walls of the church were a visual reminder of these scholarly, theological pursuits. In this context Moerbeke’s translation of Aristotle’s On Memory and Reminiscence also deserves mention, along with the general context in the West, at precisely this time, of a vigorous and renewed interest in memory.42 Aristotle’s notion of “images in backgrounds” and the mnemonic technique of organizing and ixing them into architectural places fueled the arts of memory and their popularity, especially among those Dominicans and Franciscans who brought these ancient methods back into circulation through their work on the classics.43 And while these elaborate memory schemes of the thirteenth century are most oten discussed in the realm of manuscripts, where there is an intimacy with the page that we modern folk like to think is most appropriate for memory work, it is equally possible that the walls of a church could function in a similar, if more public way—as an aide-mémoire—whether to evoke an ancient, indigenous past (as in the local yet epic history of the Hellenes), or to enshrine a patron’s donation and perhaps even his classical pursuits, or to recall liturgical beliefs, doctrinal issues, mankind’s place within the Christian cosmos, and so on. All these notions have been or could be suggested for various elements of the facades, underscoring the polyvalence of Byzantine monuments. he memorial function of the church is of course a given in the case of the interior walls, where the cycle of images was explicit in its recollection of the Christian past.44 On the exterior, however, evocations were suitably brief and vague so that the gathering and “reading” of immured emblems— as objets trouvés—could vary according to the and Dominican Education: Bartolomeo de San Concordio’s Compendium moralis philosophiae,” in Medieval Education, ed. R. Begley and J. Koterski (Fordham, 2005), 182–96. 42 D. Bloch, Aristotle on Memory and Recollection (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 166–68. 43 M. Carruthers, he Book of Memory (Cambridge, 1990), esp. 61–68 on Aristotle’s memory theory and its reception in the Middle Ages; 122–23, 152–55 on the “memorial culture” of the thirteenth century and the importance of Franciscans and Dominicans in developing organizational tools to facilitate it. 44 he memorial function of the building is underscored by Coulson, “he Church of Merbaka,” 328–58, who suggests it was intended as the patron’s funerary church.

beholder.45 Perhaps the variegated images were themselves mere tropes of memory, intended to encourage remembrance and appreciation of the church building as the most signiicant depository of memory within the local community.

The Church of Blachernai he monastery church of Blachernai is situated in western Elis, in the heartland of Latin rule. It is just a few kilometers east of the important Frankish port of Glarentza, while not far distant are Geofrey II’s castle at Chlemoutsi and, to the south, Andravida—home to the Latin courts and primary residence of the prince. he later was also the burial place of the Villehardouins and the site of discovery of Agnes’s cover slab. In other words, the monastery is located in a place where one would expect to see concrete statements of syncretism. he church of Blachernai conveys a decidedly similar, if not related, aesthetic to Merbaka in terms of its external articulation, whereas in form it is very unlike that centrally planned building. he church is a three-aisled basilica, its masonry betraying two campaigns of building. To the irst phase belongs the naos with its tripartite sanctuary and esonarthex to the west (igs. 10–11). An impressive second story was then added above the esonarthex and extended toward the west above an open porch in the second phase.46 he dating of both the original core and its later addition are not ixed and remain controversial. Recent reanalysis of the sculptural embellishment has shown close ailiation between the far extremities of the building, so that instead of two completely separate building phases we may in fact be looking at a change in design shortly ater, if not during, the construction process.47 45 Carruthers, Memory, esp. 248–49 on the gathering of images into one place, in this case the manuscript page. See also 247 and pl. 28 for the medieval trope of ish and ishing (along with hunting) as a traditional metaphor for memory, especially in manuscripts. 46 he west facade, in its present form, was reworked in the eighteenth century. Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι,” 25–26; Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries, 77–85. 47 Grossman, “Syncretism Made Concrete,” 72–73, has emphasized the similarity in articulation between the two

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

35

Figure 10

Church of the Virgin, Blachernai, east facade (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

Despite diferences in plan and massing, similarities between the churches of Blachernai and Merbaka abound. Scholars remarked upon these similarities long ago; they are particularly noticeable in the cloisonné masonry and brick details of both buildings.48 he brick dentil courses, cutbrick friezes, decorative vertical tiles, and reined cloisonné masonry of each point to the same atelier. Both buildings were originally entered to the phases, which is evident in the corner colonnetes in the east wall of the naos and those at the corners of the narthex to the west. All are engaged and surmounted by crocket capitals. Decorated imposts, where they exist, are also similar. Substantial changes in construction were common in Byzantine monuments; on which see R. Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999), 86–127. 48 Megaw, “Chronology,” 113–20.

36

 

north and south by means of vaulted porches (no longer extant in each case), and both are raised on a low pedestal comprising spoliated blocks. his feature has evoked to many the krepis, or raised platform, of an ancient temple, though it was in fact a common component of many later Byzantine churches.49 Comparison of the 49 Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι,” 9, and now Sanders, “Use of Ancient Spolia.” For discussion of this element in fourteenthcentury churches in Serbia see S. Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture (University Park, 1979), 54f. he two-stepped pedestal of Merbaka is less common but can be found, for example, at the church of St. Nicholas “sta Kambia,” in Boeotia: R. W. Schultz and S. W. Barnsley, he Monastery of Saint Luke of Stiris, in Phokis, and the Dependent Monastery of Saint Nicolas in the Fields, near Skripou, in Boeotia (London, 1901). he

Figure 11

Church of the Virgin, Blachernai, south facade, partial view (photo: N. Papalexandrou)

sculpted decoration requires further study, but even a cursory look suggests ailiation. Not only do the crocket capitals and engaged colonetes bear similar vegetal motifs, but also the sporadic inclusion of animal carvings is common to both.50 he motifs are simplistic and appear as fragments, placed in isolated locations in each church. he prominent, reused sundials immured in the south diminutive church of the Omorphi Ekklesia, on Aegina, is raised on only one step, but the pedestal’s exaggerated height makes it a useful comparison as does its ixed date of construction in 1289. See C. Pennas, Βυζαντινή αίγινα (Athens, 2005), 20–21. 50 Stylistic similarities are best seen in Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries, 83; Hadji-Minaglou, Merbaka, pls. VII–VIII; Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” pls. 1, 6.

walls of the narthex of both buildings are also noteworthy. However, we encounter some of the most signiicant commonalities with Merbaka in the restrained yet conspicuous employment of ancient spolia. On the east facade, the three apses of the sanctuary have been articulated by a running stone sill at the base of the windows, made up entirely of reused architectural members.51 he embellishment of the central apse is distinguished by means of a thin Lesbian cyma molding, probably a string course taken from a late antique building in the vicinity. Its use here recalls the treatment of the central apse at Merbaka, although the spolia at Blachernai do not serve as a 51

Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι,” 23.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

37

Figure 12

Church of the Virgin, Blachernai monastery, detail of immured Byzantine sculpture, fragment of an eleventh- or twelfthcentury templon epistyle (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

model to be imitated by the medieval masons. he other sections of the sill are spolia of much later date, consisting of a variety of middle Byzantine epistyles and cornices (ig. 12). he remaining facades at the Blachernai church are more elaborate in their inclusion of spolia.52 We ind a series of ancient Ionic epistyle blocks marshaled together to form the upper roof cornice of the naos, their rosetes and dentils let in place and clearly visible. hese are supported by poros-stone corbels, a number of which bear the aforementioned animal carvings, themselves sporadic and isolated. Spolia were inserted into and around the remarkable Gothic bifurcated window in the upper-level room above the narthex (ig. 11). Below its sill a late antique panel of gleaming

white marble bears three crosses under an arcade, while an ornate Byzantine capital was reused as the central mullion capital.53 On the north, south, and west facades a series of ine marble panels acquired from late antique as well as Byzantine sources were symmetrically deployed on either side of the doors leading into the building. hese were (and remain) in pristine condition and have been framed by brick dentil courses that neatly zigzag across the facades in order to accommodate and accentuate them. he panels have been painstakingly chosen so that their embellishment is similar if not identical to their counterpart on the opposite side of the entrance. heir inclusion was, like the spolia at Merbaka, important, integral, and preplanned.54

52 here are many other spolia immured at the Blachernai church not discussed here. On the interior, reused Byzantine epistyles were employed for all door lintels; the main western entrance features splendid examples of the same, reused as jambs and lintel; Byzantine panels in the walls of the narthex are noteworthy, especially a ine example of a centaur on the north wall below the (later) stairway: Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι,” 19.

53 Orlandos, “Αἱ Βλαχέρναι,” 28–30. he “two-level technique” of the capital suggests that it is late, perhaps twelth century. he late antique panel, itself probably a reworking, displays an ornate molding of ovolo and astragal above a Lesbian cyma. 54 he Byzantine panels in the south facade at Blachernai are strikingly similar to that immured in the north facade at Merbaka. All feature an elongated rhombus containing a

38

 

It is signiicant that most of the immured spolia at Blachernai were taken not from ancient pagan sites but from other Christian monuments, probably an earlier church (or churches) in close proximity (ig. 12).55 I suspect that here, as at Merbaka, we can detect a similar focus on memory and the recollection of a regional past through the careful gathering and organizing of local images. In this case, however, the targeted past seems to have been the Christian rather than the ancient Hellenic version, where the comfort of crosses and the gentle presence of vegetation and interlace were deemed more appropriate. With the possibility of Franciscan patronage this becomes intriguing, since the preaching friars were also interested in practices of memory and the “architectural mnemonic.” hey tended to be more evangelical than their Dominican brethren. hey were deeply invested in metaphysical concerns and in combating heresy. hey also appreciated the connections between memory and moral character.56 Spolia containing nonpagan images, such as closure panels and epistyles from templon screens, may have been purposely chosen as members of an indigenous narrative suggesting commonalities with the Latins—a joint Christian heritage rather than a glorious and superior Hellenic one. Perhaps such an approach would have been considered the more legitimate, especially at a time when ecclesiastical union was at stake. No mater who was behind its incorporation, the language of spolia here does not seem to be one of power, resistance, or subversion. Rather, it may speak more broadly, and positively, to the central cross inscribed in a circle, with inscribed swirls and rosetes illing the four corners. he two-strand framing device is also repeated in each. Perhaps these derive from a common source or were used by the same atelier, which may have kept a stock of spolia on hand for such purposes. 55 W. Caraher has discussed the reuse of Early Christian spolia, along with standing ruins, in later Byzantine monument in “Constructing Memories: Hagiography, Church Architecture, and the Religious Landscape of Middle Byzantine Greece: he Case of St. heodore of Kythera,” in Archaeology and History in Roman, Medieval, and PostMedieval Greece: Studies on Method and Meaning in Honor of Timothy E. Gregory, ed. W. Caraher, L. Jones Hall, and R. S. Moore (Aldershot, 2008), 267–80. 56 Carruthers, Memory, 154–55; J. Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order rom Its Origins to the Year 1517 (Chicago, 1988); Rubenstein, Aristotle’s Children, 172–76.

theme of sacred presence at a given site and its continuity or transmission over time. I suggest that by the late thirteenth century, foreign patrons felt free to employ spolia in their churches to show they were cognizant of local interests and local pasts. Which past was emphasized and what one did with it were seemingly as luid and changing as the patrons who conceived them and the diverse audiences that beheld them over time.

Lakonian Monuments, Indigenous Patrons We have seen that the churches of Merbaka and Blachernai exemplify the tendency to enliven facades through the inclusion of fragments that added visual interest and symbolic meaning. his phenomenon is similarly encountered if we turn our atention south to Lakonia, where many buildings constructed in the thirteenth century (fortiications aside) were certainly the product of local, indigenous patronage. Unlike those situated in the heartland of Frankish inluence and power, however, in the south the foreign presence had made less of an impact, especially so following the Byzantine recapture of important sites in the 1260s. Here, then, it is interesting to note diferences in how spolia were employed in new or refurbished buildings in two of the most important southern setlements, Geraki and Mystras. It is also useful to ask the question whether the medieval Greeks employed spolia in diferent ways from the Latins and whether they may have had similar objectives in mind. he site of Geraki is noteworthy for its plethora of small medieval churches and also for the typical inclusion of antiquities within these buildings. his is likely due to the proximity of its acropolis—the ancient site of Geronthrai—and it was here that a church dedicated to St. George was built inside the fortiied castle of the medieval setlement.57 he building is a three-aisled, barrel-vaulted structure of two phases (ig. 13). he original, two-aisled structure likely dates to the early years of the thirteenth century, although we lack a recent study to furnish more 57 R. Traquair, “Laconia, Medieval Fortresses,” BSA 12 (1905–6): 259–76; Bon, La Morée ranque, 593–94.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

39

Figure 13

Church of St. George, Geraki kastro, southeast corner (photo: S. Gerstel)

Figure 14

Church of St. George, Geraki kastro, templon screen (photo: S. Gerstel)

40

 

a

b

Figure 15 Church of St. George, Geraki kastro, templon screen. Details of (a) painting from lower register and (b) ancient spolium from lower register (photo: S. Gerstel)

precise information.58 Within this earlier section the later templon screen of the central aisle is of interest, for within the right-hand closure panel and directly below the icon of Christ, the medieval artisans have carefully installed a monumental anthemion, probably Hellenistic, taken from nearby Geronthrai (ig. 14).59 he motif, which 58 A. Orlandos, “Ἀνατολίζουσαι Βασιλικαὶ τῆς Λακονίας,” Ἐπ.Ἑτ.Βυζ.Σπ. 4 (1927): 343–51, with plan showing phases at 349. he building still remains largely unpublished save for discrete features that have been of interest for immured Frankish insignia. A summary of the scholarship and dating is found in A. Louvi-Kizi, “Το προσκυνητάρι στον Άγιο Γεώργιο του Κάστρου στο Γεράκι,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 25 (2004): 111–26. On the possibility of appropriation and sharing of ritual space by Catholic and Orthodox, see the remarks of Ilieva, Frankish Morea, 224–25. 59 he date of the templon screen remains unestablished. See Louvi-Kizi, “Το Προσκυνητάρι,” and S. Gerstel, “An Alternate View of the Late Byzantine Sanctuary Screen,”

occupies almost the entire height of the screen, involves a double row of acanthus leaves from which spring two sinuous stalks terminating in volutes and, above them, a large double-leafed palmete (ig. 15b). he purposeful intent and salience of its inclusion is notable in itself, but this becomes even more potent when we consider the motif together with its painted counterpart on the in hresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and heological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, ed. S. Gerstel (Washington, DC, 2006), 135– 61, especially 138 for the most recent discussions. he screen was also published by C. Bouras, “A Chance Classical Revival in Byzantine Greece,” in Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. D. Mouriki et al. (Princeton, 1995), 585–90, who placed it in the middle of the thirteenth century based on stylistic comparison with a sculpted screen at Avlonari, in Euboia. A date following the defeat of the Franks, in 1259, appears likely if a product of Greek rather than Latin patronage.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

41

opposite side of the bema entrance. here, directly beneath and vertically aligned with the image of the Virgin and Child, the artist has matched the ancient sculpted relief with a new, painted version of his own (ig. 15a). On it a central, abstracted motif encloses delicate tendrils and half-leaves very like those on the stone original. To the right of it a long stalk similarly emerges from the base and morphs into more shoots and leaves. While not a precise copy, the crowded vegetal paterns of its forebear are discernible. hus contact with the forms of the past inspired both skilled imitation and careful integration of the original into a surrounding Christian framework. It is perhaps signiicant that the ancient spolium—a wonderful specimen whose design and high-level workmanship are clear even today—was placed together with the image of Christ. In this way, pairing and proximity suggest its special value for whoever introduced it. he ancient ornament does not seem out of place: the artisans ensured that it it

Figure 16

Church of St. John Chrysostom, Geraki. View of southeast corner (photo: S. Gerstel)

Figure 17

Church of St. John Chrysostom, Geraki, south facade, immured inscriptions (photo: S. Gerstel)

42

 

neatly into this most visible and richly symbolic arena directly before the sanctuary of the church. Spolia of a diferent nature yielded distinctive results in the church of St. John Chrysostom in the lower town of Geraki.60 A modest, single-aisle structure, whose decoration is dated on stylistic grounds to around 1300, it is typical of the myriad monuments in the Peloponnese whose internal realm of reined painted images is belied by a modest external appearance. he walls are typical rubble masonry, with rough-hewn ieldstones set in ample mortar containing sporadic insertions of brick tile (ig. 16). A few sparse bands of paterned brick enliven the apse, but otherwise the impression gained from the exterior is of austerity and economy of materials. his aesthetic is altered on the main, south facade, the only point of entry into the building (ig. 17). Here a brick frieze under the eaves runs the length of the wall, with various architectural spolia immured pell-mell beneath it. Of greatest interest is the entrance, which has been given a degree of monumentality through its framing by means of very large, ancient blocks. Four of these are well known to archaeologists as stelai (again from Geronthrai) bearing the text of Diocletian’s famous price edict issued in AD 301.61 Two have been positioned right-side up as the lower doorjambs, while the other two have been turned sideways, one forming the thick lintel from which a decorative brick arch springs and forms a lunete, presumably intended to shelter an icon of the patron saint. Remembering that there is no western entrance and no narthex leading into the church of St. John, the south portal is the crucial point of transition from the profane world outside to the sacred realm within. he presence of inscribed words and ancient script in this location, low on the walls, visible, legible (to some) and even tangible to the passerby, helped to forge the passage as a signiicant event—through time and history as well as space—into the cool and welcome shelter of the Christian present with its reassuring images and messages of salvation. he presence of words at the entranceway—not in the elite Greek (with ligatures) of oicial Byzantine inscriptions but as a 60 N. Demetrokales and N. Moutsopoulos, Γεράκι: Ἐκκλησίες τοῦ Οἰκοσμοῦ (hessalonike, 1981), 3–12. 61 IG 5 (1913), 199–206.

plethora of common terms, easily deciphered from the more familiar late antique script—could not have gone unnoticed. Whether or not the medieval viewers would have bothered to crane their necks in order to see the exceptionally clear writing on the massive lintel overhead, they could hardly have missed the inscriptions of the side jambs. Hundreds of words listing all manner of goods and services are at once evocative and mundane, with the things and people of daily life—unworked wolf skin (δέρμα λύκειον ἄνεργον), librarian or antiquarian (λιβραρίῳ ἤτοι ἀρχαιολόγῳ), rhetorician (ῥήτορι), architect (ἀρχιτέκτονι), children’s shoe tree (παιδικοῦ [κ]αλόποδος), linen head bindings (κεφαλοδέσμων ἀπὸ λίνου), oak combs (κτένα πύξινον), carts loaded with wood (ἅμαξα ξύλων γεγομωμένη), Babylonian sandals (ὑποδημάτων Βαβυλωνικῶν)!—illing every inch of the stone surface.62 Can we imagine a scenario at the microlevel wherein such inscriptions were somehow “used” in a didactic way, perhaps to demonstrate or even teach the words of a past they represented?63 It is interesting that the style of painting within the church is highly ornamental, one could even say calligraphic, with elaborate lourishes apparent in the painted inscriptions.64 he collateral efect of interior and exterior images invites speculation about their reception. Could the ancient inscriptions have been seen to reinforce the existing culture, language, and ethnicity that had recently been exposed to (and survived) foreign domination? Might the presence of these “old words” have been used to explicate a vague past, whether this meant forging or undermining a connection with it? We can never know, but surely the impressive stones were noticed and remarked upon—just as they are today—by those who knew and frequented the church and its forecourt in the Middle Ages. Indeed, it is implicit in the very selection of these particular stones.

62 S. Laufer, Diokletians Preisedikt (Berlin, 1971), 125–47, 171–81. 63 Several surprising and unusual ways of learning through participatory practices and the use of objects are elaborated in T. Ivanova-Sullivan, “Interpreting Medieval Literacy: Learning and Education in Slavia Orthodoxia (Bulgaria) and Byzantium in the Ninth to Twelth Centuries,” in Medieval Education, ed. Begley and Koterski, 50–67. 64 I am grateful to Sharon Gerstel for this suggestion.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

43

Figure 18

Church of St. John Chrysostom, Geraki, interior north wall, St. George (photo: S. Gerstel)

he stelai also participate in a dual framing, one that becomes apparent when the south portal is open. A blind arch directly opposite the entrance on the interior north wall frames an arresting equestrian image of St. George slaying the dragon (ig. 18). his axial correspondence between entrance and planned images would also have extended vertically if the lunete above the door originally contained an image of the patron saint. Sharon Gerstel has made a case for associating certain iconographic motifs of the interior program with memories of the Latin occupation and assertions of local identity.65 If this were so, 65 S. Gerstel, “Art and Identity in the Medieval Morea,” in he Crusades rom the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. Laiou and Motahedeh, 263–85, esp. 278– 79 on St. John Chrysostom at Geraki.

44

 

we might consider the possibility that the ancient inscriptions were seen to punctuate the igural image of the great warrior saint in batle, but through a nonigural statement in script and word that likewise connected inhabitants and immediate surroundings with a pre-Latin past. he material of the stones and format of their inscriptions likewise encode references to the past. Both kinds of images may be seen to work together in dynamic interaction as the antiquities frame but are also framed by the (Orthodox) Christian walls and their sacred pictures. he more famous city of Mystras, 45 kilometers northwest of Geraki, ofers a diferent ex ample of the signiicant use of spolia. As capital of the new Despotate of the Morea (from 1261), the city’s metropolitan church, dedicated to St. Demetrios, was by necessity a building of some means. Materials for its construction were likely transported from Lakedaimon (ancient Sparta), just 5 kilometers distant and the site from which the city’s new inhabitants had recently led.66 Old buildings, whether recently abandoned churches or more ancient ruins from the earlier city, must have been carefully searched and quarried for valuable spolia.67 Unlike the two churches from Geraki just discussed, the Metropolis was large and deluxe by comparison, the product of known or mostly known clerical patronage.68 Probably constructed between 1263 and 1272 during the time of Metropolitan Eugenios, it was originally a three-aisled basilica of standard type covered by a wooden trussed roof over the central aisle and

66 Bon, La Morée ranque, 129f. On the medieval situation in Sparta see P. Armstrong, “he Monasteries of Saint Nikon: he Amyklaion, Sparta, and Lakonia,” in Dioskouroi: Studies Presented to W. G. Cavanagh and C. B. Mee on the Anniversary of heir 30-Year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology, ed. C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis, and G. M. Musket (Oxford, 2008), 352–69, with recent bibliography and discussion on the archaeology of the medieval town. 67 G. Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος η Μητρόπολη του Μυστρά (Athens, 2002), 86. 68 he irst metropolitan bishop at Mystras, Eugenios (1262–72), was probably recorded in the founder’s inscription on the south wall of the building. he dedication was expunged by his later successor, Nikephoros Moschopoulos, on which see below. M. I. Manousakas, “Η Χρονολογία της Κτιτορικής Επιγραφής του Αγίου Δημητρίου του Μυστρά,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 1 (1959): 70–79.

vaulting over the side aisles.69 here are many instances of incorporated spolia in the walls, surfaces, and transitional points of the building (doors, windows, loors, templon screen), to the extent that one is tempted to see it as a kind of “trophy monument.” he building’s status within the local community and its visible role in the continuation of ecclesiastical power of the See of Lakedaimon strengthen this possibility. he incorporation of ancient materials into the original, late thirteenth-century masonry is best seen on the east facade, where we must visualize the building’s original core without the 69 he standard monograph of the building, with reconstructions of the earlier phase predating the iteenthcentury remodeling as a domed basilica, is that of Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος. On the construction history, see 245–51 and the inscriptional evidence at 239–44.

lanking structures, domes, and upper stretches of wall over the side aisles (ig. 19). Here we are immediately aware of a diferent type of masonry, certainly an indication of greater means and availability of artisans who built in the cloisonné style.70 Georgia Marinou has proposed that plaster covered only the lower sections of the apse walls, below the sills, with the remaining masonry let exposed.71 he decorative panels of spolia are immediately noticeable; large disks of opus 70 A. H. S. Megaw, “he Chronology of Some MiddleByzantine Churches,” BSA 32 (1931–32): 90–130, with cloisonné masonry discussed at 101–2. 71 Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος, 182, 247. he masonry of the east facade is preserved in its original form. Marinou sees an archaic character and signs of inancial instability in the building’s “austere” external appearance, a subjective interpretation that ignores the care and skill with which spolia were integrated into the masonry.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

45

Figure 19

Metropolis (St. Demetrios), Mystras, east facade, from southeast (photo: A. Papalexandrou)

sectile, taken from earlier church loors, have been encased by brick string courses and positioned above the side apses and along one side of the upper window. A reused sculpted screen of white marble, middle Byzantine in date, was inserted for reasons of symmetry into the let sill of the upper window. Both surrounding panels have been recarved to receive glazed bowls, or baccini (now missing), so that they were themselves converted into frames for these colorful additions. he inclusion of spolia as a means to enliven the east wall was thus an important and innovative component in the initial phase of construction. On the interior of the Metropolis, the inclusion of six ancient columns employed to divide the nave from lanking side aisles deserves elaboration. All are of late antique derivation, presumably brought from nearby Sparta. In their supporting roles they were accompanied by bases, column capitals, and imposts from roughly the same period.72 Taken as a group they ofered the kind of decorative and durable materials typically deemed appropriate to enhance the sacred and sumptuous interior space of the church. Beyond this, however, the important notion of columns as symbolic capital requires some atention. Dale Kinney has writen much about the actual, igurative, and aesthetic worth of reused marble shats. hey were unmatched as highly prized building material (ininitely beter in compression than brick and mortar) and were evocative reminders of the past.73 But they could also be important commemorative sites—places upon which to record important events, documents, and communications.74 It was at precisely this period, from the mid-thirteenth century, that columns oten acquired this additional function.75 Prominently 72 Ibid., 62–64. 73 D. Kinney, “Roman Architectural Spolia,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 145, no. 2 (2001): 138–50. 74 D. Kinney, “Making Mute Stones Speak: Reading Columns in S. Nicola in Carcere and S. Maria in Aracoeli,” in Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, ed. C. L. Striker (Mainz, 1996), 83–86. 75 A number of contemporary examples throughout Greece and the Peloponnese demonstrate the popularity of this tendency. See the chapter by S. Gerstel in this volume for columnar inscriptions in the southern Peloponnese. As early as 1238 a simple column beside the road from Athens to Mesogeia, near Mount Hymetos, was inscribed with six lines of iambics to commemorate the monk Neophytos:

46

 

placed with a smooth surface for writing, the epitome of permanence and stability, columns were the perfect stone archive, a “hard drive” of sorts for the perpetual storage of information that could be referred to as necessary. It was some forty years ater the foundation of the Metropolis that its interior columns were apprehended in service of a prominent and busy patron, the Bishop Nikephoros Moschopoulos. An educated theologian with connections to the early fourteenth-century intelligentsia in the capital, he sought to elevate his proile by claiming himself as original founder of the building and by displaying his own episcopal acts on the southwest column shat of the naos.76 he text was beautifully inscribed at eye level, facing the nave; its arrangement in the form of a cross produced an optimum visual efect while it legitimized and sacralized the bishop’s message (see Gerstel, ig. 12, p. 349). Its efect is felt today no less than it was in the Middle Ages since it remains in place and so is viewed in precisely the same manner and context. Much of its content was given over to the bishop’s grievance against a certain chartophylax of the church, so that he utilized the column to record an old and apparently vexing dispute.77 he inscribed CIG IV, 8752. he practice may have had its roots much earlier: the hundreds of commemorative and dedicatory inscriptions from the Christian Parthenon in Athens betray the atention of devout clerics who carved their names into the columns of the peristyle for as long as it functioned as a church: A. K. Orlandos and L. Vranoussis, Τα Χαράγματα τοῦ Παρθενώνος (Athens, 1973), and now A. Kaldellis, he Christian Parthenon: Classicism and Pilgrimage in Byzantine Athens (Cambridge, 2009). 76 On Moschopoulos, see R. Jenkins and C. Mango, “A Synodicon of Antioch and Lacedaemonia,” DOP 15 (1961): 225–42. Manousakas, “Χρονολογία,” clariied the issue of patronage as per the inscriptions. See also S. KalopissiVerti, “Church Inscriptions as Documents: Chrysobulls— Ecclesiastical Acts—Inventories—Donations—Wills,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 14 (2003): 79–88. See also the chapters by Gerstel and Saradi in this volume. 77 “I had it (the church of St. Demetrios) built to glorify God and the Holy Great Martyr of God, Demetrios, and I also raised from the foundations ive mills in Magoula, and I also planted both an olive grove and an orchard in Magoula, and in Leuke I planted vineyards. I also bought the houses of the Chartophylax Eugenios right next to the church. Aterwards he tried coercively or with whatever means he could to remove them from the Church”: G. Millet, “Inscriptions byzantines de Mistra,” BCH 23 (1899): 122, my translation.

column allowed him to mediate the situation on his own terms, and he did so not only by stating his case but also by invoking the standard curseclause against his enemy. his was neatly and emphatically incorporated into the lower crossarm of the inscription: “May he have the curses of the 318 God-bearing Fathers of Nicaea and also the curse of me, the sinner! [In] the year 1312.”78 In appropriating the ancient column as well as the space of the church, Moschopoulos has harnessed a great deal in his public message, including the surrounding power of the Christian faith, the force of communal memory, an explicit (and precisely dated) anchorage of his own legacy, and the gravitas of the past as represented in the column and naos in which it was now a supporting member. Although the bishop’s reference to the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea of 325 was standard practice in curse clauses, it nonetheless it squarely into his evocation of an ancient and historic Christian past.79 he inscription essentially changed the column into a site of performance now fraught with commemorative possibilities.80 We might compare the use of spolia here to the incorporation of inscribed stelai at the church of St. John Chrysostom in the lower town at Geraki. In the later instance old words were used in a new seting outside the sacred space, whereas here new words were introduced inside the building upon a backdrop of antiquity. Moschopoulos has thus utilized the old fragments to write a new history and to frame himself as a pious player within the sanctity and protection of the Christian past. All these Lakonian monuments exemplify a slightly diferent aesthetic, one perhaps less reined than those of the exceptional monuments in the north. hey seem to us, and perhaps to their contemporary viewers, more “rustic” or “practical” 78 he entire inscribed text is eighteen lines, the inal four of which are given over to the curse clause: “ἵνα ἔχοι τὰς ἀρὰς τῶν –– τ ιη– θεοφόρων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ· καὶ ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ. ἔτους ͵ϛ––– ωκ΄– N–I ” (my translation). Millet, “Inscriptions byzantines,” 122–23. 79 H. Saradi, “Cursing in the Byzantine Notarial Acts: A Form of Warranty,” Βυζαντινά 17 (1994): 441–533. KalopissiVerti, “Church Inscriptions as Documents,” 87. 80 Other patrons followed suit: ive subsequent episcopal acts were added in the course of the fourteenth century to the two easternmost columns and the middle column of the north arcade. Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος, 240–43.

than those far less typical monuments that assume the rhetoric of elegance and sophistication. hese diferences may be explained in terms of alternative strategies at work: patronage, social function, local context, and—far less evocative but surely a factor—diverse teams of masons and builders. All must have contributed to the inal product. Despite the diferences, however, many of the shared tendencies point to a commonality in atitudes. I propose that Greeks and Latins employed spolia in similar, premeditated ways. Like the Greeks, the Latins in the Morea turned to the antique past and the remains of the newly conquered land. hey did this not only because they carried with them a preexisting outlook from their home countries, but also because some, at least, became conversant with the modes and communicational strategies of the newly conquered land. Why this was so becomes evident when we turn to contemporary writen testimonies that seem to spell out, more explicitly, both Greek and Latin atitudes toward the antique past.

Literary Spoils In the buildings considered above, I have suggested that renewed or expanded interest in fragments found or quarried from among the ruins—as vestiges of an ancient era—be considered a potential source of inspiration for builders and patrons in the medieval Morea. Such a notion may have been vague, but surely it existed, even among those “non-elites” who never read a work of literature but oten found themselves face to face with a stone relic from a bygone age, or a landscape feature connected by tradition (if not by name) to those old gods of the pagan Hellenes. Of such things we can only speculate. We do know, however, that educated theologians throughout the Middle Ages, especially in the later centuries, were concerned not only with their own intellectual pursuits but also with matters of pedagogy.81 It was not uncommon for them to turn to ancient texts in their writings and to extract quotations, allusions, names, aphorisms, 81 P. Magdalino, “he Rhetoric of Hellenism,” in he Perception of the Past in Twelth-Century Europe, ed. P. Magdalino (London, 1992), 141–47.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

47

and especially proverbs for incorporation into their writings and sermons. Some have seen this as a sign of positive admiration for the wisdom of the ancients and a desire to pass along their meaning and relevance to Orthodox communities— both monastic and lay.82 It is an important point, for these learned references placed less emphasis on remembering a glorious past (as romantic nostalgia) and more on cultivating and educating “ordinary folk” through the use and presumably memorization of ancient literary fragments that were still highly valued because they were deemed wise, sophisticated, and useful. One of the best examples of this literary spoliation is atested at the popular level in the vitae of St. Nikon, one of the most celebrated saints of the Peloponnese. Two versions of the Life have survived, one dating to the twelth century but based on an earlier, tenth-century version (now lost).83 hese were intended not only to commemorate the saint but also to edify the listening audience. As such the author freely and consistently inserted classical references along with maxims and biblical quotations that were memorable and could be utilized in daily life.84 An account of two brothers who had migrated to Lakedaimon from Italy describes their misfortunes as one of them, known as Vitalios, became sick and eventually went mad.85 According to the hagiographer a cure depended on spiritual healing rather than mainstream medical treatment because “all the Asklepian art was inferior to it.” His grief-stricken brother, meanwhile, “complained biterly and moaned and, to speak historically, mourned and lamented Patroklos.” Elsewhere Nikon abandoned 82 D. Constantelos, “he Greek Classical Heritage in Greek Hagiography,” in To Ellenikon: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, ed. J. Langdon, S. Reinert, J. Allen, and C. Ioannides (New Rochelle, 1993), 1:91–116. 83 P. Armstrong, “Monasteries Old and New: he Nature of the Evidence,” in Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries, ed. M. E. Mullet (Belfast, 2007), 315–43, esp. 318–24. Evidence for the date of this, Mount Athos, Koutloumousiou, MS 210, is corroborated by recent archaeological evidence from Sparta; on which see eadem, “Merchants of Venice at Sparta in the 12th Century,” in Sparta and Laconia rom Prehistory to Pre-Modern, ed. W. G. Cavanagh, C. Gallou, and M. Georgiadis (Athens, 2009), 313–21. 84 Constantelos, “Classical Heritage,” 102–4, with a long and fascinating list of classical references. 85 Ibid. See also Armstrong, “Merchants of Venice,” 317.

48

 

his usual saintly demeanor in an incident with the local Jewish population whom he drove out of town. According to the Life he “seemed more fearful to his enemies than Herakles with his club, as they say.” he saint’s church in Sparta was compared “to the works of Pheidias, Zeuxis, and Polygnotos,” the later of course coming up short. And when he died, his passing rendered him “like an Olympic victor” (Ὀλυμπιονίκης).86 his literary incorporation of anecdotes and motifs from the past provides an intriguing model for us to think about the material remains of antiquity as fragmentary visual references, the inclusion of which was merited because of their evocative and even ediicatory possibilities. Such an approach may stand as a coda to the prevailing notion of a heavily intellectualized past, irmly in place by the thirteenth century, which featured selfidentiication as heirs to the Hellenes.87

Shared Attitudes and the Chronicle of the Morea We gain additional insight into French as well as Greek mentalities and atitudes toward their surroundings in the anonymous Chronicle of the Morea, the epic poem that recounts, in more than nine thousand lines of unrhymed verse, the events of clash and exchange between local inhabitants and Latin crusaders freshly arrived following their escapades in the Levant and Constantinople.88 he tale’s account here serves as a means to 86 D. F. Sullivan, he Life of Saint Nikon (Brookline, 1987), references at 251, 121, 131, 163. 87 A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: he Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Cambridge, 2007), esp. 184–85, 340–43, 377– 78; Magdalino, “Rhetoric of Hellenism,” 139–47; G. Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity before the Otomans, 1200– 1420 (Leiden, 2008), 65–66. Page, however, downplays the notion of ethnic identity for regions outside of Nicaea, including the Peloponnese, at 126–29, where a more literary signiicance has been atached to the new terminology of Hellenism. 88 Whether the poem, which survives in three languages in its earliest manuscripts, was irst composed by a Greek or a Frank remains unresolved. I have utilized the Greek version edited by J. Schmit, Introduction to the Chronicle of Morea (Groningen, 1967) and the English translation, in prose, of H. E. Lurier, Crusaders as Conquerors: he Chronicle of Morea (New York, 1964). he Chronicle has received

consider monuments together with the spectrum of people and ideas that moved with new luidity across geographical and temporal boundaries. It was a moment when individuals from East and West not only shared physical space and material commodities, they also became joint heirs to a past that was appropriated and used with new vigor according to the individual needs and circumstances of each group. he Chronicle conveys us immediately into a thrilling account of how the Franks handily won the land of the Morea as a small troop of soldiers moved south from Patras along the western coast.89 One Greek setlement ater another capitulated with litle or no resistance. An important component, according to the Chronicle, of this rapid and successful movement of men was the strategic role played by local Roman (Greek) archons who served as scouts for the newly arrived Frenchmen. Given their knowledge of the local landscape and innate understanding of the native population, the Greek scouts were indispensible to the operation. According to the text, Sir Geofrey Villehardouin himself “asked the archons, the local Romans, who knew the places, the castles, and the towns of all of the Peloponnese that is included in Morea, to explain to him the circumstance of each one.”90 Indeed, the decisive batle of Kountoura, in an olive grove near Kalamata, took place in part through the agency of these scouts, “the Romans . . . who knew the land so well.”91 heir interaction with the French seems to betray an easier relationship than we might otherwise have expected and may help to explain the cultural and artistic interchange and layering that is traceable in later monuments of the region. he Chronicle is similarly interesting for the small details, revealed in vague but thoughtprovoking terms, concerning the situation on the its most recent analysis by T. Shawcross, Chronicle of Morea (Cambridge, 2009), who maintains a date of the mid-1320s for the core of the work (44–47). 89 Lurier, Crusaders as Conquerors: he Chronicle of Morea, 106–34. Events are also recounted in the elder Geoffrey of Villehardouin’s Chronicle of the Fourth Crusade and the Conquest of Constantinople, trans. F. T. Marzials (New York, 1958), 86–87. 90 Lurier, Crusaders as Conquerors: he Chronicle of Morea, 115. 91 Ibid., 120.

ground as the conquest was played out. hese are an indication of what the French knights found in their new surroundings, especially the state of standing monuments but also the condition of the land and its visual impress. Of the later, desertion of property and destruction of sites were frequent, at least along the coast. Methone was overrun and its castle in ruins from earlier atacks, while the fortress at Kalamata, reused as a monastery, was found to be in a dilapidated state.92 he impression is of decaying buildings and disarray. I suggest we imagine something akin to the carefully executed if oten romantic images let to us by the “Mission scientiique de Morée,” the French expedition whose purpose it was to document all aspects of the Peloponnese, especially its monuments, following the Greek Revolution in the early nineteenth century.93 Although recorded some six hundred years ater the period with which I am concerned, its detailed views and precise travel descriptions give an evocative picture of preindustrial landscapes and the rich assortment of decaying monuments, medieval as well as ancient, that illed them. A rendering of a crumbling church at Osphino (ig. 20), its narthex reduced to rubble and its masonry blocks dislodged, scatered and readily available to passersby, permits us to discard neat, present-day realities and to imagine a diferent set of conditions surrounding Peloponnesian monuments that may be closer to those of the thirteenth century than to our own.94 here is inally the presence of antiquities, about which the Chronicle’s composer is again circumspect but not entirely silent. Only one mention is given in the text, in this case to ancient masonry in the fortress at Arkadia (ancient Kyparisia) during an uncharacteristically long, sevenday siege delivered upon the populace there. According to the text, the French knights and their soldiers “arrived at Arkadia at the hour of noon; they set out their camps and set up their tents in the ield; they demanded the castle, but they would not cede it, for the castle lay at the top of a clif and they had a strong tower, dating even 92 Ibid., 118–20. he situation in the mountains may not have been as severe, on which Ilieva, Frankish Morea, 216–17. 93 Blouet, Expédition scientiique de Morée. 94 Ibid., vol. 1, pl. 9 for the church at Osphino, situated between Methone and Navarino.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

49

Figure 20

Blouet, Expédition scientifique, vol. 1, pl. 9, church at Osphino

from the time of the Hellenes.”95 It is the mention of the castle’s tower that is important, along with its perception—visible and presumably daunting to the troops below—as the relic of a distant past. he French version of the Chronicle puts it in a slightly diferent way, referring to the donjon that could not be overtaken due to its tower rising from a strong stone base—the work of giants (“le donjon ne porrent il mie prendre de assaut, pour ce que il estoit assis sur une pierre bise, et avoit une bonne tour dessus, de l’ovre des jaians”).96 In both versions the literary elaboration with respect to buildings is unusual and suggests that the poet of the manuscript, following 95 Lurier, Crusaders as Conquerors: he Chronicle of Morea, 122. Clearly the poet refers to a far-distant past, presumably that of the ancient Greeks. 96 Livre de la conqueste, 39, par. 115. J. P. A. Van der Vin, Travellers to Greece and Constantinople: Ancient Monuments and Old Traditions in Medieval Travellers’ Tales (Leiden, 1980), 1:225, with reference to the Italian version, which is similar to the Greek: “una torre antica ediicata da Greci antichi.”

50

 

his oral predecessors, may have tried to link the protracted resistance of the local population of Arkadia to the kind of solid material remains and heroic reputation associated with the bygone age these seemed to represent. he narrative surrounding Arkadia becomes more intriguing because the castle survives, a stretch of wall in one of its preserved towers betraying ancient Greek materials and workmanship.97 his convergence of text, memory association, and surviving material remains from antiquity is rarely encountered in the narrative of medieval monuments. However fortuitous this may be, close visual analysis indicates that the tower walls are not in fact ancient, but Byzantine in date, with large blocks of hewn and drated stone incorporated into their lowest courses of masonry 97 K. Andrews, Castles of Morea, rev. ed. (Princeton, 2006), 84–89. he tower in question corresponds to the centralmost square tower of the interior retaining wall, as seen in the eighteenth-century Grimani plan (Andrews, pl. XVIII). See also Bon, La Morée ranque, 669–70 and pls. 99–102.

Figure 21

Kyparissia, fortress, general view (photo:

G. Bugh)

(ig. 21).98 he irony becomes immediately clear: the work of “the Hellenes,” as perceived by foreigners and presumably natives alike, was in fact a more recent structure, built with stone pilfered from decaying ancient monuments in the vicinity. Ultimately, of course, it is not the actual age of the structure that maters but the memory work that lay behind the reference—the atachment of legend to landmarks that must have been commonplace, as it was already in antiquity and remains today in Greece.99 Reminders of the ancient past were all around, whether they were textually derived through intellectuals who read the ancient 98 Andrews, Castles of Morea, 220–21, determined the masonry to be “early Byzantine” (his terminology), that is, probably dating from the period just preceding the arrival of the French in 1205. Bon, La Morée ranque, 669 and pl. 101b, thought he detected ancient stones in situ, but this is uncorroborated in later scholarship. N. Papachatzes, Παυσανíου ελáδος περιήγησις βιβλίa 4, 5, καὶ 6: Μεσσηνιακά (Athens, 1991), 188–89, concludes the towers to be late antique and/ or Byzantine in date, probably removed from the acropolis of ancient Kyparissia. 99 So, for example, Pausanias wrote about the masonry of the walls of Mycenae as “works of Cyclops”: Pausanias, Description of Greece 2.16.5 (Cambridge and London, 1918–35).

authors, orally transmited through poems and songs, or visible through the material signs supplied by the ruins themselves. It is important to emphasize that the tower at Arkadia was certainly not a building made up of lamboyant antiquities, and yet the alleged ancient pedigree—as a true product of the “Hellenes”— was maintained in the various versions of the Chronicle of the Morea. One cannot help but wonder who was ultimately responsible for the declaration. Was it conquerors or native inhabitants, or both, who construed the virtue of the castle’s stalwart tower? In the case of the Byzantines certain elite individuals, especially those educated in the classical tradition, openly admired their ancient surroundings.100 he most obvious and proximate example is that of the archbishop Michael Choniates, whose keen interest at the turn of the thirteenth century extended from his beloved Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis to the small ancient landmarks of his newly adopted city. His focus was, of course, Athens and not the provincial west coast of Morea, but Anthony Kaldellis has recently demonstrated the need to consider Hellenisms that were taking place at the local level during this period, particularly in outlying locations far from the center.101 he castle of Arkadia would seem to ofer just such a case. Here, however, it was not learned archbishops ataching meanings to landmarks but rather local individuals who may or may not have enjoyed a sophisticated education relying on classical texts. For them, ancient traditions associated with buildings—in this case towers but also ruins, sites, and landscape features—were still alive through the agency of oral tradition, of which the Chronicle of the Morea is the most prominent descendant. If the Latins also embraced the region’s lore and history, their interest likely had its genesis with the indigenous Greek

100 Magdalino, “Rhetoric of Hellenism,” 139–56, outlines the new idealistic tendency, from the twelth century, of intellectuals to rehabilitate the Hellenes and to ailiate ruins with the classical texts they had read. 101 hat is, far from Constantinople. Kaldellis, Christian Parthenon, 178–79, on local pride, and 185–191, on “local Hel lenisms” and medieval curiosity about the material environment. hese ideas are revised from his earlier work, which nevertheless serves as their foundation: Hellenism in Byzantium.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

51

archons who, it will be remembered, acted as their scouts and informants on the ground.102 At the same time, an inkling of ideological atachment to the ancient Greek past can be detected from Western quarters at the highest levels of society, perhaps most famously from Pope Innocent III, who alluded in 1205 to Greece as the wellspring of education and to Athens as “the mother of the arts and the city of leters.”103 In a less positive light, references to the Trojan War were frequent and provided suitable justiication for conquest and especially for the sack of Constantinople.104 Ancestry lore in northern Europe was typically based on the alleged Trojan origins of the Franks.105 Nevertheless, Western idealized notions of an ancient Greek past existed, and these relied on heroic deeds and famous events lited from classical texts. Walter Map, despite his poor opinion of contemporary Greeks, nevertheless acknowledged the “soldierly honour from the days of Achilles, Ajax, and the son of Tydeus”;106 Gunther of Pairis applied the synecdoche “Achaian” (but as a pejorative) to Mourtzouphlos;107 and a famous anecdote has John de la Roche, the French 102 Kaldellis, Christian Parthenon, 181–85, emphasizes the existence in Athens before the thirteenth century of a kind of “tourist mentality,” complete with guides whose purpose it was to identify and explain the ancient monuments of a site to visitors. his in contrast to the thesis of Van der Vin, Travellers, for whom Greek language and history, together with its culture, “let visitors from elsewhere almost entirely unmoved” (181). 103 Lock, Franks in the Aegean, 301; M. Barber, “Western Atitudes to Frankish Greece in the hirteenth Century,” MHR 4, no. 1 (1989): 111–28, esp. 112–13. he pope’s correspondence was aimed at convincing men from Western religious orders to setle in the new Latin empire in Greece. 104 T. Shawcross, “Re-Inventing the Homeland in the Historiography of Frankish Greece: he Fourth Crusade and the Legend of the Trojan War,” BMGS 27 (2003): 120–52. 105 R. Waswo, “Our Ancestors, the Trojans: Inventing Cultural Identity in the Middle Ages,” Exemplaria 7, no. 2 (1995): 269–90. According to the traveler Niccolò Martoni, in the fourteenth century these ideals were also occasionally depicted by the Franks in visual form, as in a mural of the Fall of Troy that he admired in the Latin archbishop’s palace in Patras. Bon, La Morée ranque, 452, 597; Van der Vin, Travellers, 215. 106 In M. R. James, ed. and trans., De Nugis Curialium: Courtiers’ Triles (Oxford, 1914; repr. 1983), 179. 107 A. J. Andrea, ed. and trans., he Capture of Constantinople: he Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis (Philadelphia, 1997), 96.

52

 

Duke of Athens, exhorting his troops in 1275 to perform like “real men” in the marshes of hermopylae with a quote, in Greek, from Herodotus (“in his army many men, indeed, but few soldiers”).108 Further exploration of the sources may yield additional indings to support this notion of interest, though it will surely involve reading between the lines and in the margins. It may require the help of specialists in thirteenth-century philosophy and theology, where intense contact and interaction was played out (and recorded) through the teachings, translations, and debates of scholars from both East and West.109 he exceptional buildings of the Peloponnese discussed above demonstrate a tendency to single out antiquities as something unique by means of their careful placement, isolation, accentuation, framing, and even their emulation. his denotes a fundamental departure from the typical use of spolia in earlier Byzantine churches, where incorporation was oten less carefully conceived. he change is traceable within contemporary monuments located in other regions beyond the Peloponnese, for example in the framing of the west window of the church of St. John Mangoutes in Athens by means of immured chancel slabs (a Latin remodeling using Byzantine spolia). We see it in the abundance of large ancient blocks used to deine apses and demarcate window openings at the church of St. Nicholas and the Archangels at Mokista, near Agrinion, in this case by an educated patron with inscribed, classicizing pretensions. 110 Spolia were incorporated with the utmost skill at the 108 Herodotus 7.210, trans. A. de Sélincourt, he Histories (London, 1988). See Lock, Franks in the Aegean, 299–301, as LT, 52/14–17 and 164/6h. For a diferent view, Van der Vin, Travellers, 178–79, believes the similarity between the Frenchman’s Greek (“poli laos oligo atropi”) and the ancient passage (πολοὶ μὲν ἄνθρωποι εἶεν, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἄνδρες) to be one of coincidence. 109 B. Bydén, “‘Strangle hem with hese Meshes of Syllogisms! Latin Philosophy in Greek Translations of the hirteenth Century,” in Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, ed. J. O. Rosenqvist (Istanbul, 2004), 132–57. 110 he Athenian church of St. John was destroyed in the nineteenth century. K. N. Konstantopoulou, “Ἐπιγραφὴ τοῦ Ναοῦ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου Μαγκούτη,” Ἐπ.Ἑτ.Βυζ.Σπ. 8 (1931): 244–55; A. Palaiouras, Βυζαντινή αιτολοακαρνανία (Athens, 1985), 226–28.

church of the Litle Metropolis in Athens, where reused panels of various periods were paired or neatly ited together as a continuous frieze around the building.111 I think we cannot isolate trends or tendencies regarding the use of spolia as something speciic to the region of the Morea. One wonders whether the more decorative response to the inclusion of spolia was a result of the Latin presence, or whether it had to do with a deepening interest in the appearance of external building facades, with patrons and builders becoming increasingly more exuberant and organized in their conception and handling of masonry and formal articulation. he question of how medieval viewers, whether Byzantine or Latin, perceived the walls of churches during this period is therefore an important one. In the case of highly educated patrons such as William of Moerbeke, issues of visibility may have operated on an intellectual level.112 For others, including everyday visitors, the careful inclusion of images was surely noticed if not admired. he aesthetic appearance of walls matered, and ancient fragments were intended as integral components within an entire constellation of embellishments. his was a pan-Mediterranean phenomenon, one that also featured colorful baccini and a wide variety of sculptural motifs and ways of carving (or “styles”), all of which showcased the exchange of ideas and cratsmen within this multicultural environment. Yet I have tried to show that the thirteenth century witnessed a new outlook with regard to these most public of buildings as places where the past was safeguarded for the beneit of patrons and 111 P. Steiner, “Antike Skulpturen an der Panagia Gorgoepikoos,” AM 31 (1906): 324–41; see B. Kiilerich, “Making Sense of the Spolia in the Litle Metropolis in Athens,” Arte Medievale 4 (2005): 95–114, esp. 108, where a very late (and untenable, to my view), iteenth-century date has been proposed. he dating rests on negative evidence and the predictability of Cyriacus of Ancona’s recording habits and walking routes in Athens. he extant evidence of the immured sculpture should indeed provide a terminus post for the building (at around 1200), but the overall form and style, not to mention its external lamboyance, suggest comparison with structures of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. 112 Moerbeke was interested in the science of optics and the interconnectedness of sight and memory. See D. Lindberg, “Lines of Inluence in hirteenth-Century Optics: Bacon, Witelo, and Pecham,” Speculum 46, no. 1 (1971): 66–83, with Moerbeke discussed at 72–75.

local populations alike. It is no coincidence that at this time important legal documents were being anchored in time and space through their precise dating and inscription on the walls and columns of churches.113 Certainly the monumental stone archive of a standing, sacred building was considered more reliable for recording important human transactions and events than a manuscript predecessor.114 his was initially demonstrated in the Morea through buildings such as those discussed here at Geraki and Mystras, where the Byzantines utilized the walls for the perpetual storage and safeguarding of information. In some cases the whole body of the church was co-opted as a public document of its patron, with ancient fragments serving to render inscribed messages more eicacious and authoritative. Churches had essentially become depots—receptacles for a multiplicity of “artifacts” through which memories could be modiied or transformed but were ultimately atached to local sites and microhistories. hat a foreign patron such as William of Moerbeke understood this is suggested by the monument that is almost certainly his own, where I understand an active Western response modeled on existing, indigenous practices. Meanwhile the “trained Hellenists” of the Byzantine elite were growing ever more conscious of their heroic past, even as local and presumably less well educated populations continued remembering the “Hellenes” through time-worn legends and their atachments to the local ruins that so palpably surrounded them in the landscape of the Frankish Morea.

epilogue: Patrick Leigh Fermor (1915–2011), in Memoriam A discussion about memory and the reception of antiquity across cultures can have no better ending than in the recent past, and no beter 113 See the chapters by S. Gerstel and H. Saradi in this volume. See also S. Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in hirteenth-Century Churches of Greece (Vienna, 1992); eadem, “Church Inscriptions as Documents.” 114 Manuscripts had to be entrusted to individuals, as for example the will of St. Nikon, which was given to an imperial oicial for safekeeping in the twelth century. See Armstrong, “Monasteries Old and New,” 323. his was presumably a greater risk than public inscription.

The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea

53

exemplar than the life of a famous adopted son of the Peloponnese. As with the thirteenth-century Franks, so in the case of Patrick Leigh Fermor we have a westerner transplanted—in this case through his own “private invasions” of learned wanderings—to the land of Greece.115 hese were interrupted by World War II, and a now famous anecdote involving this British writer and then– Special Forces operator tells of the young adventurer’s participation in the daring capture of Major General Heinrich Kreipe on the island of Crete in 1944. Having been abducted from Heraklion by a group of Cretan and British resistance ighters (including Fermor), the general was shutled about by his captors for some weeks in the rugged White Mountains under diicult and trying circumstances. here is a poignant moment in Leigh Fermor’s account in which a brilliant dawn breaking over Mount Ida inspired the German general to quietly recite a poem he had learned long ago as a schoolboy in Germany. It was an Ode of Horace—Ad haliarchum—and he quoted it in Latin.116 He was emotionally moved and unable to inish it, but the coincidence of a good European 115 P. L. Fermor, Mani: Travels in the Southern Peloponnese (London, 1958), xiii. 116 P. L. Fermor, A Time of Gits, rev. ed. (New York, 2005), 85–86. he ode of Horace is Ad haliarchum 1.9.

54

 

education featuring the classics ofered itself up for dramatic efect. Leigh Fermor knew it, and he completed the remaining stanzas. According to the account, their eyes met, the general whispered “Ach so, Herr Major!” and a new understanding was forged between the two men. Leigh Fermor says of the event, “It was very strange. As though, for a long moment, the war had ceased to exist. We had both drunk at the same fountain long before; and things were diferent between us for the rest of our time together.” Here is a didactic occasion wherein a memorized text transcended the barriers of time, nationality, ideology, and language. Leigh Fermor’s anecdote illustrates a moment wherein two individuals—biter enemies, in fact, if simultaneously sharing the role of Western Europeans ighting on Greek soil—entered into a kind of mutual understanding, one that made their subsequent time together more palatable because of mutual exposure to an ancient poem and, perhaps, the implicit sharing of a common humanistic heritage. his of course has a familiar ring. he common denominator between them of a single classical reference is a poignant reminder of a situation far removed from the thirteenth-century Morea, where French conquerors and local inhabitants conversed with a perceived past and embedded its remnants in the walls of their monumental architecture.

The Triangle of Power Building Projects in the Metropolitan Area of the Crusader Principality of the Morea

KL De m et r io s At h a na s ou l i s

U

ntil r ecently the Fr ankish pr esence in Greece,1 and above all in the Principality of Achaia, the crusader state of the Morea, has remained a matter of marginal interest to archaeologists. Scholarly orientation toward Greece’s classical heritage, the modesty of Frankish remains in comparison with their counterparts in Western Europe and the crusader Levant, the pejorative use of the term Frankokratia with its connotations of decline and oppression, and the exclusion of the Moreote crusader period from a national narrative (whether Greek, French, or other) are all factors that have delayed the development of the comprehensive study of the Principality of Achaia.2 Indifference, bias, and a lack of systematic research have often led to mistaken conclusions about the monumental heritage of the crusader Morea. The preconception of a repressed Greek/Orthodox population, for example, has led scholars to misinterpret evidence the buildings themselves provide. Thus the region’s most important churches, built in the Byzantine style during the crusader period, have been assigned to the periods just before and even after the Frankish occupation. These buildings include, among others, the church of Panagia at Merbaka in the Argolid, erected by William of

K  I thank Eleni Georgouli and Christos Arvanitakis for the execution of Clermont and Glarentza plans, and professor Nicolas Faucherre for our fruitful conversations on Chloumoutzi. This paper was completed at Bodleian Library, Oxford, thanks to a British School at Athens Centenary Bursary. 1  On the history of crusader Greece, see W. Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204–1566) (London, 1908); P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204–1500 (London and New York, 1995) with further bibliography; on the crusader Peloponnese, see A. Bon, La Morée franque: Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430) (Paris, 1969). For a brief overview, see D. Athanasoulis and M. Georgopoulou, “On the Principality of Achaia (1205–1430),” in Crusades, Myth and Realities, ed. Y. Toumazis, M. R. Belgiorno, and S. Antoniadou (Nicosia, 2004), 163–69. 2  For the nationalist as well as the procolonialist discourse in crusader archaeology, see R. Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories (Cambridge, 2007).

111

Andravida, Church of St. Sophia, corbel head (photo: S. Gerstel)

Moerbeke, the Latin archbishop of Corinth;3 the first phase of the katholikon of the Blachernai Monastery near Glarentza;4 Panagia Katholike at Gastouni, which was sponsored by a family of Greek archontes;5 and Pantanassa at Geroumana, Lakonia, a Hospitaller foundation.6 It is only in recent decades and following the systematic study of sites in the Principality of Achaia that stereotypes have begun to be overturned and the true character of the crusader Peloponnese to be gradually revealed.7 Today, we are finally able to appreciate that monuments such as the castle of Chlemoutsi (the medieval name of the castle is Chloumoutzi) were pioneering and outstanding works of medieval architecture. We are also able to accept that the Ρωμιοί, the Greeks, as subjects of the Frankish conquerors, did not lack the freedom or the means to build important churches on a par with those of the middle Byzantine period. This chapter will attempt to reevaluate and interpret architectural production in the principality’s metropolitan area. The center of crusader authority in the Peloponnese developed in the plain of the Morea, a fertile and flat area. Its 3  M. L. Coulson, “The Church of Merbaka, Cultural Diversity and Integration in the 13th Century Peloponnese” (PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, 2002); C. Bouras and L. Boura, Η ελλαδική ναοδομία κατά τον 12 ο αιώνα (Athens, 2002), 331–32. 4  D. Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης κατά την Μέση και την Ύστερη Βυζαντινή Περίοδο” (PhD diss., University of Thessalonike, 2006), 144–86. 5  D. Athanasoulis, “H αναχρονολόγηση της Παναγίας Καθολικής στην Γαστούνη,” Δελτ.Χριστ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 24 (2003): 63–77. 6  A. Louvi-Kizi, “Η Παντάνασσα της Γερουμάνας: Ένα μνημείο των Ιωαννιτών Ιπποτών,” Σύμμεικτα 16 (2003–4): 357–78. 7  For example, compare research on crusader Corinth. See C. K. Williams II, “Frankish Corinth: An Overview,” in Corinth, vol. 20, The Centenary: 1896–1996 (Athens, 2003), 423–34, with relevant bibliography. For the attribution of important Byzantine monuments to this period see C. Bouras, “The Impact of Frankish Architecture on Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Architecture,” in The Cru­ sades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. A. Laiou and R. P. Mottahedeh (Washington, DC, 2001), 247–62; Athanasoulis, “H αναχρονολόγηση.” The Principality of the Morea will become better known to the general public through the themed museum set up in the royal castle of Chlemoutsi (D. Athanasoulis, “Οι ιππότες στο Clermont: Ένα μουσείο για τους σταυροφόρους,” Ilissia 5–6 [2009–10]: 36–45).

112

demetrios athanasoulis

position at the western edge of the Peloponnesian peninsula, modern-day Elis, facilitated a direct line of communication with Western Europe (fig. 1). Three sites in the Morea form the focus of this study: Andravida, Chlemoutsi, and Glar­ entza. Located close to one another (the distance between Chlemoutsi and Glarentza is no more than 5 kilometers) and in the form of a triangle, these linked sites, when investigated, reveal the nature of the administrative, economic, and military center of the principality. This study has been facilitated by archaeological investigations over the last decade, which have revealed new information about the plan and function of each site. Following the conquest of the Morea by the knights of William of Champlitte and Geoffrey I of Villehardouin in 1205, Andravida, an insignificant Byzantine town, rose to prominence as capital of the new state. The prince’s castle was erected approximately 12 kilometers southwest, on the top of Mount Chlemoutsi. At an equal distance from the capital, in the only suitable spot along the marshy western coastline, a port, known as Glarentza, was added less than sixty years later. This polycentric development at the heart of the Frankish principality echoes the construction of sites in Lusignan Cyprus, where the triangle of power is made up of the capital Nicosia; the castle of St. Hilarion, which also functioned as a summer palace and was built on a strategic peak with natural strength; and the fortified port of Kyrenia. In Cyprus, as in the Peloponnese, all three sites had palaces.8 Using this triangle one can more easily follow the way in which Frankish princes, and particularly the Villehardouin dynasty, established firm hegemony following the model of Western kingdoms. In order to understand how these sites worked together in the Morea, it is first necessary to examine them individually, taking into account recent discoveries that amplify our understanding of their planning and function. 8  C. Enlart, L’architecture gothique et de la Renaissance en Chypre (Paris, 1899), 525–38, 559–96; N. Faucherre, “Kan­ tara, Buffavent et Saint Hilarion: Notes sur trois châteaux du Pentadactyle,” in L’art gothique en Chypre, ed. J.-B. Vaivre and P. Plaignieux (Paris, 2006), 375–83, at 381–83; N. Faucherre, “Le château de Cérines,” in ibid., 384–90; K. Molin, Unknown Crusader Castles (London and New York, 2001), 272.

Rio

lit

ik

Kounoupeli o R . Tower Palaiopanagia Manolada

Lechaina Andravida H. Sophia

Glarentza St Francis

Vlacherna Monastery

SKIAD

OV

Paleopolis Bouchioti

O

M

O

U

N

AS RE MO AIN PL

LO

N

OS

T

NT

TRA AS

S

OU

M

I

Gastouni

ACHAIA

N

Katholike

R.

M

I

U

Pe n e i o s Chloumoutzi Clermont Castle

N

O

R

O

SA

T

E

Oria Castle

Divri Hagia Trias

Mesovouni

ELI

Goumero Olena Castle

R.

Chelidoni

Skaphidia Monastery

ARCADIA

E r y ma n t h os

KAP

Roviata

Pontiko Beauvoir

A lph i os R .

Al

io . sR

Our Lady Isova Monastery

Smerna

Ionian Sea

ph

Hagios Nicolaos

Platiana

Nerovitza

Xerochori

A

Araklovo

U MO

NT

K O R

Castle, Settlement Church

10km

Andravida: The Administrative Center The state’s first capital, Andravida (Andreville for the Franks), preserves very few remains of its built fabric.9 Unwalled,10 the town was the site of the prince’s palace and several Latin churches. Only the sanctuary of one thirteenth-century Gothic church remains; this church belonged to the Dominicans and has traditionally been identified as St. Sophia (fig. 2).11 The church was a large three-aisled, 9 Bon, La Morée franque, 318–20 and passim. 10  Even in the Near East, many cities under Frankish rule lacked walls. See A. Boas, Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East (London and New York, 1999), 11. 11 Bon, La Morée franque, 547–53 and passim; B. Kitsiki-

S Panagia Glatsa Mophkitza Zourtza Soteras Mountra Strovitzi Hagia Anna Neda R .

Kopanitza

Vervitza

AIN ALV

T

A

Crévecoeur Castle

Figure 1 

Hagia Helene Castle

MOUNT LYKAION

Linistena Pavlitza

MESSENIA

timber-roofed basilica with a sanctuary and side chapels covered with ribbed groin vaults (fig. 3 and fig. on p. 110). St. Sophia was the court chapel of the Villehardouins, an assembly hall for the nobles, and the cathedral of the Latin bishop of Olena. Two famous pieces of sculpture form material evidence Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece (Chicago, 1979), 65–77; C. D. Sheppard, “The Frankish Cathedral of Andravida, Elis, Greece,” JSAH 44 (1985): 205–20; C. D. Sheppard, “Excavations at the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, Andravida, Greece,” Gesta 25 (1986): 139–44; N. Cooper, “The Frankish Church of Haghia Sophia at Andravida,” in The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, ed. P. Lock and G. D. R. Sanders (Oxford, 1996), 29–47; M. L. Coulson, “The Dominican Church of Saint Sophia at Andravida,” in ibid., 49–59.

The Triangle of Power

113

Map of Frankish Elis (unless otherwise noted, photos and plans in this chapter are by the author)

Figure 2 

Andravida. Church of St. Sophia, view from the west

for the town’s critical role in the principality: the funerary slab of Princess Agnes, consort of William of Villehardouin and daughter of the Epirote despot, Michael II Angelos Doukas Komnenos, dated 1286 (see Haines, fig. 12, and Papalexandrou, figs. 1, 2),12 and a capital decorated with the coat of arms of the Villehardouin princes and of Florent of Hainaut, dated 1289–97 (fig. 4).13 Excavations within the urban fabric of modern Andravida in recent years have produced a few artifacts but no additional building remains, leading us to believe that medieval Andravida stretched beyond the limits of the modern town, possibly to the north, where it seems likely that two churches known to us from written sources,

Figure 3 

Andravida. Church of St. Sophia, choir vaulting

Figure 4 

Andravida. Capital decorated with the coat of arms of the Villehardouin princes and of Florent of Hainaut, 1289–1297

12  Α. Bon, “Dalle funéraire d’une princesse de Morée (XIIIe s.),” Monuments et Mémoires 49 (1957): 129–39; D. Athanasoulis, “Tombstone of Princess Anna (Agnès) de Villehardouin,” in Toumazis, Belgiorno, and Antoniadou, Crusades, Myth and Realities, 186–87, with further bibliography. 13  A. Bon, “Pierres inscrites ou armoriées de la Morée franque,” Δελτ.Χριστ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 4 (1964–1965): 90; Bon, La Morée franque, 590–91.

114

demetrios athanasoulis

St. Stephen and St. James (Hagios Iakovos), the mausoleum of the Villehardouins, were located.14 The surprising lack of archaeological evidence does not allow for even a partial reconstruction of the town’s appearance or its comparison with Byzantine cities, such as Corinth, which flourished after 1205.15 The town gradually lost its administrative role and after the first decades of the fourteenth century the capital of the principality was transferred to Glarentza,16 which had already developed into a large economic center. The last known official document issued in Andravida was during the reign of Mahaut of Hainaut (1314–1318).17

Glarentza: The Economic Center One can better trace the long-term planning of the Frankish princes at Glarentza (Clarence for the Franks) and Chlemoutsi (fig. 1). Curiously, the written sources are silent on the foundation of Glarentza.18 Pottery and archaeological evidence suggest its establishment after 1250. Numis­ matic evidence suggests its foundation no later than the early 1260s, since the Glarentza mint issued deniers tournois ca. 1267; there are no preGlarentzan tournois present there.19 The earliest 14 Sheppard, “Frankish Cathedral of Andravida,” 212–13; S. Lampros [G. Soteriou], “Εἰδήσεις,” Νέος Ἑλλ. 13 (1916): 477–85, at 480–81. 15  Williams, “Frankish Corinth.” 16  “Τοῦ πρίγκιπα ἦτον τὸ σκαμνὶ ἡ χώρα ἡ Γλαρέντζα”: G. Schirò, ed.,Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia (Rome, 1975), v. 540. 17  A. Tzavara, Glarentza: Une ville de la Morée latine (XIII– XV e siècles) (Venice, 2008), 304. 18  For Glarentza, see Bon, La Morée franque, 320–25, 602–7 and passim; H. Saradi-Mendelovici, “Η Μεσαιωνική Γλαρέντζα,” Δίπτυχα 2 (1980–81): 61–71; O. J. Schmitt, “Zur Geschichte der Stadt Glarentza im 15. Jahrhundert,” Byzantion 65 (1995): 98–135; M. Balard, “Clarence: Escale génoise aux XIIIe –XIVe siècles,” in Byzance et ses péri­ pheries: Hommage à Alain Ducellier, ed. B. Doumerc and C. Picard (Toulouse, 2004), 185–203; D. Athanasoulis, Clarence (Athens, 2005); Tzavara, Glarentza, with further bibliography. 19  For the numismatic evidence and the mint: D. Athanasoulis and J. Baker, “Medieval Glarentza, The Coins 1999–2004, with Additional Medieval Coin Finds from the nomos of Elis,” NC 168 (2008): 241–301, with further bibliography.

medieval coin found in the town is a Conrad I Hohenstaufen penny (1250–54). Glarentza is first mentioned in an entry in the Chronicle of the Morea for the year 1264; there is also mention of a hospital in 1268.20 In 1276 the assemblies of the prince and his nobles were held in this location.21 The first reference to a castellan of Glarentza appears in 1278.22 Given that William II was captured by Michael VIII Palaiologos after the Battle of Pela­ gonia in 1259 and kept prisoner until 1262, it is highly unlikely that he founded a town immediately after his release. Since we have mentions from 1264, foundation of the town only one or two years earlier is unlikely. The material indicates an even earlier dating in the mid-1250s. Moreover, there is no information on such an aggressive building initiative after William’s return, when the principality had abandoned its ambition to play a major role in the conquered lands of Romania. Any connection of the town’s foundation with its alliance with the Kingdom of Naples must also be rejected since this materialized only after the Treaty of Viterbo of 1267, when Glarentza was already in existence. Glarentza had its own mint in 1267. Thus Glarentza was most probably founded by Prince William II of Villehardouin before his capture, as part of his plan to make the principality the dominant power in the Balkans.23 His expansionist policy was combined with strengthening the defensive organization of the state, which included the construction of castles, such as the one at Mystras. The foundation of the port of Glarentza in the westernmost part of the Morea served multiple aims: 1. Political and ideological. William’s initiative in founding Glarentza recalls similar moves on the part of the French King Louis IX (Saint Louis), who also established new towns.24 20  P. Kalonaros, ed., Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως (Athens, 1940), v. 5843; Tzavara, Glarentza, 28–29, 92. 21  Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, vv. 7389–7400; Tzavara, Glarentza, 30–31. 22 Tzavara, Glarentza, 105. 23  Also compare the Aragonese version of the Chronicle of the Morea, which places the foundation of Glarentza after that of Chlemoutsi, during the reign of William II: A. Morel-Fatio, ed., Libro de los fechos et conquistas del princi­ pado de la Morea (Geneva, 1885), 49. 24 Tzavara, Glarentza, 77.

The Triangle of Power

115

Aigues-Mortes, for example, has a number of features in common with William’s port: the town was founded in the 1240s by the French king ex nihilo on the marshy shore of the Mediterranean for both commercial and politico-military purposes. 25 Saint Louis, a symbol of the knight king for that period, acted as a model for William’s own rulership.26 2. Strategic and military. The port ensured that the Franks and their capital had direct access to Western Europe, their metropolitan center, a line of communication of particular political as well as military importance, since it avoided relying on the Venetian possessions. The relationship with the West was strengthened after the Treaty of Viterbo in 1267, which gave the Angevins in Naples suzerainty over the principality. Glarentza emerged gradually as the capital of the crusader state to the detriment of Andravida. Unwalled and located in the hinterland, Andravida was potentially vulnerable to the attacks of the Byzantines of Mystras. 3. Commercial. Glarentza opened up a direct gateway for trading purposes, ensuring economic benefits to the principality. The port im­­mediately became part of the Mediterra­ nean sea routes. Among the measures taken toward the economic independence of the state was the minting of deniers tournois in Glarentza from 1267.27 The archaeological exploration of Glarentza, though still in its early stages, has already provided invaluable information on the town’s history.28

Abandoned in the fifteenth century, Glarentza preserves its medieval layers undisturbed.29 The town was built from scratch on the coast (fig. 5), surrounded by the sea on the north and west, and protected by a wall and moat on the east and south. The walled chora or kastron had an irregular shape and covered an area of roughly 450 × 350 meters. The harbor was fortified from the north, as attested by the remains of the eastern sea tower, which was joined to the city walls. A second tower probably existed at the harbor’s west end, as mentioned in the Tocco Chronicle, which speaks of a port between two towers (Dipyrga): “καὶ μέσα εἰς τὰ Δίπυργα, πλησίο εἰς τὸ μπορίο, μία γαλιότα ἔμορφη ἦτον ἐκεῖ ῥαγμένη.”30 A mole can now be seen entering the sea and forming the harbor’s mouth inside the Dipyrga.31 Glarentza had anchorage for large ships, which made the town one of the regular stopping-off points in the Mediterranean. Today, one can make out the enclosed harbor as well as the docks and the outer reaches of the extensive port installations.32 The commercial sector, the so-called μπορίο (emporeion) of the Tocco Chronicle, lay next to the harbor.33 A dividing wall separated the port area and the commercial sector from the town. The enceinte and the moat follow the contour of the land around the low mound on which the town was built (fig. 6).34 Although the walled town (kastron) was undoubtedly small, it is impossible to estimate the extent of the town extra muros without archaeological investigation. Rescue excavations beyond the moat have uncovered pottery and finds, which indicate the existence of an

25  J. Sablou, “Saint Louis et le problème de la fondation d’Aigues-mortes,” in Hommage à André Dupont: Études médiévales languedociennes (Montpellier, 1974), 255–65; M.-E. Bellet and P. Florençon, The City of Aigues-Mortes (Paris, 2001); J. Richard, “Acre au regard d’Aigues-Mortes,” in In Laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in Crusades and Medieval Culture in Honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar, ed. I. Shagrir, R. Ellenblum, and J. Riley-Smith (London, 2007), 211–18. 26  See also Louis IX’s presumed permission to William II to mint deniers tournois: E. Papadopoulou, ed., Μαρίνος Σανούδος Τορσέλλο: Ιστορία της Ρωμανίας (Athens, 2000), 106–7, 228. See also the chapter by J. Baker and A. Stahl in this volume. 27  On the town’s strategic location within the principality, see Molin, Castles, 228, 234–35. 28  For the town’s topography and new data, see Athana­ soulis, Clarence.

29  Its monuments, however, are poorly preserved, since the site served as a quarry for the new village. See Bon, La Morée franque, 602. 30 Schirò, Cronaca dei Tocco, vv. 587–88. 31 Bon, La Morée franque, 607. 32  Ibid., 606–7; Tzavara, Glarentza, 98–101; Athanasoulis, Clarence, 26. Cf. Acre, the most important port in the Frankish Levant with its inner and outer harbors: A. Boas, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Frankish Period: A Unique Medieval Society Emerges,” Near Eastern Archaeology 61, no. 3 (1988): 138–73, at 145–46; Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 34. 33 Schirò, Cronaca dei Tocco, v. 587, 590. 34 Bon, La Morée franque, 602–3; Athanasoulis, Clarence, 26–30.

116

demetrios athanasoulis

extra muros sector, or bourkos,35 which would have developed along the two main land routes leading to Andravida and Chlemoutsi. During a 1391 census, however, only three hundred homes were registered in Glarentza, suggesting a population of approximately twelve hundred residents. The residents were mainly Western Europeans, mostly Italians, but also some Greeks.36 The walls, which may well have been destroyed in the Middle Ages, were built of rubble, with 35  On the term, cf. Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, vv. 1687, 8236. See also A. Ilieva, “Images of Towns in Frankish Morea: The Evidence of the ‘Chronicles’ of the Morea and the Tocco,” BMGS 19 (1995): 94–119, at 106–7. 36 Tzavara, Glarentza, 139–200.

fragments of tiles in the joints and clay mortar. The joints were concealed with plaster. In some places the walls bear signs of repairs and reinforcement. Their rough construction and a low stairway leading to the wall walk suggest that they were not very high (fig. 5, no. 6). Rectangular towers reinforced the enceinte at intervals, particularly at crucial points, such as corners and gateways (fig. 5, nos. 7–10). Rectangular towers, the most common and simple form of tower, are typical of the region’s Byzantine fortifications and can be seen at the Hexamilion Wall, Acrocorinth, Argos, and Patras.37 They are also, however, characteristic 37  For the Hexamilion, see T. Gregory, Isthmia, vol. 5, The Hexamilion and the Fortress (Princeton, 1993), esp. 132–34.

The Triangle of Power

117

Figure 5 

Glarentza. Plan: 1. Kastro-chora 2. Harbor 3. Commercial sector 4. Enceinte 5. Moat 6. Wall walk staircase 7. Towers 8. Pentagonal tower 9. East Gate 10. South Gate 11. Fortress 12. Church of St. Francis 13. Bourkos? (plan by D. Athanasoulis, E. Georgouli, and D. Roumpas)

Figure 6 

Glarentza. Aerial view (K. Xenikakis)

of many Frankish fortifications in the Peloponnese, such as Akova, Androusa, Kiveri, Ayionori, Mila, and Ayios Vasileios.38 The towers of Glarentza were For Acrocorinth, see A. Bon, “The Medieval Fortifications of Acrocorinth and Vicinity,” in Corinth, vol. 2, pt. 2, The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town, R. Carpenter and A. Bon (Cambridge, MA, 1936), 128–81, 160–281. For Argos, see K. Andrews, Castles of the Morea (Princeton, 1953; repr. 2006), 106–15. For Patras, see ibid., 116–29; M. Georgopou­ lou, “Η πρώτη οικοδομική φάση του κάστρου της Πάτρας,” in Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία: Αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στην Δυτική Πελοπόννησο, proceedings of the International Symposium, ed. P. Themelis and V. Konti, Athens, 29–30 May 1998 (Athens, 2002), 161–73. 38  For Akova, see Bon, La Morée franque, 634–35, pls. 83–85; E. Meyer, Peloponnesische Wanderungen (Zurich and Leipzig, 1939), plan 3; K. Kourelis, “Medieval Settlements— Catalogue of Citadels,” in Houses of the Morea, ed. F. Cooper (Athens, 2002), 52–127, at 82–85. For Androusa, see Bon, La Morée franque, 637–39; Androusa, in Venetians and Knights Hospitallers: Military Architecture Networks, ARCHIMED Pilot Action, Athens 2002, 66–67 [catalog entry N. Bouza]. For Kiveri, see W. McLeod, “Kiveri and Thermisi,”

118

demetrios athanasoulis

stronger and taller than its walls and used lime mortar as bonding material. The ruined sea tower in the harbor is pentagonal and built on a grid of wooden planks as one would expect in fortifications built on water or unstable ground.39 Glarentza had three gates.40 The first, the socalled Sea Gate (τοῦ γιαλοῦ ἡ πόρτα),41 located Hesperia 31 (1962): 378–92, esp. 382–86. For Ayionori, see K. Kordosis, “Ἡ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ τοῦ κάστρου (Γουλάς),” Ἱστορικογεωγραφικὰ 2 (1987–88): 253–56. For Mila, see Bon, La Morée franque, 656–58. For Ayios Vasileios, see ibid., 635–37, pl. 129. See also the chapter by T. Gregory in this volume. For their use in the metropolitan castles of Europe: J. Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes de la France médiévale: De la défense à la résidence, 2 vols. (Paris, 1991–93), 1:288–91. 39  For the pentagonal tower of the Frankish castle of Androusa, see Bon, La Morée franque, 637–39; Molin, Cas­ tles, 204. 40 Bon, La Morée franque, 603–4; Athanasoulis, Clarence, 28–31. 41 Schirò, Cronaca dei Tocco, v. 601.

in the dividing wall that communicated with the commercial sector and the port, has not yet been identified. This wall and its gate, which had shutters clad with sheets of iron, are described in the siege episode in the Tocco Chronicle.42 Directly before the second, or East Gate, was a stone bridge with a pointed arch that spanned the moat (fig. 5, no. 9). Beyond the bridge is a section of the road, which probably led to Andravida. The third gate was located in the southeast, facing Chlemoutsi (fig. 5, no. 10). All three took the form of a gate tower with a vaulted entryway.43 The information that the Sea Gate was a gate tower also derives from the Tocco Chronicle, which mentions that the captain went up the gate’s tower (“Ὁ καπετάνιος . . . εἰς πύργον κἄτι ἀνέβηκεν, ὅπου ἦτον εἰς τὴν πόρταν”).44 As was common for the period, a portcullis, doors, and, possibly, a murder hole protected the East Gate.45 Glarentza’s fortifications were weak, and their masonry reveals hasty construction. With the exception of the gates, the fortifications were simple, unsophisticated structures that did not incorporate the achievements of contemporary defensive systems in Western Europe and the Levant. Perhaps this was intentional. According to the Chronicle of the Morea, Chlemoutsi was the castle meant to protect the coast and harbor,46 even though this never worked out in practice. The evidence of the written sources and the vital importance of coastal castles and ports for the Franks47 suggest that the walls of Glarentza, which also served as the principality’s administrative and economic center, housing as it did the state mint, were contemporary with the town’s foundation.48 It is not a coincidence that the first sites to be taken 42  Ibid., vv. 597–619. 43  Cf. Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:309–11. 44 Schirò, Cronaca dei Tocco, vv. 628–29. 45  The succession of portcullis and door shutters is typical in French fortifications: Jean Mesqui, “La fortification des portes avant la Guerre de Cent Ans,” Archéologie Médiévale 11 (1981): 203–29; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:326–29; A. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders (New York, 2006), 168–70. Cf. also the Frankish gate of the castle of Olena in Elis: Bon, La Morée franque, 652, fig. 17; Kourelis, “Medieval Settlements,” 86–89. 46  Below, note 93. 47  See about the crusader Levant, where all the coastal cities were defended with walls, Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 11. 48 Tzavara, Glarentza, 79–81.

by the Franks (and the last to be relinquished) were on the coast. Glarentza enabled the Franks to maintain a constant flow of troops and supplies from the west. Its critical location is confirmed by the frequent sieges (it fell to the enemy or changed hands five times),49 in contrast with Chlemoutsi Castle, which was never a strategic target for attack. The available archaeological data suggest that like other crusader castles of the Morea, the Frankish town did not originally have an inner ward.50 An L-shaped inner enceinte with rectangular towers on three corners forming a small rectangular fortress was a later addition inside the southwest corner of the walls (figs. 5–7).51 The curtain wall was strengthened by buttresses, which formed blind arcades along the internal facade,52 while slightly concave built corbels widened the wall walk. The elevated gate was located in the lateral side of the south tower in order to be perpendicular to the curtain wall so that those entering had their right flank exposed to the latter. Behind the doors the entryway formed a right angle with the corridor leading to the fortress (fig. 8).53 The north tower had a vaulted ground floor and an upper floor with windows, niches, and arrow slits. The walls are made of rubble and strong lime mortar, with brick fragments and even pottery sherds in the joints. Western elements are also visible in the construction (stone gate frame with composite section, corbels, arrow slits, window seats, chamfered base). The stylistic and structural features of this addition, the widespread reuse of clearly Western-style architectural members as building materials (spolia) (fig. 9a–h), the foundation of the walls on the ruins of a Frankish building, and an incised Greek inscription on the gate 49  Ibid., 304–5. 50  See Androusa, Messenia (N. Kontogiannis, “Settle­ ments and Countryside of Messenia during the Late Mid­d le Ages: The Testimony of the Fortifications,” BMGS 34 [2010]: 3–29, at 16–17). 51 Bon, La Morée franque, 604–6; Athanasoulis, Clarence, 30–35. 52  See the curtain wall of Androusa (Bon, La Morée franque, 637, 638, pls. 95–96; Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 16); the inner enclosure of the castle of Patras, considered as Palaiologan (M. Georgopoulou, Το κάστρο της Πάτρας [Athens, 2000], 37, figs. 28, 31); and the Palaiologan castle of Leondari. 53 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes 1:325–26.

The Triangle of Power

119

Figure 7 

Glarentza. Aerial view of the remains of the fortress and the excavation (dwelling), looking southeast (T. Brenningmeyer)

tower bearing the date 1441–42 (+ἔ[τει] ϛϡΝ) suggest that the inner enceinte was erected after the town had returned to Byzantine rule. Since there are no references to the inner ward in the earlier texts (Chronicle of the Morea, Tocco Chronicle), it was likely built in the fifteenth century. Written sources mention a two-story dwelling for the princes at Glarentza.54 Excavations under the fortress have uncovered a large building, which may be identified as the “hôtel des princes” (figs. 7, 8).55 The structure has three ground-floor rooms; the thick east wall suggests that there was a second story. The well-built ground-floor doors and windows with their composite frames, as well as the large number of high-quality architectural 54  Saradi-Mendelovici, “Γλαρέντζα,” 71; Tzavara, Glar­ entza, 84–88; Schirò, Cronaca dei Tocco, vv. 635–39: “Ὁ κόντος δὲ ἀνέβηκεν εἰς τὸ παλάτι ἀπάνου καὶ μετ’ αὐτὸν οἱ ἄρ­­χον­τες ρωμαῖοι καὶ ἀλβανῖται: Χαίρονται καὶ ἀγάλλονται μέσα εἰς τὸ παλάτι. ’ς τὲς κάμαρες έσέβησαν διὰ νὰ τὲς θεωροῦ­ σιν, ὃτι ἦσαν ὄμορφες πολλά, καλὰ διορθωμένες.” 55 Athanasoulis, Clarence, 32.

120

demetrios athanasoulis

members and a large stone coat of arms belonging to the Villehardouin family that were found on site, support the identification of this building as the princes’ residence (fig. 9).56 Very few architectural remains belonging to the settlement are visible today or were recorded by Antoine Bon before World War II.57 The written sources tell us that Glarentza had many churches, as well as shops and banks, houses, gardens, hospitals, and workshops, such as a forge, storehouses,58 and a mint.59 A Venetian church dedicated to 56  The only surviving medieval urban palace in the Morea, considered as Frankish, is the first construction phase of the Mystras palace. See A. Orlandos, Τα παλάτια και τα σπίτια του Μυστρά, 2nd ed. (Athens, 2000), 24–39; S. Sinos, “Το παλάτι,” in The Monuments of Mystras, ed. S. Sinos (Athens, 2009), 337ff. 57 Bon, La Morée franque, 606, pl. 22. 58 Tzavara, Glarentza, 90–95. 59  M. Ntourou-Eliopoulou, Η Ανδεγαυική κυριαρχία στην Ρωμανία επί Καρόλου Α΄ (1266–1285) (Athens, 1987), 96; J. Baker and M. Ponting, “The Early Period of Minting of

Figure 8  Glarentza. South tower and gate of the fortress and the excavation (dwelling) (D. Athanasoulis and C. Arvanitakis)

The Triangle of Power

121

d

a

b

e

c

g

f

h

Figure 9  Glarentza. Sculpture from excavations of the fortress and dwelling area. a, c, g, h: engaged capitals of stone frames;

b: stone coat of arms of Villehardouin; d: carved stone of composite frame with engaged capital; e, f: mullion.

122

demetrios athanasoulis

Figure 10 

Glarentza. Church of St. Francis and the East Gate, view from northeast (K. Xenikakis)

Figure 11 

Glarentza. Church of St. Francis, reconstruction (D. Athanasoulis and S. Mamaloukos)

St. Mark was built on property belonging to the Franciscans, possibly close to their monastery.60 A large Gothic building recently excavated adjacent to the east wall has been identified as the church of St. Francis (figs. 5, 10, 11).61 It is an

elongated timber-roofed hall, 43 meters long and 15 meters wide. The church ends in a rectangular sanctuary with two side chapels, all covered with groin vaults, the ribs of which are supported on columns placed in the corners. A masonry chancel

Deniers Tournois in the Principality of Achaia (to 1289) and Their Relation to the Issues of the Duchy of Athens,” NC 161 (2001): 207–54; Tzavara, Glarentza, 96–97. 60 Tzavara, Glarentza, 92. 61 Bon, La Morée franque, 559–61; Athanasoulis, Clarence,

32–38. The Franciscan provincial of Romania resided in Glarentza. See L. Fery Ranner, “Mendicant Orders in the Principality of Achaia and the Latin Communal Identity,” BMGS 31, no. 2 (2007): 157–69, 159; N. I. Tsougarakis, The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204–1500 (Turnhout, 2012).

The Triangle of Power

123

Figure 12 

Glarentza. Church of St. Francis, Tomb 1, warrior saint

[choir] screen, decorated with a painted imitation of ashlar masonry, separated the clergy from the congregation.62 The church had three entrances, two on its long walls that communicated with the choir, and a monumental doorway on the building’s “official” west facade. Dressed stone was used in building the openings and for architectural details, and ashlar for the west facade. The walls had a chamfered base. The frames of the openings were decorated with moldings, half-columns, and ribs, which had painted decoration. The vaults were constructed of brick, as in the nearby church of St. Sophia at Andravida (figs. 2, 3), with stone ribbing. The floor was laid with a kind of cement. In photographs taken before the ruins were destroyed during World War II, one can make out the height of the long sides and the large, pointed windows.63 The style of the masonry of the long walls is purely Byzantine (rubble and fragments of tile in the joints), and the dentil band running along all four sides and framing the window arches betrays the presiding role, rather than ancillary presence, of Greek masons in the building’s overall construction. 62  See J. E. Jung, “Seeing through Screens: The Gothic Choir Enclosure as Frame,” in Thresholds of the Sacred, ed. S. Gerstel (Washington, DC, 2006), 185–213; J. E. Jung, “Beyond the Barrier: The Unifying Role of the Choir Screen in Gothic Churches,” ArtB 82 (2000): 622–57. 63 Bon, La Morée franque, 559–61, pl. 24b.

124

demetrios athanasoulis

In the nave, dozens of robbed graves have been excavated. Built tombs were arranged along the long sides. Several had the form of pseudosarcophagi and arcosolia.64 Tombs were also placed along the outside of the long walls. Coins, pottery, and the trappings of clothes were found inside the graves. Bits of armor, buckles, bronze and gilded spurs,65 and daggers suggest that some of the tombs belonged to knights.66 Above Tomb 1, outside of the northern side chapel, was a wall painting of an equestrian warrior saint inscribed in Latin but painted in a Byzantine style (fig. 12). A figure beside him, in Western garb, probably represented the deceased. The grave is situated in the thickness of the wall and seems to be contemporary with the church’s construction, suggesting that it may have belonged to the patron. Remains of crusader painting in the Morea are rare, the 64  For the typology of tombs in Latin Greece, see E. Ivison, “Latin Tombs in the Levant. 1204–ca. 1450,” in Lock and Sanders, Archaeology of Medieval Greece, 91–106. See also Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 226–36. 65  Geoffrey of Villehardouin maintained eighty knights with golden spurs (80 cavallieri a spiron d’oro). See Papado­ poulou, Μαρίνος Σανούδος Τορσέλλο: Ιστορία της Ρωμανίας, 104–5. 66  The sources mention burials at Glarentza and in St. Francis in particular, such as the Bailie Pierroto Arimeno (1357), Jacques de Lucerne, companion to count Amedeus VI of Savoy (1367). Two bails, monk Daniel del Caretto (1376) and Jean de Delbuy, buried in Dominican monastery (1348): Tzavara, Glarentza, 90.

decoration of the gate of the Frankish castle of Akronauplia being the most important example.67 Architectural sculpture, carved Latin inscriptions, and fragments of wall painting give a partial picture of the decoration of the church interior. The walls were covered with at least two layers of paintings. The earlier layer presents Western subjects, including the portrait of the deceased knight and the equestrian saint, an image popular in crusader art.68 The second layer is more fragmentary. The tendril and mask that decorate a rib find parallels in painting of the early fifteenth century at Mystras (fig. 13), a connection that needs further investigation.69 Latin inscriptions, mostly names, were incised in the lower parts of the wall paintings. The church of St. Francis was at the heart of the town’s political life, since it also served as the assembly hall for the ruler, his nobles, and the burghers.70 In 1289 the assembly welcomed the new prince, Florent of Hainaut, inside the church.71 The monastery cloister should be sought on the south side. Two more large buildings can be made out to the north and west. There is no secure evidence for the date of the church’s foundation. If the assembly met at Glarentza in 1276, St. Francis probably already existed by then, suggesting a construction date in the 1260s. After the church collapsed, several structures were erected inside its western part, while pit graves were opened up in the floor and in the ruined walls. As a new town, Glarentza must have been carefully planned. The position and orientation of the medieval town’s few remains suggest that it was built according to a regular plan (though not necessarily a grid pattern), which developed symmetrically along two intersecting perpendicular axes (north–south and east–west) leading up to 67  See S. Gerstel, “Art and Identity in the Medieval Morea,” in Laiou and Mottahedeh, Crusades from the Per­ spective of Byzantium, 263–85. For the Akronauplia gate, see M. Hirschbichler, “The Crusader Paintings in the Frankish Gate at Nauplia, Greece: A Historical Construct in the Latin Principality of Morea,” Gesta 44 (2005): 13–30. 68  See Gerstel, “Art and Identity,” 267–68. 69  See M. Aspra-Vardavaki and M. Emmanuel, The Mon­ astery of Pantanassa at Mistra: The Wall Paintings of the 15th Century (Athens, 2005). 70 Tzavara, Glarentza, 113–17. 71  Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, vv. 8621–23.

the enceinte gates (fig. 5).72 Building to a regular plan is known from thirteenth-century European towns, such as those founded by King Louis IX, with the best example being Aigues-Mortes.73 The principality’s old Byzantine cities, such as Corinth, Patras, Argos, and Arkadia, remained its most important urban centers.74 At the same

72  See the small medieval settlements of the Morea, where K. Kourelis detected significant levels of central planning during their foundation. See K. Kourelis, “Mon­ uments of Rural Archaeology, Medieval Settlements in the Northwestern Peloponnese” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2003), 422. 73 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:66, pl. 67; Bellet and Florençon, Aigues-Mortes, 8. 74  Williams, “Frankish Corinth”; H. Saradi-Mendelovici, “Πάτρα: Φραγκοκρατία-Βενετοκρατία,” in Πάτρα: Από την Αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα, ed. E. Triantaphyllos, K. Sklavenitis, and S. Staikos (Athens, 2005), 129–73; A. Luttrell, “The Latins of Argos and Nauplia: 1311–1394,” BSR 34 (1966): 33–55; T. Kondylis, “Η Αργολίδα την περίοδο 1350–1400: Το τέλος της Φραγκοκρατίας και η αρχή της Βενετοκρατίας,” in Βενετία-Άργος: Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος

The Triangle of Power

125

Figure 13 

Glarentza. Church of St. Francis, rib with two layers of fresco

time, Frankish castles, like Palio Navarino/Portde-Jonc, Santomeri/St. Omer, and Linistena/ Crèvecoeur developed gradually into significant settlements.75 Only in rare instances were castles with a large wall perimeter, like Androusa, conceived as urban centers from the beginning.76 The lack of research on these sites does not allow for a comparison with Glarentza, which, however, displays specific features, since it was established as an urban center and a commercial harbor for the capital. Since the crusaders did not found new towns, even in the Middle East, Glarentza is exceptional.77 Glarentza’s central role within the crusader state is related to the vital position that it soon acquired as a Mediterranean tradepost. Written sources confirm Glarentza’s relations with other parts of Romania (Patras, Negroponte, Thebes), Cyprus, the Middle East (Acre, Alexandria), Ragusa, and, above all, Italy (Venice, Ancona, Flor­­ence, Pisa, Siena, Naples).78 Material evidence, particularly coins and pottery, confirms the privileged role of Italian cities in the economic life of the Morea. Coins found throughout Elis and dating to before the founding of Glarentza and its mint were brought from Europe by the crusaders; those excavated at Glarentza confirm the extent of its international outreach.79 The wide circulation of the Glarentzan denier tournois beyond the principality’s borders, particularly in the Greek peninsula, in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in Western Europe, further supports this conclusion.80 Pottery also provides important evidence for the principality’s economic and political relations. The imported pottery excavated at Glarentza, particularly, and Chlemoutsi reached the principality either through trade or as the household effects και στην περιοχή του, ed. C. Maltezou (Athens, 2010), 19–38. For Arkadia, see Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 13–14. 75  Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 15–16 (Port-de-Jonc). Kourelis, in “Rural Archaeology,” reports Crèvecoeur as Minthe (no. 66), 312–22. For Santomeri, see Kourelis, “Rural Archaeology,” (no. 107), 385–401. 76  Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 16–17. 77 Boas, Frankish Period, 143. 78 Tzavara, Glarentza, 201–300. 79 Athanasoulis, Clarence, 42–43; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Glarentza Coins,” passim. 80  On the circulation of the Glarentzan deniers tournois outside of the Peloponnese, see the chapter by J. Baker and A. Stahl in this volume.

126

demetrios athanasoulis

brought by the Franks who settled in the Morea.81 The diverse decoration of the imported ware that circulated in the principality not only reflects the international circulation of the products of certain workshops, it also provides information on the economic status and aesthetic preferences of the users. The shapes of the tableware provide us with a glimpse of the development of the “art de la table” and the new eating habits the crusaders introduced to the Morea. Open glazed vessels become smaller and deeper, whereas large and shallow dishes are rare.82 The overwhelming majority of the glazed pottery excavated at Glarentza and Chlemoutsi is of western provenance. The major north and central Italian production centers (Venice, Po Valley, Pisa, Orvieto, Lazio, Tuscany) are represented, but it is the southern Italian products that predominate (Apulia, Brindisi, Taranto, Basilicata, Campagna, Calabria, Otranto). This is explained by the principality’s proximity to southern Italy, the penetration of the Venetians and other Italian merchants into its economic life, the induction of the principality to the Kingdom of Naples following the Treaty of Viterbo, and the presence of a predominantly Western resident population, which preferred Italian wares.83 Italian glazed pottery was continuously imported to Glarentza and Chlemoutsi until the principality’s demise, in the fifteenth century.

81  On the pottery of Chlemoutsi and Glarentza, see Athanasoulis, Clarence, 44–49; S. Skartsis, Chlemoutsi Castle (Clermont, Castel Tornese), NW Peloponnese: Its Pot­ tery and Its Relations with the West (13th–Early 19th Centuries) (Oxford, 2012). 82  Similar changes in pottery and diet have been identified at crusader Corinth. See T. Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish Period, 13th and Early 14th Century,” in Corinth 20:401–22; Williams, “Frankish Corinth,” 431–33. See also the chapter by S. Garvie-Lok in this volume. 83  For a similar picture from Patras, another of the principality’s harbor towns, see D. Athanasoulis, “Μεσοβυζαντινό ναΰδριο στην Πάτρα και η ένταξή του στην μεσαιωνική πόλη,” Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 53 (1998): 1:331–60, 344–48. For Corinth, see Williams, “Frankish Corinth,” 428–33; Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish Period,” 401–22. A completely different picture has been described for Frankish Athens. See C. MacKay, “Protomaiolica in Frankish Athens,” in M. Lawall, J. Papadopoulos, K. Lynch, B. Tsakirgis, S. Rotroff, and C. MacKay, “Notes from the Tins: Research in the Stoa of Attalos, Summer 1999,” Hesperia 70 (2001): 178–79.

There are also sporadic imports from Spanish workshops (Valencia), perhaps a consequence of the activity of Catalans in the Peloponnese or an indication of the presence of Spanish merchants in this Mediterranean trading post. Glass and ceramic vessels from the port of St. Symeon in Antioch, albarelli fragments, and a closed vessel with glazed relief decoration and Arabic inscription attest to trading relations with the Middle East.84 The negligible quantities of pottery from contemporary Byzantine workshops confirm the principality’s commercial and political orientation toward the West. Glarentza was damaged by the Navarrese in circa 1380 but suffered an even more devastating blow from the pillaging army of Leonardo Tocco in 1408. The contents of a dump south of the town’s East Gate may be associated with this destruction.85 The town came definitively under the Byzantines in 1430–31, when Constantine Palaiologos, despot of Mystras, demolished its walls. In 1432, Glarentza became the seat of Thomas Palaiologos. Soon after that the town was abandoned and disappeared from the map together with the principality’s Franks.86

Chlemoutsi Castle: The Princely Palace The third site of the triangle, Chlemoutsi Castle (Clermont for the Franks), is the most ambitious Frankish building project in the Peloponnese.87 84 Athanasoulis, Clarence, picture on page 46. D. Atha­ nasoulis, “Clay Vase with Arabic Inscriptions and Relief Decoration,” in Byzantium and the Arabs (Thessalonike, 2011), 44–45. 85 Athanasoulis, Clarence, 28, 44, Athanasoulis and Baker, “Glarentza Coins,” 254, 263, 273–74, and passim. 86  Saradi-Mendelovici, “Γλαρέντζα,” 68. 87  See Andrews, Castles, 146–58 and passim, Bon, La Morée franque, 325–28, 608–29 and passim, with earlier bibliography; A. Eckhardt, Studien zur Baugeschichte früher Kreuzritterburgen in Griechenland (Berlin, 1971), 57–68; J. Mesqui, Châteaux forts et fortifications en France (Paris, 1997), 127–28; D. Athanasoulis, “Παρατηρήσεις στην αρχιτεκτονική του κάστρου Χλουμούτζι (Clermont),” Χριστιανική Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία: 27ο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας (Athens, 2007), 13–14; D. Athanasoulis, “Chlemoutsi, Grèce: Château royal franc,” in Un patrimoine commun en Méditerranée: Fortifications de l’époque des croisades (Paris, 2008), 85–87; D. Athanasoulis, “Clermont-Chloumoutzi: Le château-palais des princes francs d’Achaie,” in Un palais dans la ville: Le Palais des

Built on a hillock, which dominates the plain surrounding it and offers a view over a vast geographical area, it consists of a hexagonal keep and an outer enceinte, which extends the fortifications onto the flatter slopes of the hillside (figs. 14, 15). A series of vaulted galleries surrounding a hexagonal central courtyard make up a shell-like defensive structure reinforced with two semicircular towers. A double gateway in a towerlike building forms the entrance. According to the Chronicle of the Morea, the castle was built by Prince Geoffrey I of Villehardouin between 1220 and 1223.88 The monument has survived almost intact, with only small alterations made after the Ottoman conquest in 1460, to adapt it to the introduction of artillery.89 At the same time, a settlement developed both inside and outside the fortifications. Despite its homogeneous character, three successive building phases can be distinguished. In the first, a polygonal defensive enceinte encircles the summit of the hill. Today it can be made out as part of the lower reaches of the hexagonal citadel. Soon afterward, the wall was raised (phase 2). The crenellations with the arrow slits of this phase can be seen in the facades as well in the breaches of the castle (fig. 16). The parapet wall walk was reinforced with wooden hoardings. The section of the curtain wall toward the gentler slope of the hill was flanked by two semicircular towers. The gate was built between two more towers, which are rectangular in plan (fig. 17).90 A gate between rectangular towers is also found in the Classical and Byzantine traditions (Acrocorinth) and appears both in the Middle East (Krak des Chevaliers), the Frankish Morea (Saphlaouro, Crèvecoeur), and, though more rarely, in the architecture of metropolitan France.91 The towers have the same Rois de Majorque à Perpignan, Colloque international (Perpignan, 2011), proceedings forthcoming. 88  Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, vv. 2648ff. 89  The most important additions are the vaulted space in the external gate, the tower, and the two bastions on the external wall, the hexagon gate’s conversion into a tower gate, and the terrace over the vaults. 90  For the rectangular towers, see above, notes 37–38. 91  For Acrocorinth, see Bon, “Acrocorinth,” 191–95. For Saphlarouro, see M. Breuillot, Châteaux oubliés de la Messénie médiévale (Paris, 2005), 146–49, figs. 22–24. For Crèvecoeur, see Kourelis, “Medieval Settlements,” 75–78. For Krak des Chevaliers, see J. Mesqui with participation of B. Michaudel,

The Triangle of Power

127

Figure 14 

Chlemoutsi. Aerial view from west (K. Xenikakis)

Figure 15 

Chlemoutsi. General plan (P. Vasilatos)

128

demetrios athanasoulis

Figure 16 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, north facade

Figure 17 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon gate, phases 1, 2, reconstruction (D. Athanasoulis and C. Arvanitakis)

height as the curtain walls.92 Inside, a timberroofed wing with at least two chambers was built, featuring cupboards, fireplaces, and bilobe windows opening onto the courtyard (figs. 19, 27). Below it, a large, underground vaulted cistern was constructed for water supply. There were also

“Quatre Châteaux des Hospitaliers en Syrie et au Liban: Les éléments d’architecture défensive,” in Château du Moyen Âge au Proche-Orient, http://www.castellorient.fr, 2, pl. Le Crac Porte I—Première phase; Plantagenêt territory (Gisors, Dover): Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:319. 92  Contrary to the rule in metropolitan France. See Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:236.

ancillary, timber-roofed spaces next to the gate. A postern was located on the east side. The construction of this first fortress, built in two successive stages, may date to the early years of the crusader state, when the capital Andravida with its princely palace was unfortified. Accord­ ing to the Chronicle of the Morea, Chlemoutsi was built to protect the plain with its capital, but also to watch over the coast and harbor before Glarentza was founded.93 At the same time, the castle was the 93  “ἔβαλεν κ᾿ ἐχτίσασιν κάστρον ἀφιρωμένον, / ὅπου φυλάττει τὸν γιαλὸν καὶ τοῦ Μορέως λιμιῶνα” / “κάστρον, θεωρεῖτε, ἔποικα διὰ σωτηρίαν τοῦ τόπου, / διὰ ἐσᾶς κ᾿ ἐμᾶς

The Triangle of Power

129

Figure 18 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon gate, phase 3, reconstruction (D. Athanasoulis and C. Arvanitakis)

most prominent symbol of power in feudal society. Most probably it also served at that time as a hunting lodge or summer palace for the princes.94 Chlemoutsi took its final form a little later, when the castle was transformed into a complex symbol of princely authority. The outer enceinte, a simple, rather low wall without towers, was added on the northern, flattish slope of the hill (fig. 15). Stables and timber-roofed galleries of rectangular plan for the guard and the members of the court were constructed around the perimeter of the wall. These buildings featured fireplaces, latrines, and underground cisterns. Lancet windows were arranged in the walls. The outer gateway is formed as a tower gate in a recess of the external enceinte in order to facilitate flanking from the walls. A machicolation95 before the wooden door and a portcullis completed the defense. The particularity of placing the latter behind the door shutters rather than in front of them, as was the rule in French fortification, also occurs in the third gate of Acrocorinth castle, among other places.96 Two more postern τὸ ἔποικα νὰ ἔνι κλειδὶν τοῦ τὸπου./Πολλάκις ἂν ἐχάσαμεν τὸν τόπον τοῦ Μορέως, / ἀπὸ τὸ κάστρον Χλουμουτσίου τὸν θέλομεν κερδίσει”: Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, vv. 2671–72, 2710–13. 94  J. Mesqui, Ile-de-France gothique, vol. 2, Les demeures seigneuriales (Paris, 1988), 19. 95 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:323–24, Boas, Military Orders, 170–73, fig. 63. 96 Mesqui, Fortification des portes, 206–8; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:326–29; Bon, “Acrocorinth,” 191.

130

demetrios athanasoulis

gates were opened in the external wall close to the hexagon so that they could be more efficiently defended from the hexagon’s tall walls. All the doors were barricaded shut with wooden drawbars. The hexagon’s postern went out of use, since a vaulted hall was created inside it and a talus covered its exterior side. The early hexagon was transformed into a princely palace. The structure now consists of a sequence of two-story vaulted halls. Large bilobe windows open onto the courtyard and its outer sides. The existing system of a gate between two rectangular towers was reshaped to project its official status at the expense of its defensive function (fig. 18).97 The towers were connected near the top by a barrel vault. A hanging arch unified their facade at a lower level. In the recess, above the pointed arched doorway, a large single-light window with a carved stone composite frame with engaged triple columns was created.98 The shutters were the gate’s only defense system; not a single feature of active defense protected the hexagon’s entrance.99 The refurbishment of the gate leading to the main castle presupposes the prior existence of the outer enceinte as a first line of defense.100 The palace’s galleries surrounded the internal courtyard, forming the castle’s walls (figs. 19, 20). Apart from Wing 6, all of the galleries have two stories and are vaulted, as was common with the Mediterranean castles of France, southern Italy, and the Middle East.101 The ground floor was reserved for storage and other ancillary functions (figs. 19, 21, 22, 27). The residential quarters of the prince as well as the formal halls occupied the upper floor (fig. 20). The horizontal development of the various spaces is characteristic of the French 97  The gate of a castle-palace had a symbolic and sociological meaning as well as a defensive role: Mesqui, Fortification des portes, 203–4. 98 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:212. 99  This arrangement does not conform with the advances in the defense mechanisms of gates, as these appeared in the late twelfth century and developed in the thirteenth century. See Mesqui, Fortification des portes, 206ff. 100 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:351–352. 101  See Uchaux in France (ibid., 65, 83, 98–99, fig. 74); Hohenstaufen castles in Apulia and Sicily (see below, note 162); Krak des Chevaliers (Ellenblum, Crusader Castles, 242–45); Margat, Kerak (H. Kennedy, Crusader Castles [Cambridge, 1994], pls. 18, 80) in the Levant.

Figure 19 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, ground floor plan, Wings 1–6 (D. Athanasoulis and C. Arvanitakis)

Figure 20 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, first floor plan: a. chapel; b. great hall; c. kitchen; d1, d2, d3. princely chambers; e–f. Other residential quarters (D. Athanasoulis and C. Arvanitakis)

The Triangle of Power

131

Figure 21 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, great hall section, reconstruction (D. Athanasoulis and C. Arvanitakis)

castle-palaces of the thirteenth century. Their access was through the enclosed courtyard by means of external masonry stairs. The rooms had ceilings of pointed-barrel vaults, covered by a saddleback roof behind the parapet. Two stairways, one of which was spiral, led to the wall walk and the roof.102 The upper floor in Wings 1 and 2 housed the formal “display” rooms—that is, the great hall and the prince’s single-aisle chapel, which was located in the hall’s extension (figs. 20–21, 23–25).103 The large chapel was situated above the main gate for symbolic reasons in order to place the entrance and those who entered it under the saint’s protection.104 Large single-aisle chapels occur in crusader castles in the Levant, such as the two Hospitaller castles, Krak des Chevaliers and

102  Spiral staircases are common in Philip Augustus’s castles during the thirteenth century. See M. Whiteley, “Deux escaliers royaux du XIV e siècle: Les ‘grands degrés’ du Palais de la Cité et la ‘grande vis’ du Louvre,” BullMon 147 (1989): 133–54, at 144; Mesqui, Châteaux forts, 158–60. On stairs in general, see Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:162–64. 103 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:116–17. Cf. also Belvoir in the Middle East with the hall adjoining the chapel: Boas, Military Orders, 155. 104 Mesqui, Chateaux et enceintes, 1:346. See also Belvoir in the Middle East: D. Pringle, “Castle Chapels in the Frankish East,” in La Fortification au Temps des Croisades, ed. N. Faucherre, J. Mesqui, and N. Prouteau (Rennes, 2004), 25–41, at 28; and the castle of Kyrenia: Faucherre, “Cérines,” 387.

132

demetrios athanasoulis

Margat.105 In France, a characteristic example is Coucy, where the chapel also communicates with the great hall, as well as the castle of Boulognesur-Mer.106 A monumental, stone-built staircase (grands degrés) and a balcony, which dominates the palace’s internal courtyard, led to the great hall 107 and to the chapel (figs. 20, 24, 25). The impressive structure of the display balcony with the three depressed barrel vaults and the buttresses on its facade,108 as well as the grands degrés with the molded poros steps leading up to the étage noble, are all typical features of French palace architecture.109 The large fireplace, which heated the great hall, accentuated its ostentatious character.110 The hall’s now-destroyed bilobe windows were probably more ornate than the castle’s other windows, judging from the window seats that are decorated by a simple band, unlike the others in the castle (fig. 26).111 The walls of the étage noble were plastered and probably decorated with wall paintings, now vanished with the exception of a few remains on the chapel vault.112 105  Pringle, “Castle Chapels in the Frankish East,” 25–41, Boas, Military Orders, 150–51. 106  For Coucy, see J. Mesqui, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy du XIII au XVIe siècle,” in Congrés Archéologique de France: 148e session, 1990; Aisne Méridionale (Paris, 1994), 207–47, at 212, figs. 7, 10; C. Corvisier, Le château de Coucy et l’enceinte de la ville (Paris, 2009). For Boulogne-sur-Mer, see Mesqui, Châteaux forts, 68–70. 107  For first-floor great halls in French castles, see Mesqui, Chateaux et enceintes, 2:85–87. 108  Mesqui, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 224. 109  At Chlemoutsi, in order to economize on space, the staircase runs parallel to the hall (cf. Brancion) instead of perpendicular to it as in other French castles and palaces (Palais de la Cité, Troyes). On the shape and function of the grands degrés, see M. Whiteley, “Escaliers royaux,” 133– 42; Mesqui, Châteaux forts, 158–59; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:90–93. The actual decrease of the stair is due to a later remodeling. 110  Often a single large fireplace heated the great hall, however vast. See A.-L. Napoléone, “L’équipement domestique dans l’architecture civile médiévale,” in La maison au Moyen Âge dans le midi de la France (Toulouse, 2002), 239– 63, at 246. See also Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:106–7. 111 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:102–6. 112  Ibid., 101–2, 240–50; P. Chapu, “Le décor interieur du château au Moyen Âge,” in Le château en France, ed. J.-P. Babelon (Paris, 1988), 169–78, at 172–76; Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuriales, 71. No traces of plaster were identified on the external facades.

Figure 22 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, wing 5: ground floor, storeroom

Figure 23 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, great hall from east

Figure 24 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, great hall entrance and chapel from the courtyard

Although no partition walls are preserved inside the wing, it is possible, from the location of the doorways, to reconstruct the wall separating the chapel from the great hall, which probably comprised approximately 300 m 2 , making it the largest hall in crusader continental Greece (figs. 21, 23). Unfortunately, no secure evidence survives from the other Villehardouin palaces or from the palaces at Thebes and Athens.113 The halls 113  S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Relations between East and West in the Lordship of Athens and Thebes after 1204:

in the Karytaina, Mila, and Saphlaouro castles are considerably smaller, as is that of the first phase of the Mystras palace, if indeed it was built by the

Archaeological and Artistic Evidence,” in Archaeology and the Crusades, ed. P. Edbury and S. Kalopissi-Verti (Athens, 2007), 1–33, at 3–4; T. Tanoulas, Τα Προπύλαια της Αθηναϊκής Ακρόπολης κατά τον Μεσαίωνα (Athens, 1997), 291–309; idem, “The Athenian Acropolis as a Castle under Latin Rule (1204–1458): Military and Building Technology,” in Τεχνογνωσία στην λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα (Athens, 2000), 96–122, at 101–3; Molin, Castles, 272.

The Triangle of Power

133

Figure 25 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, great hall and chapel from the courtyard, reconstruction (D. Athanasoulis and E. Georgouli)

Figure 26 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, bilobe window from prince’s chambers

Franks.114 It is, however, smaller than equivalent halls of the members of the French and English royal courts.115 The hall was a public space, its purpose being to impress visitors. Its entry was

therefore located at one end of the elongated space so as to emphasize its huge proportions.116 The kitchen in Wing 3 communicated di­­ rectly with the great hall, so as to better serve the princely receptions (figs. 19, 20). 117 The oven and the twin chimneys over the hearths can still be made out. On the ground floor was a blind vaulted basement, possibly a cistern or a cesspit, and a storeroom. The large cistern in Wing 4 provided the kitchen with water; a wastewater drain is visible on the exterior. The prince’s private apartments were located on the first floor of Wing 4 (fig. 27).118 These consisted of three rooms with large fireplaces: in the center was the Great Chamber (salle de parement) for semiprivate meetings, and on either side the prince’s bedchamber and the private chamber (chambre de retrait) for confidential activities. This sequence of rooms is of particular interest. The apartments had a common entrance, which was reached by a double masonry staircase and a display balcony.119

114  For Karytaina, see Bon, La Morée franque, 629–33, esp. 631–32, figs. 66, 68, 71a. For Mila, see ibid., 656–58, fig. 19; Breuillot, Châteaux de la Messénie, 161–76. For Saphlaouro, see ibid., 149–52, figs. 22, 27. For Mystras, see Orlandos, Τα παλάτια; Sinos, “Το παλάτι.” 115 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:78–80, fig. 87; idem, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 215– 16: Palais de la Cité 1,785 m 2 , Angoûleme 495 m 2 , Poitiers 715 m 2 , Montargis 935 m 2 , Caen 341 m 2 , Westminster 1,440 m 2 , Coucy 812 m 2.

116 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:89–90, 96–97, 98. 117  Ibid., 135–47; Mesqui, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 213, figs. 7, 10. For castles in the Mid­ dle East, see Boas, Military Orders, 160. 118 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:118–23, 127–35. 119  On the ground floor, a hydraulic structure may have been connected with a bath facility. Its location next to the cistern’s opening and the kitchen was ideal for drawing and heating water. For baths inside medieval castles and palaces, see J. Mesqui and N. Faucherre, “L’hygiène dans les châteaux forts au Moyen Âge en France,” in A. Debord et al., La

134

demetrios athanasoulis

Figure 27 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, wing 4: princely quarters, storerooms, cistern, 1st phase dwelling; longitudinal section A and transverse sections B–C (D. Athanasoulis and E. Georgouli)

The Triangle of Power

135

Figure 28  Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, wing 5, facade

Figure 29 

Chlemoutsi. Hexagon, wing 5: 1st floor, residential apartment

vie de château (Le Bugue, 1992), 45–74, at 64–70; J. Mesqui, C. Amiot, P. Bon, J. Brodeur, D. Carru, P. Chevet, N. Faucherre, and S. Marchant, “L’étuve dans les châteaux et palais du Moyen Âge en France,” BullMon 159, no. 1 (2001): 7–61; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:182–86. See also in the Latin East the castles Saranta Kolones (Cyprus) (J. Rosser, “Excavations at Saranda Kolones, Paphos, Cyprus 1981–1983,” DOP 39 [1985]: 81–95, at 91; J. Rosser, “Crusader Castles in Cyprus: Recent Excavation of the Castle of the Forty Columns in Paphos,” Archaeology 39 [1986]: 40–49, at 47) and Belvoir (Boas, Military Orders, 159).

136

demetrios athanasoulis

Wing 5, which communicated with the prince’s living quarters, can be identified as the princess’s living quarters because of its location (figs. 28, 29). It was reached from the courtyard by a perpendicular masonry staircase. The hall in Wing 6, the castle’s only single-storied wing, communicated with Wing 5 through a door in the dividing wall and was intended for the princely family’s remaining members. All of the residential halls had fireplaces, builtin cupboards, and access to latrines (figs. 20, 21, 27, 29). The cupboards were rectangular, with wooden shelves, and two wooden shutters, a typical feature of French thirteenth-century architecture.120 Corridors forming a right angle and wooden shutters isolated the latrines from the apartments. Latrines were common from the thirteenth century. At Chlemoutsi they are of the latrineson-corbels type, which projected and emptied directly outside the wall.121 Indeed the latrines were situated in the castle’s three external angles, which were rounded, creating pseudo-towers,122 and faced the hill’s steepest side. There, in accordance with Frankish fortification practice, they also served as bretèches for vertical shooting.123 They were probably stone-built.124 The étage noble was thus divided into two parts, public and private. The former comprised the chapel, great hall, and kitchen. On the opposite side, the prince’s living quarters communicated with the rooms of the other family members through 120  Napoléone, “Équipement domestique,” 259–61. On the equipment of the castle’s various spaces, see Y. Bruand, “La vie dans le château: Les conditions de construction,” in Babelon, Le château en France, 159–68, at 164–65. 121  This is the most common type. They were usually rectangular in plan. For latrines in the castles and palaces, see Mesqui and Faucherre, “L’hygiène dans les châteaux forts,” 45–63; Napoléone, “Équipement domestique,” 251–54, 257; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:169, 172–73, 175–78. 122  For the equivalent forms in the Villehardouin castle at Mystras, see G. Marinou, “Η Οχύρωση της πόλης,” in Sinos, Monuments of Mystras, 80–82, fig. 2. 123  Mesqui and Faucherre, “L’hygiène dans les châteaux forts,” 49. Bretèches were particularly widespread in the crusader East. See J. Mesqui, “La fortification au temps de Saint Louis au Proche-Orient,” BullMon 164, no. 1 (2006): 5–29, at 18. 124  Wooden latrines are more rare (Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuriales, 61). The openings in the fortification walls suggest that the latrines were stone-built; if they had been made of wood, the Ottomans would have walled them.

neighboring spaces, as was the rule for the fortified dwellings of this period. The chapel and the great hall with the kitchen, however, were also reached independently, through the balcony.125 The differentiation between the public spaces (Wings 1–3) and the private quarters (Wings 4–6) is also reflected in the building materials (figs. 21, 27, 29): cold stone floors were laid over depressed barrel vaults in the former;126 warmer wooden floors are to be found in the latter. The wood floors were supported on joists and on a central row of piers (fig. 22). Unlike other crusader palace-castles in southern Greece, Chlemoutsi is exceptionally well preserved, with its original chapel–great hall– kitchen–living quarters scheme unaltered. 127 The French model for a royal castle was transplanted in meticulous detail to Byzantine territory. Thus hitherto unfamiliar features of the northern European architectural tradition, such as fireplaces, were imported to the Peloponnese. Of the castle’s fireplaces (figs. 20, 21, 27, 29), only the stone chamfered jambs, the hearths, and the recesses of the chimneys are preserved in the walls. Fragments of tile and bricks lined the fireplace backs,128 and wooden beams carried the chimney’s pyramidal hood.129 The castle’s rectangular fireplaces were common in metropolitan France since the early thirteenth century.130 Fireplaces also appear in other Frankish castles of the Morea. Three characteristic examples are those in the halls of the castles of Karytaina, Mila, 125  Independent circulation through exterior corridors appears in a complete form much later. On communication and circulation, see Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:148–61. See also idem, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 225. 126  Mesqui, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 210–11, figs. 2–4. 127  For these rooms in the castles of the Middle East, see Mesqui, “Fortification de Saint Louis,” 11–13. 128  For the medieval fireplaces, especially in French arch­­itecture: Napoléone, “Équipement domestique,” 239– 51. See also E. Viollet-Le-Duc, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècles, vol. 3, Cheminée (Paris, 1875), 196–219. 129  On the use of wood and the shape of the hood, cf. Napoléone, “Équipement domestique,” 242–43, 247; Violletle-Duc, Dictionnaire, 208–9, figs. 6, 12. The chimneys’ exterior sections are not preserved. 130  Napoléone, “Équipement domestique,” 242, 250.

and Saphlaouro, all of which are a few decades later than Chlemoutsi.131 Chlemoutsi/Clermont was a fortified luxurious palace, symbol of power and status for the Frankish ruler, in which the defensive function was of secondary importance.132 More than a princely residence,133 Chlemoutsi was also an administrative center, a state storehouse, a detention center for captives,134 and above all a statement of power.135 The prince’s archive was also probably kept inside one of the hexagon’s chambers, as suggested by the discovery of a lead seal inside the drain below the chapel and the great hall. The seal is a Conventual Bulla, the Great Seal of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, dating to the early fifteenth century, when Philibert de Naillac (1396–1421) was master of the Hospitallers.136 Characteristic features of French metropolitan defensive architecture under Philip Augustus, such as arrow slits, which also occur sporadically in Byzantine castles such as Acro­corinth, appear during Chlemoutsi’s first construction phases at crenellation level.137 They are also known from other crusader Moreote castles dated to the late thirteenth century, such as Mila, Androusa, and 131  See note 114. 132  The magnificent state rooms were intended to impress visitors and probably helped to establish the reputation of the castle’s builder as the epitome of knightly virtue. See Molin, Castles, 274. For the contemporary castle-feudal palace at Coucy, see Mesqui, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 207–32. 133  Princess Anna, wife of William of Villehardouin, characteristically states in a manuscript note: “Κἀγὼ Ἄννα πριγγίπισσα Ἀχαΐας . . . ἐν ἔτη ςψπε [1276–77], οὖσης μου ἐν τῶ κάστρῳ Κλερεμούντῳ” (Moscow, Synodal Library, MS 81: see B. Fonkić and F. Poliakov, Grečeskie rukopisi Moskovskoi sinodal �noi biblioteki [Moscow, 1993], 43–44); Molin, Castles, 214, 260, 272. 134  See Molin, Castles, 279; Tzavara, Glarentza, 43. 135  See P. Lock, “Castles and Seigneurial Influence in Latin Greece,” in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, Selected Proceedings of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 10–13 July 1995, ed. A. V. Murray (Turnhout, 1998), 175, 182. 136  D. Athanasoulis, “Μολυβδόβουλο των Ιωαννιτών ιπποτών από το κάστρο Χλουμούτζι,” in Το Νόμισμα στην Πελοπόννησο: Στ΄ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση, Argos, 26–29 May 2011, proceedings (forthcoming). 137 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:251–300; idem, Les demeures seigneuriales, 50–53. Cf. the close parallel of the castle at Kyrenia: Faucherre, “Cérines,” 387, figs. 3–4.

The Triangle of Power

137

Karytaina.138 Only part of the low talus that lines sections of the fortification wall can be attributed to this period (the greater part of the talus is an Ottoman addition). This typical feature of European and crusader fortifications also occurs in other Frankish castles of the Peloponnese.139 Hoardings, the wooden defensive structures built onto the crenellations for vertical shooting, a typical feature of French metropolitan defensive architecture, 140 absent from the crusader castles of the Middle East,141 also appear during Chlemoutsi’s first construction phases. The relatively poor defensive features can be attributed to the building’s main function, which was residential and ostentatious rather than military.142 Indeed, the castle was never the epicenter of battles and sieges like nearby Glarentza. Apart from the ground plan, which was certainly the work of a Frankish architect, Chlemoutsi Castle displays Romanesque and Early Gothic features, which suggest the involvement of Frankish masons. Despite the despoliation of stone, we can reconstitute several architectural features that demonstrate the official nature of the building. The doors and windows are fashioned in the Western manner—that is, with chamfered stone frames integral to the surrounding masonry,143 which form pointed arches over the doors (figs. 21, 23–29). The windows have a tall, wide opening, with a depressed vault of arches made of poros stone, into which a poros screen pierced with twin lancet windows is fitted.144 The windows in the official 138  For Karytaina, see Bon, La Morée franque, 631; for Mila, see ibid., 656, fig. 19; Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 23; for Androusa, see ibid., 16. 139 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:232–33. One might mention the talus of the castle at Mila in Messenia (Bon, La Morée franque, 656), which is intercalated between the building’s two Frankish construction phases. The taluses of the crusader castles of the Middle East were usually much stronger. See Mesqui, “Fortification de Saint Louis,” 13–14. 140 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:326–27; idem, Les demeures seigneuriales, 44. 141  Mesqui, “Fortification de Saint Louis,” 18. 142 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:256–58. 143  Ibid., 211, 217. 144 Andrews, Castles of the Morea, 155–56, fig. 176. On bilobe windows in France: Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuria­ les, 69; G. Séraphin, “Les fenêtres médiévales: État des lieux en Aquitaine et Languedoc,” in M. Pradalier-Schlumberger

138

demetrios athanasoulis

galleries are decorated with moldings, those in the ancillary spaces are simple rectangles,145 and those in the princely quarters are bilobe.146 They had built window seats,147 protective iron grilles, and wooden shutters; iron pintles for the hinges survive in the jambs, and the expanded pierced portion in the center of the mullion would have held a small iron bar to fasten the shutters.148 The chapel windows were more elaborate; they had frames flanked by triple semicolonnettes or were inscribed by pointed stone arches that accentuated their monumentality (figs. 24, 25).149 Also, rectangular skylights with grilles occupied the center of the vaults. The vaulting used slightly pointed and depressed vaults, built with carefully dressed voussoirs and strainer arches (figs. 21, 23–29). The evidently Byzantine rubble masonry with small bricks in the joints and strong lime mortar suggests the use of local teams of masons. The functional and architectural fusing of palace and fortress, the castralization of the palace, is a development which first appears in metropolitan French architecture in the thirteenth century, with Philip Augustus’s Louvre Castle as its primary example and Enguerrand III’s Coucy Castle as another significant specimen.150 The castlepalace acquires a powerful symbolism as a center of administration and power. At the same time, Chlemoutsi incorporates several other features of et al., La maison du Moyen Âge dans le midi de la France (Toulouse, 2002), 145–201, fig. 23. On the structural features of windows, see Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:188–89. 145  This shape is common in French architecture and in castles under Philip Augustus. The use of ribs occurs considerably later in France: Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuri­ ales, 69–70; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:197, 234–36, fig. 291a3. Cf. also Tanoulas, Τα Προπύλαια της Αθηναϊκής Ακρόπολης, 296. 146 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:199, 217–18, 234–39, fig. 291 A2. 147  Window seats become predominant in France after 1200. See ibid., 226–27; idem, Les demeures seigneuriales, 70. 148 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:231–32, Séraphin, “Les fenêtres médiévales,” 192–95. 149 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:199, 217–18, 234–39, fig. 291 B2; Séraphin, “Les fenêtres médiévales,” 157–59. A similar differentiation in chapel windows is common. For crusader Greece, see, for example, the chapel at the Pro­ pylaia on the Athenian Acropolis in Tanoulas, Τα Προπύλαια της Αθηναϊκής Ακρόπολης, 296. 150 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:28–34; idem, “Les programmes résidentiels du chateau de Coucy,” 207–32.

French defensive architecture as it develops during the period of Philip Augustus,151 such as the establishment of the chapel–great hall / kitchen– residential quarters scheme,152 the regular ground plan,153 characteristic defensive features,154 and the simple, austere, unarticulated facades.155 The towers are cylindrical as in contemporary metropolitan models, but smaller (diameter 5 meters) and without arrow slits.156 As demonstrated above, the castralization of the palace is expressed at Chlemoutsi by the placement of the halls against the interior face of the enceinte and around a central courtyard. Thus the palace adapts to the model of the “concentric, double-skin” castle, which developed in the crusader Middle East during the second half of the twelfth century, with Belvoir and the Krak des Chevaliers as the most characteristic examples. Instead of the central tower (tour-maîtresse) of the metropolitan architecture, these feature a series of halls, which served the requirements of the knightly orders157 and dealt more efficiently with the new conditions of siege and the need for increased supply storage.158 A series of continuous vaulted halls (salles sans fin) form the fortification wall on the exterior and an enclosed courtyard in the interior.159 As at the Krak des Chevaliers, in Chlemoutsi the geometric shape is adapted to the terrain. Although the Hospitaller castles, which served as military camps, had a different function 151  P. Héliot and E. Zadora-Rio, “L’architecture militaire à l’époque d’Henri II Plantagênet et de Philippe Auguste (1154–1223),” in Babelon, Le château en France, 47–59. 152 Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuriales, 12–18, Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 2:77. 153 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:41–71. 154  See above. 155 Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuriales, 18. See the facades of the castle of Billy in Y. Bruand, “Le château de Billy,” Congrès Archéologique de France, 1988, 75–82, figs. 3–4. 156 Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:255–72, 296–98: the curtain walls are between 20 and 30 meters long, as in the metropolitan centers. Mesqui, Les demeures seigneuriales, 36: the towers have a diameter of 8–9 meters. 157  Mesqui, “Fortification de Saint Louis,” 10; A. Bon, “A propos des châteaux de plan polygonal,” RA 28 (1947): 177–79. 158  See Ellenblum, Crusader Castles, 242–45, 253–55. 159  On castles à double peau and their origin, see Mesqui, “Étude des éléments d’architecture,” in “Châteaux des Hospitaliers,” 2–4.

from princely palaces, they were able to serve as a model, according to Jean Mesqui, because they were designed to protect their inhabitants from the intense Mediterranean sunshine by having them circulate around a court through the halls.160 Chlemoutsi is the first example of a royal palace combining metropolitan and crusader Middle Eastern features into a building of exceptional character that was erected in the land of the dismantled Byzantine Empire.161 The project’s important and inspired architect was aware of the metropolitan and crusader architectural tradition and so was able to realize his patron’s commission of a building invested with both the prestige of royal France and the crusader spirit of the Frankish Levant. Almost contemporary to Chlemoutsi, dating to the second quarter of the thirteenth century, is a series of Italian castles erected by Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, which reproduce the crusaderMediterranean model, the most characteristic of these being the castles Augusta, Catania (Castel Ursino), and Syracuse in Sicily; Lagopesole and Lucera in Apulia.162 The crusader-Mediterranean model reaches its apogee at Frederick’s Castel del Monte (1240) in Apulia.163 Toward the end of the century it is also applied to other Mediterranean royal castles, such as Bellver in Majorca and the palace of the Kings of Majorca in Perpignan (1276– 85).164 Even though they do not belong to the same Mediterranean group, metropolitan castles, such as Boulogne-sur-Mer, Fère-en-Tardenois, demonstrate the universal appeal of the concentric shape with enclosed courtyard.165 160  For enceintes à patio, see ibid.; Mesqui, Châteaux et enceintes, 1:57–59. 161 Mesqui, Châteaux forts, 128. 162  H. Hahn, Hohenstaufenburgen in Süditalien (Ingelheim am Rhein, 1961); A. Bruschi and G. Miarelli Mariani, eds., Architettura sveva nell’ Italia meridionale: Repertorio dei cas­ telli svevi (Florence, 1975); G. Agnello, L’architettura sveva in Sicilia (Rome, 1935); C. A. Willemsen and D. Odenthal, Apulien (Cologne, 1958), 46–63; J. Gardelles, “De Saint Louis à Philippe le Bel,” in Babelon, Le château en France, 79–93, 91. 163  H. Götze, Castel del Monte (Munich and New York, 1998). 164  For Bellver, see M. Durliat, L’art dans le Royaume de Majorque (Toulouse, 1962), 236–47. For Perpignan, see J. Reynal and J.-P. Alazet, Le palais des rois de Mallorca: Lexique Illustré (Canet, 2010). 165 Mesqui, Châteaux forts, 68–71, 168.

The Triangle of Power

139

The earliest phase of Chlemoutsi as a castle can be dated to the first years after the Peloponnesian conquest, when the need arose for the ruler to have a castle as a symbol of power, particularly since Andravida, the principality’s capital, was not fortified. Although the hexagon appears to have been designed as a princely residence from the start, even if built progressively, the size of its final extension had not been anticipated. This is demonstrated by the fact that the two-storied vaulted wings came as an afterthought, since the springing of the ground-floor vaults rests on recesses cut into the original walls. Moreover, there was no provision from the beginning for an outer enceinte, since all the hexagon’s towers lie inside that later bailey. The gradual execution of an ambitious building project like Chlemoutsi recalls the construction in consecutive stages of the Palace of the Kings of Majorca in Perpignan.166 Only the confiscation of ecclesiastical revenues, mentioned in the Chronicle of the Morea (1220–23), could provide the necessary sums for such an ambitious conversion. The fact that the Teutonic Knights resided inside the walls of Chlemoutsi Castle in 1237 suggests that the outer enclosure was already erected by that date.167 With the exception of the important but outdated studies by Kevin Andrews and Antoine Bon,168 there has been no systematic recording, drawing, research, or publications on the castles of the Morea.169 Most castles are undated, and their successive building phases remain unidentified. Historical events of major importance, such as the return of the Byzantines to the Morea in 1262, have not been evaluated in relation to their impact on Frankish castle building and on the principality’s defense model. Chlemoutsi’s high quality of construction, the originality of its design, and its function as a princely palace differentiate it from all of the other crusader fortifications in the Morea. Pelopon­ nesian castles are generally small, with a defensive character and only the absolutely necessary 166  See note 164 above. 167  See Molin, Castles, 262. 168 Andrews, Castles; Bon, La Morée franque. 169  Indicative for the number of the unexplored castles are the gazetteers of Kourelis, “Rural Archaeology”; and Kontogiannis, “Settlements.”

140

demetrios athanasoulis

spaces, probably because of the small number of Franks and the less threatening conditions compared to the Holy Land, where confrontation with the Muslims was continuous. They are thus simple structures, not planned or built to high specifications (Mystras, Androusa, Akova).170 They are usually adapted from existing Byzantine fortifications (Patras, Acrocorinth, Nauplia, Argos, Arkadia),171 or added to the defenses of a naturally fortified site (Karytaina, Port-de-Jonc, Ayios Vasileios, Crèvecoeur, Santomeri).172 Few castles show a geometric ground plan like Chlemoutsi’s: Ayionori (Corin­thia) with a pentagonal enclosure wall and Kiveri (Argolid), which is shaped like a regular hexagon.173 In general, they follow diachronic Byzantine models (rectangular towers,174 simple ground plans) with recent defensive technology being limited to the gatehouses, to the addition of a central tower or of the ruler’s residential quarters, to the revival of arrow slits, and such. Their masonry follows the local tradition: plain rubble masonry and lime mortar. Most of the Moreote castles are settlements founded on strategic sites and fortified using simple means,175 with a citadel at their highest point enclosing a tower with a water cistern. Evi­ dence for residential quarters inside the citadel is rare, as are towers large enough to serve as a residence.176 It seems that, in contrast to medieval 170  For Mystras, see note 122 above. For Androusa, see notes 38–39 and 50 above. For Akova, see note 38. 171  For Patras, see notes 37 and 52; Bon, La Morée franque, 670–73. For Acrocorinth, see note 37. For Nauplia, see W. Schaefer, Βaugeschichte der Stadt Nauplia im Mittelalter, Technische Hochschule Danzig, 18 Juni 1936 (Berlin, 1944). For Argos, see note 37; Bon, La Morée franque, 674–76. For Arkadia, see ibid., 669–70; Andrews, Castles, 84–89. 172  See Molin, Castles, 203–26. For Karytaina, see note 114 above. For Port-de-Jonc, see note 75 above; Bon, La Morée franque, 668–69. For Ayios Vasileios, see ibid., 635– 37, pl. 129, and the chapter by T. Gregory in this volume. For Crèvecoeur, Santomeri, see note 75 above. 173  For both castles, see note 38 above. 174  See note 37 above. For other Frankish castles of Mes­ senia, see Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 23. For the castles of the Latin East, where rectangular towers remained the most common form, as they were the easiest to build, see Boas, Military Orders, 176. 175  For crusader settlements in the Levant, see Ellenblum, Crusader Castles, 85–87, 296. 176  According to K. Kourelis, “The majority of the settlement citadels are small, empty of residential architecture,

France, the Frankish elite of the Morea was not always segregated from the local population (see Santomeri, Glarentza, Androusa).177 The castle of the baron of Karytaina is the most characteristic example in which the residential quarters are arranged around a courtyard, according to the French model of the princely Chlemoutsi. The lesser-known castles of Mila and Saphlaouro in Messenia feature a ward with ancillary spaces and storerooms, residential rooms, and a hall, also equipped with fireplaces and latrines.178 The simultaneous construction of castles with local characteristics and of castles that follow metropolitan models is a phenomenon that occurs both in the Peloponnese and in the Holy Land under the crusaders.179

The Development of the Tripartite Metropolis: Royal Planning After the Fourth Crusade, the establishment of Frankish rule transformed a neglected region of the Morea into a thriving, albeit ephemeral, metropolitan area. Several factors dictated the foundation of the crusaders’ tripartite authority center in northwest Peloponnese: Elis was the first land to be conquered and the closest to Western Europe; the great plain of the Morea was a more familiar landscape than the peninsula’s mountainous regions; the Franks did not face resistance from the Greeks at Elis, as at Corinth and Monemvasia;180 as in the Middle East, they chose to establish themselves in the safest area,181 possibly also the least densely with the towers serving a limited function of defence through observation and communication.” See Kourelis, “Rural Archaeology,” 421–22. This applies even to the Acrocorinth’s large tower of the southwest redout, the socalled Frankish tower, refurbished by the Ottomans (Bon, “Acrocorinth,” 251–52). 177  Kourelis, “Rural Archaeology,” 399; Kontogiannis, “Settlements,” 16. 178  For Karytaina, see Bon, La Morée franque, 631–32, figs. 66, 68, 71a. For Mila, see ibid., 656; Breuillot, Châteaux de la Messénie, 161–76. For Saphlaouro, see ibid., 149–52. 179  Mesqui, “Fortification de Saint Louis,” 7–10. 180  M. Kordosis, “Η κατάκτηση της Νότιας Ελλάδας από τους Φράγκους: Ιστορικά και τοπογραφικά προβλήματα,” Ιστορικογεωγραφικά 1 (1985–86): 53–194. 181  For the crusader castles in the Levant, see Ellenblum, Crusader Castles, 296.

populated by locals, so as to begin their conquest of the peninsula with their backs covered. With these considerations in mind, the knights selected their first vertex of the triangle described above, Andravida, a small Byzantine town in the center of the plain, as their capital. This they transformed, through an ambitious building program, into a Frankish city whose palace and great Gothic churches became the hallmarks of the new rule. The construction of Chlemoutsi Castle is associated with this first phase. Soon, however, the rapidly increasing significance of the Peloponnesian crusader state turned this second authority center into the absolute symbol of the new rule. Its size, quality of construction, and, above all, its shape demonstrate the leading role that Geoffrey of Villehardouin intended to play in eastern Mediterranean affairs. In terms of typology, the prince chose the new French metropolitan model of the castle-palace, probably as a reflection of French royal power in its rule over the Morea. The princely chapel and the great hall with its adjacent kitchen, the princely family’s living quarters and the prince’s impressive chambers, the storerooms and servants’ quarters are all reminiscent of architectural features of the royal castles of France. The choice of placing this model within a shell, which copies creatively the crusader castles of the Middle East with their endless halls (salles sans fin), betrays not only functional considerations but also the founders’ wish to promote their “crusader identity.” The limited influence of Byzantine tradition on the building is undoubtedly due to the prince’s intent to transform the crusader state of the Morea into a Nova Francia through the forceful symbolism of architectural landmarks, particularly buildings of political and military significance.182 The third vertex, Glarentza, reflects the culmination of the principality’s power. Its foundation had a strong symbolic significance, since William of Villehardouin established the town ex nihilo, following the model of King Louis IX. Glarentza, inhabited almost exclusively by a 182  For the same pattern in the Angevin Kingdom of Naples, where “Charles utilized Gothic from Île-de-France to connote the authority and prestige of the new regime,” see C. Bruzelius, “‘ad modum franciae’: Charles of Anjou and Gothic Architecture in the Kingdom of Sicily,” JSAH 50 (1991): 402–20.

The Triangle of Power

141

Western European population, followed the plan of French models. At the same time it served vital needs: its harbor provided the principality’s center with direct access to international trade and ensured the continuous flow of military troops to and from the Morea. The new town quickly developed into an important financial and military center, which overshadowed the early capital of Andravida. The Principality of Achaia’s foundation, which ensured the close connection of Elis to the rapidly developing West and its prominence in the international trade network, brought prosperity to the region. 183 The rulers’ accumulated wealth was in­­vested in the vigorous crusader state’s newly established metropolitan center, underwriting de­­velopment once again and making it possible to implement large building programs, such as Chle­moutsi and Glarentza. The development of the Peloponnesian tripartite authority center was en­­tirely dependent on the crusaders’ strategic choices. For this reason these sites lost their function and faded after the principality’s dissolution. Andravida, Chlemoutsi, and Glarentza disappeared from the stage as other centers emerged, whether old, such as Corinth, or new, such as Mystras.

The Architectural Idiom of the Principality The Frankish princes sought to promote the dy­­ namics and character of their new state through building programs that became the landmarks of Nova Francia. At the same time in which the Franks were involved in building projects at Andravida, Chlemoutsi, and Glarentza, however, the region saw the construction of a large number of new Byzantine-style churches (see fig. 1 for individual sites). To what degree these new churches were influenced by the grand building projects of the Franks in the Morea and, conversely, how local builders trained in a Byzantine tradition 183  D. Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns in Latin Romania: The Impact of the West,” in Laiou and Mottahedeh, Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium, 197–233; C. Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204: Un aspect positif de la IV e Croisade?,” in Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences, ed. A. Laiou (Paris, 2005), 215–32.

142

demetrios athanasoulis

might have influenced Frankish construction, is critical to understanding the political and cultural climate of this region. The large number and, above all, the quality of the thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century monuments, both Gothic and Byzantine, within the principality, their interrelationship, and the individual characteristics that distinguish them from monuments in other neighboring states (such as Epiros, the Despotate of Mystras, and the Duchy of Athens) emphasize the existence of a hitherto overlooked regional artistic center that developed in the court of the princes, though probably not without the support of the Greek archontes, who became part of the feudal system. This local architectural idiom, which creatively combined French (Gothic), crusader, and Byzantine features, and was applied to buildings founded by Greeks and Franks alike, developed gradually until the end of the thirteenth century.184 As we have seen, morphologically, stylistically, and structurally, Chlemoutsi is an “implant” from the French architectural tradition into Byzantine cultural territory.185 As the ruler’s material symbol of authority, Chlemoutsi acted as a hallmark in both its size and its exceptional quality. It exerted a decisive influence on the local architectural tradition, together with the Gothic crusader churches,186 such as the impressively large and well-constructed church of Our Lady in the Cistercian monastery of Isova (figs. 30, 31).187 These buildings must have made a powerful impression on the Greeks, whether they were founders, users, and commissioners of churches, or architects and masons. And yet the Frankish buildings also gradually incorporated elements of local Byzantine practices. The collaboration between Frankish masons and local builders left 184  For parallel tendencies in painting, see Gerstel, “Art and Identity.” 185  On the function of implanted monuments, see G. Velenis, Μεσοβυζαντινή ναοδομία στην Θεσσαλονίκη (Athens, 2003), 25–26, 63. 186  D. Theodosopoulos, “Aspects of Transfer of Gothic Masonry Vaulting Technology to Greece in the Case of Saint Sophia in Andravida,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Inter­ national Congress on Construction History (Cottbus, 2009), 1403–10. 187 Kitsiki-Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant, 42–52; Bon, La Morée franque, 537–44.

Figure 30 

Isova Monastery. Church of Our Lady, interior view from east

Figure 31  Isova Monastery. Church of Our Lady,

Figure 32  Isova Monastery. St. Nicholas, crocket capital

doorway frame

The Triangle of Power

143

Figure 33 

Isova Monastery. St. Nicholas, view from northeast

its mark on structures such as the three-aisled basilica of St. Nicholas at Isova, where high quality Gothic sculpture is combined with Byzantinestyle masonry (figs. 32, 33).188 The Byzantine-style masonry at Chlemoutsi and the dentil friezes at St. Francis of Glarentza are just two of the examples of the collaboration between Franks and Greeks that allowed the latter to assimilate new forms, fine workmanship in stonecutting, and new construction techniques.189 These features were subsequently adapted to Orthodox churches in the Frankish-occupied Morea.190 188 Kitsiki-Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant, 52–56; R. Traquair, Frankish Architecture in Greece (London, 1923), 7–10; Bon, La Morée franque, 545–47. 189  For the Holy Land where “continuity in Crusader architecture was provided to a large extent by an indigenous workforce,” see R. Ousterhout, “The French Connection? Construction of Vaults and Cultural Identity in Crusader Architecture,” in France and the Holy Land, ed. D. Weiss and L. Mahoney (Baltimore, 2004), 77–94, at 91. 190  The subject of the influence of Western crusader art and architecture in Byzantium has concerned scholars from an early date. See A. Bon, “Art oriental et art

144

demetrios athanasoulis

A study of the overall number of Orthodox churches in Elis shows that contrary to previous opinion the core of the Frankish state saw a sharp increase in their number.191 Many of these are ambitious buildings. The establishment of a feudal regime in the area seems to have favored economic development, which not only was a vital factor in the increase in building activity but also ensured the quality of the structures themselves. occidental en Grèce au Moyen Âge,” in Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michalowski, ed. M. Bernhard et al. (Warsaw, 1966), 293–305; Bon, La Morée franque, 574–89; Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” 247–62; Coulson, “Merbaka,” particularly 328–40; H. Grossman, “Building Identity: Architecture as Evidence of Cultural Interaction between Latins and Byzantines in Medieval Greece” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2004); Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 456–64, 467–70, 477– 94, 511–16, 521–28 and passim; N. Melvani, “Η γλυπτική στις ‘ιταλοκρατούμενες’ και ‘φραγκοκρατούμενες’ περιοχές της ανατολικής Μεσογείου κατά τον 13ο και 14 ο αιώνα,” in Γλυπτική και Λιθοξοϊκή στη Λατινική Ανατολή, ed. O. Gratziou (Heraklion, 2007), 34–47. 191  Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 517–18.

The Greek archontes were incorporated into the feudal hierarchy and soon were able to erect new churches. Moreover, the local Orthodox population seems to have been relatively free to practice its religious observance.192 The Panagia Katholike at Gastouni is a key monument for understanding Orthodox church construction in the socioeconomic conditions that prevailed within the triangle of Frankish power (fig. 34).193 Despite its predominant Byzantinestyle architecture (two-columned cross-in-square plan, cloisonné masonry, decorative brickwork), 192  Cf. Ranner, “Mendicant Orders.” On the relations between the Franks and the Greeks, see A. Ilieva, Frankish Morea (1205–1262): Sociocultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population (Athens, 1991); D. Jacoby, “Les archontes grecs et la féodalité en Morée Franque,” TM 2 (1967): 421–81; D. Jacoby, “The Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnesus after the Fourth Crusade,” AHR 78 (1973): 873–906; P. Topping, “Co-Existence of Greeks and Latins in Frankish Morea and Venetian Crete,” in Studies on Latin Greece, A.D. 1250–1715 (London, 1977), no. XI. 193 Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 257–85; idem, “Παναγία Καθολική,” 63–77.

the church is adorned with Italian pottery and features three Western architectural details: a Gothic doorframe, a capital, and a cornice with billets. Dated by inscription to 1278–79, it was founded by a family of Greek nobles integrated into the feudal system, the Kalligopoulos brothers. Indeed, the family’s eldest son had taken the French name of the legendary prince William (Guillaume), who died in the year that the church was built. Erected near Andravida, the church was splendid by the standards of the day: on the one hand it emphasizes the way Greek archontes rose in the new regime, and on the other it confirms the religious freedom enjoyed by the Orthodox, if, of course, we accept that the founders had not embraced the Catho­ lic faith. The very fact that a conservative team of masons, who adopted a minimum of Westernstyle features, was chosen to build it is perhaps in­­ dicative of the patrons’ symbolic intentions. The mainstream tendency of the region’s highprofile Byzantine architectural tradition is represented by a group of three churches: the katholikon of the Blachernai Monastery at Glarentza, and the churches of the Panagia and the Savior, both The Triangle of Power

145

Figure 34 

Gastouni. Church of the Panagia Katholike, south facade

in Glatsa (figs. 36, 37, 39, 40, 41).194 In examining the churches of Elis, we can set the following basic parameters for the shaping of Byzantine architecture in the core of the Frankish principality: 1. Despite the break-up of the empire the buildings are an integral part of late Byzantine architecture, which provides the basic structural and stylistic repertoire. This adherence to Byzantine tradition explains the common features shared by buildings in the state of Epiros, the Duchy of Athens, Euboia, and the Despotate of Mystras. It is likely that the same builders worked in all of these places.195 For example, the churches of Panagia Katholike and Palaiopanagia at Manolada (figs. 34, 35) resemble contemporary monuments in the state of Epiros that also feature inscribed trilobe windows, with lobes of the same height, framed by decorative brickwork.196 2. At the same time, the loss of an artistic center at Constantinople favored the development of local “schools,” such as the architectural schools of Epiros or Mystras, as well as regional self-expression on a smaller scale, as, for example, in the Frankish principality. 3. The architecture reproduces features of regional tradition, spread by local teams of builders and shaped by a variety of factors, such as the available building materials. 4. Buildings assimilate, to various degrees, features of the Gothic architectural tradition.197 The Gothic typological influences are re­­ stricted and debatable. In three-aisled basilicas, 194 Bon, La Morée franque, 561–74; Kitsiki-Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant, 79–85; C. Bouras, “Η φραγκοβυζαν­ τινή εκκλησία της Θεοτόκου στο Ανήλιο (τ. Γκλάτσα) της Ηλείας,” Δελτ.Χριστ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 12 (1984): 239–62; Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” passim; Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 144–200, 286–304 and passim. 195  Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 523 and passim. 196  Ibid., 270–78, 350–51, 357–64, 496–500 and passim. 197  For comparisons between the Gothic elements and their equivalents in metropolitan France, see H. Gross­man, “Syncretism Made Concrete: The Case for Hybrid Archi­ tecture in Post–Fourth Crusade Greece,” in Archaeology in Architecture: Studies in Honor of Cecil L. Striker, ed. J. Emerick and D. Deliyannis (Mainz, 2005), 65–73.

146

demetrios athanasoulis

the combination of wooden-roofed aisles and a vaulted sanctuary, as in the Blachernai and in the Panagia church in Glatsa (figs. 36, 37), two monuments with strong Western influence, is relatively rare in Byzantine church building, whereas it can be found in corresponding structures in all of the region’s large Gothic churches (figs. 2, 30). On the other hand, the similarities between the elongated ground plans of basilicas and the crossin-square churches of Elis (Savior, Katholike) should not be attributed to Gothic influence but rather associated to the corresponding tendency in Palaiologan architecture, as seen in the monuments of Mystras.198 At least five cross-vaulted churches in the mountains of Elis (the medieval region of Skorta) illustrate the presence of this type, for the first time, close to the hub of Frankish authority (fig. 1).199 Cross-vaulted churches are absent, however, from the plain of the Morea and cannot be adduced to support the presumed influence of Western architecture on the formation of the type. Of these only one, St. Anne in Mountra, can be connected with evident Gothic structural and stylistic features (fig. 38).200 The Gothic influences on Orthodox church architecture in the region are found mainly in structure and morphology. Churches with West­ ern influence do not belong to a homogenous category. They can be divided into two groups, depending on their degree of assimilation of Western ways and forms. In the first group, isolated Gothic architectural elements are implanted in purely Byzantine-style buildings without af­­ fecting the monument’s character. This complies with the tendency of Byzantine architecture toward variety. A typical example of this group is the Panagia Katholike in Gastouni (fig. 34). The Palaiopanagia in Manolada, an unusual cruciform church with a narthex and side chapels forming a kind of ambulatory, built on the site of the battle fought in 1316 between Louis de Bourgogne and the Infant of Majorca Ferdinand, also belongs 198  Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 263–64. 199  Ibid. 371–407, 437–41. For the church type, see H. M. Küpper, Der Bautypus der griechischen Dachtranseptkirche (Amsterdam, 1990). 200  Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 371–83 and passim.

Figure 35 

Manolada. Church of the Palaiopanagia, apse

Figure 36 

Blachernai Monastery. Katholikon, plan

The Triangle of Power

147

Figure 37 

Blachernai Monastery. Katholikon, south facade

to this group for the design of its facades and the form of its west end (ashlar masonry, semicolonnettes; fig. 35).201 Churches of an anonymous architectural tradition, which have assimilated features of official Gothic architecture, such as the simplified openings with stone frames integral to the surrounding masonry,202 also belong to this group (fig. 38). The type of openings, doors and windows, that are introduced in Gothic buildings quickly become all the rage in Byzantine church architecture, too. The door and window frames have composite or simpler forms, with horizontal or arched lintels, positioned below the interior arch surmounting the opening and integral with the masonry of the walls.203 In the second parallel tendency, a fusion of Western features and Byzantine tradition is achieved. The monuments incorporate Gothic and “Gothicizing” features in an organic fashion

Figure 38 

Mountra. Church of St. Anne, window section (D. Athanasoulis and N. Nikas)

201  C. Bouras, “Ἡ Παλαιοπαναγιὰ στὴ Μανωλάδα,” Επετηρίς Πολυτεχνικής Σχολής Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 4 (1969): 233–66; Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 333–70 and passim. 202  Cf. above, in Chlemoutsi, morphological and structural elements. 203  Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 485–90.

148

demetrios athanasoulis

and constitute inseparable parts of a unified whole in terms of design and execution. This group includes the katholikon of the Blachernai Monas­ tery in Glarentza, as well as the churches of Pan­ agia and Savior in Glatsa (figs. 36, 37, 39–41). In addition to the shape of the openings, Western stylistic features include ashlar masonry and carved architectural and decorative features, such as capitals, attached colonnettes, cornices with composite moldings, and corbels. At the same time they introduce features unknown in Byzantine architecture, such as chamfered stone wall bases and chamfered joints between walls and roofs. They make wide use of new types of arches, pointed or segmental, and adopt the Gothic pointed vaults and groin vaulting with ribs. The widespread use and high degree of assimilation of these features into the architectural whole presuppose the masons’ familiarity with the new forms and, at the same time, the acquisition of the skills necessary to work soft stone. Indeed, particular skill in stone cutting can also be seen in the Figure 39 

Glatsa. Church of the Savior, sculpture

Figure 40 

Figure 41 

Glatsa. Church of the Savior, window (D. Athanasoulis and S. Mamaloukos)

Glatsa. Church of the Savior, capital (D. Athanasoulis and S. Mamaloukos) The Triangle of Power

149

Figure 42 

Merbaka. Church of the Panagia, south facade

Byzantine architectural features of these churches, such as the cloisonné masonry, which is executed in a formalistic spirit. A development in the way that these Western features were assimilated can be discerned in the three monuments that make up this group, beginning with Blachernai’s first phase and continuing with the Panagia and Savior churches, and, finally, with Blachernai’s second phase.204 The occasional similarities among the three buildings, their common architectural repertoire, the high quality of the construction, and above all the coherent way in which they incorporate the new methods and styles both at the design stage and in the execution, suggest the possibility that they were built by the same workshop, a workshop to which other monuments in the Morea, such as Panagia in Merbaka (Argolid) and St. George in Androusa (Messenia), might be attributed.205 Still to be explored is this workshop’s relation to similar 204  Ibid., 512–16 and passim. 205  For Merbaka, see note 4 above; for St. George, see C. Bouras, “Ὁ Ἅγιος Γεώργιος τῆς Ἀνδρούσης,” in Χαριστήριον εἰς Ἀναστάσιον Ὀρλάνδον (Athens, 1966), 2: 270–85.

150

demetrios athanasoulis

tendencies displayed in other regions under Frankish rule, such as east-central Greece,206 and to this same phenomenon in the form in which it occurs in the Corinthia and the Argolid, where the two crusader states of Achaia and Athens met politically and culturally.207 The familiarization with the new forms and the fine workmanship used in stone carving came out of the active participation of Greek masons in the great construction sites of the “implanted” Gothic buildings of the Franks, beginning in the first decades of the thirteenth century and peaking around the middle of that century under William II of Villehardouin. Consequently, the Byzantine churches with Western influence can be attributed to that same period and a little later.

206  Bouras, “Impact of Frankish Architecture,” 251–53. 207  Ibid., 250; Grossman, “Hybrid Architecture,” 72–73; D. Athanasoulis and E. Manolessou, “Η μεσαιωνική Κορινθία,” in Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese: Topography and History from Prehistoric Times until the End of Antiquity, International Archaeological Conference (Loutraki, 26–29 March 2009), proceedings forthcoming.

Church building had peaked by 1300.208 After 1320 the internal political instability and the confrontations with the Byzantines of Mystras brought on uncertainty and financial crisis, which hampered building activity by both Greeks and Franks. The architectural idiom of the principality, as expressed in both Frankish and Orthodox buildings of the region, reflects the new synthesis that emerged from the feudal society of the crusader Morea. The first Frankish buildings in Achaia, such as Chlemoutsi, echoing metropolitan and crusader architecture, introduce the new local architectural trend. Gradually, the buildings commissioned by the feudal and ecclesiastical nobility of the principality adopt features of the local Byzantine tradition, expressing a kind of cultural adaptation. An extreme example of this tendency is the Church of the Panagia in Merbaka, where the Latin archbishop chose to erect a Byzantine-style church with decorative Gothic features (fig. 42). This phenomenon of adaptive architecture has political significance. It expresses the princes’—particularly William of Villehardouin’s—attempt to achieve a harmonious coexistence between the Franks and the local population through mutual cultural adaptation209 rather than to forge a new Moreote 208  Athanasoulis, “Η ναοδομία στην Επισκοπή Ωλένης,” 521–22. 209  For the relevant shift of taste in the architecture of the Kingdom of Naples and the development of a local

identity.210 The Greek response to this attempt at cultural adaptation was clearly ambiguous, as suggested by the different degrees to which Western elements were incorporated into Ortho­ dox churches.211 The most decisive factor, however, in the development of the principality’s architectural idiom was more practical: the increasing participation of local builders, who had assimilated the Western style, combined with the continuously diminishing involvement of Franks after the first wave of settlers arrived in the Morea after 1205. This local architectural trend does not negate the distinctive cultural origins, the Byzantine style for the Greeks (as seen at Blachernai, Glarentza) and the Gothic for the Franks (as seen at St. Francis, Glarentza), but exhibits an interesting aspect of their cultural dialogue.212 architecture as a reflection of a different political vision that aimed at harmonious coexistence and as an example of cultural adaptation, see Bruzelius, “ad modum franciae,” 419–20. 210  On the subject of identity in the Frankish Morea, see G. Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity before the Ottomans (Cambridge, 2008); T. Shawcross, The Chronicle of Morea: Historiography in Crusader Greece (Oxford, 2009), 203– 17; and on its relationship with architecture, cf. the theory expounded by Grossman, “Building Identity.” See also the strong tendency of segregation and consolidation of the Latin communal identity in the principality: Ranner, “Mendicant Orders,” esp. 162. 211  Athanasoulis, “Παναγία Καθολική,” 75–77. 212  See Ellenblum, Crusader Castles, 303 and passim.

The Triangle of Power

151

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade KL J U L I A N BA K E R A N D A L A N M . STA H L

I

n 1274 two Venetian merchants in the Morea made a loan to William of Barre, representative of Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily. 1 he value of goods and coins is recorded as having been 4,000 hyperpyra, of which 81 hyperpyra and 3 Venetian grossi worth were in merchandise and the rest in coinage of tournois pennies at the rate of 19 1/2 ster­ lings per hyperpyron. 2 hus, seven decades ater the Fourth Crusade, the coinage of the Morea had come to be evaluated in the terms of the coinage of England, France, and Venice, as well as the old Byzantine denomination of the hyperpyron. While all of these imported coins had indeed circu­ lated in the Peloponnese in the thirteenth century, it was the locally minted coinage of the Frankish princes of Achaia, the tournois pennies, that seems to have been used to make the payment. he record of coins, some in actual circulation and others in units of account named for coins no longer actually in use, was to a great extent a mirror of the forces that shaped the medieval Morea. A sur­ vey of coinage and money may illuminate aspects of a history that is otherwise poorly served by the sparse documentation.

K Our thanks go to David Jacoby, Pagona Papadopoulou, and Orestes Zervos for assistance ofered in the researching and writing of this chapter. 1 R. Filangieri, I registri della cancelleria angioina, Testi e documenti di storia napolitana 11 (Naples, 1958), 67, no. 191; Filangieri, Registri, 12 (1959), 172–73, no. 42. See also I. Touratsoglou and J. Baker, “Byzantium of the Venetians, Greece of the ‘grossi’,” in Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo ranco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), ed. C. A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (Venice, 2002), 203–33, at 220–21 nn. 84–85. 2 he text speaks of 3 ducati, which was the term given to the Venetian grosso before the minting of the gold coin of that name in 1285: A. M. Stahl, Zecca: he Mint of Venice in the Middle Ages (Baltimore, London, New York, 2000), 17. here were 98 grossi to the Neapolitan ounce in this period, making the hyperpyron of the Morea equivalent to 13 grossi: Filangieri, Registri, 18 (1964), 384–87, no. 799.

1

Figs. 2, 13, 16, 21, 12

The Numismatic Sources Some relevant documentary sources, chiely Nea­ politan and Venetian, will be adduced at the appro­ priate places in the discussion below. However, the reconstruction of monetary production and circulation must rely largely on the evidence of coins. he specimens themselves, through their intrinsic properties, provide us with an idea of what was produced where, when, by whom, and at what quality. Coins in context, hoards and exca­ vated single pieces, are more useful, as they allow us to verify dates and atributions and to describe movement and usage.3 Although coins have been excavated and hoards have been recorded in the Peloponnese for well over a century, the overall body of evidence that is available is still rather meager, and future coin inds will no doubt neces­ sitate substantial revisions. Excavations at some major ancient and medi­ eval cities have generated copious coin inds. Nev­ ertheless, diiculties present themselves even in these cases. For example, the extensive and ongo­ ing Corinth excavations of the American School of Classical Studies have touched upon only sub­ urban parts of the medieval city.4 he fact that the data from Corinth are still vastly larger and more varied than any comparable set of inds from the Peloponnese actually complicates the interpreta­ tion of circulation paterns. At Argos, the central ancient and medieval area excavated by teams from the École Française remains largely unpublished,5 while other inds that were recently published came from extramural suburbs.6 he Sparta material the British School researchers unearthed is for the most part limited to the Acropolis.7 he classical 3 Another possible category, single coins found fortu­ itously outside of recognizable archaeological structures, is presently unavailable for the medieval Peloponnese. 4 Coin inds are numbered below in bold according to the catalog contained in J. Baker, Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 (Leiden, forthcoming), and are discussed in the appendix below, the checklist of Peloponnesian coin inds. Usually we have limited ourselves to a single reference for every coin ind. he Corinthian single inds are 218 and 263–78. 5 234. 6 236. 7 351, although a few additional coins were found at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (352).

1

    . 

sanctuaries of Isthmia and Nemea, on the other hand, have yielded useful runs of medieval coins.8 Few or no medieval numismatic data are currently available for major towns and cities such as Mystras, Nauplia, Methone and Korone, and Patras.9 Only a few excavations have speciically tar­ geted medieval contexts: Glarentza,10 beside much more minor setlements,11 is the one major ex­ clusively medieval city for which we possess coin sequences. Very few of the numerous medieval for­ tiications of the peninsula have ever been investi­ gated scientiically, and the available numismatic data are few and far between.12 Besides churches in Glarentza and Corinth, the main ecclesiastical structure in the Peloponnese to be excavated and produce coin inds is the Cistercian monastery at Zaraka.13 Overall, the Peloponnese is therefore decently if hardly extensively covered by exca­ vated coins. Chronology remains perhaps the most serious problem, since none of the indicated excavated sites enjoyed a consistent development throughout the later medieval period. Some ity coin hoards have been documented in some form for the medieval Peloponnese. A number of these have been excavated, a hand­ ful of them from graves, while others are chance inds. As in the case of excavated single coins, this body of evidence is idiosyncratic enough to pres­ ent methodological problems. For instance, is the 8 296. and 334. Messene is another classical city and sanc­ tuary for which interesting medieval coin inds will eventu­ ally be published. A small medieval setlement is atested there: 319. 9 See the few indications given in 320, 321, 343. A hoard of Venetian coins (180) uncovered during restoration work in the 1930s is the only evidence available for Mystras. 10 216 and 262. 11 For instance, Pylos in Elis, excavated by an American team: 349. 12 he American campaign on Acrocorinth of spring 1926 lasted a few weeks (223); at Chlemoutsi the Byzantine Ephoreia dug a few trial trenches (261); Ligourio castle, near Epidauros, was briely investigated (314); excavations on Akronauplia were apparently more extensive, but only one of 122 coins was ever published (321). 13 Although even there the scope of the Canadian cam­ paign was rather humble, and the forthcoming publica­ tion will be presenting merely twenty coins of the period concerned: 385. J. Baker, “Zaraka: he Coins,” in he Cistercian Monastery of Zaraka, ed. S. Campbell (Toronto, forthcoming).

overall dearth of material from southern areas of the Peloponnese—Messenia and Lakonia— an accurate relection of medieval realities? We must bear in mind that modern demographics has perhaps the largest impact on hoard retrieval; of all parts of southern Greece, Greater Athens has produced by far the largest number of medieval hoards.14 What are we to make of the chronologi­ cal gaps from circa 1311 to circa 1332, and from circa 1420 to circa 1496, during which no hoarding is in evidence at all? Are these due to reduced causes of thesaurization, as is suspected in the irst case, reduced availability of monetary specie, in the second, or the randomness of the available data?

The Twelfth-Century Background he coinage in circulation in the Peloponnese during the twelth century, like that of the entire Byzantine Empire, was based on the denomina­ tions introduced during the coinage reform of Alexios I in 1092.15 he top coin in this system was the hyperpyron, a cup­shaped coin of a high alloy of gold and silver. he next coin was the electrum trachy, a coin of low gold­silver alloy of which three were equal to the hyperpyron. Beneath this was the billon trachy, of low silver­copper alloy, with initially 16 to the electrum trachy and 48 to the ine hyperpyron.16 At the botom of the sys­ tem was a lat copper coin called the tetarteron, minted at diferent sizes and weights; the value of these in relation to the other coins is uncertain. here are a few inds of twelth­century hyper­ pyra in the Morea,17 but none of the electrum 14 his had already been noted in D. M. Metcalf, “he Currency of Deniers Tournois in Frankish Greece,” BSA 55 (1960): 38–59, at 51. 15 M. F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire, 1081–1261, DOS 12 (Washington, DC, 1969), 14–25. See also DOC 4:41–51. 16 Both denominations are usually called the aspron trachy in the sources, owing to the white aspect of their alloys. he separation into billon and electrum trachea is a modern numismatic convention. 17 he hoards are the following: Corinth 1907, 1 hyperpyron of Alexios I and 120 French pennies: D. M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 2nd rev. ed. (London, 1995), 5–6; Corinth 1914, two hyperpyra of Alexios I: V. Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Pelo­ ponnese: he Numismatic Evidence (8th–12th Century),”

aspron trachy.18 More surprising is the scarcity of the billon trachea: no twelth­century Pelo­ ponnesian hoards are available, and these coins are very rarely found in the excavation reports, absent from some larger bodies of material such as those from Sparta and Nemea, and are pres­ ent at Corinth in merely restrained quantities.19 he only hoards to contain them date to the thir­ teenth century (see below), and it is likely that the twelth­century billon trachea came into the Peloponnese with thirteenth­century issues of the Latin Empire. It is the lat tetarteron that is ubiquitous in Peloponnesian contexts of the twelth century.20 hose in the name of Manuel I of the midcentury are present in overwhelming numbers. Scholars have divided these issues according to their weight and module and have distributed them to mints at hessalonike and an “uncertain Greek” location, possibly Corinth, hebes, or Athens.21 If this rather in Mneme Martin Jessop Price, ed. A. Tzamalis (Athens, 1996), 195–288, at 232, no. 1; Corinth May 1938, 30 hyperpyra of Manuel I: Penna, “Byzantine Peloponnese,” 235, no. 13; Depentziko near Methone, 9 hyperpyra of Alexios I: Penna, “Byzantine Peloponnese,” 232, no. 2. he Mapsos hoard, con­ sisting of two hyperpyra of Isaac II (1185–1195), might well have been concealed ater the conquest: see below and 3. In June 1907 an additional single hyperpyron of Alexios I was also found at Corinth: K. M. Edwards, he Coins, 1896–1929, Corinth Excavations 6 (Cambridge, MA, 1936), 141. 18 his denomination migrated more toward areas at the edge of the twelth­century empire: J. Baker, “Some Notes on the Monetary Life of the Dodecanese and Its Microasiatic Peraia, ca. 1100–1400,” in Το νόμισμα στα Δωδεκάνησα και τη μικρασιατική τους περαία (Αthens, 2006), 351–77, at 356–58. 19 See additionally a specimen from Trianta Zourtzas (380), and two from Gortys and Krestena that might be twelth or thirteenth century: 293 and 310. 20 In addition to the general treatments in Hendy, Coinage and Money and DOC 4, this denomination has been discussed in D. M. Metcalf, “he Tetarteron in the Twelth Century,” NCirc 86, no. 12 (1978): 574–75; I. Touratsoglou, I. Tsourti– Kouli, and M. Krikou­Galani, “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής 1979: Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία των τεταρτηρών του ΙΒ΄ αι. μ. Χ.” ByzF 14 (1989) (= C. Bakirtzis, ed., First International Symposium for hracian Studies: Byzantine hrace; Image and Character, Komotini, May 28th–31st 1987), 365–92; Penna, “Byzantine Peloponnese.” 21 he initial proposal in Hendy, Coinage and Money, 128–30 (repeated in DOC 4:131, and passim) was endorsed implicitly or explicitly by P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London and Berkeley, 1982), 227–33 and M. Galani­Krikou et al., Σύνταγμα Βυζαντινών “Θησαυρών” του Νομισματικού Μουσείου (Athens, 2002), among other writers.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade

1

conjectural scheme were proven to be correct, these locally produced, oicial twelth­century Byzantine issues might represent the irst minting in the Peloponnese since the Corinth mint closed in the early third century AD. Whatever the case may be for the preconquest period, it can be said quite conidently that in the early thirteenth cen­ tury such Byzantine tetartera were counterfeited locally (see below). Already in the twelth century coinages other than Byzantine are in evidence at Corinth. hese are pety copper­ or silver­alloy coinages from the Latin West, and the Latin or Islamic East.22 Similar inds have been made at the Athenian Agora, but in scope and variety Corinth excels and establishes a connection with a few other areas and sites situated on the major routes of the eastern Mediterranean: Durazzo and the Albanian coast­ line, the Dodecanese and the adjoining mainland, Cyprus, and Syria and Palestine themselves.23 In the twelth century, largely due to the changes in the quality of the gold and electrum coinages themselves,24 local Peloponnesian terms 22 he Corinth 1907 hoard has already been cited. See fur­ ther Corinth 1905 and Corinth 1971, containing Italian and French pennies (Metcalf, Ashmolean, 10). Foreign twelth­ century coins have been excavated at Argos (236, coin of Burgundy) and Corinth (263, 265, 266, 267: Norman Apulia, Lucca, Champagne, Maguellonne, Valence, Nor mandy, Tripoli, Le Puy, Poitou, Limoges, Anjou, Antioch, Edessa, Seljuq Syria). See also G. Miles, “he Circulation of Islamic Coinage of the 8th–12th Centuries in Greece,” in Congresso internazionale di Numismatica, Roma, 11–16 setembre 1961 (Rome, 1965), 2:485–98; S. E. Psarra, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα στην Ελάδα (Athens, 1986), 26–29; D. M. Metcalf, “Coins of the Latin Princes of Antioch, 1098–1130, Found at Corinth and Athens,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 14 (1995): 77–78; O. H. Zervos, “A Late Byzantine Copper Overstruck on a Coin of the Seljuqs of Syria,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 25 (2005): 25–29. 23 P. Papadopoulou, “Albanian Numismatics: A Numis­ matist’s Experience,” in Coinage in the Balkans, 9th–14th c. —Forty Years On: Papers in Honour of D. M. Metcalf, ed. E. Oberländer­Târnoveanu and J. Baker, forthcoming; Baker, “Dodecanese,” 354–56; A. M. Stahl, “he Circulation of European Coinage in the Crusader States,” in he Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, ed. V. P. Goss and C. V. Bornstein (Kalamazoo, 1986), 85–102; Metcalf, Ashmolean, passim. 24 he Byzantine authorities reduced the inenesses of both in the course of the century, the electrum more dra­ matically than the hyperpyron. It may also be surmised that the individual specimens that were available in the Peloponnese were not of entirely perfect weight, due to wear and clipping. See DOC 4:41–45.

1

    . 

of accounting seem to have come into being. Venetian documents bear terminology specifying which of the issues was to be used in a given pay­ ment—such terms as stauratos refer to a physical aspect of the image, manuellatos to the emperor whose name appears on them, while novos and veteres are harder to associate with a particular issue.25 Terms such as trimenos suggest that in some cases payment was expected in the one­third electrum aspron trachy rather than the hyperpyron.26 Phrases such as ad libram de Constantinopoli in a document made in hebes and ad rectum volium de Lakedomene for one made in Sparta suggest that regional weight and value systems sprang up in the twelth century.27 It does not seem possible with our present state of knowledge to link these accounting terms to speciic circulating coins.

The First Half of the Thirteenth Century he events of the Fourth Crusade had an almost immediate impact on the monetary landscape of the peninsula. It is possible that two hoards in the Argolid and Corinthia were concealed in 1204 or shortly thereater as a result of the initial cam­ paign of Boniface of Montferrat.28 As the irst decade of the century progressed, an increasing number of cup­shaped billon tra­ chea imitating preconquest issues, largely those produced by the Latin Empire at Constantinople, became available; as we have seen, these seem to have represented the irst use of this denomina­ tion in the Peloponnese (see ig. 2).29 hese were 25 E.g., R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo, eds., Documenti del commercio veneziano nei secoli XI–XIII, 2 vols. (Turin, 1940), 1:23–24, no. 20; 1:58–59, no. 56; 1:70–71, no. 67; 1:92–93, no. 91; 1: 128–29, no. 128; 1:200–201, no. 202. 26 E.g., ibid., 1:2–73, no. 69. 27 Ibid., 1:347–48, no. 353; 1:134–35, no. 135. 28 he hoards in question are Kaparelli 1927 and Mapsos 1991 (1 and 3). Although containing respectively tetartera and hyperpyra of the late twelth century, their advanced proiles can support such datings. On the events, see A. Bon, La Morée ranque: Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430) (Paris, 1969), 56; A. Ilieva, Frankish Morea (1205–1262): Socio-Cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population (Athens, 1991), 126. 29 While one series of imitative trachea can be conidently

eventually hoarded in the east of the peninsula.30 Whether or not concealments and nonretrievals can be completely matched with major conquests is uncertain, although a scheme that sees initial concealments in Arkadia,31 and then at Corinth, Argos, Sparta, perhaps in succession from 1209 to 1212,32 is not implausible. Trachea were prob­ ably not produced at Latin Constantinople much beyond this time, and there are only very few issues of the Byzantine Empire at hessalonike found in the Peloponnese.33 he Fourth Crusade introduced the billon tra­ chy to the peninsula. At the same time, the gold supply to the peninsula was evidently broken by the same event. Following the Mapsos hoard, which may perhaps be dated to 1204 or 1205, one

atributed to the Latin emperors at Constantinople, there is much controversy over whether other such series of imi­ tations of twelth­century billon aspron trachea were made by the same emperors in the early years of the thirteenth centuries, or by the Bulgarian emperors, or by various illicit counterfeiters operating in both the twelth and thirteenth centuries. Several scholars are working intensively on sort­ ing out these issues, and in due course it should be possible to assign all coins of this category found in the Morea to a speciic date and issuer; for now the question evokes more polemic than clarity. 30 here are no hoards of thirteenth­century trachea from the west of the Peloponnese, and only a few pieces have been excavated: see Chlemoutsi (261) and Krestena (310). 31 he Arkadia 1958 hoard (33) is dated numismatically to ca. 1207. 32 he hoards in question are: Corinth 15 July 1929 (36), Corinth 15–16 June 1960 (37), Argos 1984 (38), Sparta 1957 (35). he historical events are narrated in Ilieva, Frankish Morea, 134–37 and A. Kieseweter, “Ricerche costituzio­ nali e documenti per la signoria ed il ducato di Atene soto i regni della Roche e Gualtieri V di Brienne (1204–1311),” in Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo ranco-greco, ed. C. A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (Venice, 2002), 235–347, at 303 n. 48. Even though the lower town of Corinth had already been taken in 1204, the two Corinthian hoards date later in the decade and might well have been concealed at the time of the complete conquest of Acrocorinth in 1210–11. he hoard from Sparta has a slightly earlier terminus post quem than the Frankish conquest of the city (1212), though it may still have been the product of that event. 33 he only possible hoard is Capstan Navy Cut: see 69 and below. Single inds are conined to Corinth (263, 265, 266, 267, 268) and Sparta (351). See also C. Morrisson, “he Emperor, the Saint, and the City: Coinage and Money in hessalonike from the hirteenth to the Fiteenth Century,” DOP 57 (2003): 173–203.

has to wait four decades for the next gold hoard to be in evidence (see below).34 he Fourth Crusade did not eliminate the usage of the small lat copper tetartera of the Byzantine emperors of the preceding period. On the con­ trary, hoards and stratigraphical contexts suggest that such issues were still in circulation.35 Further, the changing political situation created a wave of counterfeiting of these same tetartera in southern Greece: the study of such issues has a long pedigree going back to the irst half of the twentieth century with such writers as Edwards and hompson.36 More recently Metcalf, Grierson, and Penna have commented on these, while Papadopoulou dedi­ cated an entire paper to the subject.37 With regard to the proliic issues found in diferent parts of the Peloponnese, Baker stated that it is premature to speak of a precise counterfeit issue produced in a speciic time and place, proposing on the con­ trary multiple centers and a prolonged time peri­ od.38 First, the imitative issues copying Alexios I, the main focus of Papadopoulou’s study, are pre­ sumably twelth century in date and perhaps of Macedonian origin; in the west of the Peloponnese there also appears to have been a separate small center of activities.39 Last, counterfeit tetartera were arguably produced in Atica as late as the Catalan period (ater 1311).40 Nevertheless, he is 34 In terms of the wider Greek area ater 1204, the large Agrinio 1978–79 hoard of Byzantine and Nicaean gold coins dates a bit earlier, the 1230s (41 and Metcalf, Ashmolean, 338, no. 144). 35 he hoards are cited below. A number of Frankish­ period graves of the monastic complex in the central area of Corinth contained twelth­century tetartera (218). he reports from the Corinth Excavations have been appended with lists of stratiied coins: see for instance Hesperia (1990): 358; (1991): 42–43; (1992): 179–82; (1993): 36–39, to give but a few examples of tetartera in later contexts. 36 See J. Baker, “Medieval Coin Finds from Argos,” NC 167 (2007): 211–33, at 225–28, for a summary of this work. 37 P. Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation du XIIIe siè­ cle: À propos du trésor de Durrës (Albanie),” RN 161 (2005): 145–62. 38 Baker, “Argos.” 39 See the single piece from Olena in Elis (336). A coin found at Pylos in Elis (349) is perhaps closer to the coins found in the eastern Peloponnese. 40 J. Baker, “Coin Circulation in Early 14th Century hessaly and South­Eastern Mainland Greece,” in Χρήμα και αγορά στην εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, ed. N. G. Moschonas (Athens, 2003), 293–336, at 336.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade

1

Figure 1 Counterfeit tetarteron, “Saronic Gulf Group,” Manuel I Monogram type. Argos 1988 hoard (59), no. 61

Figure 2 Billon trachy, Latin Empire type A, small module. Argos 1984 hoard (38), no. 39

Figure 3

Billon trachy, Manuel Komnenos Doukas at Thessalonike (1230–37). Corinth Excavations, 72–507 (267)

Billon trachy, Michael VIII Palaiologos at Thessalonike (1261–82). Corinth Excavations, 61–247 (267)

Figure 5 Sterling penny, Henry III, king of England (1216– 1261), short cross class 7b, London/Elis. Provenance: Corinth Excavations, central area. 8 May 1934 (266)

Figure 6 Denier tournois, Louis VIII or IX, kings of France (1223–1270). Kordokopi 1972 (63)

Figure 7

Grosso, Reniero Zeno, doge of Venice (1253–1268). Provenance: Kordokopi 1972 (63)

Hyperpyron, Latin Empire, type of John III Vatatzes (1221–1254). Corinth Excavations, Corinth 15 June 1925 hoard (53)

Figure 9

Petty denomination, William II of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia (1246–1278), Metcalf type 11, Corinth mint (?), for Negroponte. Corinth Excavations, Agora SC, 4 November 1936

Figure 10

Petty denomination, William II of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia (1246–1278), Metcalf type 10, Corinth mint. Museo Correr, Venice, ex­Papadopoli collection, no. 15877

Figure 12

Figure 11

1

Figure 4

Figure 8

Petty denomination, William II of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia (1246–1278), Metcalf type 9, Corinth mint. Bibliothèque royale, Brussels

Petty denomination, William II of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia (1246–1278), Metcalf type 8, Corinth mint (?). Bibliothèque royale, Brussels

    . 

Figure 13 Petty denomination, William II of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia (1246–1278), Metcalf type 12, Glarentza mint. Museo Correr, Venice, ex­Papadopoli collection, no. 15890

Figure 14 Denier tournois, William II of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia (1246–1278), Glarentza mint. Museo Correr, Venice, ex­Papadopoli collection, no. 15881

Figure 15

Denier tournois, Mahaut of Hainaut, princess of Achaia (1316–1321), Glarentza mint. Museo Correr, Venice, ex­Papadopoli collection, no. 15932

Counterfeit tournois, of Glarentza coin. Corinth Excavations, 2 July 1928

Figure 17

Florin, Robert of Taranto, prince of Achaia (1332– 1364), Glarentza mint. Bibliothèque nationale de France

Denier tournois, Helena Angela, lady of Karytaina (1291–1299 or later). Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Figure 19

Denier tournois, Lordship of Damala. Bibliothèque nationale de France

Figure 20 Gigliato, Robert of Anjou, king of Sicily (Naples) (1309–1343). Athenian Agora, BB­244 = N4268

Figure 21

Soldino, Giovanni Dolfin, doge of Venice (1356– 1361). Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Figure 22 Tornesello, Marino Falier, doge of Venice (1354–1355). Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Figure 23 Tornese, Manuel II Palaiologos at a Lakonian mint (1391–1425). Corinth 10 November 1936 hoard (212)

Figure 24

Figure 16

Figure 18

Denier tournois, Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte, lord of Campobasso (1450–ca. 1467). Corinth, 5 November 1937

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade

1

now convinced, based on a recent examination of specimens from Corinth, Athens, and Nemea, and in the additional material which Galani­Krikou has been able to gather from Akronauplion, the south­ ern Argolid, and the islands of Spetses and Hydra,41 that it is possible to speak of a distinctive “Saronic Gulf Group” of counterfeit tetartera (ig. 1). his is represented in hoards at Kastri,42 the Athenian Agora,43 and Brauron44 (all Atica), a grave hoard from Temple E in Corinth (31 May 1932),45 a hoard containing largely billon trachea from Corinth (15 July 1929),46 and two hoards from Argos.47 Site inds are from Acrocorinth, Argos, the Athenian Agora, ancient Corinth, and Nemea.48 his group is characterized by excessively thin lans clipped into square or octagonal shapes and bearing more or less faithful images based on the prototypes of the Komnenian emperors. It has been further subdivided in separate atempts by Zervos and MacIsaac on the basis of size, shape, and imagery. he age proile of the hoards suggests that this Saronic Gulf Group was produced ater 1204, and the single inds, speciically the overwhelming proportions noted at Argos and Nemea, locate the mint in the Argolid, rather than in Atica, or indeed in Corinth, which is the least likely of the candidates. In view of the fact that the Argolid was conquered by the Latins only ater 1211 (and sub­ sequently held by the lords, later dukes, of Athens independently from the princes of Achaia),49 Penna’s suggestion that such issues are to be atrib­ uted to Greek rather than Latin forces seems par­ ticularly plausible.50 To the corpus of counterfeit 41 his new material was presented at the congress of Peloponnesian numismatics of the Friends of the Numis­ matic Museum, held at Argos in May 2011. 42 16: Σύνταγμα, 96–98, no. 84. 43 17: R. C. Knapp and J. D. MacIsaac, Excavations at Nemea, vol. 3, he Coins (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 2005), 188 n. 388. 44 25: Σύνταγμα, 103, no. 90. 45 217. 46 Already cited above (36). 47 Argos 1984, which also contained billon trachea (see above and 38) and Argos 1988 (59). 48 223, 326, 239, 268, 269, 270, 334. 49 Kieseweter, “Ducato di Atene,” esp. 305. 50 V. Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμή­ σεις,” in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελάδα (Athens, 2000), 7–21; Baker, “Argos,” 228 n. 28.



    . 

tetartera, Zervos has added a number of counter­ feit trachea (igs. 3, 4).51 He believes that at least in some cases tetarteron and trachy counterfeits are part of the same production. Another efect of the Fourth Crusade was the apparently immediate introduction of English sterling pennies (ig. 5).52 By the end of the twelth century English coinage had established itself as the most reliable coin of Europe for its high and constant silver content of the so­called sterling standard.53 he most telling example of the pres­ tige of this coinage in the present context is that the loan that Baldwin of Flanders secured from Venetian merchants in 1202 to inance his crusade was speciied as being in terms of the English ster­ ling, speciied as 160 coins per mark.54 he pen­ nies bearing the short cross design were reformed by King John in 1204–5 with the introduction of class 5, which led to an almost complete with­ drawal of the earlier classes 1–4.55 It would appear from Peloponnesian inds of classes 1–4 that these coins were imported during the irst wave of conquests in direct succession to this crusade: the Methana hoard contains one or two such specimens,56 Corinth 8 May 1934 another,57 and one class 3 penny was excavated at the Frankish complex of this city.58 Sterling short cross pennies of the later classes 5–8 (minted during 1205–47) 51 O. H. Zervos, “An Issue of Irregular Copper Coins of the Early hirteenth Century from Corinth,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 26 (2007): 91–93; O. H. Zervos, “New Light on an Enigmatic Issue of Late Byzantine Coppers,” NCirc 117 (2009): 163–64. A trachy counterfeit had already been illus­ trated by D. N. Artemis, “To εν Γλαρέντζα νομισματοκοπείον των φραγκών κατακτητών της Αχαίας,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 2 (1973): 37–45, at 37, ig. 1. Hoards and site inds of such issues are 36, 268, 269, 351. 52 On foreign coins in medieval Greece, see A. M. Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece ater the Fourth Crusade,” MHR 4, no. 2 (1989): 356–63. 53 A. M. Stahl, “he Sterling Abroad,” Haskins Society Journal 18 (2006): 132–39. 54 Th, 1:385–86, no. 95. See also A. M. Stahl, “Coinage and Money in the Latin Empire of Constantinople,” DOP 55 (2001): 197–206, at 201 n. 28; Stahl, “Sterling Abroad,” 135 n. 18. 55 J. P. Mass, he J. P. Mass Collection: English Short Cross Coins, 1180–1247, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 56 (Oxford, 2001), 6–7 and passim. 56 39. 57 70. 58 268.

continued to ind their way to the Peloponnese, and are hoarded, in addition to the two cited hoards, at Berbati 1953,59 Kordokopi 1972,60 and in a grave at Palaiochora.61 here are numerous excavation inds at Corinth62 and single pieces at Isthmia63 and Nemea.64 here are no documents atesting the use of sterling coins in the Morea itself in this period, but there is a notice of a thet in Corfu of 1,500 marks of sterlings in 122865 and documentation of a loan in 1255 by citizens of hebes to the captain of a Venetian military contingent army of 2,740 hyperpyra made in sterlings, to be paid back by the Venetian state at the rate of one mark of new sterlings by the weight of Cologne for each seven hyperpyra.66 In 1246, Emperor Baldwin II prom­ ised the Master of the Order of Santiago 40,000 marks of sterlings in exchange for the services of three hundred of his knights for two years.67 Usage of the sterling pennies petered out with the end of the short cross issues. As opposed to the Cyclades and Crete, where the later long cross issues (1247–79) are found in hoards,68 there are only a handful of single inds from Argos69 and Corinth.70 Pegoloti, in his merchant manual composed around 1330, noted that in Glarentza and throughout the Morea the hyperpyron was deined as twenty sterlings, but the sterlings were neither sold nor seen (“In Chiarenza e per tuta 59 54. 60 63. 61 221. 62 223 (Acrocorinth), 263, 264, 266, 267, 268. 63 296. 64 334. 65 1228: Liber Plegiorum: R. Cessi, ed., Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio di Venezia, vol. 1 (Bologna, 1931), 196–97. 66 R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo, eds, Nuovi documenti del commercio veneziano dei secoli XI–XIII (Ven­ ice, 1953), 359–60 no. 833. See also Stahl, “Constantinople,” 202 n. 31; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 220 n. 82; Stahl, “Sterling Abroad,” 136 n. 26. 67 Stahl, “Constantinople,” 201 n. 20; idem, “Sterling Abroad,” 136 n. 23. 68 J. Baker, “Monete, monetazione e zecche nelle Cicladi medievali, XIII–XV secolo/Νομίσματα, νομισματοκοπία και νομισματοκοπεία στις μεσαιωνικές Κυκλάδες, 13ος–15ος αι.,” in Il Ducato dell’Egeo/Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου, ed. N. Moschonas and A. Panopoulou (Athens, 2009), 333–85. 69 236. 70 264, 266.

la Morea . . . gli sterlini non vi si vendono nè vi si veggiono”).71 he aterlife of the sterling as a unit of account, exempliied by the 1274 document cited at the beginning, will be discussed further below. Even during its heyday in the irst half of the thirteenth century, the circulation of the sterling penny in the Morea was overwhelmed by French penny issues of the Tours type (deniers tournois). he coinage of the abbey of Tours had its origin in the early Middle Ages, and by the twelth cen­ tury was one of the most respected of the many seigneurial coinages of central France.72 When he extended his kingdom into the former English territories of western France in 1204, Philip II Augustus created a royal version of the coin type of Tours to supplement his existing Parisian coinage. he type was continued by Philip’s son, Louis VIII, and his grandson, Saint Louis (IX). It was also the main denomination of the coin­ ages of the appanage territories given by Louis to his brothers: Charles minted tournois as count of Anjou and of Provence, and Alphonse as mar­ quis of Provence and count of Riom, Poitou, and Toulouse. By the middle of the thirteenth century, no fewer than six mints in France were turning out coins bearing a cross on one side and a castle known as the château tournois on the other. As with the sterling pennies, the crusaders who conquered the Morea were directly respon­ sible for the irst appearance of the tournois coin­ age (ig. 6). his can be measured by the presence of issues of the Abbey of St. Martin of Tours itself, the production of which appears to have ended in 1204.73 A number of hoards contain such issues.74 Two single pieces were found at the monastery of Zaraka.75 At Corinth—to pick merely the example of the particularly productive excava­ tion period 1930–3576 —nine monastic tournois compare to twenty­seven royal and eight later feudal issues. In the course of the irst half of the 71 Pegoloti, 116; Stahl, “Sterling Abroad,” 136–37. 72 E. Fournial, Histoire monétaire de l’Occident médiéval (Paris, 1970), 70–71. 73 J. Duplessy, Les monnaies rançaises féodales (Paris, 2004), 1:101. 74 Berbati 1953 (54); Nemea 1936 (60); Kordokopi 1972 (63); Corinth 8 May 1934 (70); Xirochori 1957 (83). 75 385. 76 266.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



thirteenth century the three generations of tour­ nois issues (abbatial, royal, feudal) succeeded one another. he hoards we possess are all relatively tightly packed, and are all quite similar in compo­ sition (Berbati 1953,77 Nemea 1936,78 Kordokopi 1972,79 Corinth 8 May 193480), though the inal dominance of the feudal issues can already be anticipated even in this group. Sparta 1926C81 is more curious since it lacks the early Tours issues and has yet to make the transition to the coinages of the royal appanages, presumably because of its relatively earlier dating. In addition to Corinth, such coinages have been excavated at sites in all areas of the peninsula.82 he third European coin circulating in the Morea by the middle of the thirteenth century was the Venetian grosso (ig. 7). Introduced in the late twelth century as a multiple coin worth 24 base pennies of Venice, and modeled on the Byzantine electrum aspron trachy, the grosso was the largest and inest European coin of its age.83 he numismatic evidence for its appearance in the Peloponnese, as opposed to areas of the Greek mainland,84 is belated and unimpressive. Ater Corinth 1898,85 we ind this denomination in small quantities hoarded beside other denomina­ tions.86 he grosso survives the watershed of 1267 only for a very short time indeed.87 Nevertheless, this coinage has a penetration into our record as stray losses that is impressive for such a large and ine coin,88 and documentary evidence reveals a

77 54. 78 60. 79 63. 80 70. 81 50. 82 Argos (236), Mazi/Skillountia (317), Sparta (351). 83 See for instance, from the large bibliography on this subject, Stahl, Zecca, 16–27. 84 Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” esp. 228–29. 85 43. 86 Xirochori 2001 (52); Kordokopi 1972 (63); Corinth 8 May 1934 (70). 87 Corinth 1992 (77), Troizina 1899 (81), Xirochori 1957 (83). 88 Argos (235), Kleonai (309), Nemea (334), Sparta (351). At Corinth, seven were counted (266, 267, 268), includ­ ing two Serbian issues that are otherwise absent from the Peloponnese, though to be found on mainland Greece.



    . 

rather more important role played by this coinage than the hoards may suggest.89 Although the Latin rulers in Constantinople issued no coins in their own name, they copied bil­ lon trachea, as we have seen, and are believed to have produced their own version of the Byzantine hyperpyron.90 Hyperpyra minted in Nicaea in the name of John III Vatatzes (1221–1254), and imita­ tions of them atributed to Latin rulers, occur in seven Peloponnesian hoards.91 Since the Latin issues far outweigh their Nicaean counterparts in this body of material, the reintroduction of gold into the Peloponnese is best interpreted in terms of an upsurge in trade, centered on Constantinople herself, from the 1240s onward. A relative shit in importance from the east to the west of the pen­ insula is also probably a relevant phenomenon.92 his was to be, however, the swan song of Byzantine­style coinage in this part of Greece. Gold is not in evidence beyond the 1260s, and cop­ per coinage of the Palaiologan period received merely a brief introduction ater 1261 before disap­ pearing altogether.93 One has to await the experi­ ments at the Byzantine mints in Constantinople and in Lakonia around 1400 before Byzantine coins make a inal showing in the numismatic record of the Morea (see below). 89 Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 221. 90 Stahl, “Constantinople,” 199–200; E. Oberländer­ Târnoveanu, “Les hyperpères de type Jean III Vatatzès— Classiication, chronologie et évolution du titre (à la lumière du trésor d’Uzun Baïr, dép. de Tulcea),” in Istro-Pontica: Muzeul Tulcean la a 50–a aniversare (Tulcea, 2000), 499–561. 91 Erymantheia 1955 (45); Patras before 1940 (46); Seltsi 1938 (47); Xirochori 2001 (52); Corinth 15 June 1925 (53); Kordokopi 1972 (63); Corinth 8 May 1934 (70). 92 For these arguments, see D. Athanasoulis and J. Baker, “Medieval Clarentza: he Coins 1999–2004, with Additional Medieval Coin Finds from the nomos of Elis,” NC 168 (2008): 241–301, at 246–48. he recent proposal that Latin hyperpyra were actually minted in the Peloponnese (Corinth or Glarentza) cannot be squared at all with their chronology and spread, nor with wider monetary and his­ torical considerations: R. D. Leonard, “he Efects of the Fourth Crusade on European Gold Coinage,” in he Fourth Crusade: Event, Atermath, Perception, ed. T. F. Madden (Aldershot, 2008), 75–85, at 83. 93 It is possible that the hoard referred to as Capstan Navy Cut (69) was Peloponnesian, and it contained trachea of Emperor Michael VIII (1261–1282). Similar pieces have been excavated only at Corinth (263, 266, 267, 268) and Sparta (351).

We have seen a number of developments and coinages in the irst half­century ater the Latin conquest of the Peloponnese. here is clear evi­ dence that in the initial period the multitude of coinages required a fair amount of adjustments in usage. A concession in Corfu in 1207 calls for pay­ ment in “manuelatos bonos”—apparently coins from the reign of Manuel I of the mid­twelth cen­ tury.94 A loan issued in Negroponte (Euboea) in 1211 called for payment in gold hyperpyra of the weight of Constantinople.95 A quitance from Korone in 1213 acknowledged payment in “good gold hyperpyra.”96 It would seem that these pay­ ments were made with preconquest hyperpyra that were still in circulation. Other regional hyperpyra were apparently soon to be based on new specie, such as grossi or sterlings.97 An explicit mention of a hyperpyron of “Glarentza and the whole of the Peloponnese” occurs only in the so­called Venetian Ternaria document of before 1285.98 Judging particularly from the ample coins of good quality available by midcen­ tury and the consistent fashion in which all of these coinages came to be handled and hoarded together, there is nevertheless reason to believe that a satisfactory and usable monetary system, of distinctly Peloponnesian character, though of course related to neighboring areas of Greece, came into existence.

their general similarity to European pennies, they were of distinctly low silver content.99 heir role in the monetary system is unclear; an introduc­ tion as a penny denomination comparable to the ine sterling or even the baser tournois would have been fraudulent. hey were presumably inspired by similar issues of the lords of Athens,100 and by a very small issue (the irst of the Corinth mint) that emphasized William of Villehardouin’s claims in Negroponte.101 As such the entire series is to be dated ater 1255, and the various issues can be neatly situated successively in the later 1250s and early 1260s, before Achaian minting was trans­ ferred to Glarentza. As these pety denomination issues seem to have held no position within the system of account­ ing of the peninsula, hoarders of coins shunned them.102 Nevertheless, the main two issues bearing explicit mention of the Corinth mint103 display a very strong presence indeed in the excavation inds at Corinth, a good spread throughout the eastern part of the peninsula,104 and into Atica (igs. 8, 9).105 Some have suggested a military context for the issue and spread of this coinage, as it was born out of the conlict over Negroponte, which set Achaia directly against the lords of Athens and saw her troops engage on the mainland. he general economic and monetary upsurge in these years can nevertheless not be ignored, nor can the rather curious patern of inds of these Corinthian issues

The First Achaian Issues of the Corinth Mint in the s

99 For overviews of the pety denomination issues, see Metcalf, Ashmolean, 248–51; J. Baker and M. Ponting, “he Early Period of Minting of Deniers Tournois in the Principality of Achaïa (to 1289), and heir Relation to the Issues of the Duchy of Athens,” NC 161 (2001): 207–54, at 250–52; Baker, “Argos.” 100 Not particularly well represented in the Peloponnese: Argos (236), Lakonia (311), Glarentza (262). 101 Found at Nauplia (321) and Euboia (289), this issue is known as Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11. 102 Corinth April 12, 1929 (56) and Corinth 1938 (57) are assemblages and not hoards in the strictest sense. Argos 1988 (59) has been described as a “reject hoard.” his coin­ age makes a rather belated reappearance at Corinth 10 November 1936 (212). 103 Known as Metcalf types 9 and 10. 104 Acrocorinth (223), Argos (236), Isthmia (296), Kiato (306), Nemea (334), Sparta (351 and 352), Troizina (382). 105 See for instance the Athenian Agora: 238 and M. hompson, Coins rom the Roman through Venetian Period, he Athenian Agora 2 (Princeton, 1954), 76.

Perhaps the most curious observation that one can make about the irst Achaian issues at Corinth is that they were produced in the midst of the monetary diversiication and sophistication of the 1250s, which has just been described. Despite 94 Th 55–58. 95 Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 2:78– 79, no. 537. 96 Ibid., 2:94–95, no. 551. See also Stahl, “Constantinople,” 198, on heavy and old hyperpyra. 97 Stahl, “Constantinople,” 204; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 218. 98 Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 220 n. 82. D. Jacoby has concluded that this document was compiled in the 1260s and was adjusted before 1284; we thank him for shar­ ing these indings from a forthcoming article on the subject.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



in the Near East (see below). he coins have even been found to be counterfeited, which implies that somebody was inding them useful.106 As shall be suggested, it is also possible that political and con­ stitutional considerations are responsible for the particularly unimpressive overall aspect of this coinage, which was ultimately a mere blip in the monetary history of the Latin Morea.

The Mint of Glarentza and Coin Circulation from  to  he next phase in the monetary history of the Morea is the only one in which the precious metal coinage that circulated throughout the region bore the names of its own rulers and was produced at a mint within its borders—the series of deniers tour­ nois issues of the mint of Glarentza in the names of princes of Achaia from William of Villehardouin in the mid­thirteenth century through Robert of Taranto in the mid­fourteenth century.107 Despite the apparent straightforward progression of rulers’ names on the coinage, several aspects of its chro­ nology and minting remain problematic. One such problem is the date of the irst denier tournois issue of the princes of Achaia and that of the opening of the Glarentza mint. Numismatic considerations favor a date in the second half of the 1260s for the inception of the denier issues, although it is impossible to ascertain whether it is to be placed before or ater the Treaty of Viterbo in 1267 (see below).108 It is, however, clear that the Achaian mint was relocated from Corinth to Glarentza during the last period of minting of the pety denomination issues, that is, of types 8 and 12.109 Type 8 does not bear any indication of mint, though stylistically and archaeologically one can place it in Corinth during the very early 1260s (ig. 10).110 he irst Glarentza issue of pety

106 267 and 268. 107 For general accounts, see G. Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient Latin (Paris, 1878), augmented (Paris, 1882), reprinted (Graz, 1954), 285–322; Metcalf, Ashmolean, 252–86. 108 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 252–53. 109 Metcalf, Ashmolean, 243, 247, 250. 110 Baker, “Argos,” 230; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medi­ eval Clarentza,” 244.



    . 

denomination coinage is therefore type 12, which has many ainities with the irst tournois issues of that mint. It is presently not possible to deter­ mine whether these coinages were issued concur­ rently or successively at Glarentza (ig. 11). It has been postulated that the Corinth mint continued operating in the course of the later thirteenth and even in the fourteenth century, and that some of the tournois, and the rare pety denomination issues of Philip of Savoy,111 although bearing quite clearly the mint name of Glarentza, were produced there (see ig. 14). his has now been disproven, on archaeometric, historical, and numismatic grounds, and Glarentza must be considered the only Peloponnesian mint from the 1260s to 1353.112 It is the denier tournois denomination of pen­ nies with a signiicant amount of silver in their alloy and a distinctive castle reverse that became dominant in the Morea in the last half of the thir­ teenth century (igs. 12 and 13). here are two documentary accounts of the bestowal of coin­ age rights and the inception of the minting of this series, neither of which is taken seriously by modern scholars. he Chronicle of the Morea, in a particularly untrustworthy passage, asserts that in 1218 the Emperor Robert bestowed the right to mint on Geofrey of Villehardouin.113 According to the fourteenth­century chronicle of Marino Sanudo Torsello it was the French King Louis IX, on the occasion of his joint crusade with William of Villehardouin, who allowed Achaia to produce “torneselli” of the alloy of the king, that is, with 3 1/2 ounces of silver per 12­ounce pound, which is 29 percent. 114 William had expressed a wish 111 O. H. Zervos, “he Litle­Known Obols of Philip of Savoy,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 14 (1995): 83–87; A. P. Tzamalis, “Μερικές σκέψεις επί του οβολού του Φιλίππου της Σαβοϊας,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 14 (1995): 88–93; Atha­ nasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 244 nn. 13–14. 112 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 243–45. See also the chapter by D. Athanasoulis in this volume. 113 J.­A. Buchon, Recherches historiques sur la principauté de Morée et ses hautes baronies (Paris, 1845), 1:77–79, and Livre de la conqueste, 65–66, chap. 18. he Greek versions give two diferent readings: J. Schmit, he Chronicle of Morea (London, 1904), 174–75. hese passages had already been known to Schlumberger and been dismissed by Metcalf, “Deniers tournois,” 39 and passim. 114 E. Papadopoulou, ed., Μαρίνος Σανούδος Τορσέλο: Ιστορία της Ρωμανίας (Athens, 2000), 107, lines 14–19. See also Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 218 n. 39.

to “lead men” like the king with the help of this coinage. Although, again, this scenario is highly improbable on account of the lack of author­ ity of the king of France in the afairs of Achaia, the additional information that we receive is of some interest. Taking other sources into account it emerges that the new tournois coinage was probably conceived with a number of beneits in mind: providing the state with direct proit from the minting process, creating a useful medium of exchange for merchants, as well as the military dimension Sanudo related.115 According to the two Treaties of Viterbo of 1267, Charles of Anjou, who had recently become king of Naples and Sicily, pledged support for the ousted Latin Emperor Baldwin in exchange for suzerainty over Achaia.116 He also arranged for the daughter of William of Villehardouin, Isabelle, to marry his son with the provision that the later would inherit the principality in the event of a lack of male Villehardouin heir, and that Charles himself would gain direct rule over Achaia if his son predeceased him. As has been pointed out, it remains uncertain whether the minting of tournois at Glarentza pre­ or postdated this treaty. he new Angevin connections have not let a discernible impact on this early minting process; for instance, it remains open whether the early tournois issues were produced on the royal French or Provençal standards,117 and Charles’s involvements in the afairs of the Morea in the period 1267–78 are ambiguous.118 One particular consideration is nevertheless intriguing: did the princes of Achaia refrain from minting precious metal (besides the less than impressive pety 115 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 218–20. 116 J.­A. Buchon, Recherches et matériaux pour servir à une histoire de la domination rançaise aux XIII e , XIV e , et XVe siècles dans les provinces démembrées de l’empire grec (Paris, 1840), 29–37; J. Longnon, “Le traité de Viterbe entre Charles Ier d’Anjou et Guillaume de Villehardouin, Prince de Morée (24 mai 1267),” in Studi in onore di Riccardo Filangieri (Naples, 1959), 1:307–14; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 209 n. 14. 117 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 236–41. A recent study casts doubt on whether there were actual dif­ ferences in quality between the royal and seigneurial tour­ nois issues: A. Teboulbi, M. Bompaire, and J.­N. Barrandon, “Les monnayages d’Alphonse de Poitiers: Étude par analy­ ses élémentaires,” RN 164 (2008): 65–127. 118 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 220–21.

denomination issues that have been discussed) while they were vassals of the Latin emperors? And were the new silver­based deniers tournois introduced as a result of a change in these consti­ tutional conditions? In 1277 Charles’s son, Philip of Anjou, died, followed the next year by his father­in­law, Wil­ liam of Villehardouin, and Charles of Anjou himself became prince of Achaia. From 1279 to 1283 there survives the most impressive series of documents relating to the minting process at Glarentza. 119 Silver and bronze can be seen to have crossed the Straits of Otranto frequently, as well as specialized minting staf. Very precise indications as to the organization of the mint within the fortiied town (castrum) of Glarentza are given. Charles appears to have been directly involved in the design and aspect of his coinage and to have harmonized it with the issues of his predecessors. he role played by the Achaian coinage within the “Angevin empire” will be fur­ ther assessed below. he numismatic record underlines the suc­ cess of the early minting operations at Glarentza: within a short time, and most quickly in the west of the peninsula, all circulating foreign sil­ ver issues were reminted into new tournois and are no longer in evidence in the hoards.120 Any foreign specie, which must surely have continued to enter the Morea ater the opening of the mint of 119 he actual documents were destroyed during World War II; they were irst published by C. Minieri­Riccio, “Il regno di Carlo I d’Angiò dal 2 gennaio 1273 al 31 diciembre 1283,” AStIt, ser. 4, nos. 2 and 3 (1878); ser. 4, no. 4 (1879); ser. 4, no. 5 (1880); and ser. 4, no. 7 (1881), assembled by G. M. Monti, Nuovi studi angioini, R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Puglie, Documenti e Monograie, Nuova Serie 21 (Trani, 1937), and have been republished in R. Filangieri, ed., I registri della Cancelleria Angiona, Testi e Documenti di Storia Napoletana Pubblicati dall’Accademia Pontaniana 21–26 (Naples, 1967–79). hey have been discussed, among others, by M. Dourou­Iliopoulou, Η Ανδεγαυική κυριαρχία στη Ρωμανία επί Καρόλου Αʹ (1266–1285) (Athens, 1987); L. Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy,” in he gros tournois: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. N. J. Mayhew (London, 1997), 421–51; and Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 223–25. 120 Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 249. Consider hoards 76 to 83, the rather belated dominance of Provençal issues at Corinth 1992, and the near­total transi­ tion to Glarentzan issues at Xirochori 1957.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



Glarentza,121 would equally have been reminted. With the death of Charles of Anjou and the suc­ cessive rules of Princes Charles II (1285–1289), Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297), and Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301), we enter a rather uncertain phase in the history of the Glarentza mint. here is a strong possibility that during certain parts of the later 1280s the mint was not operational,122 and the issues of the 1290s are rather badly represented in later hoards. One aspect of the series of deniers tournois of the princes of Achaia that bears mention­ ing is that they include coins bearing the names of two women, Isabelle de Villehardouin and Mahaut of Hainaut (ig. 15). he placing of wom­ en’s names on coinage was very rare in France, as the interpretation of Salic Law appears to have disqualiied French royal and most seigneurial heiresses from the right to coinage.123 Although the Assizes of Romania favored a male succes­ sor over a female, female succession to iefs was speciically prescribed in the absence of a son.124 he coins of Isabelle and of her daughter Mahaut of Hainaut are generally assigned to periods of their widowhood, respectively 1297–1301 and 1316–18 (although Mahaut’s new husband, John of Gravina, was created prince by his brother, King Robert of Anjou, only in 1321). Isabelle apparently minted in her own name for merely two years (1299–1301),125 though her coinage is much beter represented than that of her husband. he issues of both of these princesses are relatively abun­ dant, and in the case of Isabelle it has been sug­ gested that her issues overlap with those of one or both of her husbands.126 121 Witness the Neapolitan gigliato found at Glarentza itself: 262. 122 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 225. 123 A. M. Stahl, “Coinage in the Name of Medieval Women,” in Medieval Women and the Sources of Medieval History, ed. J. Rosenthal (Athens, GA, 1990), 321–41. 124 A. Parmeggiani, ed., Libro dele Uxanxe e Statuti delo Imperio de Romania (Spoleto, 1998), 152–53, chap. 64. 125 Schlumberger, Numismatique, 216 n. 1. 126 A. P. Tzamalis, “Princess Isabelle of Achaia and Her Husbands: A New Look at an Old Numismatic Mystery,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 23 (2004): 68–73. As far as Mahaut is concerned, the impressive output in her name need not nec­ essarily surprise, though it is in any case less than likely that there were Glarentzan issues bearing her name before 1316



    . 

he next adjustment to our picture of the output at Glarentza that needs to be made con­ cerns the rule of Philip of Savoy, prince from 1301 to 1304–6,127 in opposition to Angevin designs. During this period, most probably from 1301 to 1306, Philip of Taranto, son of Charles II, minted two successive issues of tournois as despot of Romania and prince of Achaia at Naupaktos, on the mainland side of the entrance into the Gulf of Corinth.128 hese copious issues circulated freely in the Peloponnese. Although the evidence of the extant hoards might suggest that coin production diminished in the Peloponnese in the irst years of the fourteenth century, by adding to our statis­ tics the products of the Naupaktos mint, which undoubtedly managed to capture some of the incoming bullion that was previously exclusively destined for Glarentza, we can establish a gener­ ally upward curve.129 We must also not forget that the hebes mint, within the Athenian territory, produced large quantities of tournois during the period circa 1285130 to 1311, which circulated freely in the Peloponnese and contributed to the super­ abundance of this coinage in these years. he upward trend at the Glarentza mint was main­ tained during Philip of Taranto’s rule in Achaia (1304­6–1313), and that of Mahaut, as we have seen, and John of Gravina (1321–1332), although with a dramatic downturn during the civil war period (1313–16). We can glean this information mostly from non­Peloponnesian hoards, since the Morea displays a rather pronounced gap in hoard­ ing during these years, as discussed above. Unfortunately, the most important archaeo­ logical site available to us—Corinth—is unable to shed much light on the interesting period from the early fourteenth century onward. A signii­ cant decline in all occupation activity is evident (since Ferdinand of Majorca held the city until that date), or ater 1321, when John of Gravina abandoned her. 127 He was deposed in 1304 as prince, though his succes­ sor, Philip of Taranto, arrived in Glarentza only in 1306. 128 See, on these issues, Metcalf, Ashmolean, 277–80, although with erroneous chronologies. 129 See for instance Limnes 2006 (90), which contains nine coins of Philip of Savoy and eleven of the Naupaktos mint. 130 he rather late date is established by a hoard from Molise: J. Baker and P. Calabria, “Filignano (IS): Le monete tardo­medioevali,” RIN 105 (2004): 266–300, at 270.

not merely at the Frankish complex,131 which was certainly destroyed by a Catalan raid in 1312, but throughout this entire western suburban area of town,132 as much as other areas lying outside of the city walls (for instance the Kraneion basilica, toward the southeast).133 he general absence of the issues of princes ater Philip of Taranto is therefore neither surprising nor numismatically signiicant. It is uncertain when, if ever, in the course of the fourteenth century the situation normalized at the excavated Corinthian sites. Corinth fails to function particularly as a satis­ factory measuring rod for the diicult midcen­ tury period and is unable to illustrate the demise of tournois usage and the eventual inception of the soldino and the tornesello as the coinages of choice (see below). Saccocci and Vanni note the strong presence of merchants’ jetons at Corinth, which date from the mid­fourteenth century onward.134 hey pos­ tulate a possible monetary usage for such items in general, supported in the Peloponnesian context by a hoard of jetons from Patras135 and at Corinth in particular during this midcentury void of coin­ age.136 he problem with this analysis for the pre­ cise Corinthian situation lies in the fact that we do not yet know the nature of the midcentury void: is it simply a continuation of the earlier downturn, or are we truly witnessing a lack of available specie that was met by the usage of jetons in the fash­ ion described? he irst proposal looks the more likely, especially in the light of the continued cir­ culation of older specie, and the constant counter­ feiting activities, both of which are witnessed in the Peloponnese throughout the fourteenth cen­ tury (ig. 16).137 131 268. 132 263–267 and 269–270. 133 271. 134 A. Saccocci and F. M. Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV dagli scavi della missione americana a Corinto,” RIN 110 (1999): 201–42. 135 See ibid., 214, no. 29 n. 68. 136 See ibid., 223–26. Jetons are otherwise known in the Morea from Glarentza and Katakolo: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 251. 137 Counterfeiting at the turn of the century is best described at Corinth: O. H. Zervos, “A Note on hree Unusual Counterfeit Deniers Tournois from Corinth Excavations,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 23 (2004): 75–83, and

Unlike at Corinth—although even there we have some exceptions to the rule—tournois usage is atested at numerous sites well into the second and third decades of the fourteenth century,138 most signiicantly at Kenchreai, the eastern port of Corinth.139 Sparta ofers an interesting picture in that the Achaian tournois series commences belat­ edly with the reign of Isabelle but continues into that of Mahaut.140 his delay might be related to the political situation in Lakonia in the wake of the Achaian defeat at Pelagonia (1259). It is striking that no single ind of a Glarentzan tournois of Robert of Taranto, son of Philip and nephew of King Robert of Anjou, minted between 1332 and 1353, has been recorded at any Peloponnesian site.141 Tournois are nevertheless inally in evidence again in our record of hoards from the early 1330s onward.142 Two distinct phenomena afect the monetary situation in this period. In the reign of Prince Robert of Taranto the tournois of Glarentza markedly declined in quality.143 his might have led to the application of Gresham’s Law, that is to say, the desire to build up stocks of older, higher quality specie. A similar tendency had already been witnessed somewhat earlier in the mainland Greek areas dominated by the Catalan Company, resulting in a wave of hoarding activities ater 1311.144 An overview of the medieval monetary af­ fairs of the Morea would be incomplete without mention of one minor tournois issue:145 Helena in the Hesperia reports by the same author. here is litle or no evidence of counterfeits at Corinth ater 1312. For the later evidence at Glarentza, see Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 253–55. 138 225, 236, 337. 139 305. 140 351. 141 Orestes Zervos has informed us, however, of an un­ published piece from ancient Corinth: Corinth Coin 1937­ 23, ex Agora NE, 8.iii.37. 142 With 142 from Patras. 143 A. P. Tzamalis, “he Elis Hoard/1964,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 13 (1994): 75–84. 144 Baker, “hessaly”; J. Baker and M. Galani­Krikou, “Further Considerations on the Numismatics of Catalan Greece in the Light of the Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891 Hoards,” in Essays in Honour of Ioannis Touratsoglou (Athens, forthcoming). 145 Another issue for the lordship of Damala (Argolid) can be safely dismissed in this context since it was presumably

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



Angela, widow of William de la Roche of Athens and mother of Guy II, had refused to perform homage to Prince Florent of Hainaut in 1289–90 for the Athenian territories,146 but started mint­ ing tournois at Karytaina upon her marriage to Hugh of Brienne in September of 1291 (ig. 18).147 We know nothing about the contemporary condi­ tions of these issues and how the Achaian authori­ ties may have received them, but we can note their signiicant presence in contemporary inds.148 Even during the minting period of the pro­ duction of the tournois coinage in the Morea (ca. 1267 to 1353) we have some sporadic infor­ mation on the appearance and usage of foreign coins, mostly large­value silver and gold issues. he gros tournois, the French multiple of the denier tournois, was irst conceived in 1266 and soon spread beyond the kingdom.149 We can wit­ ness it in documents relating to Angevin Italy and Alba nia as early as the 1270s.150 he coins taken by a representative of the Neapolitan court in 1292 from the canons of Corinth and Athens com­ prised over 3,000 Venetian grossi and 480 gros tournois.151 No such coins have been found in the Peloponnese, although they are fairly common on the mainland.152

minted at Chios for Martin Zaccaria in the period 1324–25 to 1329 and must be considered a numismatic curiosity more than anything else: Metcalf, Ashmolean, 284. A single spec­ imen was found in a hoarded context in 1858: P. Lampros, “Monnaies inédites de Damala,” Mélanges de Numismatique 2 (1877): 65–66 (129), while another is preserved at the Bibliothèque nationale. 146 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 246. 147 Metcalf, Ashmolean, 281. 148 83, 92, 168, 268. 149 M. Phillips, “he gros tournois in the Mediterranean,” in he gros tournois: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. Mayhew, 279–337. 150 Filangieri, Registri, 6 (1954), 176, no. 915; Filangieri, Registri, 8 (1957), 295, 41; Filangieri, Registri, 20 (1966), 57, no. 61; Filangieri, Registri, 18 (1964), 365, no. 734. 151 C. Perrat and J. Longnon, eds., Actes relatifs à la principauté de Morée, Collection de documents inédites sur l’histoire de France 6 (Paris, 1967), 52–54, no. 40. 152 Eleusina 1862: Metcalf, Ashmolean, 345, no. 175 (109); Delphi 1894Δ: Metcalf, Ashmolean, 347, no. 182 (121); hebes 1967: Baker, “hessaly,” 319, no. 30 and passim (122). See additionally the single piece from hebes: Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 53, no. 2.1 (1998): 103, pl. 58 (363).



    . 

he Neapolitan equivalent of the gros tour­ nois, the silver gigliato, which was launched in its inal form in 1302–3,153 appears sporadically in passages of acts designed to make the monies used comprehensible to an Italian audience,154 with­ out implying that such specimens were actually present in the Peloponnese. Only one statement, the erroneous payment in 1361 by the treasurer of empress consort Mary of Bourbon, in la melyo moneta de vostre raysuni, might be considered to be referring to gigliati.155 Once more, the pres­ ence of gigliati in our archaeological record is neg­ ligible156 at the same time as they abound on the mainland and are clearly integrated into the mon­ etary system there for up to two or three decades ater the Catalan conquests (ig. 20).157 his leaves the peninsula in a rather peculiar position: ater the demise of the Venetian grosso, which is docu­ mented numismatically from the 1280s–90s, per­ haps a bit later according to some of the available documentary sources, and the very limited pen­ etration of gros tournois and gigliati, it was let devoid of the kind of large­module silver coinage that dominated coin circulation in great of parts of the Latin West.158 he thirteenth century had seen the birth of new gold coinages in Italy.159 Florins and ducats were to a large degree interchangeable, metro­ logically and as an accounting system, though their creations lie a generation apart (1252 and 1285 respectively).160 As with the ine silver coin­ ages, these have failed to leave an archaeological record in the Peloponnese, although we have an altogether stronger picture in some of the relevant 153 J. Baker, “he Casálbore Hoard of Neapolitan gigliati in the Name of King Robert of Anjou (1309–1343),” Annali: Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 49 (2002): 155–200, at 157. 154 LT, 53, no. 2; 57–58, no. 3. 155 LT, 145, no. 8. 156 See 262 and above. 157 Baker and Galani­Krikou, “Lytsika.” 158 Although, interestingly, not England, where the sim­ ple penny, albeit of much beter ineness than the Achaian tournois, remained the only domestic medium of exchange in the irst half of the fourteenth century. 159 R. S. Lopez, “Setecento anni fa: Il ritorno all’oro nel occidente duecentesto,” RSI 65 (1953): 19–55 and 161–98; P. Spuford, Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1988), 163–86. 160 Stahl, Zecca, 28–40.

documentary sources. he lorin gained a foot­ hold in Angevin Italy during the 1270s and was part of a consignment sent by Charles of Anjou to the Morea in 1278.161 he notary Pasquale Longo, active at Korone only very shortly ater the incep­ tion of the Venetian gold ducat in (1289–93), records a discreet number of repayments occur­ ring in Barleta in lorins.162 hereater, lorins become rarer in the documentation, but the occurrence of ducats in private acts augments exponentially in the course of the century.163 he same occurs in contemporary Venetian pub­ lic acts relating to the Morea, though caution is called for because ater 1328 the ducat was inte­ grated into the grosso­based system of account­ ing and became a money of account representing twenty­four grossi.164 In 1361 the agent of Mary of Bourbon in the Peloponnese could not ind duc­ ats in the port of Glarentza and had to render her revenues mainly in soldini.165 When Amadeo VI of Savoy traveled from Italy to the Black Sea and then back to Venice in the 1360s, he was able to exchange his leters of credit for actual Venetian ducats in Ragusa, but in Methone he could ind only Venetian silver soldini. 166 In due course the ducat was to be integrated into the domestic accounting system of the Morea, to the detriment of the local hyperpyron (see below). he older literature had suggested that a particularly large imitative ducat issue was 161 Filangieri, Registri 20, 69, no. 93; 282, no. 533; see Dourou­Iliopoulou, Η Ανδεγαυική κυριαρχία, 170–71 n. 20. 162 Pasquale Longo, 22–23, no. 26; 25, no. 31; 36, no. 46. 163 Naneti, DV, passim; see indexes s.v. “lorin” and “ducat.” 164 Stahl, Zecca, 177. 165 LT, 145, no. 8: “Per la grazia de Dyo, sacczati ca tuta la quantitate de li duo milia ducati fo compluta per tucti li XV di di jennaru, vero e in argentu di soldini; auro non se po trovare de tucte queste parti a cambiare en tanta quan­ titate”; 154, “Yo so statu en Clarenza di xij. a potere per­ caczare de cambiare li soldini per ducati. No li ayo potuti trovare. . . . Et se Dyo place, se le galee de Venecia venenu toste, come se dice, che apportaranu auru, serra cambiata la dicta moneta de soldini, et poy per lu primo securu vax­ allu serra portata en Pullya.” See A. Carile, La rendita feudale nella Morea latina del XIV secolo (Bologna, 1974), 75, and Stahl, Zecca, 214. 166 E. Bollati di Saint­Pierre, ed., Illustrazione della spedizione in Oriente di Amedeo VI (Il Conte Verde) (Turin, 1900), 16, no. 78 and 19, no. 92.

atributable to the mid­fourteenth­century Pelo­ ponnese.167 his has long been doubted 168 and is now comprehensively dismissed.169 he atribu­ tion of a lorin issue to Prince Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) has always seemed unlikely, stylisti­ cally and historically speaking,170 and the issue in question has now been reatributed to an Italian mint.171 Another atribution of a lorin issue to the Morea has, however, withstood the test of time. Lampros irst published in 1876 the specimen reading R. CLARENTIA and supposedly issued by Prince Robert of Taranto.172 Schlumberger repeated this information without further com­ ment, though he managed to locate and illustrate a second specimen from the Bibliothèque natio­ nale, which is still extant (ig. 17).173 Since the nineteenth century this issue has been practically ignored by scholarly publications dealing with the coinage of the Morea.174 Politically, an issue of a lorin­style gold coin would have been of much lesser sensitivity than that of a ducat, a type that was in ascendancy in the general Aegean area in the mid­fourteenth century.175 here seem no 167 P. Lampros, “Monnaies inédites en or et en argent frappées à Clarence, à l’imitation des monnaies véniti­ ennes, par Robert d’Anjou, prince du Péloponnèse,” BCH 1 (1877): 89–99; P. Lampros, Aνέκδοτα νομίσματα κοπέντα εν Γλαρέντσα κατά μίμησιν ενετικών υπό Ροβέρτου του εξ Ανδηγαύων (Athens, 1876). See Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 207 n. 19, for further bibliography. 168 Schlumberger, Numismatique, 320. 169 S. Bendall and C. Morrisson, “Un trésor de ducats d’imitation au nom d’Andrea Dandolo,” RN 6, no. 21 (1979): 176–93. 170 A. Tzamalis, Τα νομίσματα της Φραγκοκρατίας (Athens, 1981), 81. 171 W. Day, “he Imitation Gold Florin of the ‘Ex’ Marquises of Carreto, Piedmont, c. 1350,” RIN 107 (2006): 447–69. 172 See the bibliography cited above. he atribution goes back to Monsieur Bretagne, the owner at the time of the sin­ gle piece. 173 Schlumberger, Numismatique, 319–20, pl. XII.33. he Princeton University Numismatic Collection has just acquired an additional specimen, from a third set of dies, from Baldwin’s Auction 71, 29 September 2011, lot 1952. 174 See only Artemis, “Γλαρέντζα,” 44; Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, 83; A. G. Malloy, I. F. Preston, and A. J. Seltman, Coins of the Crusader States (New York, 1994), 355 and 370, no. 6: all reproduce Schlumberger’s illustration and endorse the atribution. 175 H. E. Ives and P. Grierson, he Venetian Gold Ducat and Its Imitations (New York, 1954).

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



grounds for doubt that the three known speci­ mens in question were struck in the name of Robert of Taranto, prince of Achaia (1332–1364), and it can be assumed that this issue is to be dated before 1353, when the Glarentza mint was most likely closed.

The Closing of the Glarentza Mint () and Venetian Monetary Dominance in the Morea he transition from the second to the third phase in the monetary history of the Morea was luid. Sometime in the early 1330s Venice introduced a new silver coinage, the soldino, which was soon to dominate the circulation in the Morea; rather than being of high­quality silver like the grosso, it was about 60 percent ine, an unusual alloy for the time (ig. 21).176 In 1333 Venice prescribed the circulation of the coin to its Aegean colonies, which in the Morea would have meant Korone and Methone, on the tip of the Messenian pen­ insula.177 Soldini soon appear in Peloponnesian hoards in good quantities,178 and the early gen­ eration of soldini (to 1346) are also represented at sites,179 though not at the central area of Corinth, for reasons that are not clear.180 Although the Glarentza mint was still operating when the Venetian soldino was irst introduced and gain­ ing success, the Achaian tournois were gradu­ ally abandoned in favor of this new coinage. he Glarentza mint had never atempted to strike any silver­based denomination other than the tour­ nois, and the progression of this mint toward its end is therefore much more linear than has been assumed in the past.181 176 Stahl, Zecca, 40–47. 177 Ibid., 45. 178 he quantities are unknown at Mesochori (146), the balance is even at Patras 1955B (159), whereas at Petsouri these soldini are overwhelming (158). 179 216, 234, 286, 313, 261, 262. 180 Although one specimen of B. Gradenigo (1339–42) was found at Kokkinovrysi (275). 181 In atempts to explain the anomalous midcentury sit­ uation, various supposedly imitative Venetian silver coin­ ages, much as with the gold ducats cited above, have been atributed to the Glarentza mint by scholars of the nine­ teenth and early twentieth century: see Lampros cited



    . 

By the 1330s we have therefore reached the unusual situation where an indigenous coinage was gradually abandoned, and not merely in areas dominated directly by the Republic of Venice, in favor of a foreign one. Our evidence for this shit is largely numismatic. he date at which the last phase in the monetary history of the Morea can be said to begin is 1353, since this appears to be the deinitive date of closure of the Glarentza mint182 as well as the beginning of the Venetian tornesello coinage (ig. 22).183 his coin was made expressly for Korone and Methone and Venice’s other Greek colonies, principally Negroponte (Euboia) and Crete. With its obverse cross as well as its Latin name of turonensis, the tornesello was clearly based on the deniers tournois; it was tarifed at 3 denari of Venice, that is, 4 coins to the soldino, like the Achaian tournois. he introduction of the torne­ sello was accompanied by a change in the soldino; from an alloy of only 60 percent silver it went to one of ine silver but experienced a reduction in weight that lowered its total silver content signiicantly.184 Despite this debasement of the soldino, the torne­ sello was issued with so low an intrinsic value that four of them had only 58 percent the amount of sil­ ver of the new debased soldino. his meant that the hyperpyron of the Morea would be worth consid­ erably less than the lira of Venice (each deined as twenty soldi) as long as the circulation of the two coinages was kept separate. he debasement of the Venetian soldino would continue through the Middle Ages, with ever­descending amounts of silver put into new issues. he denomination con­ tinued to circulate in the Morea through the four­ teenth century.185

above and D. H. Cox, he Caparelli Hoard, American Numismatic Society, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 143 (New York, 1930), 11. None of these hypotheses is sup­ ported today. 182 As is argued in Baker, “Casálbore,” 175 n. 35. 183 See A. M. Stahl, he Venetian Tornesello: A Medieval Colonial Coinage, American Numismatic Society, Numis­ matic Notes and Monographs 163 (New York, 1985) on what follows. 184 Stahl, Zecca, 60–61. 185 A. M. Stahl, “he Cephalonia Hoard of Venetian and Hungarian Coins,” Νομισματικά Χρονικά 13 (1994): 85–102, provides an overview for this denomination in the Greek context.

With this constellation in mind, that is to say, three denominations of diferent qualities that might all form the basis of the local hyperpyron system of accounting—Achaian tournois and Venetian soldini and torneselli, a monetary strug­ gle ensued in the further course of the fourteenth and into the iteenth centuries. We can view this from two perspectives, a numismatic one and a documentary one. We have a good quantity of hoards from this period at our disposal,186 which document the progression from one generation of denomination to the next, with the inal victory of the tornesello. he hoards in many cases illustrate the classic distinction between a savings hoard, containing mainly older coins of higher intrinsic value, and a currency hoard, representing the con­ temporary circulating medium of worse coins. he Elis 1964 hoard is curiously diferent from the earlier Pestouri 1997 hoard in contain­ ing many more tournois than soldini. he discrep­ ancy that exists particularly within the central grouping that was concealed between the late 1370s and 1400 is worth underlining. For instance, while torneselli totally dominate most of these hoards, the Pyrgos 1967 and Achaia hoards clearly atempt to buck the trend by containing mostly or exclusively soldini. Most remarkable of all is the Corinth BnF hoard which, at a very late stage, is composed almost exclusively of deniers tournois produced in Greece. In this it is more akin to some of the contemporary mainland hoards.187 As a general trend, torneselli outnumber even deniers tournois at most of the excavated sites and show that, at least for a few decades, and at a much reduced quality, the basic monetization of the Peloponnese was ensured. Corinth and the suburbs of Argos188 do not follow this trend. Both faced serious destructions at the hands of incoming armies in the course of the fourteenth century, from which they hardly managed to recover, if at all. Nemea might have been drawn into a similar, if less pronounced, development.189 Yet even Acrocorinth, Chlemoutsi, Glarentza, and Sparta have produced many more torneselli 186 164 to 208. 187 To name but Delphi 1894B: Metcalf, Ashmolean, 349, no. 194 (196). 188 236. 189 334.

than tournois.190 his might be considered sur­ prising for all of these cases. he locations in Elis were in themselves in general decline by the late fourteenth and early iteenth century, due to military pressures from all sides. Sparta lay at the heart of the Byzantine­dominated area of the Peloponnese and was supposedly abandoned in favor of Mystras. Some documentary sources directly atest the atitude of contemporaries to these coinages: in 1386, as a result of a dispute in Methone over freight charges, the Venetian castellan issued an order that on voyages from Venice whose freight charges were to be paid in Methone, it had to be speciied that these were to be paid in silver soldini rather than in torneselli.191 he postmortem inventory of the goods Renier Acciajuoli let in Corinth in 1394 included 8,000 gold ducat coins and soldini and torneselli worth almost as much.192 his gives us some impression of how the wealth of an indi­ vidual—albeit a very rich one—might be divided among the various denominations.

The Development of the Moreote Hyperpyron of Account In this period a distinctively Moreote hyperpy­ ron of account came into being, one of several to emerge in the lands divorced from the Byzantine Empire in the wake of the Fourth Crusade. We have discussed above the various gold and elec­ trum issues that were speciied in twelth­ and early thirteenth­century sources, by age (“old”), name, geographical location, or weight (“heavy”). Very soon, however, these monies of account were to be entirely divorced from any actual circulating hyperpyron coins.193 he diferent 190 223, 261, 262, 351, 352. 191 Sathas, 4:71–72. 192 Chrysostomides, MP, 441–55, no. 225. 193 his continuation—in name only—of the hyperpy­ ron has been prone to confuse writers. See for instance M. Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire en Méditerranée orientale (XIIIe–XV e s),” in Moneda y monedas en la Europa medieval (siglos XII–XV) (Pamplona, 2000), 257–75, at 268–69, where it is wrongly asserted for thirteenth­ and fourteenth­century Crete that “les parties . . . utilisent con­ stamment la monnaie byzantine” or “La Crète connaît donc une longue survivance du système monétaire byzantin.”

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



hyperpyra were to be deined merely as quanti­ ties of (gold­based) metal, of a speciic alloy, and at a speciic weight.194 According to the informa­ tion contained in Pegoloti, probably compiled around 1330, the hyperpyra of Glarentza, hebes, and Negroponte were all of diverse weights and alloys.195 Each of these was, however, to be commuted into smaller (silver­based) units of account. he later bore for the most part names behind which coins may be recognized—ster­ lings, grossi, tournois, soldini. We can assume that the current accounting systems were indeed linked to actual circulating coins that were simply counted by tale, as the documents seem to imply, although we can be equally certain that these units were oten “ghosts” and were prone to luc­ tuations across time and space. he new hyperpyra of the northeast (Scla­ vonia, Corfu, Epiros), of the mainland (hebes, Negroponte), and of the Peloponnese, to name but some, were deined according to diferent imported coins. As far as the Morea is concerned, the so­called gold hyperpyron, divided into car­ ats (kokkia) of account, which denotes the actual Byzantine gold coin that continued to be minted by the Palaiologan emperors, disappears almost completely from the sources, in line with the numismatic evidence that has been discussed. On the rare occasions that gold coins appear in the notarial sources, the acts in question have an Eastern or Constantinopolitan dimension.196 here are, however, some indications that the Byzantine­held part of the peninsula tried to maintain the metropolitan standard.197 In the case of the early Moreote hyperpy­ ron, the document cited at the beginning of this chapter features the rather awkward exchange rate of 19 1/2 sterlings to the hyperpyron. At this early stage in the domestic tournois production, the hyperpyron of account was probably still based on the grosso. he Ternaria document of 1285–90 cited above gave the same Peloponnesian

hyperpyron in terms of sterlings, at the neat rate of 1:20. hese two denominations would have jointly set the standard in the early years of the local hyperpyron but were soon to be replaced by the tournois as the link coin, in line with the general paterns of circulation that have been outlined. However, the quality of an accounting system is only as good as its link coinage, and while the tournois was minted at a thoroughly acceptable and consistent standard for a number of decades, it was evidently not deemed suiciently sound to express certain payments and dues. he sterling ceased to be a useful substitute since it was by this period a coin of account based on the tour­ nois. he “manus of four units” is used in its stead primarily in the Venetian sources, from the 1290s and thereater quite consistently, in an apparent atempt to create and dominate a standard that could exist independently from all others, to be adjusted as need be: we usually ind it at 20:1 to the Peloponnesian hyperpyron, sometimes at other ratios.198 In other contexts, however, the sterling per­ sisted. According to Pegoloti it served around 1330 as the base for the respective hyperpyra of Glarentza and the Morea (of 20 sterlings), and Methone and Korone (of 24 sterlings).199 his is a rare occasion of diferent standards within the Morea. In another set of data we ind the value of the Peloponnesian hyperpyron changing dra­ matically from one year to the next, at 15.7 and 17.6 to the Neapolitan ounce in 1337 and 1338.200 hese examples testify to an overall picture of uncer­ tainty and luctuation. his impression persists: the sterling can be found well beyond the introduction of the soldino, for instance, in the accounts of a wedding in Methone in 1343201 and even ater the soldo has entered the accounting system of the Morea. In a 1354 inventory, feudal dues are given in hyper­ pyra, soldi, and tornesi,202 while the 1357 survey

194 Pegoloti, 40, states that “in tuti pagamenti di mercat­ antia si spendono e si dànno in pagamento a peso di bilance.” 195 Pegoloti, 117, 119, 171, and 198. 196 Pasquale Longo, 48 no. 61; Naneti, DV 1, 119, no. 1.127. 197 J. Baker, “A Coinage for Late Byzantine Morea under Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425),” RN 162 (2006): 385–405, at 411.

198 L. Travaini, “Un sistema di conto poco conosciuto: ‘La mano da Quatro’,’’ RN 153 (1998): 327–34; Baker, “Manuel II,” 411–12 n. 76. 199 Pegoloti, 65, 116, 149, and 153. 200 LT, 53, no. 2, and 58, no. 3. 201 Naneti, DV 99–100, no. 1.82. 202 LT, 117–23, no. 5.



    . 

of the estate of Kosmina maintains sterlings.203 his interplay of the accounting systems might be considered the documentary equivalent to the diferent hoard compositions that have been discussed. In general terms, a switch to the soldo might be viewed as an embrace of the new soldini, whereas the sterling created continuity with the tournois past, although we must recognize that there would not have been a direct correlation between “ghosts” and actual monies. Whatever the base of the hyperpyron, its downward trend is evident in documents of the 1370s, where equivalents to the stable gold ducat are given.204 hroughout the later part of the fourteenth and into the iteenth century, this gold ducat is in fact given in a whole range of pub­ lic and private acts relating to the Morea as the sole applicable standard. his split in the account­ ing system is exempliied by the decisions of the Venetian state bodies: payments involving high dignitaries of the republic are rendered in ducats; minor oicials in Venetian pounds, based on the soldino; and most local maters are accounted in hyperpyra.205 he story of the ducat has an inter­ esting twist, since it appears to have itself mutated into a standard that could be broken down into other coinages: in 1435 the senate observed that false tournois from Atica and Boeotia were pro­ viding problems for the ducat in Negroponte.206

Byzantine Tornesi from a Lakonian Mint here appears to have been one more coinage introduced into the medieval Morea, the only one to be minted in the Greek­held territories by the imperial authorities. A recent publication has presented an issue of coinage minted in the Morea for Manuel II Palaiologos, either in the mid­1390s 203 Ibid., 131–40, no. 7. 204 Ibid., 199–207, no. 11 and no. 12. 205 A. M. Stahl, “Coins for Trade and for Wages: he Development of Coinage Systems in Medieval Venice,” in Wages and Currency: Global Comparisons rom Antiquity to the Twentieth Century, ed. J. Lucassen (Bern, 2007), 193– 209, at 201–9. 206 F. hiriet, ed., Régestes des délibérations du sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, vol. 3, 1431–1463 (Paris and he Hague, 1961), 47, no. 2392.

or in 1408, or 1415–16 (ig. 23). he mint might have been located in Mystras or Monemvasia.207 his coinage, which had been almost entirely unknown in inds or coin catalogs, is present in signiicant numbers among the unpublished inds of the Sparta excavations in the trays of the Numismatic Museum in Athens, mostly in one or two hoards (Sparta 1926A and B).208 Its circu­ lation appears to have been concentrated at the remaining Byzantine strongholds in the Morea, though examples have been found at hebes and Delphi and in a hoard believed to originate in Chalkida in Euboia. Recently the same author was able to ascertain that the Corinth 10 November 1936 hoard also contained such a coin.209 As has been argued, this issue is one of tornesi (torneselli), obviously inspired by the proit that the Republic of Venice was reaping through this coinage. he two coinages were presumably intended to circulate together, although the aver­ age Peloponnesian hoarder seems to have been intent on keeping them apart. he archaeologi­ cal evidence is more ambiguous. Two areas of the Sparta excavations, the Acropolis and Artemis Orthia, have produced Venetian torneselli (10 and 6), counterfeit torneselli (2 and 2), and these Byzantine tornesi (3 and 1). If we bear in mind the much longer minting period of genuine torne­ selli, the Byzantine tornesi make an altogether acceptable impression. his being said, the over­ all quantities we are dealing with are so small that the statistical viability of this sample is yet to be conirmed, as is the nature of the Sparta 1926A and B hoards, tentatively designated “reject hoard(s)” (a “reject hoard” is a hoard of substan­ dard coin issues set aside not because of their usefulness in terms of the usual payments, but on the contrary because of their relative useless­ ness). All said, the Peloponnesian tornesi issue of the Byzantine Empire was presumably a serious atempt to contribute to the monetary life of the area. hese tornesi might have formed a substan­ tial part of the circulating stock in Lakonia but failed to penetrate other areas and were not used on a par with the Venetian tornesello.

207 Baker, “Manuel II.” 208 194, 351, and 352. 209 212 and below.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



To the Early Modern Period Just as the medieval coinage of Achaia mirrored the various forces that shaped its history, the early mod­ ern period would witness the contest of Venetian and Otoman coinages in the Morea. With the end of the dogeship of T. Mocenigo (1414–1423) the production of torneselli at the Venice mint was seriously curbed.210 hereater, for about three­ quarters of the iteenth century there is no hoard­ ing at all in evidence in the Peloponnese. Although it is of course possible that some older torneselli and their copious local counterfeits211 continued to circulate and be lost, only very few coins from the archaeological sites actually date to this inter­ vening period. he pennies of Ancona that are found at Corinth seem to be of the late medieval style.212 he mid­iteenth­century deniers tour­ nois produced at the Campobasso mint in Italy, and their possible Greek counterfeits, are found in good quantities at the Athenian Agora213 but very sparingly in the Morea (ig. 24).214 At the Kraneion basilica in Corinth a badly readable Byzantine met­ ropolitan tornese was excavated, of the type that can be atributed from Manuel II (1391–1425) to John VIII (1425–1448).215 In 1936 a large hoard was excavated during the destruction of the Monastery of St. John’s in the central area of the same city.216 In addition to recent pennies and cavalli of central and southern Italy, it included older pety denomi­ nation issues and tournois, which further under­ lines the possibility of rather prolonged circulation periods. his hoard was nevertheless dominated by the second generation of Venetian torneselli launched by Doge A. Barbarigo in 1486, and a re­ markable number of their counterfeits (at least two­thirds of this hoard of some 1,580 pieces). he genuine Venetian torneselli were produced until the mid­sixteenth century and constitute the sin­ gle most important coinage in the Peloponnese.217 210 Stahl, Zecca, 393–96. 211 See 174, 201, 216, 262, 268, 351, 352, 385. 212 266, 267. 213 hompson, Agora, 79. 214 223, 267. 215 DOC 5, nos. 1391–1393 or 1603–1609; see 371. 216 212. 217 See the Kythera 1928 hoard of 1538, which con­ tains exclusively torneselli: P. Kokkas and Y. Nikolaou,



    . 

Turkish coins can be found in mainland Greece, if in only small quantities, as early as the irst half of the iteenth century,218 but they appear in the Peloponnese only a century or so later,219 with merely very few late iteenth­ century specimens. he evidence from Corinth is particularly disappointing,220 and it remains to be seen whether another site might produce some more viable statistics regarding the monetary sit­ uation in the waning Middle Ages for scholars to analyze.

The Morea in Context I: Adjacent Territories and Regional Variations Coin circulation in the medieval Peloponnese fol­ lowed a patern similar to that in adjoining main­ land and island areas of Greece, which can be regarded as one analytical unit in which, as we have seen, French and English, Frankish Greek, and inally Venetian coins prevailed. However, within this coinage region of south and central Greece, and even within the Peloponnese itself, one can detect diferences that are worth highlighting. In the irst half of the thirteenth century the Peloponnese was quicker to adopt the diferent incoming coinages, which were supplemented by indigenous counterfeit issues of tetartera and even trachea. While the grosso largely domi­ nated the mainland by midcentury,221 the greater denominational diversity we have described for the Morea is to the Morea’s credit. While the Principality of Achaia followed the Athenian lordship in its irst minting activities in the 1250s with the pety denomination issues, what became “Θησαυροί” νεωτερών χρονών του Νομισματικού Μουσείου (15ος–20ος αι.) (Athens, 2005), 46, no. 2. 218 See the Larisa ca. 2001B hoard dated ater 1430–31, which contained a single akçe of the Novo Brdo mint beside 151 Venetian soldini: AD 56 (2001), NM, forthcoming (209). 219 Nauplia 1936, concealed in 1576, is an almost exclu­ sively Otoman silver hoard: Kokkas and Nikolaou, “Θησαυροί,” 58, no. 6. 220 See for instance J. M. Harris, “Coins Found at Corinth I: Report on the Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1936–39,” Hesperia 10 (1941): 143– 62 at 162; and the reports contained in Hesperia (1971): 51; (1991): 52; (1994): 51; (1995): 54; (1996): 51. 221 Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 228–29.

the duchy of Athens lagged nearly two decades behind Achaia in the creation of a domestic tour­ nois issue (ca. 1267 and ca. 1285 respectively). In the intervening period, the 1270s and 1280s, the Athenian territories were slow to adopt the new Greek tournois,222 but John de la Roche of Athens is seen in 1273 to make a large loan speciically in Glarentzan tournois.223 Inspired by the eventual success of the Achaian issues, and by the advan­ tages of minting, various tournois mints sprung up around the southern and central Greek area.224 Scholars have established that the Athenian issues of the hebes mint, while no doubt authorized by the Angevin authorities,225 never proited from the close atention given to the Glarentza mint ater 1278. here might have been some discrepan­ cies in the standards of these respective issues, but not dramatically so,226 and one needs to assume that the irst generation of Greek tournois of the turn of the fourteenth century from the mints of Glarentza, hebes, Karytaina, Naupaktos, Corfu, Salona, Neopatras, and Tinos were of compa­ rable quality and circulated freely. We can glean this from the evidence of hoards. In this period the Athenian and Achaian issues are both repre­ sented in good quantities, with only minor difer­ ences between the areas.227 he Catalan invasions broke this equilibrium.228 Tournois production at hebes and Neopatras229 was halted, though the 222 Witness the Salamina (75) and Athens/Ayios Andreas 1937 (80) hoards: M. Galani­Krikou, “Έρευνες στη Σαλαμίνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1987): 41–43; and Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi,” 229. 223 Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 219 n. 44. 224 Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, 268–84. 225 It is of note that the date of ca. 1285, which is now established on numismatic grounds (see above), coincides with the appointment of Duke William de la Roche as bai­ lie of Achaia: Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 246 n. 166. 226 Ibid., 248–50. 227 For instance, Limnes 2006 from the Argolid (90) was very similar to Delphi 1933 (Metcalf, Ashmolean, 343, no. 169, 88), whereas only Pylia 1968–69 (92) from the other end of the Peloponnese is weighted more toward the Achaian issues. 228 See Baker, “hessaly,” and Baker and Galani­Krikou, “Lytsika,” on what follows. 229 J. Baker and M. Galani­Krikou, “Το νομισματοκοπείο των Νεών Πατρών: Deniers tournois 14ου αιώνας μ.Χ.,” in Το νόμισμα στο Θεσσαλικό χώρο (Athens, 2004), 409–30.

Catalans were responsible for a large, substan­ dard issue. Unchecked counterfeiting became rife in this period, and foreign coins were integrated into the monetary system much more readily than in the Morea, hence the usage of large­module sil­ ver coinages of French and Italian provenance. Only the 1331 truce with Venice ensured that in the further course of the fourteenth century Achaia and Athens once again took the same mon­ etary course, with the successive introduction of Venetian soldini and torneselli. hose looking for obvious diferences in the monetization of the parts of the Peloponnese held by the princes of Achaia, the lords and dukes of Athens, Venice, and Byzantium will be disap­ pointed. If anything, the developments that we have described are much more suggestive of an east–west split.230 he east was the initial focus of activities, since monetary specie was introduced from the mainland and the Aegean, and the irst mint was located there. Later, this mint was trans­ ferred to Elis, and this is where most of the bullion would have arrived. hereater, the introduction of each new issue and each new generation of coinage was more rapid and thorough there than anywhere else. he east was closer to the more luid developments in Atica. his appears to be the case in Corinthia as much as in the Argolid, and the reasons would therefore appear to be geo­ graphical rather than the dynastic links between Athens and the Argolid. Lakonia initially reveals itself to be very close to the northeastern parts of the peninsula, with the successive arrival of trachea, of French and English issues, and even of Athenian pety denom­ ination issues.231 Even ater the area reverted to Byzantine rule in the wake of the Batle of Pela­ gonia (1259), it continued to embrace Frankish coinage. Sparta may have displayed some initial problems, though the coastal location of Ayios Stephanos to the south displays a continuous run of tournois to Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321), ater which it was abandoned, according to its investi­ gators, because of the increasingly dangerous situ­ ation of this coastline.232 Rhodian pennies, which 230 An observation that has already been made in Athana­ soulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza.” 231 311. 232 225.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



have been noted in other parts of the peninsula, have been found at Tigani in the Mani and have been interpreted in connection with the ive­year Hospitaller rule in Achaia (1376–81).233 It might be thought that with the advent of indigenous issues around 1400 a distinctively Byzantine proile was lent to the coinage in everyday usage in Lakonia, though in the same period there are still hoards containing exclusively Venetian torneselli.234 here are barely any coin inds that can be associated with the Venetian­held territories. he large tournois hoard of Pylia will almost certainly have been from such a context, though we must not forget that the Venetian authorities oicially embraced the tournois, and that this hoard pre­ dates the creation of soldini and torneselli by some decades.235 We might assume that in Methone and Korone, Venetian domestic pennies were avail­ able. We can infer this from the continued use of the simple Venetian pound (of piccoli) in some of the sources, and a few such inds at Corinth.236

The Morea in Context II: The International Dimension To the north of the southern and central Greek area, dominated for most of the medieval period by the denier tournois and tornesello, we ind in later medieval times a southern Balkan strip in which primarily Byzantine, Serbian, and Bul­ garian coins were used. Coin circulation in the eastern Aegean and the coast of Asia Minor was based in this period on Byzantine, Neapolitan, local Genoese, Hospitaller, and Turkish issues. he medieval Morea formed only a very limited monetary union with Angevin Naples, to which it was politically and dynastically linked. Achaian coinage nevertheless played an interesting role in these contexts and managed to be inluential beyond its status, as it still does in modern auction catalogs, where it maintains a constant presence alongside the coinages of much more signiicant and successful medieval states. he Peloponnese 233 378 and Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clar­ entza,” 258–59. 234 See Mystras (180). 235 92. 236 266 and 268.



    . 

itself also continued to be a magnet for foreign coins, as it had been in the twelth century. his state of afairs came to an end in the later course of the fourteenth century, ater which point it compares rather unfavorably with international developments. As we have seen, the initial standard of the Achaian tournois may or may not have been that of Charles of Anjou’s Provençal issues. In fact in 1280 the deniers tournois of Glarentza had the same value as royal and seigneurial French tournois.237 It is true that over time more of the later issues made their way to southern Italy and Greece.238 his was probably the result of the rather large quanti­ ties in which the coins of the royal appanages had been minted, and also because of the 1263 prohi­ bition of such coins from circulation in the roy­ ally controlled parts of France. It is, nevertheless, inconceivable that these issues were purposefully introduced into the Mediterranean territories the Angevin dynasty controlled. Charles’s involve­ ment in the monetary afairs of Achaia were spo­ radic in the period ater 1267, and it should be noted that even ater 1278 he let the coinage of Achaia on the model of the deniers tournois of his French territories rather than changing it to that of the gros tournois his brother Louis initiated in 1266, which was the basis of the new silver coin­ ages he introduced into his kingdom of Naples and Sicily in 1278 and in Rome as sole senator in about the same period.239 Very soon, however, the Glarentzan tournois became the medium­range coinage of choice within the remaining mainland territories of the Angevin kingdom of Sicily.240 Again, it is improbable that this phenomenon and

237 Filangieri, Registri, 22 (1969), 29–31, no. 153; see Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 238 n. 125. 238 Baker and Calabria, “Filignano,” 275–78; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers Tournois,” 240 n. 137. 239 P. Grierson and L. Travaini, eds., Medieval European Coinage, vol. 14, Italy (III) (South Italy, Sicily, Sardina) (Cam­ bridge, 1998), 205–6; A. M. Stahl, “Rome during Avignon: he Silver Coinage of Rome in the Fourteenth Century,” in I ritrovamenti monetali e i processi inlativi nel mondo antico e medievale, ed. M. Asolati and G. Gorini, Numismatica Patavina 9 (Padua, 2008), 153–54. 240 On what follows, see Travaini, “Deniers Tournois”; J. Baker, “hree Fourteenth Century Coin Hoards from Apulia Containing gigliati and Greek deniers tournois,” RIN 102 (2001): 219–80.

the more­or­less parallel closing of the Brindisi mint occurred through regal design. In fact, Achaian tournois spread in all direc­ tions from the late thirteenth century onward. At Anatolian coastal sites these coins usually take the chronological position between the last Byzantine issues of Emperors Michael VIII and Andronikos II and those of the Anatolian beyliks.241 heir presence in the Balkan coastline of the Aegean appears to be similar, though the information is more sporadic,242 and there were more contemporaneous Byzantine issues still available. his would have been the case, natu­ rally, also in the imperial capital. Again, the avail­ able data are not satisfactory, and only some stray and later hoard information show that the Achaian tournois was available in Constantinople.243 241 See for instance: Ephesos, Baker, “Dodecanese,” 353 n. 14; Kyzikos, H. Köker, “he Roman Provincial, Roman Imperial, Byzantine, Medieval, and Islamic Coins from the 1952–53 Excavations at Cyzicus,” NC 167 (2007): 305–14; Pergamon, K. Regling, “Münzfunde aus Pergamon,” Bläter für Münzreunde 40, no. 10–11 (1914): 5672–5685; H. Voegtli, S. Bendall, L. Ilisch, and C. Morrisson, Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon (Berlin, 1993) (= Pergamische Forschungen, 8); Sardis, H. W. Bell, Sardis, vol. 11, he Coins (Leiden, 1916); T. V. Butrey, “Byzantine, Medieval, and Modern Coins and Tokens,” in Greek, Roman, and Islamic Coins rom Sardis, ed. T. V. Butrey, A. Johnston, K. M. MacKenzie, and M. L. Bates (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1981) (= Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph, 7), 204–26; Troy, A. R. Bellinger, Troy: he Coins (Princeton, 1961) (= Supplementary Monograph, 2). 242 O. Tekin, “Excavation Coins from Aenus in hrace,” paper read at the Royal Numismatic Society on 16 Octo­ ber 2007; Rentina, M. Galani­Krikou and I. Tsourti, “Μακεδονική Ρεντίνα: Η νομισματική μαρτυρία (ανα­ σκα φές: 1976–1996),” in Το νόμισμα στο Μακεδονικό χώρο (hessalonike, 2000), 347–54; hasos, J.­M. Saulnier, “hasos à l’époque paléochrétienne et byzantine: Étude de numismatique et d’histoire” (doctoral thesis, Paris, 1992); G. A. hessalonike and M. G. Sotiriou, Η βασιλική του Αγίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης (Athens, 1952), 244–45. 243 See the Belgrade Gate hoard, J. Baker, “Later Medieval Monetary Life in Constantinople,” Anatolian Archaeology 9 (2003): 35–36; the Kalenderhane excava­ tions, M. F. Hendy, “Roman, Byzantine, and Latin Coins,” in Kalenderhane in Istanbul, ed. C. L. Striker and Y. Doğan Kuban (Mainz, 2007), 175–276 (suggesting that the tour­ nois coinage might have been introduced to the city already during the period of the Latin Empire, 1204–61; he Hippodrome, A. H. M. Jones, “he Coins,” in Preliminary Report upon the Excavations Carried Out in the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927 (London, 1928), 46–50; B. Gray, “he Coins,” in Second Report upon the Excavations Carried

Pegoloti’s mention of tornesi in the context of Constantinople might well have had such issues in mind,244 and the irst Byzantine tornesi issues under Andronikos II were certainly inspired by the success of this coinage.245 Farther to the east, in Syria and Palestine, a strange patern of Achaian pety denomination issues of the Corinth mint is in evidence.246 Such coins are conidently dated to the late 1250s–early 1260s, so this move­ ment cannot be brought in line with the joint cru­ sading eforts of William II of Villehardouin and St. Louis in 1249–52.247 he Morea incorporated a succession of for­ eign issues into its own monetary system. hrough this process these issues became, in a sense, do­ mesticated and ceased to be entirely indicative of the international position of the peninsula. It is, rather, through some exceptional cases and curi­ osities that movements and contacts are docu­ mented, as they had been through the inds of twelth­century Western and Eastern coinages at Corinth. Corinth, Glarentza, and Sparta have pro­ duced such issues, ranging from Sicilian and other Italian pennies to those of the crusader states in Palestine and Cyprus,248 Armenian coinages, and even those of the Golden Horde. Such imports petered out to some extent in the course of the fourteenth century. Achaia had stopped minting its own coinage, and the succes­ sor of the Achaian tournois, the tornesello, had a far more limited reach and was almost completely conined to the Greek territories for which it was minted. he denomination was produced in a dif­ ferent guise at Byzantium, in Lakonia and Con­ stantinople as we have seen, with similar cynical Out in and Near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928 (London, 1929), 50. 244 Both DOC 5, 31, and C. Morrisson, “Les noms des monnaies sous les Paléologues,” in Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit: Referate des Internationalen Symposiums zu Ehren von Herbert Hunger, ed. W. Seibt, Wien 30. Nov. bis 3. Dez. 1994 (Vienna, 1996), 151–62, at 154, are unduly con­ ident that Pegoloti is in fact referring to Byzantine tornesi when it is equally likely that these are Frankish Greek coins. 245 DOC 5, 31, and 147. 246 he relative Levantine inds are fully discussed in the forthcoming J. Baker, “he Tel ‘Akko Hoard of Venetian Torneselli,” Israel Numismatic Research 5 (2010): 151–60. 247 Bon, La Morée ranque, 118. 248 See also the Corinth BnF hoard in this regard (192).

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



intentions. hese Byzantine tornesi are present at some of the Balkan sites that have been men­ tioned. Achaia and Byzantium had to some extent followed similar courses, producing or using low­ quality denominations, or relying—insofar as these can be witnessed at all in the record—on gold and large­value silver coinages of more pow­ erful states in the West and in Anatolia.

Conclusion he Fourth Crusade let the Peloponnese separated from the source of its coinage for the preceding half millennium, the Constantinople mint. For most of the thirteenth century, monetary circulation was dominated by coins imported from Europe. It was not until the period of direct Angevin rule of the Morea that an indigenous coinage was established and dominated circulation, and it comprised almost exclusively deniers, the lowest denomina­ tion commonly minted in Europe. Even this issue,



    . 

which seems to have been substantial, lasted litle more than half a century, giving way by the mid­ dle of the fourteenth century to coins minted by Venice, most signiicantly the tornesello, a debased coinage designed especially to exploit the colonial populations of the former Byzantine Empire. he use of the tornesello denomination as the basis of an evanescent atempt at indigenous coinage in the Byzantine­controlled area of the Morea at the end of this period is an especially cruel irony. he coinage and monetary systems of the Morea can be seen as a relection of historical forces, especially the interplay between the Frank­ ish setlers in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, the reemerging Byzantine Empire and its reconquered Peloponnesian territories, and various European states seeking to control and exploit the region for economic and strategic ends. he coinage also, however, played a more active role in shaping the history, as it laid down one of the material condi­ tions under which investment, trade, and taxation could be successfully carried out.

APPENDIX Checklist of Coin Finds Coin inds are taken directly from the catalog in J. Baker, Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 (Leiden, forthcoming). hey are listed according to the same numbering system, and the missing num­ bers represent inds that are not from the Peloponnese. Only the bare information (catalog number— name—geographical area, where necessary—proposed date of concealment, for hoards only—the main coinages—a single piece of relevant bibliography) has been reproduced here. he list of hoards is given in chronological order, the remainder of the inds alphabetically. he coinages are given in broad categories and without quantities (plural forms can also denote single specimens). H   P C –

1.—Kaparelli 1927—Argolid—ca. 1200 or ater (1204–5?)—pre­1204 tetartera—Σύνταγμα, 98–99, no. 86 (see note 21). 3.—Mapsos 1991—Corinthia—ca. 1200 or ater (1204–5?)—pre­1204 hyperpyra—Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese,” 239 (see note 17). 33.—Arkadia 1958—ca. 1207 or ater—pre­1204 billon trachea—early thirteenth­century bil­ lon trachea—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 337, no. 137 (see note 17). 35.—Sparta 1957—after 1207, perhaps 1212— early thirteenth­century billon trachea— Σύνταγμα, 114, no. 104. 36.—Corinth 15 July 1929—ater 1207, perhaps 1209–10—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—counterfeit trachea—Baker, “Argos,” 226, n. 13, 229, n. 33 (see note 36). 37.—Corinth 15–16 June 1960—1209–10—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 338, no. 142. 38.—Argos 1984—ca. 1211 or after—pre­1204 tetartera—early thirteenth­century bil­ lon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—Baker, “Argos,” 212–14 (see ig. 2). 39.—Methana—Argolid—ca. 1214—ca. 1236— sterlings—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 341, no. 163. 43.—Corinth 1898—1229–49—grossi—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 338, no. 151. 45.—Erymantheia 1955—Achaia—1241–42, or after—Nicaean hyperpyra—Latin hyper­ pyra—Σύνταγμα, 121, no. 112. 46.—Patras before 1940—1221, or probably 1241– 42—Nicaean hyperpyra?—Latin hyper­ pyra?—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 338, no. 148.

47.—Seltsi 1938—Achaia—1241–42, or ater— Nicaean hyperpyra—Latin hyperpyra— Σύνταγμα, 120–21, no. 110. 50.—Sparta 1926C—1250, or ater—royal French tournois—unpublished. 52.—Xirochori 2001—Elis—1253, or ater—Latin hyperpyra—grossi—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 286–87 (see note 92). 53.—Corinth 15 June 1925—mid­ to late 1250s— Nicaean hyperpyra—Latin hyperpyra— Metcalf, Ashmolean, 340, no. 157 (see ig. 8). 54.—Berbati 1953—Argolid—1250s—sterlings— Tours tournois—royal French tournois —Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tour­ nois—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 341, no. 162. 56.—Corinth 12 April 1929—late 1250s or early 1260s—Achaia petty denomination— Metcalf, Ashmolean, 339, no. 152. 57.—Corinth 1938—late 1250s or early 1260s— Achaia petty denomination—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 339, no. 153. 59.—A rgos 1988—early 1260s—pre­1204 tetartera—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—Achaia pety denomination—Baker, “Argos,” 214–20 (see ig. 1). 60.—Nemea 1936—ater 1262—Tours tournois— royal French tournois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tournois—Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea, vol. 3, 233–34 (see note 43). 63.—Kordokopi 1972—Elis—probably 1264— sterlings—Nicaean hy perpyra—Latin hyperpyra—grossi—Tours tournois—royal French tournois—Provence (Marq.) tour­ nois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tournois—Riom tournois—Toulouse tour­ nois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 285–87 (see igs. 6 and 7).

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



70.—Corinth 8 May 1934—shortly before 1267— sterlings—Latin hy perpyra—grossi— Tours tournois—royal French tournois— Provence (Marq.) tournois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tournois—Riom tournois —Toulouse tournois—French pennies— Metcalf, Ashmolean, 339, no. 154. 76.—Corinth 20–21 August 1928—mid­1270s— Achaia tournois—unpublished as a hoard, coins are listed in Edwards, he Coins 1896– 1929 (see note 17). 77.—Corinth 1992—late 1270s or early 1280s— grossi—Provence (Co.) tournois—Touratso­ glou and Baker, “Grossi,” 229 (see note 1). 81.—Troizina 1899—Argolid—late 1280s— grossi—royal French tournois—Provence (Marq.) tournois—Provence (Co.) tournois— French pennies—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tour­ nois,” 228–29, n. 101 and f. (see note 99). 83.—Xirochori 1957—Elis—ater 1291—grossi— Tours tournois—royal French tournois— Provence (Marq.) tournois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tournois—Auvergne tour­ nois—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois— Karytaina tournois—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 341–42, no. 165. 87.—Vourvoura—Arkadia—ater 1303—Achaia tournois?—Neopatras tournois—Baker and Galani­Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών,” 414, no. 4 (see note 229). 89.—Epidauros 1904—1306–13—Achaia tour­ nois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tour­ nois—Neopatras tournois—Baker and Galani­Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών,” 414, no. 10. 90.—Limnes 2006—Argolid—ca. 1308—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—unpublished. 92.—Pylia 1968–69—1309–11—royal French tournois—Provence (Marq.) tournois— Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tournois —Achaia tournois—Athens tournois— Karytaina tournois—Naupaktos tournois —Neopatras tournois—counterfeit tour­ nois—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 343, no. 171. 142.—Patras 1955A—ca. 1332 or later—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—counterfeit tournois—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 349, no. 195. 146.—Mesochori—Messenia—ater 1332–33— Achaia tournois—soldini—unpublished, on display in Athens Numismatic Museum.



    . 

158.—Petsouri 1997—Elis—1343–46, or ater— Achaia tournois—Athens tournois— Naupaktos tournois—counterfeit tournois— soldini—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 287–88. 159.—Patras 1955B—1343–46, or ater—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—Neopatras tournois—Tinos tour­ nois—Arta tournois—soldini—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 351, no. 203. 160.—Patras 1955C—1343–46, or ater—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—Arta tournois—Corfu tournois— counterfeit tournois—soldini—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 351, no. 204. 164.—Kiras Vrisi—Corinthia—ater 1353—torne­ selli—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 47, no. 2.1 (1992): 166. 168.—Elis 1964—1356, or ater—royal French tour­ nois—Provence (Marq.) tournois—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Karytaina tour­ nois—Naupaktos tournois—Neopatras tour­ nois—Tinos tournois—Chios tournois—Arta tournois—counterfeit tournois—soldini— counterfeit soldini—central and northern Italian pennies—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 352, no. 207. 172.—Soudeli—Arkadia—1368–82 or 1400– 1413—soldini—torneselli—Stahl, Tornesello, 85, no. 25 (see note 183). 174.—Ancient Elis 2005—late 1370s or early 1380s— Achaia tournois—soldini—Hungarian denars—torneselli—counterfeit torneselli— central and northern Italian pennies—Sicilian pennies—Rhodes pennies—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 282–84. 175.—Pyrgos 1967—Elis—1381–82—soldini— Hungarian denars—Lesbos soldino—Met­ calf, Ashmolean, 354, no. 211. 176.—Achaia—1382, or later—soldini—BCH 86 (1962): NM, 426. 179.—Belimachio—Arkadia—1382–1400—torne­ selli—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 22 (1967): NM, 10. 180.—Mystras—1382–1400, or later—torneselli— BCH 59 (1935): NM, 243. 182.—Troizina—Argolid—1382–1400, or later— torneselli—Stahl, Tornesello, 85, no. 28. 188.—Gastouni 1961—Elis—ca. 1400—soldini— torneselli—Metcalf, Ashmolean, 354, no. 214. 192.—Cor int h Bn F—1400–1413—Acha ia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—Neopatras tournois—Arta tour­ nois—torneselli—crusader pennies—Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois,” 241, nn. 144–45.

194.—Sparta 1926A and B—1400–1413, or later— torneselli—Lakonian tornesi—Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” (see note 197). 200.—Gortyna—Arkadia—ater 1410—soldini— torneselli—Stahl, Tornesello, 85. 201.—Vasilitsi 2000—Messenia—ater 1400— torneselli—counterfeit torneselli—N. Kontogiannis, “Excavation of a 13th­Century Church Near Vasilitsi, Southern Messenia,” Hesperia 77, no. 3 (2008): 497–537, at 511–12. 208.—Morea 1849—ca. 1420—torneselli—C. Cumano, “Numismatica,” L’Istria 5, no. 11 (1850): 79–80. 212.—Corinth 10 November 1936—1496–1501— Achaia petty denomination—Athens petty denomination—counterfeit tournois—tour­ nois of Catalan hebes—torneselli—coun­ terfeit torneselli—central and northern Italian pennies—Sicily pennies—Lakonian tornesi— Naples cavalli—Harris, “Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1936– 1939,” 146–47 and 154 (see note 220). H P   P C –

69.—Capstan Navy Cut—named ater a cigar brand, perhaps from the Peloponnese or Epiros—ca. 1264—hessalonike trachea— post­1261 trachea—A. Walker, “Four Coin Hoards in the Collection of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,” Hesperia 47 (1978): 40–48. G H   P C –

217.—Corinth 31 May 1932—1204, or later— pre­1204 tetartera—counterfeit tetartera— Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese,” 235, no. 12. 221.—Palaiochora—Lakonia—1230s or 1240s— sterlings—Tours tournois—royal French tour­ nois—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 30, no. 2.1 (1975): NM, p. 4, pl. 3. O G C F   P C –

216.—Glarentza—Achaia tournois—counterfeit tournois—soldini—torneselli—Sicily pen­ nies—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 271–72, Appendix I.1. 218.—Corinth—pre­1204 tetartera—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit

tetartera—Achaia petty denomination— Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—coun­ terfeit tournois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 253, n. 76. C D – E   P

223.—Acrocorinth—early thirteenth­century billon trachea?—counterfeit tetartera—ster­ lings—Tours tournois—royal French tour­ nois—Achaia pety denomination—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—soldini— torneselli—Campobasso tournois—A. R. Bellinger, “he Coins,” in C. W. Blegen et al., Acrocorinth, Excavations in 1926, vol. 3 no. 1 of Corinth (Cambridge, MA, 1926), 61–68. 224.—Ayios Nikolaos—Lakonia—Achaia pety denomination?—Achaia tournois?—torne­ selli—Stahl, Tornesello, 83. 225.—Ayios Stephanos—Lakonia—royal French tournois—Achaia petty denomination— R. Janko, “Roman, Medieval, and Modern Coins,” in Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Setlement in Laconia, ed. W. D. Taylour and R. Janko (Athens, 2008), 481–84. 226.—Agrapidochori—Elis—Achaia petty denomination—soldini—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 278. 227.—Ai Lias—Argolid—Athens tournois— Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 50 (1995): NM, 10. 233.—Argos (ancient and medieval center)— Achaia pety denomination—JIAN 10 (1907): NM, 182. 234.—Argos (ancient and medieval center)— soldini—torneselli—Baker, “Argos,” 230, n. 44, 232. 235.—A rgos (unspeci f ied)—g rossi—M . Galani­Krikou, “Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία βενετικών grossi ΙΓʹ–ΙΔʹ αι: Στον ελαδικό χώρο, με αφορμή ένα θησαυρό,” Ἀρχαιολογικὰ Ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν 21 (1988): 163–84, at 177. 236.—Argos (southern part of modern town)— early thirteenth­century billon trachea— counterfeit tetartera—royal French tournois —Provence (Co.) tournois—Achaia petty denomination—Athens pety denomination —Achaia tournois—Athens tournois— Naupaktos tournois—counterfeit tournois— torneselli—Baker, “Argos,” 220–24. 255.—Bozika—Corinthia—Achaia tournois— torneselli—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 22 (1967): NM, 9.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



260.—Chelidoni—Elis—Naupaktos tour­ nois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 278. 261.—Chlemoutsi—Elis—early thirteenth­ century billon trachea—Achaia tournois— soldini—torneselli—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 278–79. 262.—Glarentza—Achaia petty denomina­ tion—Athens pety denomination—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—counterfeit tournois—soldini— torneselli—counterfeit torneselli—Sicily pennies—Cyprus cartzias—gigliato of Naples—pul of the Golden Horde—Athana­ soulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 273– 77, Appendixes I.2, I.3, I.4. 263.—Corinth (central area, 1896–1914 sea­ sons)—early thirteenth­century billon trachea —counterfeit tetartera—early thirteenth­ century billon trachea—sterlings—Nicaean hyperpyra?—Latin hyperpyra?—early thir­ teenth­century billon trachea—Tours tour­ nois—royal French tournois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Achaia petty denomination— post­1261 trachea—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—tournois of Catalan hebes—counterfeit tournois— torneselli—Sicily pennies—Edwards, The Coins 1896–1929. 264.—Corinth (central area, 1925 season)—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—coun­ terfeit tetartera—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—sterlings—Tours tour­ nois—royal French tournois—Achaia pety denomination—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—counterfeit tournois—torne­ selli—A. R. Bellinger, Catalogue of Coins Found at Corinth, 1925 (New Haven, 1930). 265.—Corinth (central area, heater excavations 1925–26)—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—early thir­ teenth­century billon trachea—royal French tournois—Poitou tournois—Achaia petty denomination—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—counterfeit tournois—torne­ selli—J. D. MacIsaac, “Corinth: Coins, 1925– 1926: he heater District and the Roman Villa,” Hesperia 56 (1987): 97–157. 266.—Corinth (central area, 1930–35 seasons)— early thirteenth­century billon trachea— sterlings—grossi—Tours tournois—royal French tournois—Provence (Marq.) tour­ nois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Achaia pety denomination—post­1261 trachea—French 

    . 

pennies—Achaia tournois—Athens tour­ nois—Naupaktos tournois—tournois of Catalan hebes—Arta tournois—counterfeit tournois—torneselli—central and northern Italian pennies—Sicily pennies—Armenian tank—penny/quartorolo of Venice—K. M. Edwards, “Report on the Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930– 1935,” Hesperia 6 (1937): 241–56 (see ig. 5). 267.—Corinth (central area, 1940–88 seasons)— early thirteenth­century billon trachea— sterlings—grossi—Tours tournois—royal French tournois—Provence (Marq.) tour­ nois—Poitou tournois—Achaia petty denomination—Achaia pety denomination counterfeit—Athens pety denomination— post­1261 trachea—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—tournois of Catalan hebes—counterfeit tournois— torneselli—central and northern Italian pennies—Campobasso tournois—Hesperia, 1960, 1962, 1971–89 (see igs. 3 and 4). 268.—Corinth (central area, Frankish Complex excavations 1976, 1989–97)—early thir­ teenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—counterfeit trachea—sterlings— grossi—Tours tournois—royal French tour­ nois—Provence (Marq.) tournois—Provence (Co.) tournois—Poitou tournois—Toulouse tournois—Britany tournois—Achaia pety denomination—Achaia pety denomination counterfeit—Athens pety denomination— post­1261 trachea—French pennies—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Karytaina tournois—Naupaktos tournois—Neopatras tournois—counterfeit tournois—soldini— torneselli—counterfeit torneselli—cen­ tral and northern Italian pennies—Sicily pennies—penny/quartorolo of Venice— Hesperia, 1990–98. 269.—Corinth (central area, Nezi ield excava­ tion 2007)—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—counterfeit trachea—royal French tournois—Achaia petty denomination—Achaia tournois— Athens tournois—unpublished. 270.—Corinth (central area, Panayia field excavation 1947, 1995–2007)—early thir­ teenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—Latin hyperpyra—Achaia pety denomination—Athens petty denomina­ tion—Achaia tournois—counterfeit tour­ nois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 247 and unpublished.

271.—Corinth (Kraneion basilica excavations 1928, 1933–34, 1970s)—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—Tours tournois—royal French tournois—Provence (Marq.) tournois— Achaia petty denomination—Achaia tour­ nois—Athens tournois—tournois of Catalan hebes—counterfeit tournois—torneselli— Constantinopolitan tornesi—Edwards, “Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935” (see above at no. 266) and Ἀρχ.Δελτ. NM, 1971–77. 272.—Corinth (suburban area to the north of central area)—Achaia pety denomination— Achaia tournois—torneselli—Edwards, “Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935” (see above). 273.—Corinth (Great Roman Bath)—early thirteenth­centur y billon trachea— Achaia petty denomination—torneselli— unpublished. 274.—Corinth (Ag. Paraskevi)—thirteenth­ century coins—H. S. Robinson, “Church of Haghia Paraskevi, Ancient Corinth,” Ἀρχ. Δελτ. 22 (1967): 2.1:218–19. 275.—Corinth (Kokkinovrysi)—early thirteenth­ century billon trachea—Tours tournois— counterfeit tournois—soldini—unpublished. 276.—Corinth (Anaploga)—Tours tournois— Achaia petty denomination—Achaia tournois—unpublished. 277.—Corinth (Poters’ Quarter)—torneselli— Edwards, “Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935” (see above). 278.—Corinth (Demeter and Kore sanctuary)— Achaia pety denomination—N. Bookidis and R. S. Stroud, he Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture, vol. 18 no. 3 of Corinth (Princeton, 1997), 379, n. 1. 279.—Corinth (Isthmos area)—torneselli—Ἀρχ. Δελτ. 21 (1966): NM, 7–14. 280.—Daphniotissa—Elis—torneselli—Athana­ soulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 279. 286.—Drovolos—Arkadia—soldini—torneselli —A. G. Moutsali in Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 46, no. 2.1 (1991): 175–76. 291.—Gastouni—Elis—torneselli—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 279. 293.—Gortys—Arkadia—early thirteenth­ century billon trachea?—BCH 75 (1951): 133. 296.—Isthmia—early thirteenth­century billon trachea?—sterlings—Achaia pety denomi­ nation—Achaia tournois—Athens tour­ nois—torneselli—Stahl, Tornesello, 83; T. E.

Gregory, he Hexamilion and the Fortress, vol. 5 of Isthmia (Princeton, 1993), 41, 89, 94, 104, 115, 123, 124, 125. 297.—Kalavryta—Achaia—medieval western coins—D. M. Metcalf, Coinage in SouthEastern Europe 820–1396 (London, 1979), 133. 305.—Kenchreai—Corinthia—Achaia tour­ nois—torneselli—R. L. Hohlfelder, The Coins, vol. 3 of Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth (Leiden, 1978). 306.—Kiato—Corinthia—Achaia pety denom­ ination—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 56, no. 2.1 (2001): NM, forthcoming. 307.—Kladeos—Elis—Achaia tournois—Athana­ soulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 279. 308.—Kleitoria—Achaia—soldini—torneselli— Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 19 (1964): NM, 14. 309.— Kleonai—Corinthia—grossi—Galani­ Krikou, “Grossi” (see no. 235 above), 177. 310.—Krestena—Elis—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—Naupaktos tournois—torneselli —Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 280. 311.—Lakonia—Athens pety denomination—M. Overbeek, “he Small Finds,” in he Laconia Survey, vol. 2, ed. W. Cavanagh et al. (London, 1996), 183–98, at 196. 313.—Lepreo/Strovitzi—Elis—Achaia tour­ nois—soldini—torneselli—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 280. 314.—Ligourio—Argolid—Achaia tournois— torneselli—M. Mitsos, “Το μεσαιωνικόν Λιγουριό,” in Πρακτικά του Aʹ Συνεδρίου Αργολικών Σπουδών (Athens, 1979), 37–41. 317.—Mazi/Skillountia—Elis—royal French tournois—Achaia tournois—torneselli— Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clar­ entza,” 280. 319.—Messene—unpublished. 320.—Methone—torneselli— D. Pallas, “Ο Άγιος Ονούφριος Μεθώνης,” Ἀρχ. Ἐϕ. (1968): 119–76, at 160–61. 321.—Nauplia—Achaia petty denomination— N. Papadakis, “Σπάνιον Νόμισμα Κοπής Γουλιέλμου Βιλλαρδουίν ως Τριάρχου Ευβοίας,” Ἀρχαιολογικὰ Ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν 6, no. 3 (1973): 463–65. 334.—Nemea—early thirteenth­century billon trachea—counterfeit tetartera—sterlings— grossi—Achaia pety denomination—Achaia tournois—Athens tournois—torneselli— Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea, vol. 3, 187–89 and 219–35.

Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade



336.—Olena—Elis—counterfeit tetartera— Athens tournois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 281. 337.—Olympia—Achaia tournois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 281. 339.—Orchomenos—Arkadia—Achaia tour­ nois—torneselli—A. Plassart, “Fouilles d’Orchomène d’Arcadie,” BCH 39 (1915): 117–22, at 121–22. 342.—Paos—Achaia—soldini—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 25 (1970): NM, 11. 343.—Patras—torneselli—Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 50 (1995): NM, 13. 349.—Pylos in Elis—counterfeit tetartera— Achaia tournois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 281–82. 351.—Sparta (Acropolis)—early thirteenth­ century billon trachea—counterfeit trachea— grossi—Tours tournois—royal French tour­ nois—Achaia pety denomination—post­1261 trachea—French pennies—Achaia tour­ nois—torneselli—counterfeit torneselli— Sicily pennies—Lakonian tornesi—A. M. Woodward, “Note on the Coins Found in 1924– 1925,” BSA 26 (1923–24; 1924–25): 157–58.



    . 

352.—Sparta (Artemis Orthia)—Achaia pety denomination—soldini—torneselli—coun­ terfeit torneselli—Lakonian tornesi—Wood­ ward, “he Coins.” 353.—Tegea—Arkadia—Byzantine and Venetian coins—C. Dugas, “Le sanctuaire d’Aléa Athéna à Tégée,” BCH 45 (1921): 335–435, at 433. 378.—Tigani—Lakonia—Achaia pety denomi­ nation?—Achaia tournois?—soldini—torne­ selli—Rhodes pennies—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 258, n. 117. 380.—Trianta Zourtsas—Elis—counterfeit tour­ nois—Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 282. 382.—Troizina—Argolid—early thirteenth­ century billon trachea—Achaia pety de ­ nomination?—BCH 43 (1988): NM, 7. 385.—Zaraka—Corinthia—early thirteenth­cen­ tury billon trachea—Tours tournois—royal French tournois—Achaia tournois—coun­ terfeit tournois—soldini—torneselli— counterfeit torneselli—Baker, “Zaraka: he Coins” (see note 13).

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese KL Dav i d Jacoby

T

he Peloponnese experienced a process of political and territorial fragmentation after 1204, similar to that witnessed by several other regions of the Byzantine Empire (see map).1 For more than two centuries three political entities coexisted in the Peloponnese—namely, the Frankish Morea, the Venetian-ruled territories, and the Byzantine province, which was autonomous from 1348 and governed by a despot residing in Mystras from the following year. Each of these three entities had a distinctive political regime, judicial system, and social structure, which in turn had an obvious bearing on its economy. So far each of the three economies has been largely investigated in isolation, without regard for the neighboring economies, and its rural and urban components have been examined separately. Moreover, the prevailing descriptive approach and the focus upon fiscal aspects have yielded a rather static picture of the three economies.2 The present study examines the rural economy of the three political entities in the late medieval period from an economic perspective. It focuses on specific aspects of rural exploitation and integrates them within the broader context of commercialization and distribution. In addition, it attempts to reconstruct to some extent the evolution of the rural economy in each of the three entities, and by considering

1  In order to shorten the notes that follow I mention only studies, preferably the most recent ones, directly relevant to the issues discussed here and to the evolution of the rural economy in the late medieval Peloponnese. LT = J. Longnon and P. Topping, eds., Documents sur le régime des terres dans la principauté de Morée au XIV e siècle (Paris and The Hague, 1969), is cited below by page and line numbers, for instance, LT, 85.35–36 if the lines are consecutive, and 85.35.40 if they are not. 2  For this approach, see P. Topping, Studies on Latin Greece, A.D. 1205–1715 (London, 1977), nos. III, V–VI, VIII; A. Carile, La rendita feudale nella Morea Latina del XIV secolo (Bologna, 1974); Zakythinos, DGM, 2:146–269. To date there is no survey on the economy of the Venetian territories in southern Messenia. A more dynamic approach is offered by P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204–1500 (London and New York, 1995), 240–65, and E. Sakellariou, “Latin Morea in the Late Middle Ages: Observations on Its Demography and Economy,” in Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, ed. C. Dendrinos, J. Harris, E. Harvalia-Crook, and J. Herrin (Aldershot, 2003), 301–18.

213

Lakonia. Olive tree (photo: S. Gerstel)

Patras

Glarentza

CORINTHIA

Andravida

Corinth

ELIS

Argos ARGOLID

ARCADIA

Nauplion

Fig. 7.1. 

The Morea (illustration by M. Saldaña)

MESSENIA

Kalamata

Mystras Sparta

Korone

MAN

Methone

LACONIA

I

Monemvasia

them jointly to assess the extent of the interaction among the three economies.3 Such an enterprise is extremely arduous, considering the variegated nature and differing extent of the evidence illustrating the rural economy of the late medieval Peloponnese. Since written sources provide the bulk of information on rural exploitation and its interaction with the market economy, they warrant a few observations. The population of the late medieval Pelopon­ nese was overwhelmingly rural and consisted mostly of dependent peasants residing on large estates. The fairly limited documentation pertaining to the Byzantine Morea, mainly imperial

grants of land and privileges or their confirmation, provides only general knowledge about the composition of these estates. In contrast, the fourteenth-century surveys and reports covering large feudal estates in the Frankish Morea are a mine of information on rural exploitation. They contain a considerable amount of data on the structure, operation, management, resources, and yields of seignorial land and peasant holdings in numerous villages. They also offer some evidence on the commercialization of rural products. On the other hand, the data on rural property not included in the large estates of the Frankish Morea are rather limited.4 Unfortunately, the extant Byzantine and

3  A comprehensive survey of the late medieval Pelopon­ nesian economy is beyond the scope of this study and will have to await further investigation.

4  For the location of settlements mentioned in these surveys and reports, see LT, 233–59; A. Bon, La Morée franque: Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques

214

david jacoby

Frankish sources cover only limited portions of the Peloponnese. The Venetian sources include notarial charters dealing with the exploitation of small rural property and the commercialization of rural products, in addition to public documents issued by state institutions dealing with both these aspects of the economy in Venetian-ruled territories. These documents are also crucial for the reconstruction of rural production in all three political entities of the Peloponnese, the marketing of rural commodities within the peninsula, and the distribution of those commodities to other regions. Western trade manuals compiled from the second half of the thirteenth century onward provide some indirect evidence regarding the rural economy of the late medieval Peloponnese, yet their main contribution consists in data on the commercialization and diffusion of specific products. It should be noted, however, that these manuals offer a static picture of trade, the validity of which over time cannot always be assessed since they generally retain outdated information and record new developments with some delay.5 The investigation that follows will begin with a brief survey of political and territorial developments in the late medieval Peloponnese. Some considerations regarding the political, social, and legal regime of the three political entities will contribute to an understanding of the factors affecting the demographic evolution of the rural workforce and their impact upon rural ex­­ploitation. An examination of several rural commodities will illustrate various facets of the interaction between their production or collection, commercialization, and diffusion. The last section of this study will address the general issues mentioned above.

sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430) (Paris, 1969), 299– 531; P. Topping, “The Post-Classical Documents,” in The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment, ed. W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp (Minneapolis, 1972), 66–67, and maps 5–8; repr. in Topping, Studies on Latin Greece, no. VIII. 5  On these features, see D. Jacoby, “A Venetian Manual of Commercial Practice from Crusader Acre,” in I comuni italiani nel regno crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and B. Z. Kedar, Collana storica di fonti e studi, diretta da Geo Pistarino, 48 (Genoa, 1986), 409–11, 415–16, 420–21; repr. in D. Jacoby, Studies on the Crusader States and on Venetian Expansion (Northampton, 1989), no. VII.

• It would be tedious to follow in detail the complex political and territorial history of the late medieval Peloponnese or retrace that of specific regions, such as the territory of Corinth. Still, a brief outline of major developments affecting the Frankish, Byzantine, and Venetian political entities is warranted, since some of them had a longterm impact upon their economic evolution and, more generally, upon the entire region. Moreover, the interpretation of the sources bearing on the three political entities requires close attention to the shifting boundaries between them and to the chronology of their changing territorial extension. Indeed, various localities ruled by the Franks in a certain period were included in Byzantine or Venetian territory at some other point in time. As a result, documentary references to the Byzantine Despotate of the Morea and the Venetian Pelo­ ponnese acquire different geographic dimensions, depending upon their dating.6 In 1205 two French knights, William of Champlitte and Geoffrey of Villehardouin, jointly began the conquest of the Peloponnese and laid the foundations of a new feudal state, whose ruler assumed the title “prince” in 1210.7 The Frankish advance in the Peloponnese proceeded slowly and only came to an end around 1248, when Prince William II (1246–1278) completed the occupation 6  For the next two paragraphs, see J. Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée (Paris, 1949); Bon, La Morée franque; Zakythinos, DGM. These works are partly outdated, yet still valuable. More recent: Lock, The Franks in the Aegean. On the Venetian territories and their boundaries, see D. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale: Les “Assises de Romanie”: Sources, application et diffusion (Paris and The Hague, 1971), 213–35; C. Hodgetts and P. Lock, “Some Village Fortifications in the Venetian Peloponnese,” in The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, ed. P. Lock and G. D. R. Sanders, Oxbow Monographs 59 (Oxford, 1996), 77–80; D. Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility across the Venetian, Frankish, and Byzantine Borders in Latin Romania, Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries,” in I Greci durante la venetocrazia: Uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), ed. C. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, and D. Vlassi, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Venezia, 3–7 dicembre 2007 (Venice, 2009), 525, 527–28. On territories held by Venice until 1540, see E. Balta, “Venetians and Ottomans in the Southeast Peloponnese (15th–18th Century),” in Halil Inalcık Armağanı: Tarih Araştırmaları (Ankara, 2009), 1:171–73. 7 Jacoby, La féodalité, 223.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

215

of the peninsula,8 except for two small separate enclaves at its southwestern tip. Indeed, the ports of Methone (Modon) and Korone (Coron) and their countryside in southern Messenia were held by Venice from 1207. William II was defeated and captured in 1259 by the forces of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (1258–1282) at the battle of Pel­ agonia in Macedonia. Following the Byzantine recovery of Constantinople in 1261 he agreed to cede to the empire a section of Lakonia, including Monemvasia in the southeastern Peloponnese, in return for his release from captivity. After regaining a foothold in the peninsula the following year, Byzantium gradually expanded its rule in the Peloponnese. To counter its mounting pressure and in return for promised assistance, William II agreed in 1267 that after his death the Principality of the Morea and its dependencies would be transferred to the new king of Sicily, Charles I of Anjou (1266–1285). From 1278 the Frankish Principality of the Morea was governed by the Angevin rulers of Naples or the absentee princes of the Morea related to them. It was leased to the Order of the Hospitallers from 1377 to 1382. Its condition drastically worsened somewhat later with the collapse of Angevin dominion in the Morea, and in the following decades it led a troubled existence and suffered from political instability. In the meantime Byzantium had enlarged its territory, which by 1320 included the southeastern and central part of the Peloponnese, from Cape Malea and Cape Matapan in the south to a line north of Kalavryta, and from the Gulf of Argos to a line joining the Gulf of Messenia to the Steniklarian Plain (called Val de Calamy by the Franks) in the west.9 In 1432 the imperial forces put an end to the existence of the Frankish Morea. Venice exploited the weakening of the principality to extend its rule and establish territorial continuity between its districts of Korone and Methone in the 1420s. In addition, it occupied Patras from 1408 to 1413 and from 1417 to 1419. However, the 8  H. A. Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia: The Sources (Monemvasia, 1990), 86–107, argues that Monemvasia’s capitulation occurred in 1252 or 1253, rather than in 1248 (90–91). 9  Kalavryta was in Byzantine hands before 1296: Livre de la conqueste, pars. 802–3. For the western Byzantine border, see Topping, “The Post-Classical Documents,” 67 and maps 5–8.

216

david jacoby

Turkish advance in the Peloponnese proved to be unstoppable. The Despotate of the Morea fell to the Ottomans in 1460, yet Monemvasia and a section of Lakonia were under Venetian rule from 1462–63 to 1540.10 Venice maintained its rule over Methone and Korone until 1500 and, in addition, held Argos and its rural hinterland from 1394 to 1463 and Nauplion from 1389 to 1540. Vassalage and fiefs entailing military service provided the backbone of the social and political hierarchy in the Frankish Principality of the Morea. Judicial and legislative authority and the right of taxation were privatized, yet only higherand middle-ranking noblemen exercised them. In contrast, continuity prevailed in the Byzantine Peloponnese, where the authority of the state in jurisdiction and taxation was upheld, although the right of taxation was occasionally ceded to ecclesiastical institutions and individual landowners. Byzantium maintained the laws governing landed estates transmitted by inheritance in the regions of the Frankish Morea it occupied, yet applied to them Byzantine law once they escheated to the state and were granted anew by the despot.11 Venetian state rights were maintained in the territories of Korone and Methone. On the other hand, Venice retained the legal system prevailing in the Frankish territories it annexed from the second half of the fourteenth century onward, which included fiefs in the regions of Argos and Nauplion and in Messenia.12 It remains to be seen in what way and to what extent these differing political and institutional superstructures impacted upon the economy of the three political entities. They were clearly reflected by the status of the peasantry. In the Byzantine Morea peasants were paroikoi of the imperial fisc, an ecclesiastical institution, or a lay landowner. Under Byzantine law they were considered legally free and as such having access to imperial courts. In fact, by the thirteenth century they were dependent peasants 10  For the date of the Venetian takeover, see ODB 2:1394, s.v. “Monemvasia.” 11 Jacoby, La féodalité, 179–83. 12  On Messenia, see ibid., 230–35, and M. I. Manousakas, “Ἄγνωστα ἀργυρόβουλλα τοῦ Θωμᾶ Παλαιολόγου καὶ ἀνέκδοτα βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα γιὰ τοὺς φεουδαλικοὺς θεσμοὺς στὴ φραγκοκρατούμενη: βυζαντινὴ καὶ βενετοκρατούμενη Πελοπόννησο,” Ἀκαδ. Ἀθη.Πρ. 59 (1984): 343–53. On Argos and Nauplion, see Jacoby, La féodalité, 213–22.

tied to the state or to a landowner. In the latter case they were registered in the fiscal survey of his estates and delivered him state taxes and ἀγγαρεία or labor service, if these had been transferred to the landowner’s benefit. Paroikoi were also subject to various legal restrictions, and their status was hereditary. In the territories conquered by the Franks a major change occurred in the legal status and social condition of the peasantry. Indeed, the privatization of governmental authority turned the paroikos, called villanus or villein, into a fully dependent peasant. The subjection to his lord was far more rigorous than in Byzantium, and his legal capacity in the handling of landed property more restricted. The presumption of subjection was firmly established and hereditary, and a change in status required a formal act of manumission, as for slaves. Venice adopted the principles and policies applied by the Franks with respect to the social and legal status of the peasantry yet, like Byzantium, strictly upheld the public nature of judicial and fiscal authority as exclusive prerogatives of the state. As Byzantium, Venice distinguished between villeins subject to the authority of individual landowners and state villeins, yet whatever the case the latters’ enfranchisement required the state’s approval.13 13  Throughout this study I use landowner in contrast to villein and leaseholder regardless of the legal rights of the former to his land. For the last two paragraphs, see A. E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire (Princeton, 1977), 142–58, yet I disagree with her definition of some Byzantine social or economic structures as “feudal” and with the contention that the status of paroikoi was not hereditary; this is not the place to explain why. See also J. Lefort, “The Rural Economy, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries,” in EHB 1:237–41; D. Jacoby, “Social Evolution in Latin Greece,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton (Madison, 1969–89), 6:185–93, 197–201, 207–16; D. Kyritsès and K. Smyrlis, “Les villages du littoral égéen de l’Asie Mineure au moyen âge,” in Les villages dans l’Empire byzantin (IV e–XV e siècle), ed. J. Lefort, C. Morrisson, and J.-P. Sodini, Réalités byzantines 11 (Paris, 2005), 446–47, on the personal bond of the paroikos to the landowner and its implications in thirteenth-century Asia Minor; D. Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Latin Romania: Continuity and Change,” MHR 4 (1989): 4–10, 20–23, also published with identical pagination in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, and D. Jacoby, eds., Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204 (London, 1989); repr. in D. Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean (Aldershot, 2001), no. VIII; Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility,” 526–27; C. Hodgetts, “Land Problems in Coron 1298–1347: A Contribution on

In Frankish and Byzantine Morea land re­­ mained, as in the preceding Byzantine period, the backbone of the economy. It was the main source of income and taxation. Land was also a major component of the economy in the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone, alongside the function of these ports in trade and shipping. There­­fore, the basic factors conditioning the nature, continuity, and intensity of rural exploitation and, more generally, the economic evolution of the Peloponnese in the late Middle Ages were related to landholding and largely depended on a series of variables: the availability of the work force and demographic fluctuations in the countryside, the selective exploitation of natural and manmade resources, the management of large estates, land use, agricultural output, market de­­ mand, and the commercialization and distribution of surpluses. To these factors other nonrural elements should be added—namely, the exercise of crafts and manufacturing, the structure and operation of trade and transportation, and the range of distribution patterns. The attitude of the large landowners toward rural exploitation was of paramount importance in that whole context, as most land was in their hands and their social dominance was likely to have economic implications. The stability, contraction, and expansion of the workforce were a constant concern of the landowners in all three political entities and a top priority of the state in Byzantine and Venetian-ruled territories. Stability was the rule, yet is more difficult to detect than mobility. Onomastic evidence, in particular the use of surnames over several generations, reveals kinship patterns and suggests a more or less stable peasantry in specific villages recorded in consecutive surveys, extant only for a few settlements of the fourteenth-century Frank­ ish Morea. Precise rates of natural growth cannot be properly calculated, since these lists focus upon the heads of households as taxpayers, women are underrepresented, and minors are rarely recorded. Nevertheless, these lists offer some limited evidence of natural growth. Thus, for instance, several extended two-generation families are recorded in 1336 in Armiro and Calivia, respectively located southeast of Kalamata and some 12 kilometers Venetian Colonial Rule,” Byzantina 12 (1983): 137–57, esp. 141–47.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

217

farther southeast.14 Stability is also illustrated by the persistence of surnames in some villages, as in Petoni in northern Messenia, where five families are registered in both 1338 and 1354, despite the severe toll the Black Death inflicted between the two years for which population records of this settlement survive.15 Demographic growth and residential continuity resulted in the division of inherited assets among family members, whether brothers or fathers and sons, yet did not necessarily lead to the establishment of separate economic units. In some instances siblings or several nuclear families jointly maintained a single household, an economic and fiscal unit known as stasis in Byzantine territory and as stasia in the Frankish and the Venetian Morea.16 The terms stasis and stasia also designated the assets of the household, which often included land, mostly in scattered plots.17 In other cases, especially if numerous movable assets were available, the household split and some of its members set up new, independent households in the same village, as the extended families mentioned earlier illustrate.18 Sometimes the landowner assigned to them abandoned and untenanted stasie, as recorded in 1354 for Krestena, a village in Elis, or land from his own demesne.19 Since the Byzantine angareia, or labor service, had been privatized in the Frankish Morea, where it was called servicium personale or sputica, some landowners may 14  LT, 22–25, 103–9. 15  LT, 59–60, 102–9: Astafilopati, Ardina, Aghiomulici, Samicheo, Caravlo. 16  On the Byzantine term and its versions, see LT, 265–66. In 1354 the stasia of a peasant at Kremmydi was held by three nephews, one of whom was coresponsible with the peasant for the payment of taxes: LT, 76.5–8. In 1338 Nicolaus Coroneus, presumably the son of a deceased villein, is registered as living in the house of his uncle: LT, 62.26. 17  On peasants’ vineyards distant from their other plots, see below. 18  LT, 41.17–20, two brothers, each with one-half of a stasia, presumably inherited; ibid., 99.33–36, two brothers, each with one-half of their father’s stasia. 19  In 1338 two members of the Stasino family each had their own stasia: LT, 65.18–19. By 1354 one of them had died or left and a relative had taken over his stasia. Another member of the family, Stamati Stasino, held two previously abandoned stasie, for which he paid fairly high tax amounts: LT, 70.2–5. The last two individuals were registered among the archers of Krestena: LT, 72.26.43.

218

david jacoby

have encouraged or even enforced the splitting of households, since it increased the amount of compulsory labor service and taxes they obtained from the villeins.20 Indeed, according to the legal treatise known as Assizes of Romania, compiled in the Frankish Morea between 1333 and 1346, when sons or brothers of a household head establish new fiscal units, both the original and the new ones were liable to full labor service and payments.21 The implementation of this rule is amply demonstrated in 1357 at Kosmina.22 Some peasant families spread to neighboring villages held by the same landowner, as illustrated by the presence of the same surname in neighboring villages such as Glyky, Macona, Carvanitsa, and Kremmydi in Messenia.23 Similarly, the members of the Savracu family, whose status varied, resided in different villages. In 1354 one member had a large holding in Macona, some of his relatives leased land in the same village yet lived on another estate of Niccolò Acciajuoli, while still others appeared at Glyky as nicarii, which points to their recent settlement in that village.24 Byzantium and Venice, in contrast to the Frankish Morea, upheld the public nature of the angareia owed to the state by paroikoi or villeins, respectively, although some landowners obtained exemptions in favor of their peasants or the transfer of the corvée to their own benefit.25 The stability of the peasantry along the border between the Frankish principality and the Byzantine Morea was ensured in specific areas and periods by agreements between landowners established on both sides of the divide. The so-called casaux de parçon or partitioned 20  On the servicium personale and sputica in Frankish territory: LT, 271–72. 21  Libro dele uxanze, 205–6, par. 190. For the dating, see ibid., 31–35; and Jacoby, La féodalité, 75–82. 22  Divided stasie in Kosmina are recorded as such or can be easily identified because their holders bear the same surname and pay the same amount of acrosticum: see, e.g., LT, 135.3–41, 136.24–27.30–38, 137.28–33. 23  LT, 73–83, passim. 24  LT, 78.8–9, 79.14.19.27.31, 81.15–16; there are several versions of the surname. On nicarii, see below. 25 Zakythinos, DGM, 2:197, 237–38; D. Jacoby, “Un aspect de la fiscalité vénitienne dans le Péloponnèse aux XIV e et XV e siècles: le ‘zovaticum’,” TM 1 (1965), 405–20; repr. in D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine (London, 1975), no. IV.

villages situated in the Frankish Morea, attested in the region of Corinth in 1295 and in the western Peloponnese in 1297 and from 1320 until 1354, were in fact not divided, yet in order to ensure peace and stability of the workforce, Frankish lords shared the revenue from these villages with neighboring Byzantine archontes residing beyond the border. In 1337 the peasants’ fiscal units in Boscio were uniformly taxed, which suggests that their holdings were roughly similar in size or yielded more or less the same income. In this village and in Basilicu all the peasant holdings were uniformly held by nuclear families, which points to relatively young and fairly recent immigrants.26 It would seem, therefore, that these villages in the western Peloponnese had been recently resettled after being abandoned in 1320 by their former residents during the military campaign staged against the Franks by Andronikos Asen, governor of the Byzantine Morea.27 The Frankish and Byzan­­tine lords displayed a common interest in the continuity of their revenue from “partitioned villages.” The abusive treatment of peasants in such a village, as by a Greek lord and his men in 1295, could easily disrupt the delicate balance achieved between the two parties.28 Individual peasant mobility was generated by economic constraints, fiscal pressure, escape from judicial verdicts, or oppressive demands from landowners or officials, such as new or increased tax payments or compulsory labor at distant locations. Sometimes these various factors also induced large groups to abandon their holdings.29 In 1361 villeins of the barony of Nivelet in Messenia complained that they were compelled to work on the lord’s land at Pyla, situated at a distance of a 26  LT, 46.24–47.14, 47.28–41. Some peasant holdings were still abandoned, one of them being listed as stasia apora, on which see LT, 266–67. 27 Bon, La Morée franque, 202 and 380–82, for the region in which the Byzantine troops operated and the localization of the castle of Saint-George, which they captured. 28  D. Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie gréco-franque en Morée: Les ‘casaux de parçon’,” MélRome 75 (1963): 111– 25; repr. in Jacoby, Société, no. VIII. For additional evidence on such a village, see below. 29  There is not the slightest hint to suggest that peasant mobility was prompted by “the use of coinage [that] was becoming foreign to the peasantry of Frankish Greece,” as claimed by Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 244–45. On taxes in cash, see below.

whole day’s walk from their residence. As a result, some had fled and had no intention to return. In 1414 the state villeins of the district of Korone protested against the increased load of services imposed by Venetian officials, which included bringing lime from places as far away as ten miles and more from Korone.30 In Venetian territory some state villeins abandoned this district to relocate in the region of Methone and vice versa, evading thereby their fiscal obligations while their relatives enjoyed the revenue from their assets. In 1416 Venice sought to put an end to this mobility by confiscating the fugitives’ land and allocating it to other villeins by auction.31 The appearance of new surnames and of uniform tax amounts owed by several fiscal units in the same settlement, as well as the presence of landless peasants temporarily exempt from tax payments, signal recent arrivals. These new settlers appear as ξένοι τε καὶ τῷ δημοσίῳ ἀνεπίγνωστοι or “foreigners unknown to the fisc” in the Byzantine Morea, as homines extranei or exteri, nicarii, neoparici, or neuparichisse in Frankish territory, and as agrafi, from Greek ἄγραφοι, “unregistered” in the state’s cadastre in Venetian territories. Peasants, many of them single, belonging to these groups were induced by landowners in need of manpower to settle on their estates. Both in Byzantine and Venetian territories the state exercised sole authority over newly arrived peasants and decided whether to allocate them to landowners. In 1407 Venice authorized the lay Latin landowners of Korone to retain foreign villeins as their subjects in replacement of their own peasants abducted or killed by the Turks, in order to resume the cultivation of their abandoned land. Venice had already granted this concession to ecclesiastical institutions.32 30  LT, 148.4–10; Sathas, 3:68–71. The Venetian mile measured 1,738 meters. 31  Sathas, 4:133–34. 32 Chrysostomides, MP, 571–72, no. 304. Recently settled peasants are registered in 1337: LT, 39.5–8, 40.3–4, 42.26– 27, 43.5.15. For the last two paragraphs, see D. Jacoby, “Une classe fiscale à Byzance et en Romanie latine: Les inconnus du fisc, éleuthères ou étrangers,” in XIV CEB (Bucharest, 1971), II (Bucharest, 1975), 139–52; repr. in D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XII e au XV e siècle: Peuples, sociétés, économies (London, 1979), no. III; my review of Carile, La rendita feudale, in BZ 73 (1980): 358–59; Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility,” 525–39.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

219

Since many newly settled workers were landless, lacked oxen, and generally were in poor economic condition, they provided a readily available labor force for the exploitation of the landowner’s demesne, which he managed directly. In some instances landowners granted land to newcomers in order to retain them on their respective estates. In others they offered them assets in a different estate, which entailed the peasants’ migration to that property by mutual consent.33 These workers were temporarily exempt from dues or lightly taxed before receiving a peasant holding from the lord and being fully reintegrated among taxpaying villeins.34 The stability of the workforce along political boundaries was endangered not only by warfare. Rural exploitation was also disrupted by the abrupt loss of property. Apparently in 1340 the captain of Frankish Androusa forcefully took hold of livestock in the neighboring Venetian territories.35 In 1397 the castellans of Korone and Methone complained about numerous aggressions perpetrated by Frankish landowners and their subjects, who had seized the fruit of vineyards, other land and trees, or animals and movables in Venetian territory.36 Peasants deprived of their oxen and other possessions sometimes relocated at a greater distance from the border. The peasantry along the Peloponnesian shore was also vulnerable to piratical attacks. In his naval expedition of 1292 the admiral of Sicily, Roger of Lluria, struck at Monemvasia, Maina, and Mes­senia and sailed home with captives.37 In 1319 Emperor 33  See above, 218. 34  LT, 263, s.v. “nicarius”; ibid., 40.2–3, 47.16–17, 93.10–13. See also Jacoby, “Une classe,” 139–52, esp. 149–52. 35  On this and other incidents: F.-X. Leduc, ed., VeneziaSenato: Deliberazioni miste, vol. 6, Registro XIX (1340–1341), Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti (Venice, 2005), 346–48, no. 614. On Venice’s reaction, see A. Tzavara, “Una ambasciata veneta a Clarentza presso Caterina di Valois nel 1341, da documenti inediti,” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 33 (2003): 908–13. 36  Sathas, 4:84–86. In return, the castellans threatened to allow the sailing of the aggressors’ fugitive villeins from Korone and Methone. 37  On the events and their political background, see G. Airaldi, “Roger de Lauria’s Expedition to the Peloponnese,” in Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of David Jacoby, ed. B. Arbel (London, 1996) = MHR 10, nos. 1–2 (1995): 14–23.

220

david jacoby

Andronikos II complained about pirate attacks from 1313 onward on Monemvasia, on the city’s neighboring areas, on Maina, on the island of Salamis, and at sea, carried out by Latin and Greek residents of Crete and by Venetians from Korone, Methone, and Negropont (Euboea), who seized youngsters and adults and sold them as slaves.38 Recurrent forays by the Turks of Asia Minor from the early fourteenth century onward occasionally resulted in local depopulation and severe damage along the Peloponnesian shores.39 In 1327 the Turks occupied for some time the village of Succhyna, situated in the Argolid in the vicinity of Damala, and deported its inhabitants, whom they sold into slavery in Anatolia.40 Umur I Beg, the ruler of the Turkish emirate of Aydin, repeatedly raided Byzantine territories and the Frankish regions of Patras and Corinth from 1341.41 In Feb­ ruary 1358 the residents of Corinth bitterly complained about depopulation and desolation caused by the Turks and the flight of the region’s inhabitants caused by hunger. In the autumn of that year Prince Robert of Taranto instructed his officials to compel fugitive villeins to return to their former residence in the fiefs of Niccolò Acciajuoli in the region of Corinth and elsewhere in the Frank­ ish Morea.42 The injunction followed Niccolò’s formal request to this effect, in accordance with a well-established legal procedure for the return of fugitive villeins in the principality designed to 38  DVL, 1:125–27. 39  D. Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns in Latin Romania: The Impact of the West,” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. A. E. Laiou and R. P. Mottahedeh (Washington, DC, 2001), 202–3 and n. 36, for bibliography; repr. in D. Jacoby, Commercial Exchange across the Mediterranean: Byzantium, the Crusader Levant, Egypt and Italy (Aldershot, 2005), no. IX. 40  See D. Jacoby, “Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie (1305–1332): Un nouveau témoignage de Marino Sanudo Torsello,” StMed, 3a serie 15 (1974): 253; repr. in Jacoby, Recherches, no. V. 41  E. A. Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade: Venetian Crete and the Emirates of Menteshe and Aydin (1300–1415), Library of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies 11 (Venice, 1983), 42, and nn. 163–64. 42  J.-A. Buchon, ed., Nouvelles recherches historiques sur la principauté française de Morée et ses hautes baronnies (Paris, 1843), 145–46, 157–58, no. 28. The peasants’ flight was not only the outcome of raids in 1360, as stated by Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade, 66. For other cases, see Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility,” 532.

prevent disputes between the villeins’ original and new lords.43 However, a report drafted late in 1360 implies that the situation remained unchanged and that the region of Corinth, Vasilikata, and the barony of Vostitsa along the northern shore of the Peloponnese was still deserted because of the Turks. In January 1361 Nicola de Boiano, manager of Mary of Bourbon’s estates, declared that if he can safely sail to the region, he will attempt to ensure the resumption of cultivation by leasing the land, adding: “Better having little than losing everything.”44 Either the report about desertion was an overstatement, or else Nicola de Boiano was successful in his operations, since Vasilikata and some other settlements in Corinthia yielded a fairly good revenue by 1365.45 There were also other aggressors besides the Turks. In 1358 the crew of a Catalan ship captured twenty-six Greeks along the Gulf of Arkadia, close to the mouth of the Alpheia River.46 Apparently in 1382 six Genoese galleys attacked Grizi, a village in the Frankish Morea situated between Korone and Methone.47 In 1407 the duke of Cefalonia protested against the deportation of peasants from his islands carried out by Venetians from the castellanies of Methone and Korone, and at his request Venice ordered its officials to return them.48 The impact of warfare on the peasantry varied according to the circumstances. Presumably in 1272 the troops of Prince William II advanced as far as Monemvasia, destroying and plundering the countryside of Lakonia along the way, yet retreated shortly afterward. The damage inflicted may have prompted some peasants to move to new locations. In 1302 the advance of Frankish forces against rebellious Greeks in the Skorta region induced villeins to flee, yet after the Frankish victory they returned to their settlements. The interruption of economic activity was thus temporary 43  Libro dele uxanze, 209–10, 213, pars. 203, 211. 44  LT, 151.19–25. 45  LT, 157–92. 46  A. Rubió i Lluch, ed., Diplomatari de l’Orient català (Barcelona, 1947), 370–72, no. 236. 47  A. Luttrell, “Aldobrando Baroncelli in Greece, 1378– 1382,” OCP 36 (1970): 285, Letter 1, par. 10, and 292 for the dating; repr. in A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, 1291–1440 (London, 1982), no. XII. On the location of Grizi, see LT, 252–53. 48  Sathas, 2:180–81.

and lasted a short time only. 49 In 1328 the peasants of Munista, a village situated in a pocket of Venetian territory in the lower Messenian plain, protested against mistreatment by the chancellor of Korone that had induced all of them to relocate in neighboring Frankish territory. As a result, they had failed to sow their land. At the same time they signaled their wish to return to their village.50 On the other hand, the frequent Turkish overland raids of the late fourteenth and the fifteenth century left trails of depopulation and desolation. In the 1380s and 1390s the Turks reached the regions of Korone and Methone and in 1397 devastated the countryside of Argos.51 The insecurity caused by the Turks induced Venice to construct safe havens for the inhabitants of its territories. In 1401 it ordered its officers to fortify Insula (Nesi), in the vicinity of Korone, and build a tower surrounded by a circuit wall on a mountain near the village of Vounaria in the area of Methone. The officers were instructed to en­­courage, by various incentives, the residents of Korone in the first case and peasants in the second to build dwellings within the fortified perimeters, which would serve as shelters in case of Turkish raids.52 In 1410 Venice ordered the villeins of the district of Korone to transfer the produce of their land to newly fortified places through the month of November, under threat of severe fines. These places would shelter the villeins in case of Turkish or Albanian raids.53 In 1479–80 Bartolomeo Minio, Venetian governor of Nauplion, offered refuge in two Venetian fortified places in the region to residents of Damala and Fanari, as well as to Albanians, and ordered 49  Livre de la conqueste, 179–82, 370–71, pars. 464–70, 943, 949. For the dating of the first event, see Bon, La Morée franque, 142. 50  C. Hodgetts, “Venetian Officials and Greek Peasantry in the Fourteenth Century,” in ΚΑΘΗΓΗΤΡΙΑ: Essays Pre­­sented to Joan Hussey for her 80th Birthday, ed. J. Chrys­ ostomides (Camberley, Surrey, 1988), 491–98 (documents); Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility,” 528–31. 51 Chrysostomides, MP, 392, no. 197, on Argos. This last incursion is also reflected by a drop in coin losses in the city of Argos: see J. Baker, “Two Thirteenth-Century Hoards and Some Site Finds from Argos,” NC 167 (2007): 232. 52 Chrysostomides, MP, 460–63, no. 230. See also Hodgetts and Lock, “Some Village Fortifications,” 78–79, 80 and 83, nos. 3 and 20. 53  Sathas, 2:251–52.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

221

the transfer of flocks to a nearby island off the coast.54 In the late fourteenth and throughout the fifteenth century the Albanians also caused heavy damage to the countryside, especially in Venetian Messenia.55 Disease resulted in demographic losses and peasant mobility on a much larger scale, with longterm repercussions. From Constantinople the Black Death reached Korone and Methone by sea in the last months of 1347. A glimpse of its effects is provided by some fifty wills drafted in Methone by two consecutive notaries, Marco Lando and Stefano Petenello, from September 1347 to August 1348, with a peak from December 1347 to February 1348.56 It is likely that more wills were drafted in the two Venetian-ruled cities by other notaries whose registers have not survived. The reports of the castellans of Korone and Methone on the plague arrived in Venice in early February 1348. Within days the senate decided to hire one hundred men aged between twenty-five and fifty years and send them with their families to Methone in order to replace those who had died.57 Direct evidence on the plague’s impact upon the rural population of the Peloponnese is missing. Some indication is nevertheless provided by the comparison of nominal lists of villeins residing in a few settlements of the western Peloponnese, surveyed both before and after the Black Death. The high number of deserted peasant holdings in 1354, some 30 percent, is significant.58 However, not all population losses were caused by death. Some clearly derived from the flight of villeins. The plague induced panic-stricken peasants to abandon their homes and to seek refuge elsewhere in the hope of avoiding contagion, or

afforded them the opportunity to escape. In 1354 a surveyor located thirteen fugitive heads of households and their relatives from Rubenichi, who had failed to return to their village. This unidentified settlement belonging to Niccolò Acciajuoli was probably situated in Messenia. Three of the fugitive households resided at Sancto Arcangelo and two in Castro Novo, two villages in northern Messenia also included among Niccolò’s properties.59 It is thus clear that any estimate of fatalities caused by the plague is pure speculation. Still, it is obvious that the Black Death resulted in a general demographic slump in the rural Peloponnese, aggravated by frequent bouts of disease as in 1358, 1363, 1374, 1382, 1390, 1391, 1398–99, 1409–10, 1417– 18, 1430–31, 1440–41, 1455–56, and 1461. The ports of Korone, Methone, and Patras, singled out in various reports, endured particularly heavy losses and were the centers from which the epidemic spread in some years.60 Rural areas whose residents regularly visited these ports in the framework of their economic activity must have been particularly affected by the disease. The plague appears to have been endemic in the Peloponnese until the late eighteenth century.61 It is hardly surprising that the conjunction of peasant mobility and the massive losses caused by catastrophic events induced landowners to secure or enlarge their workforce by various ways. Within each of the three political entities they resorted to legal means. The recuperation of fugitive paroikoi in the Byzantine Morea required the intervention of state officials, as implied by the imperial privilege authorizing the monastery of Iviron on Mount Athos in 1341 to obtain their return from neighboring estates.62 As noted

54  Ibid., 6:121; new ed. D. G. Wright, trans. J. R. MelvilleJones, The Greek Correspondence of Bartolomeo Minio, vol. 1, Dispacci from Nauplion (1479–1483) (Padua, 2008), 14, no. III. 55  A. Ducellier, “Les Albanais dans les colonies véni­­t­iennes au XV e siècle,” StVen 10 (1968): 47–50, 52. 56 Nanetti, DV, 2:176–84, 186–237, 243–63, 270–74, 275– 80, passim. The notary Marco Lando died shortly before 3 January 1348, most likely of illness contracted when drafting the wills of people struck by the plague: ibid., 277–78, no. 65. 57  E. Orlando, ed., Venezia-Senato, Deliberazioni miste, vol. 11, Registro XXIV (1347–1349), Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti (Venice, 2007), 241–42, 249–50, nos. 539, 548–49. 58  The two surveys are edited in LT, 55–66 and 67–115, nos. III and IV. See especially LT, 70.1–31, 76.14–39, 78.23– 35; on Kremmydi in 1354, see also below.

59  LT, 90.40–91.32. A similar case is recorded in 1357: LT, 126.13–24. 60  M.-H. Congourdeau, “Pour une étude de la Peste Noire à Byzance,” in Εὐψυχία: Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, Byzantina Sorbonensia 16 (Paris, 1998), 149–63. For the plague in Methone in 1358, see E. Orlando, ed., VeneziaSenato, Deliberazioni miste, vol. 15, Registro XXVIII (1357– 1359), Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti (Venice, 2009), 196, no. 340. 61  See Topping, “The Post-Classical Documents,” 73. 62  J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, D. Papachryssanthou, and V. Kravari, eds., Actes d’Iviron, vol. 4, De 1328 au début du XVI e siècle (Paris, 1995), 4:80 n. 87, lines 234–37; Jacoby, “Une classe fiscale,” 143.

222

david jacoby

above, in the Frankish Morea Prince Robert of Taranto intervened in 1358 to ensure the return of fugitive villeins to their villages, at the request of their lord. In Venetian territory state officials dealt with such cases. Peasant mobility was particularly pronounced along political boundaries, the crossing of which shielded the fugitive peasant, whether temporarily or permanently, from forcible return to his lord’s estate.63 Landowners encouraged rural mobility at the expense of their counterparts by offering various incentives, such as partial, temporary, or permanent tax exemptions and even land and housing, in order to enlarge the workforce on their own estates. Byzan­tium, the rulers of the Frankish Morea, and Venice acted likewise with respect to peasants of the neighboring political entities. The four chrysobulls issued by Emperors Andronikos II and Michael IX from 1312 to 1322 in favor of the monastery of the Virgin of Brontocheion at Mystras allowed the settlement of peasants coming from Latin and other foreign territories and granted them tax exemptions.64 In 1396 the prince of Morea requested the return of peasants who had moved from the principality to the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone, clearly in response to various inducements, and three years later Venice took measures to convince the villeins of Argos who had fled the Turkish forces in 1397 to return from Byzantine and Frankish territories.65 Despite the fragmentary nature of the evidence, it is possible to reconstruct the major demographic trends affecting the peasantry of the three political entities coexisting in the Peloponnese. The population growth observed in eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantium appears to have been sustained in the peninsula until the 1340s.66 The “partitioned villages” along the boundary separating the Frankish principality from the Byzan­ tine Morea, which may have been more numerous than reflected by the extant documentation, 63  Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility,” 529–34, 536–37, 539. 64  G. Millet, “Les inscriptions byzantines de Mistra,” BCH 23 (1899): 111, 114; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:206–7. 65 Chrysostomides, MP, 373, no. 186, lines 9–18, 406–7, no. 207; Jacoby, “Peasant Mobility,” 533, 537. 66  On the period before 1204, see A. Harvey, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900–1200 (Cambridge, 1989), 47–67, 245–48, 250–55.

contributed a modest share to demographic stability and growth. This trend slowed down from the early fourteenth century onward, primarily because of Turkish incursions. Individual or mass mobility caused local and temporary fluctuations in population levels, and forays of foreign military forces often resulted in the death or abduction of inhabitants and in severe material damage, yet in limited areas. Demographic growth shortly before the Black Death, in any event in the southern Peloponnese, is suggested by a transaction regarding three hundred iron plowshares sold for 114 hyperpyra at Methone in 1336.67 They most likely originated in the smithies of Styria and Carinthia, regions of iron extraction that produced them in bulk, and had been imported from Venice.68 Iron plowshares were used in some large Byzantine estates by the twelfth century, most of them being probably symmetrical.69 Those sold at Methone were presumably dissymmetrical, as well as more resistant and cheaper than locally made plowshares, three factors that would account for their import and diffusion in the Peloponnese.70 It is impossible to determine to what extent iron plowshares were common among peasants in the region in the fourteenth century. In any event, the 67 Nanetti, DV, 2:113–14, no. 6.215. 68  On the origin, see R. C. Mueller, “A Venetian Com­ mercial Enterprise in Corfu, 1440–1442,” in Χρήμα και αγορά στην εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, ed. N. G. Moschonas (Athens, 2003), 88. On import from Venice, see below. 69 Harvey, Economic Expansion, 123. For symmetrical blades, see B. Pitarakis, “Objets métalliques dans le village médiéval,” in Lefort, Morrisson, and Sodini, Les villages dans l’Empire byzantin, 249 and 250, fig. 4. Such a blade is depicted in a manuscript of the Vatopedi monastery, cod. 119, fol. 65r.; repr. in EHB 1: after 310, fig. 2. The blade is in gray, the wooden beam of the plow in brown. A. Bryer, “The Means of Agricultural Production: Muscle and Tools,” in EHB 1:107–8, does not refer to iron plowshares in Byzantium. 70  The price of iron plowshares in 1352 in Candia is stated in A. Lombardo, ed., Zaccaria de Fredo, notaio in Candia (1352–1357), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Sez. III—Archivi notarili (Venice, 1968), 21, no. 22: at the rate of five to six pounds of iron per plowshare, specified in the contract, one hundred pounds of raw iron enabled the production of twenty to sixteen plowshares at the price of 14 hyperpyra and 8 grossi, thus below one hyperpyron per piece, the amount suggested by C. Morrisson and J.-C. Cheynet, “Prices and Wages in the Byzantine World,” in EHB 2:845.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

223

plowshares attested at Methone must have been intended primarily for the extension or intensification of grain cultivation and, in view of their number, not only in the small Venetian territories of southern Messenia but also in the Frankish principality, as in the Pamisos Valley, and in some regions of the Byzantine Morea. Moreover, given their number, these plowshares would not have been bought exclusively by large landowners, but also by some peasants. They seem to imply a large workforce and an increasing demand for grain in the Peloponnese, a region at times dependent on imports and seldom exporting surpluses.71 We may thus postulate an extension of areas under cultivation and an increase in rural yields in the 1330s, presumably stimulated by a demographic growth and an increasing market demand in the Peloponnese. Another indication of the existence of an adequate rural workforce, if not a growing population before the Black Death, is provided by the eagerness of Latins, whether knights, merchants, or bankers settled in the Peloponnese from the thirteenth century onward, to obtain landed estates from feudal lords in the Frankish Morea and from Venice in the latter’s territories. Indigenous Greeks also shared this trend. The acquisition of rural land appears to have been considered a good investment.72 Lise du Quartier, a Frankish feudatory, purchased arable land in Gastouni, in Elis, to enlarge her possessions some time before her death, recorded in 1337.73 The enlargement of ecclesiastical property in the Byzantine Morea supports the contention that an adequate rural workforce was available, if not on the rise, until the 1340s.74 71  See below, 248. 72  D. Jacoby, “Italian Migration and Settlement in Latin Greece: The Impact on the Economy,” in Die Kreuz­ fahrerstaaten als multikulturelle Gesellschaft: Einwanderer und Minderheiten im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert, ed. H. E. Mayer, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Kolloquien, 37 (Munich, 1997), 121–22; repr. in Jacoby, Byzantium, no. IX. On the Greek archontes in the Frankish Morea, see D. Jacoby, “The Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnesus after the Fourth Crusade,” AHR 78 (1973): 891–96; repr. in Jacoby, Recherches, no. II, and in A. Jotischky, ed., The Crusades: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies (London, 2008). 73  LT, 33.25–27, 48.30. 74  See above, 223.

224

david jacoby

The Black Death abruptly reversed that re­­ gional demographic trend. It initiated a prolonged period of population contraction, punctuated by recurrent bouts of plague and compounded by military incursions, political instability, and economic disruption. It is impossible to assess the impact of these factors on the rural population, yet local losses surely varied widely in size from one locality to the other. Those caused by epidemics must have been more pronounced around the major Peloponnesian ports, while settlements situated along the main routes followed by invaders suffered most from military incursions. The killing, abduction, and massive flight of inhabitants, the loss of livestock, and the destruction of other property often inflicted severe and prolonged disruptions of rural exploitation in specific areas. A demographic recovery in the mid-fifteenth century has been postulated, since the Venetian authorities were willing to enfranchise villeins in the regions of Korone and Methone who could afford to buy their freedom.75 However, this measure was not envisaged because there was no more need to legally bind the peasants to their land. Rather, as clearly illustrated by similar measures proposed for Corfu and Crete, it was devised to increase the state’s revenue and was based on the assumption that villeins rich enough to pay the required sum would be reluctant to abandon their assets and relocate elsewhere.76 The settlement of Albanians authorized by the Byzantine and Venetian authorities in the late fourteenth and in the fifteenth century offers a better reflection of local demographic conditions. Although many Albanians raised cattle and horses, others engaged in agriculture, including the tending of vineyards. Their settlement on abandoned land clearly points to depopulation in specific areas, although it was also furthered by their function as military reinforcements.77 Not surprisingly, the continuous 75  Sakellariou, “Latin Morea,” 307–8. 76  Sathas, 3:421–22; H. Noiret, ed., Documents inédits pour servir à l’histoire de la domination vénitienne en Crète de 1380 à 1485 (Paris, 1892), 363–64. In Corfu and Crete the sum was substantial, 50 ducats, while no sum is mentioned for the territories of Korone and Methone. We do not know the outcome of this initiative. 77  Grant of vineyards and other land in the countryside of Argos, envisaged in 1398: Chrysostomides, MP, 397, no. 200. See also P. Topping, “Albanian Settlements in Medieval

quest and fierce competition for labor intensified from the late 1340s and was common to all three political entities, whether at the level of landowners or the entities themselves. Investments in land remained attractive, provided an adequate work force could be ensured. Despite differences between the political re­­ gimes of the three entities, there was a large degree of continuity with respect to the Byzantine period in the exploitation of rural resources, the foundation of their economy. Land remained the main source of income, wealth, and taxation. The agrarian infrastructure of the countryside and the continuity of the economy’s operation were hardly affected by the fragmentation and redistribution of large estates in favor of Latins in Frankish and Venetian territories soon after the conquest. The earliest partitions of property and peasants in this context were clearly based on the consultation of Byzantine fiscal registers and on oral testimonies. Both the new Latin lords and the peasantry had a vested interest in continuity and a smooth transition from the Byzantine to the new Frankish or Venetian regime. Continuity was vital for the peasants’ subsistence, whereas the primary concern of the Frankish knights and Venice was the rapid resumption of tax collection, indispensable for the consolidation of their rule. Continuity in rural exploitation was furthered by the integration of Greeks at various levels of the Frankish and Venetian administrations established soon after the conquest, as chancery scribes, surveyors, customs agents, or in other capacities. They were familiar with local rural management and Byzantine taxation and were capable of ensuring communication with the local population. Fiscal surveys, called catastica, from Greek κατάστιχα, were drafted in Greek for more than a century after the conquest in the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone, and the use of Greek in this respect continued as late as the second half of the fourteenth century in the Frankish Peloponnese. The preservation of Byzantine administrative, fiscal, and legal institutions and practices is illustrated by the structure and operation of large estates in the Greece: Some Venetian Testimonies,” in Charanis Studies: Essays in Honor of Peter Charanis, ed. A. E. Laiou-Thomadakis (New Brunswick, 1980), 261–63, 265–66, 268; Ducellier, “Les Albanais dans les colonies vénitiennes,” 51–52, 55–58, 60–63.

fourteenth-century Frankish Morea, various agricultural contracts, and state legislation regarding the Venetian Peloponnese.78 However, the Latin conquest put an end to the dominant role of the Byzantine archontes in the countryside of the Frankish and the Venetian Morea, although some Greeks were gradually integrated within the upper ranks of the Frankish administration and obtained fiefs from the late thirteenth century onward.79 In contrast, large landowners, both lay and ecclesiastical, continued to play a dominant role in the rural economy of the Byzantine Peloponnese.80 The diversified environment in the Pelopon­ nese enabled varied and complementary economic activities. Rural exploitation was based on poly­­ culture and polyactivity. Land use combined cereal cultivation, viticulture, the growing of olive and other fruit-bearing trees, as well as livestock breeding and transhumant pastoralism. In 1336 Calivia had a large orchard containing 1,201 trees producing fruit for the local market, as well as nineteen fig and some other trees, listed separately because their fruit was being exported.81 Before 1337 Lise du Quartier had a large herd of 180 buffalo grazing in an area of lagoons included in her fief in Elis. In a single year the herd yielded cheese valued at 120 hyperpyra, a fairly large sum.82 The Byzantine Morea also practiced market-oriented livestock breeding and cheese production for local consumption in the first half of the fourteenth century. Around 1320 two Venetians from Crete stole animals, cheese, presumably made of sheep and goat 78  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 198–200; Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Latin Romania,” 12–14; D. Jacoby, “Multilingualism and Institutional Patterns of Communication in Latin Romania (Thirteenth-Fourteenth Centuries),” in Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1000–1500, ed. A. D. Beihammer, M. G. Parani, and C. D. Schabel, Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 27–28, 43–48. 79  Jacoby, “Italian Migration,” 99–101; Jacoby, “The En­­ counter of Two Societies,” 895, 900 n. 120, 902–3; F. Pessotto, “Burocrati del Principe d Acaia: Note in margine all organizzazione funzionariale di un Principato latino dei secoli XIII e XIV,” Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche 141 (2007): 15–22. 80 Zakythinos, DGM, 2:181–82, 195–201. 81  LT, 26.29–31. 82  LT, 46.11–17. Buffalo were found in some regions of the empire by the eleventh century: see Lefort, “The Rural Economy,” 235.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

225

milk, and horses from three villages in the region of Monemvasia, one of them Asopos, situated some 18 kilometers west of the city. The goods robbed from one of the settlements belonged to noblemen of Monemvasia.83 Conditions in the region were suitable for these activities, as illustrated by a report compiled in 1828.84 Cheese production is also attested in 1292 in the region of Korone by the will of Raynerio de Rosa, who owned a herd of female buffalo, sheep, goats, and horses.85 At the time of his death in 1394 Nerio Acciajuoli, duke of Athens, owned buffalo, oxen, choice horses valued more than 100 hyperpyra each, and herds of sheep and goats numbering some 6,000 head, presumably kept for pasture in his estates in the countryside of Argos and Nauplion.86 There is no information regarding the commercialization or destination of Peloponnesian cheese. It was presumably sold fresh or as ricotta (“recooked cheese”) in urban settlements situated close to the production areas. The sale of fresh and ricotta cheese is attested in 1445 in Messenia.87 There is no evidence of processed cheese being exported from the Peloponnese, as from Crete.88 Harsh winter conditions in mountainous areas drove shepherds and their large flocks to the plains of Fanari in Elis, Arkadia, Navarino, Nesi, and Lakkoi in Messenia, Methone, Helos in Lakonia, and the Argolid.89 Limited grazing 83  DVL, 1:125–26. I have located only one site, Esopo, which although called insula in the document was a village, like the casale sive insula nomine Stadius in the same document. Esopo is cited in the chrysobull issued in 1391–92 for Monemvasia by Despot Theodore I: MM, 5:172.25 and 173.28. 84  Sheep and goats may have been numerous in the region, as by 1828; on the report compiled in that year, see Kalligas, “Monemvasia,” in EHB 2:891. MM, 5:164, 166. 85  Pasquale Longo, 78, no. 94. 86 Chrysostomides, MP, 444, 450, no. 225. 87  Sathas, 4:5 and 169. 88  On fresh, ricotta, as well as other cheeses exported from Crete, see D. Jacoby, “Cretan Cheese: A Neglected Aspect of Venetian Medieval Trade,” in Medieval and Renaissance Venice, ed. E. E. Kittel and T. F. Madden (Urbana and Chicago, 1999), 49–68; repr. in Jacoby, Commercial Exchange, no. VIII. 89  Traditional transhumance patterns are reflected in a late report: P. Topping, “Domenico Gritti’s Relation on the Organization of Venetian Morea 1688–1691,” in In memoria di Sofia Antoniadis (Venice, 1974), 325; repr. in Topping, Studies on Latin Greece, no. IX. For locations, see Bon, La

226

david jacoby

areas also compelled them at times to lead their herds across political boundaries. The sharing of revenue between Frankish and Byzantine landowners in the “casaux de parçon” of Corinthia in 1295 enabled Byzantine shepherds to graze their flock in Frankish territory, yet the prospect of war prompted them to retreat hastily to Byzantine shelters.90 In 1354 sheep herds, most likely Byzan­tine, passing through the territory of Sancto Arcangelo in northern Messenia to reach “partitioned villages” paid a tax, mentioned as jus erbagii.91 It was called herbadigo in Venetian sources and was the equivalent of the Byzantine διαβατικὸν or ποριατικόν. In 1451 the Venetian officials failed in their bid to collect this fee from imperial subjects, both Albanian and Greek shepherds, who grazed their herds in the Venetian countryside of Nauplion and Argos and, instead, paid it to the Byzantine authorities.92 Rural exploitation also extended to woodland and scrubland, which yielded timber, firewood, pitch, pine resin, charcoal, acorns serving as pig fodder, tannin-rich acorn cups, and galls used as tanning and dyeing agents, the costly kermes yielding a dyestuff, as well as cattle food and wild game.93 Wetlands, lakes, marshes, rivers,

Morée franque, 407–42, 498 and n. 4. On pasturage in the southern Argolid, see M. H. Jameson, C. N. Runnels, and T. H. van Andel, A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day (Stanford, 1994), 123. Albanian pastoralists were settled in the region of Argos and in northern Messenia in the late fourteenth and in the fifteenth century: see below. 90  On these villages, see above, note 28. 91  LT, 127.16–18: “ab unaquaque mandra descendente in mezaneis (the “casaux de parçon”) vel transeunte pro territorio dicti castri.” This village was located close to two “partitioned” villages documented earlier. 92  Mentioned in a petition submitted by the inhabitants of Nauplion, edited by A. Tzavara, “Η οργάνωση της διοίκησης και της άμυνας του Άργους κατά την πρώτη βενετοκρατία,” in Πρακτικά της διεθνούς επιστημονικής συνάντησης ΒενετίαΆργος: Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος και στην περιοχή του (Άργος, 11 Οκτωβρίου 2008) = Atti dell’ incontro scientifico internazionale, Venezia-Argos: Segni della presenza veneziana ad Argos e nella sua regione (Argos, 11 ottobre 2008), ed. C. Maltezou and A. Panopoulou, Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia—Comune di Argos, Convegni, 14 (Athens and Venice, 2010), 71–72. See also Zakythinos, DGM, 2:235–36. 93  On acorn cups and kermes, see below.

fishponds, and salt pans offered further resources.94 The peasantry paid access charges to the lord’s demesne. John Eugenikos, exiled to the Byzantine Morea because of his opposition to the Church Union, has left a lavish description of the countryside around Petrina in Lakonia, where he resided for some time after 1439, in which he listed almost all the resources mentioned above.95 The large estates of the Byzantine and Frankish Morea included the landowner’s demesne land and small peasant holdings, the latter directly exploited by paroikoi or villeins, as before the Fourth Crusade. In the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone there were no large estates following the fragmentation of property into small units, yet Venice maintained those existing in the Frankish territories it annexed in the second half of the fourteenth and in the first half of the fifteenth century.96 Demesne land was farmed by peasants owing compulsory labor service, by hired workers, or under various lease contracts associating landowner and peasant. The availability or scarcity of labor was not the only factor determining the modes of exploitation the landowner or his stewards chose. The use of a single mode or the combination of several ones varied from one estate to the other, in relation to the size and location of the land, the nature of soil and crops, and specific local conditions. As noted earlier, the Byzantine angareia constituted a public labor service owed to the state, 94  In three studies Archibald Dunn has rightly emphasized the diversity of resources and the need to consider them in the investigation of the Byzantine economy: see “The Exploitation and Control of Woodland and Scrubland in the Byzantine World,” BMGS 16 (1992): 235–98; “The Control and Exploitation of the Arboreal Resources of the Late Byzantine and Frankish Aegean Region,” in L’uomo e la foresta: Secc. XIII–XVIII: Atti della “Ventisettesima settimana di studi,” 8–13 maggio 1995, ed. S. Cavaciocchi, Istituto internazionale di storia economica “F. Datini,” Prato, Serie II—Atti delle “Settimane di Studi” e altri convegni, 27 (Florence, 1996), 479–97; and “Rural Producers and Mar­ kets: Aspects of the Archeological and Historiographic Problem,” in Material Culture and Well-Being in Byzantium (400–1453), ed. M. Grünbart et al., Österreichische Akade­ mie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 356 (Vienna, 2007), 101–9. 95  John Eugenikos, “Κώμης ἔκφρασις,” in S. Lampros, Παλαιολόγεια καὶ Πελοποννησιακά (Athens, 1912–23), 1:49– 55. On this author, see ODB 2:741–42. 96  On these annexations, see above, 215.

which occasionally transferred it to landowners, and was then used for the cultivation of their demesne land or other services in their estates. According to the fourteenth-century Byzantine praktika the load was calculated per month and thus amounted to twelve or a multiple of twelve days per year or, exceptionally, to one day or two days per week.97 The privatization of labor services under Frankish rule increased their overall contribution to the exploitation of seignorial land. It has been conjectured that villeins holding a stasia owed forty-eight days of compulsory labor service or corvée per year to their lord, a load that cannot be ascertained for lack of evidence.98 The corvée represented an important economic factor, especially when the peasants worked with their own oxen. Significantly, for most villeins’ stasie or households in the Frankish Morea the value of the corvée in cash was superior to that of the acrosticum or telos, the basic tax owed by these fiscal units.99 It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the Assizes of Romania, which reflected seignorial interests, stated that a villein may sell his animals, unless his lord forbids it, but must retain a pair of oxen and a donkey required for the fulfillment of his service to the lord and for his own sustenance, which in fact would ensure his tax payments.100 Some villeins in the Frankish Morea owned one or two beasts of labor; only few had three. The landowner anyhow maintained some for the farming of his seignorial land by villeins who had no oxen, whether in the framework of their corvée 97  See A. Stauridou-Zaphraka, “Ἡ ἀγγαρεία στὸ Βυζάντιο,” Byzantina 11 (1982): 23–54; Harvey, Economic Expansion, 108–10; A. E. Laiou, “The Agrarian Economy, ThirteenthFifteenth Centuries,” in EHB 1:334–36. Strangely, in the Venetian district of Korone the state villeins owed twelve days, whereas in the neighboring district of Methone the angaria consisted of thirteen days a year. In 1414 the state villeins of Korone asserted that according to custom they owed one day of labor service per month and protested against its increase to four days. It should be noted, however, that these state villeins did not cultivate land in the framework of their service obligations. See Jacoby, “Un aspect de la fiscalité vénitienne,” 408. 98 Carile, La rendita feudale, 98–102, 187–89. 99  On the acrosticum and the telos, see LT, 268–69, and for their amounts compared with those reflecting the corvée, see the figures in Carile, La rendita feudale, 119–49, 173–74. 100  Libro dele uxanze, 204–5, par. 187.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

227

or as hired workers. In 1354 or shortly afterward a steward advised Niccolò Acciajuoli to add three pair of oxen to the single ox he had at Sancto Arcan­ gelo, in order to enable the establishment of a massaria, a large farm of a type common in southern Italy, on particularly fertile seignorial land in northern Messenia.101 This could be achieved, he stated, by taking advantage of the compulsory labor services the villeins of Petoni owed.102 The same steward recommended that men should be brought from Kremmydi to cultivate grain on fertile seignorial land and plant vines at Glyky, some 12 kilometers away.103 He prompted Niccolò to take advantage of his right to order the villeins of Grebeni to work with all their oxen when delivering their compulsory labor service on seignorial land, and raise thereby the latter’s productivity. He added that this should also be implemented when the villeins’ farmland is under lease contract, since the lord’s revenue is then doubled or more.104 For the cultivation of the massaria in Castro Novo he recommended to hire fugitive peasants residing in the vicinity.105 As noted earlier, newly settled and landless peasants were easily available for hire. Supplying them with some of the landowner’s oxen for the work they had to perform increased their output.106 A document 101  The term massaria was introduced into the Frankish Morea by the Italian stewards. On the massaria, see G. Yver, Le commerce et les marchands dans l’Italie méridionale au XIII e et au XIV e siècle, BEFAR 88 (Paris, 1903), 27–30; J.-M. Martin, “Fiscalité et économie étatique dans le royaume angevin de Sicile à la fin du XIIIe siècle,” in L’État angevin: Pouvoir, culture et société entre XIII e et XIV e siècle, Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo, Nuovi studi storici, 45 = Collection de l’École française de Rome 245 (Rome, 1998), 644–46. 102  LT, 127.4–6. Similar advice for another massaria, with four pair of oxen: ibid., 128.5–8. 103  LT, 129.25–130.5. On the location of Glyky, close to present-day Pyla to the northeast of the plain of Navarino, see P. Topping, “A Frankish Estate Near the Bay of Nava­ rino,” Hesperia 35 (1966): 431; repr. in Topping, Studies on Latin Greece, no. VI. 104  LT, 128.9–12. Note especially the following: “lo signore poria con ragione comandare li soy villani che ano lo potere che ciachuno facesse li bovi como sono tenuti.” 105  LT, 126.14–18. The reference to the villeins’ oxen is in 128.9–12. 106  This practice is already attested in the eleventhcentury empire: Lefort, “The Rural Economy,” 242–43. On the Byzantine landlord’s oxen put to work by his peasants

228

david jacoby

apparently compiled in 1419 at Byzantine Mystras lists by name seven leaseholders of the metropolitan church of Monemvasia, as well as their oxen and plows. The church had earlier transferred an ox formerly owned by a deceased or fugitive peasant to one of the leaseholders.107 The corvée in Frankish estates was replaced in various instances by a monetary equivalent.108 It was uniformly valued 5 hyperpyra and represented a substantial portion of the total seignorial revenue, between 25 and 58 and mostly between 30 and 40 percent.109 The adoption of a uniform rate, regardless of whether the villeins had oxen of their own or none, was obviously an accounting device simplifying the exaction of the payment and the evaluation of the estate’s revenue.110 The same device was applied to the nicarii, fairly new settlers lacking beasts of labor, who owed only half the sum imposed upon the villeins for their servicium personale.111 A different system prevailed in “partitioned villages” located along the FrankishByzantine border. In 1337 the cash amount replacing the corvée in Boscio and Basilicu, definitely lower than the customary one, was not registered in the mid-twelfth century, see M. Kaplan, “L’économie du monastère de la Kosmosôteira fondé par Isaac Comnène d’après le typikon (1152),” TM 16 (2010) = Mélanges Cécile Morrisson: 475. 107  P. Schreiner, ed., Texte zur spätbyzantinischen Finanzund Wirtschaftsgeschichte in Handschriften der Biblioteca Vaticana, ST 344 (Vatican City, 1991), 184–85, no. 20, line 7, and 188, commentary to lines 1–2. In 1426 the metropolitan church of Monemvasia leased land to two peasants for the cultivation of grain and vine: contract edited by S. P. Lampros, “Ταβουλλαρικὸν γράμμα τοῦ ΙΔ´αἰῶνος,” ΔΕΕ 5 (1900): 160; for the correct date, see Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia, 186 n. 162. 108  See, e.g., LT, 36.14–17. 109 Carile, La rendita feudale, 117–74, passim. 110  In 1219 a similar device was used at Lampsakos, a Venetian-ruled locality on the eastern shore of the Dardanelles, where a uniform rate was applied to the corvée, regardless of whether the peasants had one or two oxen: see D. Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261): The Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance,” JÖB 43 (1993): 175–76 and 200; repr. in Jacoby, Byzantium, no. VI. Carile, La rendita feudale, 188, asserts that the officers handing out fiefs in the Frankish Morea used a uniform ratio for the angareia in order to artificially raise the value of the fief ’s revenue and deceive thereby the grantees. This contention may be safely dismissed. 111  LT, 39.5–8, 61.9–11.

separately but was included in the total sum of taxes. In Boscio all villeins paid the same sum both to their Frankish lord and to the Greek lord sharing the village’s revenue with him, whereas in Basilicu the amounts differed and the share of the Greek lord is not mentioned.112 In the Val de Calamy, another “partitioned village” or region, there was no commutation in 1354 and the villeins were required to provide labor service.113 Commutation of labor service into cash payments saved the need to coerce peasants to fulfill their obligations, while enabling the hiring of laborers likely to work more efficiently. In some instances commutation was also more practical. In 1337 Niccolò Acciajuoli had in Catzicova ten villeins and four nicarii, whose labor service was clearly insufficient for the cultivation of 2,220 modii of demesne land. The sum replacing the corvée of these peasants partly financed the hiring of an adequate number of workers.114 Commutation is not always explicitly stated. For instance, at Kosmina four villeins were exempt in 1379 from labor service and no mention is made of commutation. However, it is obvious that the substantial sum they were required to pay to the lord, namely 37 hyperpyra and 10 solidi, included 20 hyperpyra representing the equivalent of their corvée.115 The reason for commutation in this case is obvious. A large portion of the territory of Kosmina and most villeins had belonged to successive feudatories or to the prince of the Morea until 1357, when they were granted to Giovanni Siripando in fief.116 Niccolò Acciajuoli and his heirs held only a small section of the settlement, devoid of seignorial demesne. The small number of villeins could not be efficiently exploited by the lord in 1354 and, therefore, they were exempt from labor service. No cash was collected instead, either because of 112  LT, 46.24–47.14. 47.28–41, 52.17–53.2. The inclusion of the corvée in Basilicu is explicit: pro acrostico et ejus servicio seu jure and similar formulas; in Boscio it is represented by the term jus, as in pro omnibus suis juribus, acrostico et reditibus. 113  LT, 114.21–115.11. 114  LT, 38.18–39.8, 39.32–37. 115  LT, 203.9–13, 211.19–21. This would leave some 17 hyperpyra or an average of 4 to 5 per stasia for their other taxes, amounts within the range of those paid by most villeins: see tables in Carile, La rendita feudale, 202–7. 116  LT, 131–40.

neglect or because the officers in charge of local affairs did not want to pressure the villeins, who paid fairly large sums as acrosticum, and preferred to ensure their cooperation in the cultivation of abandoned holdings, the lease of which yielded good returns for the lord.117 At some point, however, one of the managers of the estate decided to take advantage of the peasants’ obligation to work and replaced it by a payment in cash, as conveyed by the survey of 1379. In other villages surveyed at that time the villeins were required to perform compulsory labor, as their payments only covered the acrosticum owed for the holding of their stasia and occasionally also the modiaticum, a tax paid in grain or cash.118 Not all villeins were required to perform work on seignorial land or replace it with a cash payment. Those serving as archers at Krestena were partially or totally exempt from taxes and entirely from labor services.119 However, the formulation of these exemptions, the absence of salaries, and taxes in kind or cash paid by some of them imply that all the archers had an income deriving from the exploitation of rural resources, pursued when they were not on active military duty. The terms affrancati or francati and incosati were applied to villeins exempt of some or all taxes.120 However, these fiscal advantages did not improve their sociolegal status, since they remained villeins. Strangely, for some villages there is mention neither of corvée nor of its commutation, as

117  LT, 87.19–88.7: in 1354 we find there five abandoned stasie held in lease and eight villeins exempt from the corvée, franchi homines; on this term, see LT, 263–64; for 1379, see above, n. 115. 118  On the modiaticum, see LT, 271. Payment of the acrosticum in cash: LT.201.1, 210.13; 203.6, and 211.18; 204.9.21, and 212.3.12; 205.28, and 212.28. Acrosticum and modiaticum in cash, combined: 202.13–14, and 211.9; 203.22–23, and 211.28. Modiaticum in grain, yet no mention of acrosticum at Petoni: 205.4, and 212.12. 119  LT, 65.15–21: at Krestena, zacconi, id est archerii qui nichil solvent et tenentur servire cum armis eorum, several of them having been granted abandoned holdings; 72.25–44, 88.8– 33, 99.1–5: deducuntur sibi pro eo quod est archerius; 100.9–12: at Vourkano, 22 archerii qui tene[n]tur solvere liquide as well as payments in must, nonfermented grape juice or new wine, while others non solvunt eorum reditus pro eo quod promittunt [servire] cum armis eorum. 120  On these terms, see LT, 263–65.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

229

in the section of Andravida belonging to Niccolò Acciajuoli in 1337.121 Demesne land was composed of tracts varying in quality. In 1337 Niccolò Accajuoli’s steward, who was surveying Catzicova, a village in the region of Andravida, provided an estimate of the revenue expected from the land. One hyperpyron would be yielded by each of three categories of cultivated or arable land (terre que laborantur) at the rate of fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five modii, and thirty modii of marginal land including woodland, terre alie acreste (in fact, agreste, wasteland) et macrose cum nemore, would yield that sum. The surface of these tracts of land must have exceeded 12, 17, 21, and 25 hectares respectively.122 The division of land into several categories according to its differentiated yield clearly derived from the Byzantine taxation system in­­ herited by the Franks.123 At Catzicova the lord’s demesne included 650 modii of the first, 240 of the second, 600 of the third, and 300 of the fourth category, respectively extending over at least 552, 204, 510, and 255 hectares, far more than the total land surface included in the peasants’ holdings of that village. The extension of the seignorial demesne clearly varied from one settlement to the other. The exploitation of extensive tracts of land required a large workforce and several pair of oxen, regardless of the type of cultivation. In 1336 oak trees on twenty modii of demesne land yielded acorns valued 2 hyperpyra, thus twice the revenue of a similar tract of second-category arable land. On the other hand, in 1338 a forest at Petoni and a tract of uncultivated land (terra

121  LT, 40.24–41.26; and for Kosmina, see above, 229. 122  LT, 40.7–20. Widely varying types of modioi were used in Byzantine land measurement: ODB 2:1388, s.v. “Modios.” There is no indication regarding the surface of the modius used in the Frankish Morea, yet it must have covered more than 850 square meters, the figure I have used for my calculations. 123  For Byzantium, see J. Lefort, R. Bondoux, J.-Cl. Cheynet, J.-P. Grélois, and V. Kravari, with the collaboration of J.-M. Martin, Géométries du fisc byzantin, Réalités byzantines 4 (Paris, 1991), 40, 62–63, 88, 253; N. Oikonomidès, Fiscalité et exemption fiscale à Byzance (IX e–XI e s.) (Athens, 1996), 49–52; Laiou, “Agrarian Economy,” 328–34; see also E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, XII/4 = Byzantinisches Handbuch 4 (Munich, 1970), 235–63.

230

david jacoby

salvagia) at Krestena did apparently not yield any revenue.124 Several regions of the Peloponnese have many springs, and groundwater can easily be tapped.125 However, the feudal fragmentation of landholding and the absence of a strong central authority in the Frankish Morea must have hampered the large-scale exploitation of water resources, as achieved in Venetian-ruled Negroponte and Crete. Intensive cultivation based on irrigation is documented for gardens and orchards in various regions of Byzantium and Latin Romania, respectively before and after the Fourth Crusade.126 Such cultivation is recorded only once in the documents pertaining to the Frankish Morea. In 1337 both irrigation and manure were applied in the landowner’s garden at Kotychi in Elis, which yielded the substantial revenue of 80 hyperpyra, from which expenses for labor and manure were still to be deducted.127 Still, irrigation must have been customary for several crops, such as cotton.128 In 1354 sour oranges were being grown on demesne land at Petoni in northern Messenia.129 Citrus fruit was still a luxury item at that time, and the oranges were presumably intended for the lord’s consumption.130 Large landowners, rather than peasants, could invest resources in 124  LT, 27.27–28, 61.37, 66.23, respectively. 125  See W. G. Loy and H. E. Wright Jr., “Physical Setting,” in McDonald and Rapp, The Minnesota Messenia Expedition, 37, 42–43. 126  On irrigation in Latin Romania, see Jacoby, “Italian Migration,” 124–25; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 219–20; D. Jacoby “New Evidence on the Greek Peasantry in Latin Romania,” in Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, ed. C. Dendrinos, J. Harris, E. HarvaliaCrook, and J. Herrin (Aldershot, 2003), 249–50, repr. in D. Jacoby, Latins, Greeks and Muslims: Encounters in the Eastern Mediterranean, Tenth–Fifteenth Centuries (Farnham, 2009), no. X; for the Turkish period, see Topping, “The PostClassical Documents,” 76–77. 127  LT, 38.6–7: ortus inrriguus. 128  On cotton cultivation, see below, 260–63. 129  LT, 113.18: “arbores arangorum curie.” This is the earliest evidence on citrus cultivation in the Peloponnese. 130  On citrus in Latin Romania in the fourteenth century: Jacoby, “Italian Migration,” 124–25; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 219–20. For Byzantium, see P. Schreiner, “Die Produkte der byzantinischen Land­ wirtschaft nach den Quellen des 13.–15. Jh.,” BHR 10, no. 2 (1982): 93–94.

the building of expensive irrigation systems and take advantage of the water flowing through their estates or along the estate’s borders. It may be safely assumed, therefore, that the introduction of the sour orange at Petoni was due to the initiative of a seignorial manager after the village had been handed over to Niccolò Acciajuoli in 1338. By 1450, however, citrons and oranges were being exported from Korone and Methone.131 Large-scale irrigation in the Peloponnese was apparently practiced only in the Turkish period, from the late sixteenth century onward.132 Compulsory labor was particularly useful on extended tracts of seignorial land, such as the massaria or zevgilatio, a large seignorial farm, or when separate seignorial plots were situated close to each other in a specific area. The steward who in 1365 compiled the report on the region of Corinth used the term zevgilatio for the massaria he found at Vasilikata, a term he had surely encountered in an earlier Greek survey of the estate.133 Similar large farms existed in the fourteenth-century Byzan­tine Morea under the name ζευγηλατεῖα. The names of some villages in the Peloponnese apparently reflect the location of such farms prior to the thirteenth century.134 Massarie ex­­ isted, were established, or were planned in several 131  Giorgio di Lorenzo Chiarini, El libro di mercantantie et usanze de’ paesi, ed. F. Borlandi (Turin, 1936), 55. On oranges in the island of Naxos in 1435 and 1453: Jacoby, La féodalité, 285. 132  Topping, “The Post-Classical Documents,” 76–77. 133  LT, 189.1–4, 190.6–7. A Byzantine praktikon of 1283– 84 or 1298–99 refers to taxes collected in the βασιλικὰ ζευγηλατεῖα, a type of large imperial estate: J. Lefort, ed., Actes d’Esphigménou, Archives de l’Athos 6 (Paris, 1973), 65, no. 7, lines 5–6, 14–15. Others existed in the region of Smyrna: H. Ahrweiler, “L’histoire et la géographie de la région de Smyrne entre les deux occupations turques (1081– 1317), particulièrement au XIII e siècle,” TM 1 (1965): 39, 64, 162; in the region of Thessalonike in 1321. 134 Zakythinos, DGM, 2:181–82, and LT, 189 n. 96. Such an estate in the southern Argolid is called La Borria in a Frankish document of 1376: A. Luttrell, “The Latins of Argos and Nauplion, 1311–1394,” BSR 34, n.s. 21 (1966): 53–55; repr. in Luttrell, Latin Greece, no. VIII. La Borria is clearly a deformed version of Boaria or Bovaria, a reference to oxen like zeugolatio appearing in a Venetian census of 1696, which loosely recalls the Byzantine term for a pair of oxen used in cultivation. I extend here the suggestion made by Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel, A Greek Countryside, 120 n. 50.

locations of the Frankish Morea in the fourteenth century. As mentioned above, in 1354 a steward noted that the soil in two villages of Messenia belonging to Niccolò Acciajuoli was adequate for their establishment and advised that the peasants owning oxen should be pressured to cultivate the land.135 A survey of 1337 records a massaria covering three hundred modii of second-quality land at Vituri, a village in Elis.136 With one exception, the landowner farmed the massarie. There was one extending over two hundred modii in Boscio, and one each in six villages of southern Messenia held by Mary of Bourbon in 1361. One of these, on very poor soil, was converted into a vineyard. In other villages of the same fief there was no appropriate land for massarie. In 1365 there was a massaria just south of Corinth and another at Vasilikata, already mentioned.137 It is noteworthy that one hundred modii of second-category land produced a revenue of 5 hyperpyra, the equivalent of the commuted corvée of one villein only. It is easy to understand, therefore, why the lord preferred whenever possible direct cultivation of the massaria by his villeins or the commutation of their corvée, rather than its farming by wage laborers or by lease. Grain was often grown in the massaria, sometimes established on high-quality land, as noted earlier, yet in Elis it was on three hundred modii

135  LT, 128.5–11, 129.25–30.3 136  LT, 45.24–25. The massaria is registered under the names of the settlements Vituri and Lithero. The revenue from the two villages is combined and, therefore, they must have been close to each other: contra LT, 44 n. 28. Since Greek Lithero means “stony place,” it is likely that it was the site at which a large vineyard was situated: LT, 45.26–28. Vineyards at a location called Literu are recorded in 1354: LT, 120.3–5. These sites had apparently been cleared of some of their stones. 137  LT, 43.22–23, 45.24–25 (“ubi fit massaria”), 47.27 (“ubi fit massaria curie in Boscio,” which at that time was a “partitioned village”), 126.14–18, 127.4–6, 128.6–11, 130.1–4, 146.22–147.3, 147.6–7.11–13.24–25 (soil inadequate for grain growing), 148.4–22, 161.4–6, 164.14–15, 167.20–21. Some massarie are not identified as such, despite being farms of that type. Massaria should not be equated with seignorial demesne, as by Carile, La rendita feudale, 98 n. 294; the distinction between the two is conveyed by several sources just mentioned, which speak of massarie being established on specific sections of the demesne (ubi fit massaria) and by the distinction between this farm and other seignorial lands, as in LT, 164.14: “la masseria della chorte sichome l’altre terre.”

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

231

of second-category land.138 In 1361 the cultivation of a massaria at Pyla in Messenia involved the use of oxen and hoes (bove et zappe), which implies cereals and vine growing, and land of poor quality for grain was converted into a vineyard, both with the help of compulsory labor service.139 The heavy reliance of landowners and stewards on this cheap form of labor occasionally led to excesses. Some abusive demands of corvée have already been mentioned above. In 1361 the villeins of Grizi reported that they had been forced to work outside the boundaries of the principality in the area of Methone by Bernardo Toscano, who possibly owned or leased some land in Venetian territory.140 By 1365 work on some massarie in Corinthia, like the sowing and harvesting of grain, was nevertheless carried out by salaried labor.141 Hired workers were employed for limited periods of time in the exploitation of various re­­ sources. In some instances their salary is explicitly noted, while in others it is included in management expenses. It often amounted to one-half of the produce obtained by their work and was paid in kind.142 Hiring is clearly reflected by such wage, despite the surveyors’ reference to servicium villanorum, an expression also used for angaria. This interpretation is convincingly supported by the

138  LT, 128.6–8, 130.1–3, 146.22–147.3, and for Elis, 45.24–25. 139  LT, 148.6–7 and 147.11–13, respectively. See P. Topping, “Viticulture in Venetian Crete (XIII C.),” Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Δ´ Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου (Athens, 1981), 2:519, s.v. “çapare,” “working the soil with the hoe.” The term zapada used in a late Venetian survey denoted the area of a vineyard that one could hoe in a day: Topping, “The PostClassical Documents,” 78. The dikelli, or two-pronged drag hoe, used in vineyards is depicted in Byzantine manuscripts: see Bryer, “The Means of Agricultural Production”: between 104 and 105 (figs. 2 and 3), and for its use, 107. One such hoe has been excavated in Bulgaria: see Pitarakis, “Objets métalliques,” 250, fig. 2. 140  LT, 147.16–18. 141  LT, 178.8–10, 189.1–4, 190.6–7, 191.8–9. The hired cowherds to whom the survey refers must have plowed, yet one of them employed only in March 1365 was paid for attending to the cattle: LT, 190.5–6, 191.5. 142  Several formulas were used in this connection, such as “reducta” or “deducta medietate pro servicio villanorum,” 139.15–28, 23–28; medietas pro expensis factis et faciendis: LT, 38.1–5, 42.17–21, 43.19–21; one-half deducted, without explanation, yet the reason is obvious: LT, 45.26–28.

232

david jacoby

employment of workers for the exploitation of salt pans in return for one-half of the salt produced.143 Vineyards, olive groves, other fruit-bearing trees, and vegetable gardens were included both within the peasants’ holdings and seignorial land, like grain fields.144 Large landowners concluded various lease contracts with peasants for the exploitation of small scattered or isolated tracts of land, mostly uncultivated peasant holdings reinserted within the seignorial demesne as escheat after being abandoned, following the death of their holders without heirs, or because they had been illegally willed.145 Lease contracts were also used by small landowners, especially urban dwellers, for the exploitation of their rural plots of land, as illustrated below. These contracts involving profit sharing between landowner and grower were extensively applied to the extension of cultivated areas. They entailed the division of newly planted trees or vines or the division of yields between the two parties, or else the payment of rent by the growers. In large estates these forms of association reduced administrative costs, since they saved supervision over compulsory labor or paid workers, enhanced the growers’ motivation, and generated increased yields. They are attested for the Frankish principality and the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone and were clearly also applied in the Byzantine Morea, although they are poorly documented for this region.146 The appactuatio, a lease lasting up to twentynine years, seems to have been seldom used to supplement compulsory labor in the cultivation of large tracts of seignorial land. On the other hand, it was the most common contract under which villeins farmed vacant peasant holdings and particularly small scattered tracts of land, as illustrated by the exiguous yearly rent they paid, mostly less than one hyperpyron.147 Among the leaseholders

143  LT, 139. 29–31. 144  The Assizes of Romania refer to grain, grapes, olives, and fruit as typical yields of a peasant holding: Libro dele uxanze, 137, par. 37. 145  Libro dele uxanze, 203–4, pars. 184–85. Abandoned holdings yielding revenue: LT, 90.40–41.32. 146  Because of the largely fiscal nature of the documentation for the Byzantine Morea. On the deficiencies of fiscal documentation, see below, 274–75. 147  On these sums: Carile, La rendita feudale, 202–7.

we find local peasants,148 villeins of the same landowner living in a neighboring village,149 villeins of other landowners, and recently arrived fugitives.150 The ἡμισεία or ἡμισοφυτευσία, similar to the Western complant, is amply documented by the Assizes of Romania, notarial charters, surveys, and reports. This type of contract called for the division into equal shares between lord and cultivator of newly planted trees and vines once they bore fruit, the grower’s rights being upheld as long as cultivation continued while the lord retained ownership of the land.151 Surprisingly, in the Frankish Morea some of the leaseholders of small plots of land were feudatories whose social status is either revealed by the title missere, their fief, or their villeins. These feudatories, apparently of low rank, sublet the land to peasants for cultivation.152 Their involvement illustrates the profitability of land exploitation. The peasants engaging in these ventures sought to supplement the income deriving from their own villein’s holding or other resources, and were registered in the accounts of the estates in which they carried out the work.

Olive Oil In view of the large degree of continuity in the structure and operation of the rural economy, outlined so far, one may wonder to what extent the Frankish and Venetian occupation of large portions of the Peloponnese impacted upon the exploitation of the countryside in these regions 148  LT, 25.28 and 24.9–10; p. 25.30 and 24.38–39. 149  LT, 79.5 and 80.26. 150  On these leases, see LT, 272–75, s.v. “appactuaciones” and “domus.” 151 Jacoby, La féodalité, 36–37; Hodgetts, “Land Prob­ lems,” 140–41 and 154–55 (document); LT, 50.7: “medietas omnium camporum,” for grain; 52.10–13: “medietas arborum”; 61.38: “medietas unius jardeni.” For vineyards, see below, 249–57. 152  Around 1354 missere Nicolo Musero: LT, 120.16; missere Janni Alamagnno: LT, 122.30. Without that title, Nicola Taranto had villeins inherited from his mother: LT, 122.26–27, and 123.14–16. Marata Turchio, possibly the offspring of one of the Turkish mercenaries who entered Frankish service in 1263, also held a fief: LT, 121.17; on these mercenaries, some of them knighted, see Jacoby, “The Encounter of Two Societies,” 900–901.

and, more generally, throughout the peninsula. Olive oil warrants particular attention in that respect. It was a far more important crop than generally assumed in the rural exploitation of the Pelopon­­nese, and its production and commercialization reflect some basic features and trends in the economic evolution of the region, both before and after the Latin conquest. Olive oil was a dietary staple common through­ out the Mediterranean from antiquity, yet was not indispensable.153 Still, its pairing with bread in the free distributions of edibles in Con­stantinople from 332 to 610 underlines its importance.154 In addition to its use in nutrition, upon which attention is commonly focused, there was a significant consumption of oil in lighting and to a small extent in medication, cosmetics, ointments, and religious rites.155 Low-grade oil was also used in the carding of wool and entered in the production of soap, representing around one-third of the final product.156 The sources recording the activity of St. Nikon the Metanoeite in Sparta in the last decades of the tenth century are of particular interest in our context.157 St. Nikon reports in his Testament that he established a foundation in Sparta, which owned olive trees in the countryside. According to his Life, compiled around 1042, he also built an oil press in the city. In addition, the Life mentions two brothers from Equilium, modern Jesolo north of Venice, who had recently settled in Sparta for 153  On olive cultivation in late antiquity, see M. Decker, Tilling the Hateful Earth: Agricultural Production and Trade in the Late Antique East (Oxford, 2009), 152–61. 154  J. Durliat, De la ville antique à la ville byzantine: Le problème des subsistances (Rome, 1990), 269. 155 Decker, Tilling the Hateful Earth, 149–51; D. Jacquart, “L’huile et le vin dans les soins du corps en Orient musulman et en Occident chrétien,” in Olio e vino nell’alto medioevo (Spoleto, 20–26 aprile 2006), Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 54 (Spoleto, 2007), 2:869–93; E. Lev and Z. Amar, Practical Materia Medica of the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean According to the Cairo Genizah (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 227–29, 539. 156  On soap, see S. Ciriacono, “Industria e artigianato,” in Storia di Venezia dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, vol. 5, Il Rinascimento: società ed economia, 1400–1540, ed. A. Tenenti and U. Tucci (Rome, 1996), 567. 157  See M. Kaplan, “La fondation de Nikôn le Métanoeite à Sparte: Un monastère urbain, sa ville et sa campagne,” in Puer Apuliae: Mélanges offerts à Jean-Marie Martin, ed. E. Cuozzo, V. Déroche, A. Peters-Custot, and V. Prigent (Paris, 2008), 2:383–93.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

233

the sake of trade.158 The probable link between these three pieces of information is highly suggestive. The press obtained its olive supply from trees growing in the neighboring countryside. While providing oil to the monastery, it presumably also operated for other customers and thus served as a source of revenue for St. Nikon’s foundation. The location of the press in the city hints at the city’s function as an oil market, and the export of oil is the most likely explanation for the establishment in Sparta of the two Latin merchants from a locality close to Venice.159 Incidentally, Constantinople routinely imported oil from distant regions by the mid-eleventh century, and Venetians were already involved earlier in cheese imports to the city.160 An oil press found within the urban area of Sparta in city block no. 127, in use from the tenth to the twelfth century, is situated a dozen meters northeast of an excavated church ascribed to the eleventh century.161 The proximity of the two structures may hint at an institutional link between them, which recalls the one between the monastery of St. Nikon and its oil press. Two lead seals belonging to Byzantine military officers, one dating to the tenth or eleventh and the other to the mid- to late eleventh century, have been recovered at the site of the olive press. A recent study suggests that the officers may have been purchasing

158  O. Lampsidis, Ὁ ἐκ Πόντου Ὅσιος Νίκων ὁ Μετανοεῖτε (Athens, 1982), 255, trans. BMFD 1:319, no. 17, par. 10; D. F. Sullivan, ed., The Life of Saint Nikon: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Brookline, 1987), 228–30, 250. Sullivan mistakenly identifies Equilium with Aquilea. 159  Although the two merchants were not Venetians, as often stated, their activity in Sparta was presumably connected to Venice. P. Armstrong, “Merchants of Venice at Sparta in the 12th Century,” in Cavanagh, Gallou, and Geor­ giadis, Sparta and Laconia, 317, believes that since the two merchants are mentioned in an expanded version of the Vita written in 1148, their story reflects twelfth-century conditions. However, the need of a guide to reach the saint’s tomb and the animosity of the local Greeks toward the foreigners does not fit that period, in which Venetian merchants were rather common in Sparta and clearly familiar with the city’s topography: see below. 160  See below, notes 186–87. 161  Three additional oil presses have been found in Sparta. See A. Bakourou, “Τοπογραφικές παρατηρήσεις για τη Μεσοβυζαντινή Λακεδαιμονία,” in Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-Modern, ed. W. G. Cavanagh, C. Gallou, and M. Georgiadis (London, 2009), 306–9.

234

david jacoby

oil at the press for their military contingents.162 The city’s role as oil market and exporter is more fully documented for the twelfth century. It will soon be examined. It is likely that oil was also produced in the large estates owned in the western Peloponnese on the eve of the Latin conquest by the imperial treasury, some kinsfolk of the emperor, important laymen, and monasteries based in Constantinople. These estates were located in the regions of Patras and Methone in which olive growing was practiced, according to other sources adduced below.163 Agri­cultural and pastoral surpluses from provincial estates were either shipped to Constantinople for the self-supply of their absentee landowners residing in the city, sold in the vicinity of the estates producing them or in the capital to yield cash, or else partly granted by lay landowners to ecclesiastical institutions, which in turn distributed them to the needy.164 Olive oil exports from the Peloponnese are documented from the first half of the twelfth century. A Venetian merchant bought oil at Sparta and with the help of Venetian middlemen resold 1,280 liters to Dobramiro Staniario, who sailed with the oil to Alexandria in 1134, as recorded in April of the following year.165 Another Venetian merchant concluded a similar double transaction regarding the same amount of oil in 1135, at the price of 36 hyperpyra. The charter recording this deal mentions 162  On these seals, see C. Stavrakos, “Byzantine Lead Seals and Other Minor Objects from Mystras: New Historical Evidence for the Region of Byzantine Lakedaimon,” BZ 103 (2010): 134–37, 142–43. 163  On the location of these estates, see D. Jacoby, “Les archontes grecs et la féodalité en Morée franque,” TM 2 (1967): 423–26; repr. in Jacoby, Société, no. VI. 164  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 213; A. E. Laiou, “Exchange and Trade, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries,” in EHB 2:741–42, 744; K. Smyrlis, La fortune des grands monastères (fin du X e–milieu du XIV e siècle) (Paris, 2006), 107–16, 219–34. 165  R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo, eds., Doc­ umenti del commercio veneziano nei secoli XI–XIII (Turin, 1940), 1:69, no. 65. The oil was sold in two identical consignments of one miliare, each time in the presence of a mediator, after having presumably been purchased from several producers or local salesmen at different times. The Venetian miliare contained 641.28 liters: Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 117. Since shipment in the early months of 1135 was apparently excluded by navigation conditions in the winter, it must have taken place in the previous year.

neither Sparta nor Alexandria, yet Dobramiro Staniario, who once more shipped the oil, presumably conveyed it again from Sparta to the Egyptian port.166 It is likely that a Venetian business enterprise of 1140 envisaging a journey from Venice to Corinth, Sparta, Alexandria, and Constantinople also involved the purchase of oil in the Peloponnese and its shipping to Egypt.167 A Venetian merchant entrusted to another Venetian 3,640 liters bought from archontes in Sparta for shipment to Constan­ tinople in 1147 or 1148.168 The absence of Western notaries in the city compelled him to rely on contracts drafted in Greek, yet somewhat later the oil trade seems to have induced some Venetian merchants to settle for some time in the city, as the existence of the Latin church of San Nicolò and its resident Venetian monk in 1168 suggests.169 Longterm presence was clearly related to continuity in trade in a substantial volume of goods. In the winter of 1170/71 two Venetians bought in Sparta a much larger volume of oil, namely 67,334 liters, presumably intended for Constantinople.170 The yields of olive trees widely vary as a result of age, 166  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:70–71, no. 67. Dobramiro from Dalmatia, a former slave emancipated by his master Pietro Staniaro, whose surname he adopted, pursued a successful business career: see S. Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio nel XII secolo: I rapporti economici (Venice, 1988), 109–10. 167  L. Lanfranchi, ed., Famiglia Zusto, Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Sez. IV, Archivi privati (Venice, 1955), 35–36, no. 14. 168  A. Lombardo and R. Morozzo della Rocca, eds., Nuovi documenti del commercio veneto dei sec. XI–XIII (Venice, 1953), 14, no. 11, issued in 1151, yet with reference to the expedition of King Roger II of Sicily to Greece in 1147; also ibid., 11, no. 9, drafted in 1150. Armstrong, “Merchants of Venice at Sparta,” 314–16, has not perceived that the two documents refer to the same transaction and does not refer to the earlier sales of oil in Sparta. Incidentally, the charter of 1150 records that a merchant from Jesolo was in the city when the oil was handed over to a Venetian merchant. His presence recalls that of the two merchants from Jesolo in the city more than a century earlier: see above, 233–34. One may wonder whether this hints at some degree of continuity in oil exports to Venice. 169  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:203–4, no. 205. On this church, presumably a dependency of San Nicolò del Lido, see Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio, 41 and n. 55, who fails to refer to Venetian settlers in that context. 170  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:352–56, nos. 358, 360, and 361, with references to the arrest of the Venetians in the empire in March 1171.

soil, and climatic conditions, as well as from year to year, as stated in a survey of 1379 carried out in Messenia.171 The consignment may represent the yield of approximately 16,000 to 20,000 trees.172 Although hypothetical, this calculation suggests large areas planted with olive trees. It is likely that the oil produced in Sparta’s region was shipped from Skala, in the Helos plain, brought by land to Nauplion and shipped from there, rather than from distant Corinth as some have suggested.173 Oil from the region of Nauplion was shipped from this port. A Venetian vessel carrying at least 43,000 liters of oil and cured olives in June 1182, on its way from Nauplion to Constantinople, was redirected toward Alexandria after its operators had been informed of the Latins’ massacre in the capital in the preceding spring.174 Sometime before April 1201 three Pisans jointly resold in Methone 21,803 liters of oil for 1,000 hyperpyra to a Venetian, who exported it to Constantinople. A Greek priest in Methone had drafted the original sale contract, 171  LT, 201.25: “Aveteci olio sechondo e la stagione.” 172  Although it takes more than twenty-five years before the trees fully mature, they already bear fruit after some four years. Proposed yields are 15 kilograms of olives on average per tree, considering differentiated yields, and 20 to 25 percent oil from the olives, thus 3 to 3.75 kilograms. Given the density of vegetable oil, one liter oil weighing 0.89 kilogram, the average yield per tree is 3.370 to 4.215 liters oil. It follows that 67,334 liters divided by 3.370 and 4.215 represent 19,980 and 15,954 trees respectively. For the estimated yields of trees, see M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun, “Les rendements,” in La production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée, ed. M.-C. Amouretti et J.-P. Brun, Oil and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area = BCH, Supplément 26 (Athens and Paris, 1993), 553–55. Decker, Tilling the Hateful Earth, 157, suggests a yield of 10 kilograms of olives per tree, and Lefort, “The Rural Economy,” 253 and n. 133, around the same figure, which would imply trees in larger numbers than suggested above. 173  Armstrong, “Merchants of Venice at Sparta,” 316–17. Armstrong raises the possibility that olives were processed close to Skala, yet the Venetian charters clearly state that oil was exported from Sparta. Some have suggested that the oil from Sparta was shipped from Corinth, based on the two charters of 1135 drafted in that city. However, these documents record only the fulfillment of oil transactions carried out earlier, not the actual transactions. Needless to add, shipment from Corinth was excluded, given the high cost involved in overland transportation from Sparta. 174  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:326–27, no. 331. On the massacre, see C. M. Brand, Byzan­ tium Confronts the West, 1180–1204 (Cambridge, MA, 1968), 41–42.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

235

which implies that no Latin priest acting as notary was available in the city, and that the deal had been struck some time before the arrival of a ship carrying one.175 The large difference between the prices in 1135 and 1201, the only ones cited, is surprising at first glance. The gap between 28.12 and 45.86 hyperpyra, respectively,176 cannot be explained by the slide in gold fineness of the hyper­pyron between the two dates, since it was relatively limited.177 It may have partly reflected difference in oil quality.178 However, it most likely resulted from the difference between a direct purchase from Greek wholesalers and another from Pisan middlemen, who made a substantial profit because there was apparently a fairly large demand for Peloponnesian oil in other regions. It is obvious that the figures adduced above do not reflect the full scale of yearly oil shipments from the Peloponnese, for which no quantitative data are available. In any event, it is excluded that a single Venetian merchant should have dominated the oil market in Sparta from 1165 to 1171, or at any other time in the twelfth century.179 The evidence regarding oil marketing in Sparta and Nauplion suggests large numbers of olive trees in Lakonia, which included the Mani Peninsula and the Argolid, the southern part of which receives small amounts of rain inadequate in many years for arable agriculture.180 The dispatch of oil from 175  The document certifying the conclusion of the deal was drafted in Constantinople: Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:445–46, no. 456. On these Venetian priests-notaries, often traveling on board commercial vessels, see Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio, 54–56. 176  In 1135 the price is quoted in new hyperpyra, a reference to the gold coins of high fineness issued by Emperor Alexios I. For the sake of comparison I purposely use fractions here. 177  See C. Morrisson, “Byzantine Money: Its Production and Circulation,” in EHB 3:932–33. 178  Different qualities of Peloponnesian oil are attested later; see below, 242. 179  As claimed by F. Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au Moyen Âge: Le développement et l’exploitation du domaine colonial vénitien (XII e –XV e siècles), BEFAR 193 (Paris, 1959), 47–48, who also mentions Corinth and Thebes in that respect, despite the absence of evidence regarding oil trading in these two cities in the twelfth century. 180  H. Forbes, “Ethnoarchaeology and the Place of the Olive in the Economy of the Southern Argolid, Greece,” in Amouretti and Brun, La production, 214. The Mani Peninsula, which suffered from similar conditions, had

236

david jacoby

Methone points to olive trees in Messenia, which appears to have been the main oil-producing region in the Peloponnese. The Englishman Roger of Hoveden, who in 1191 returned from the Holy Land, reported from hearsay that the district of Korone had the largest number of olive trees in the world.181 It is possible, therefore, that some of the oil shipped from Methone in 1201 had been supplied by the large Constantinopolitan estates of Messenia mentioned earlier. The oil transactions of the twelfth century examined above have repeatedly drawn attention, yet their full implications have been overlooked so far. Most likely, the pattern of oil commercialization in Sparta attested for 1147 or 1148 was the rule. The archontes jointly selling large volumes of oil to exporters were surely among the major landowners in the countryside of Sparta, while holding a dominant position in the city as at the time of St. Nikon. Like the saint’s monastery, some of them presumably owned oil presses in Sparta or, like large landowners attested later, in their respective estates. There is no indication whether the oil they sold derived exclusively from their own demesne, or whether it also included oil from trees growing on the holdings of their paroikoi or dependent peasants. In any event, the function of the archontes as middlemen suited both small producers and merchants acquiring large volumes of oil. The peasants sold only small amounts, the delivery of which at a nearby oil press or warehouse of their landowner would save them timeconsuming transportation to a distant market or entrepôt. For the merchants it was more convenient to purchase oil in bulk at specific locations rather than from numerous producers, despite its higher price than at the source. Incidentally, by jointly selling the oil the archontes reduced the many olive trees by the mid-tenth century: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, English trans. R. J. H. Jenkins, new rev. ed., CFHB 1 (Washington, DC, 1967), 236. 181  Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, ed. W. Stubbs, Rerum Bri­tan­n icarum medii aevi scriptores 51 (London, 1868– 71), 3:160. The passage has been copied verbatim in Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis: The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I A.D. 1169–1192, Commonly Known under the Name of Benedict of Peterborough, ed. W. Stubbs, Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 49 (London, 1867), 2:199. Modern scholars mistakenly ascribe the description to Benedict of Peterborough.

bargaining power of their customers. This pattern of commercialization must have been fairly widespread with respect to agricultural and pastoral produce throughout the Byzantine Empire. Its existence and operation is fully illustrated by later evidence bearing on Peloponnesian oil, adduced below. It is also illustrated by the shipping of a large consignment of cheese weighing 2,860 kilograms from Crete in 1022, and the role of middlemen fulfilled by large Cretan landowners buying cheese from their villeins in the second half of the thirteenth century.182 It is commonly assumed that Italian merchants were the initiators of large-scale commercial exports of oil from the Peloponnese in the twelfth century.183 This proposition is rather implausible. It rests on skewed evidence—namely, the chance survival of a few Venetian charters and the absence of similar Byzantine documentation. In addition, it underestimates the economic acumen of Byzantine large landowners in the Peloponnese. Like their lay counterparts and monasteries elsewhere in the empire, they must have used accounting in the management of their estates, were aware of profitable investments, and strove to increase their revenue.184 There is good reason to believe, therefore, that they, rather than Italian merchants, were the first to perceive the accumulation of wealth and changing consumption patterns among the elite and middle stratum of Byzantine society, a process attested from the eleventh century onward, especially in Constantinople.185 Indeed, the growing market demand in Constantinople is already documented by oil imports from Byzan­ tine Apulia, which appear to have been common

182  D. Jacoby, “Byzantine Crete in the Navigation and Trade Networks of Venice and Genoa,” in Oriente e Occidente tra medioevo ed età moderna: Studi in onore di Geo Pistarino, ed. L. Balletto, Università degli Studi di Genova, Sede di Acqui Terme, Collana di Fonti e Studi, 1.1 (Acqui Terme, 1997), 521–22; repr. in Jacoby, Byzantium, no. II; Jacoby, “Cretan Cheese,” 52–53. 183  Armstrong, “Merchants of Venice at Sparta,” 319–20. 184  On domanial management and accounting, see Lefort, “The Rural Economy,” 295–99; Smyrlis, La fortune des grands monastères, 234–43; Kaplan, “L’économie du monastère de la Kosmosôteira,” 471–80. 185  See A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, 1985), 74–83.

by the mid-eleventh century.186 Oil production closer to Constantinople may have been insufficient, yet superior quality or attractive prices may have also promoted oil imports from distant regions. Growing and more diversified demand in Constantinople stimulated the import of Cretan cheese appreciated for its quality, as attested from the early eleventh century.187 The establishment of silk workshops producing high-grade textiles in Thebes and Corinth is similarly related to a growing market within the empire, primarily in the capital, rather than to external demand. It can in no way be ascribed to an Italian impetus.188 In short, there is good reason to believe that the export of foodstuffs from the Peloponnese and other provinces of the empire to Constantinople was likely initiated by large Byzantine landowners, merchants, and carriers, attentive to market demand. This was most likely also the case of oil exports from the Peloponnese to Alexandria, as suggested by the activity of Greek merchants and carriers in the shipping of Cretan agricultural produce to the Egyptian port in the 1060s or 1070s. By that time, though, the Venetians and the Genoese were already participating in that traffic.189 It is not excluded that oil surpluses for export were already available in the Peloponnese by the late eleventh century, and that the oil handled by the Venetians in wholesale and retail trade in Constantinople by 1107 partly originated in that region.190 The Venetians’ involvement in the oil traffic was initially furthered by the sailing of their ships along the shores of the Peloponnese, the main 186  D. Jacoby, “Mediterranean Food and Wine for Constantinople: The Long-Distance Trade, Eleventh to Mid-Fifteenth Century,” in Handelsgüter und Verkehrswege: Aspekte der Warenversorgung im östlichen Mittelmeerraum (4. bis 15. Jahrhundert), ed. E. Kislinger, J. Koder, and A. Külzer, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 388. Band (Vienna, 2010), 129–30. 187  See above, n. 182 and Jacoby, “Byzantine Crete,” 525–27. 188  D. Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade,” BZ 84–85 (1991–92): 452–500; repr. in D. Jacoby, Trade, Commodities, and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean (Aldershot, 1997), no. VII. 189  D. Jacoby, “Byzantine Trade with Egypt from the MidTenth Century to the Fourth Crusade,” Thesaurismata 30 (2000): 43; repr. in Jacoby, Commercial Exchange, no. I. 190  Jacoby, “Mediterranean Food and Wine,” 129–30.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

237

waterway connecting Venice to Constantinople, as well as by their regular journeys to this city and the need to increase the profitability of their voyages by taking goods and passengers on board along the way.191 This was also the rationale for conveying oil to Venice on the return voyage from the Byzantine capital and from Alexandria. The import of Peloponnesian oil to Venice is not directly attested before the thirteenth century, yet may be taken for granted. As implied by a Venetian notarial charter of 1071, Methone, an outlet for Messenia’s oil, served as regular port of call for vessels returning from Egypt to Venice, and obviously also for those sailing home from Constantinople.192 The integration of the Venetians within the Byzantine supply system must have resulted in an intensification of oil exports from the Peloponnese. It may have also opened new markets within the triangular Medi­ terranean pattern of maritime trade connecting Venice, Constantinople, and Alexandria, established by the late eleventh century.193 The growing Venetian role in oil export, trade, and shipping was furthered by the conjunction of the Venetians’ broad tax exemptions in various regions of the eastern Mediterranean and their transportation potential, a factor often forgotten.194 While these developments benefited local oil producers and wholesalers, they gradually undermined the business of Byzantine exporters and maritime carriers in that field. Some scholars have suggested that Italian trade contributed to a monetization of the economy in the southern Peloponnese in the twelfth century, more advanced than in other Byzantine provinces.195 However, the impact of 191  D. Jacoby, “Venetian Commercial Expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean, 8th–11th Centuries,” in Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries: The Archaeology of Local, Regional, and International Exchange, ed. M. M. Mango (Farnham, 2009), 376–77. 192  From Egypt: Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:10–11, no. 11. On oil imports from the Pelopon­ nese to Venice, see below. 193  On this pattern, see Jacoby, “Venetian Commercial Expansion,” 384–87. 194  See D. Jacoby, “Italian Privileges and Trade in Byzan­ tium before the Fourth Crusade: A Reconsideration,” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 24 (1994): 349–69; repr. in Jacoby, Trade, no. II. 195  See C. Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204: Un aspect positif de la IV e croisade?” in Urbs Capta:

238

david jacoby

this process on the rural economy of that period remains an open question in the absence of adequate documentation. The examination of Peloponnesian oil production and export before the Latin conquest leads to some important conclusions. The role of the archontes of Sparta as middlemen in the oil trade implies that they had a vested interest in the growing of olive trees as a cash-generating activity. We may safely assume, therefore, that they encouraged its extension, both on their own demesne and on the peasants’ land and that the peasants shared their market-oriented approach. The contention that Byzantine peasants produced surpluses only to pay their taxes in cash may be safely dismissed for the twelfth-century Peloponnese, even if correct for other Byzantine regions and other periods. Throughout the late Middle Ages, oil, especially high-grade oil, remained a fairly expensive luxury commodity, even at the source, as documented for the fourteenth century, because olive trees were limited to specific Mediterranean regions, their number was insufficient for massive oil production, and olive crops varied from year to year.196 The prospect of a good income from oil sales must have induced peasants to plant and cultivate olive trees and to sell as much oil as possible, rather than consume it all, while resorting instead to cheaper substances such as animal fat in the preparation of food and wax in lighting. The extensive pastoralism supplied abundant tallow and wax was plentiful, used in tax payments, and even exported from the Peloponnese.197 The frequent assertion The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences; La IV e Croisade et ses conséquences, ed. A. Laiou, Réalités Byzantines 10 (Paris, 2005), 219–20. 196  The number of olive trees in the southern Argolid in 1690 was far smaller than at present, and ethnographic research reveals that in the past domestic oil consumption was far more limited than in the late twentieth century: Forbes, “Ethnoarchaeology,” 216–17. These observations should also be taken into account when dealing with earlier periods. On oil grades and prices, see below, 242. 197  On the use of tallow in Byzantine cooking, see Harvey, Economic Expansion, 169, 174–75. Extensive use of fat in cooking is documented by Italian culinary manuals, despite oil production in central and southern Italy: S. Ciriacono, “L’olio a Venezia in età moderna: I consumi alimentari e gli altri usi,” in Alimentazione e nutrizione, secc. XIII–XVIII: Atti della “Ventottesima Settimana di studi,” 22–27 aprile 1996, ed. S. Cavachiocchi, Istituto internazionale di storia economica

that olive oil was an indispensable ingredient of Mediterranean food is an anachronistic backward projection when applied to the Middle Ages. The market- and export-oriented attitude of the archontes of Sparta regarding oil before the Latin conquest has some broader implications. It would seem that this approach also extended to other products of the Peloponnesian rural economy, although it is documented only for raw silk, supplied to weaving workshops in Thebes and Corinth.198 This would partly explain the increase in the number of settlements, the intensification of rural exploitation, and the comfortable level of prosperity archaeological evidence revealed in the region of Sparta.199 In addition, the approach regarding oil reflects the mentality of many large landowners throughout the empire in the twelfth, or even in the eleventh, century, in contrast to the view, still fairly widespread in the scholarly community, that the Byzantine elite was adverse to trade at that time. Moreover, it is noteworthy that large sections of the southeastern Peloponnese were continuously under Byzantine rule, except for a short period of Latin domination lasting from 1246 to 1262 at most. It was presumably still shorter for Monemvasia, the last Byzantine stronghold in the region to surrender to the Franks. Even within these years many large landowners in the region remained in possession of their assets as a result of the agreement of three Monemvasiot archontes, members of the Mamonas, Eudaimonoiannes, and Sophianos families with Prince William II. “F. Datini,” Prato, Serie II—Atti delle “Settimane di Studi” e altri convegni 28 (Florence, 1997), 304–5. In the Frankish Morea, as in Byzantium, the rent for houses and for land on which houses were built was sometimes paid in wax: Libro dele uxanze, 202–3, par. 183; LT, 39.16–17.20–21.26–27.30– 31, 94.16.32, 278. A. Tzavara, Clarentza, une ville de la Morée latine, XIII e–XV e siècles, Institut hellénique d’études byzantines et post-byzantines de Venise, Tommaso Flanghini, 3 (Venice, 2008), 292–93, states that wax was mainly produced in the southwestern Peloponnese, yet she relies on fragmentary documentation covering only limited portions of the peninsula. 198  D. Jacoby, “Silk Production in the Frankish Pelopon­ nese: The Evidence of Fourteenth Century Surveys and Reports,” in Travellers and Officials in the Peloponnese: Descriptions—Reports—Statistics, in Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, ed. H. A. Kalligas (Monemvasia, 1994), 43; repr. in Jacoby, Trade, no. VIII; see also above, 237. 199  On which see Armstrong, “Merchants of Venice at Sparta,” 319.

Moreover, their property rights were confirmed by Emperor Michael VIII after the Byzantine recovery of the region.200 Continuity in land ownership suggests continuity in estate management and economic approach. It is likely, therefore, that the large landowners of the Byzantine Morea promptly responded in the early thirteenth century to growing demand and new export opportunities by promoting the intensification of oil production in the region. Any suggestion that they had a more “primitive” approach to marketing than the Italian merchants may be safely dismissed. The twelfth-century documents regarding oil examined above covered only commercialization. The sources of the following period are more abundant and also offer insights into olive growing and oil production. Olive trees were a valuable asset. An inscription dating from 1278 at Polemitas, in Lakonian Mani, records gifts of a single or a few olive trees. In 1292 a resident of Korone granted her son-in-law two trees at one location and one tree at another.201 In 1348 a widow residing in Methone bequeathed small scattered tracts of land, two with six olive trees, one with eight, and three with an unspecified number. Each of her four daughters received some trees.202 Several villeins’ holdings in the Frankish Morea included only one to three olive trees, yet a larger number must have grown on one modius of land held in 1354 by a villein of Petoni, a surface covering at least 850 square meters.203 Peasants could also grow trees in their vineyards, frequently a component of their respective holdings, since the trees require little water. Olive trees training vines are recorded in 1365 on demesne land in Vasilikata, located northwest of Corinth.204 Several olive groves are attested in Messenia. In 1205 a battle between Franks and Greeks took place in the vicinity of the olive grove 200  See above, 216. 201  D. Feissel and A. Philippidis-Braat, “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance: III, Inscriptions du Péloponnèse (à l’exception de Mistra),” TM 9 (1985): 314–17, no. 57; Pasquale Longo, 67, no. 87. 202 Nanetti, DV, 2:234–36, no. 7.35. 203  LT, 108.4, 107.10, 106.1–2, respectively. For the modius in the Frankish Morea, see above, note 122. 204  LT, 26.15–16: “ambellonia, id est quedam terre ubi plantantur vinee et alie res, necnon et eciam arbores olivarum”; 82.9, “vinee de Sclavoforo co olive”; 83.15. On this system, see below, 250.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

239

of Kountoura, in the northern plain of that region. This grove may have previously been included in a large estate belonging to a Constantinopolitan landowner.205 A large grove of two hundred trees at least belonged to a resident of Methone in 1292.206 In 1336 one consisting of twenty trees at an unidentified place yielded a yearly revenue estimated at 2 hyperpyron. In 1356 the lord of Kosmina, close to Kalamata, had a grove yielding fifty and another sixty modii of olives, which may have represented some 120 and 144 trees respectively. One-half of the yield was granted as payment to the villeins hired for cultivation and the harvesting of the olives.207 In 1354 the lord of Vourkano in Messenia owned only one-half of the trees on the estate, the other half obviously belonging to the villeins who had planted and cultivated the grove.208 This was in accordance with the Byzantine hemiseia contract, documented in the Frankish Morea, which as noted earlier provided for the equal division between landowner and workers of newly planted trees once they bore fruit.209 In 1365 some of the landowner’s officials at Piada, on the Saronic Gulf, received olives as payment.210 Whether these were ground afterward is unknown. Salt curing was applied to one hundred modii of olives from three villages in Messenia in 1379.211

205  For the location of the battle, see Bon, La Morée franque, 421–22. On Constantinopolitan landowners, see above, note 163. 206  Pasquale Longo, 80–81, no. 98: Iohanninus de Pagnano was entitled to enjoy the yield of two hundred trees until he would obtain the full sum of his wife’s dowry. It is likely, therefore, that the grove was larger. 207  Respectively LT, 27.25–26 and 139.23–28. See above, note 142. The report drafted in July 1357 refers to the previous year. There is no evidence for the value of the modios used for olives, which must have been different from the one used for olive oil. Still different ones were used for currants in the Peloponnese: see Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 145–50. If for the sake of calculation we adopt for the olives about 40 liters, 50 modia are equal to 2,000 liters, and converted into kilograms at the rate of 1 liter = 0.90 kilogram, are equal to 1,800 kilograms. At 15 kilograms per tree (see above, note 172), there would have been 120 trees. The larger yield would imply 144 trees. 208  LT, 100.24: “medietas arborum olivarum.” 209  See above, 233 and below, 251. 210  LT, 177.9–10. 211  LT, 203.19–20: “sale . . . per insalare l’ulive.” Cured olives were shipped from Nauplion in 1182: see above, note 174.

240

david jacoby

To olive growing in Messenia, Lakonia, and the Argolid, already documented in the twelfth century, we may now add Corinthia and the region of Patras. Indeed, oil was one of the indigenous products taxed in Patras by 1408.212 It is clear, though, that Messenia was the richest among the regions growing olive trees, which accounts for the major role of Korone and Methone in oil exports.213 The data regarding Frankish estates point to a variegated exploitation of the region, which excluded olive growing as monoculture, except possibly in the area of Korone. An increase in the number of olive trees, documented by the hemiseia contract mentioned earlier, is also suggested by the prohibition to fell both domesticated and wild olive trees, issued by the Venetian authorities in 1468.214 The preservation of wild olive trees or oleasters was directly related to the growing of additional trees and an increase in olive yields. Trees grown from suckers or seeds yield poor olive harvests and therefore the branches of oleasters are grafted onto established olive trees or a branch from a domesticated olive tree is grafted onto a wild one. The Venetian 1468 regulation was adopted in a period witnessing the destruction of many trees by the Turks. Oil is registered among the landowner’s revenues in many villages, sometimes as olio della chorte. In 1379 it was estimated that the landowner’s trees would yield fifty-four pendaria at Kremmydi, which appears to have been a large volume since its estimated value amounted to 81 hyperpyra.215 However, the landowners’ oil revenues did not exclusively derive from trees growing 212 Gerland, NQ , 164.25–28. For more evidence see studies included in H. Beneke, ed., Ο δε τόπος—ελαιοφόρος: Η παρουσία της ελιάς στην Πελοπόννησο (Athens, 2007). 213  Various commodities were exported from Glarentza, yet oil was not among them. 214  Sathas, 4:35–36: “arbori olivari mestegi [et] salvazi.” The prohibition to fell olive trees, without specification, was already decreed in 1401 and 1416, yet must have also included wild olive trees; the wood was used for fire: ibid., 4:95. Similar prohibitions regarding all trees were issued in 1469, 1471, and 1480: ibid., 4:36–39. 215  LT, 202.15, 211.8. LT, 279, and Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 147, estimate the capacity of the pendarium with respect to the libra, the value of which is also unknown. Its calculation based on oil prices is flawed, since the relation between volume and prices varied. It was 3.5:1 in 1338, while in 1379 it was once 7.5:1 and once 10:1: LT, 62.1–2 and 63.14–15 in 1338, and 201.25–26, 202.15–18, and 205.6–7, in 1379.

on demesne land. Landowners also obtained them from the oil presses they owned, which were apparently common in all large estates including olive trees. They are recorded in several villages of Messenia, the area of Kalamata, and the region of Olympia. Grizi and Kosmina even had two each. A steward in charge of Krestena reported in 1354 to the landowner, Niccolò Acciajuoli, that the new tower (torre) he had recently built, facta da nobu, included an oil press.216 Incidentally, the detailed description of this large and complex structure for the benefit of the landowner, the inclusion of three new industrial installations in it, a wine cellar and an oven in addition to the oil press, and the building of numerous rooms exclude the possibility that the construction work consisted merely in repairing and refurbishing an old tower.217 The expression facta da nobu, used five times in the description, undoubtedly points to a new structure “done recently” to serve as a major administrative and production center. All the landowners’ presses recorded in the Frankish Morea were leased, each for a specific quantity of oil reflecting the expected volume of its operation.218 Leasing saved the cost involved in direct management of the installation. More importantly, it implied that the presses also ground olives other than those of the landowner, in other words, those the villeins produced. This proposition is supported by the absence of presses from the listing of the villeins’ assets. It is clear, therefore, that large landowners held a monopoly on oil pressing, compelling their villeins to use their facility in return for a payment in kind. They enlarged thereby the volume of oil they would sell. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the storage and transportation facilities large landowners owned prompted villeins to sell their oil to the latter, if not pressured to do so. In any event, the in­­ volvement of large landowners in the marketing 216  LT, 71.2–6. 217  As suggested by LT, 71 n. 11, and Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 246. Similarly, “vinia una in le saline fata da nobu per eudem vicario” in LT, 87.17, does not point to restoration, but rather to a new vineyard. 218  LT, 62.1: “labotoga ubi fit oleum” at Petoni; 63.14: “locus ubi fit oleum” at Grizi; 66.18: “medietas astacionis ubi fit oleum” at Krestena; see also ibid., 323, Index rerum, s.v. “Tarpetum,” “Tarpitari.” For Grizi and Kosmina: LT, 87.13.15–16, 139.9–14; LT, 205.6: “aloghato per lb. xxiij d’olio.”

of oil recalls the function of middlemen fulfilled by the archontes of Sparta in the twelfth century. We may thus assume that the growing of trees on demesne land, the ownership of presses, and the commercialization pattern attested on the large estates of the Frankish Morea reflected practices inherited from the Byzantine period. Their perpetuation must have been largely due to the Greek officials inserted in the management of large estates from the time of the conquest. The survival of the same practices in the Byzantine Morea may be taken for granted, although we lack detailed documentation such as is available for Frankish territories. On the other hand, in the absence of large estates in the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone oil pressing and the oil market were open there to competition. A late regulation is­­ sued in 1469 confirms the existence of multiple presses. It fixed the maximum rate press operators were allowed to charge for the grinding of olives. Payments were either in oil or in cash.219 The existence of an open oil market in the Venetian territories is also conveyed by the will of Dimi­ trius Strovoiati, a rich Greek rusticus residing in Korone, drafted in 1292. Several people owed him oil, most likely in return for sale credit consisting in anticipated payment for the delivery of an agreed amount of oil at a specific date or within a specific period.220 It would seem, therefore, that Strovoiati operated as an oil wholesaler. He was co-owner of a bark possibly used for the collection of oil along the coast and its transportation to Korone.221 The existence of a free oil market in the Venetian territories was fully exploited by a few merchants. They pressured villeins and other 219  Sathas, 4:178. 220  On sale credit, see Jacoby, “Cretan Cheese,” 51–53; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 219. 221  Strovoiati’s name may point to his origin from a rural settlement in the region of Methone, unidentified Strovolea, mentioned in 1348: Nanetti, DV, 2:235, no. 7.35. He defined himself as “rusticus Corone,” clearly to stress that he was not a villein but a free man and was full owner of the assets he bequeathed or donated. On this aspect, see J. Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade,” in Byzantium, State and Society: In Memory of Nikos Oikonomidès, ed. A. Avramea, A. Laiou, and E. Chrysos (Athens, 2003), 158.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

241

individuals having received sale credit or loans with excessive interest rates who, short of money before the olive harvest, were compelled to sell their oil at reduced prices imposed by the buyer, whether in cash or in barter. In turn, indebtedness and impoverishment could induce the villeins to abandon their holding and, in any event, resulted in reduced state revenue from taxes. In order to prevent these evils, a decree issued in January 1397 prohibited such deals below the minimum sale price for new oil of 5 hyperpyra per metrum fixed by the authorities. This price was valid until the month of October, that is, until after the olive harvest. At that time the price would begin to fluctuate according to the relation between supply and demand. The regulation was slightly modified in 1447 and repeated in that form in 1456.222 Although induced by the impoverishment of state villeins, this policy was primarily motivated by Venice’s fiscal considerations and its determination to prevent a contraction of the state’s revenues. On the whole olive oil was expensive, yet prices varied according to quality. The Floren­ tine merchant Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, who compiled his trading manual around 1340, distinguished between olio chiaro, mosto, and grosso.223 The Venetian merchant Giacomo Badoer, who resided in Constantinople from September 1436 to February 1440, handled olio chiaro and non chiare from Korone, and grosso, bruto, and sentina oil from Saragossa.224 The first three categories seem to correspond to “clarified” or refined virgin olive oil, coarse oil, and pomace oil obtained from the ground flesh and pits of olive left after pressing. Pomace oil was used for soap making and other industrial purposes. Significantly, all three grades were traded over long distances. As noted earlier, the surveys compiled in the Frankish Morea in 1338 and 1379 quoted the same price for one pendarium oil, undoubtedly of the same grade. 222  Sathas, 4:76–78, 180–81. 223  Pegolotti, 78, 125, 162–64. This oil was valued half the price of olio chiaro in Apulia: ibid., 163. For the dating of this manual, see ibid., Introduction, XXXIV. 224  U. Dorini and T. Bertelè, eds., Il libro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer (Costantinopoli, 1436–1440), Il Nuovo Ramusio 3 (Rome, 1956), 132.2 and 133.2.12, 350.17–18 (Pelo­ ponnese), 200.19, 380.2, 381.2–3 (Sicily and continental Italy), 743.24–25, 748.2–4 (Spain).

242

david jacoby

On the other hand, three other prices—namely 6, 4, and 3 sterlings for one libra, the last two contemporary—are each cited for a particular village. These prices must reflect differences in quality rather than differing marketing conditions, since the three settlements were located in the same region.225 Domestic oil consumption may have slightly increased in the Peloponnese from the thirteenth century onward, especially in urban centers. Korone, Methone, Patras, and Monemvasia were clearly more populated than in the twelfth century, and some of their residents, such as bankers, merchants, and feudal landowners, appear to have been fairly affluent. This was also the case at Glarentza (Chiarenza), a new port city founded in the 1260s.226 The social elite of the Byzantine Morea was concentrated at Mystras and Monemvasia. On the other hand, Corinth’s population declined from the early fourteenth century.227 Still, Peloponnesian oil production remained geared to export. Some short- and medium-range shipping of Peloponnesian oil is recorded. It is likely that the oil on board the vessel from Monemvasia robbed close to Crete around 1320 originated in the Byzantine Morea. Another vessel from Monemvasia caught about the same time off the island of Kea, southeast of the city, definitely carried Lakonian oil, yet its destination cannot be determined.228 This export was clearly not an isolated instance. Jani Crimolisi (Iohannes Cremolisi), a Greek resident of Korone, exported 225  LT, 62.1–2 in 1338 and 201.25–26 and 205.6–7 in 1379. 226 Tzavara, Clarentza, 28–29, 139–200. For Glarentza (Clarentza), see the chapter by D. Athanasoulis above. 227  On the decline of Corinth after the Catalan attack of 1312 and an earthquake, see G. D. R. Sanders, “Corinth,” in EHB 2:651–54, but it did not amount to a “near extinction.” See also Jacoby, “Italian Migration,” 103–4. A slight recovery had occurred by 1365: D. Jacoby, “The Production of Silk Textiles in Latin Greece,” in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα (Technology in Latin-Occupied Greece), Ημερίδα, Αθήνα, 8 Φεβρουαρίου 1997, Γεννάδειος Βιβλιοθήκη (Athens, 2000), 27–28; repr. in Jacoby, Com­ mercial Exchange, no. XII. 228  DVL, 1:126. The export of oil from Crete to the Peloponnese on the first ship may be ruled out: on Cretan oil, see below, 244. The second ship was attacked “apud Cyam.” The island of Kea in the Cyclades was called Cea by Westerners: B. R. Motzo, Il Compasso da Navegare: Opera italiana della metà del secolo XIII (Cagliari, 1947), 125.

eleven casks of oil from this city to the Dalmatian port of Kotor in 1386.229 As reported in 1359, oil was being shipped by merchants of Korone and Methone to Chania in Crete to finance the purchase of hides, cheese, planks of cypress wood, and wheat.230 It was thus competitive in the island, despite the availability of Cretan oil.231 Oil was shipped from Methone to Candia in 1430 and 1451.232 Peloponnesian oil faced increasing competition in the three major markets to which it continued to be exported—namely, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Venice. It is likely that the oil reached Constantinople continuously, although this is not documented. In the 1430s the Venetian Giacomo Badoer owned six wooden casks from Korone and eleven from Methone containing respectively 6,724 and 12,327 liters, the arrival of which appears to have been routine. Other oil imports to the Byzantine capital, from central and southern Italy, Majorca, and Seville, are duly attested throughout the fourteenth century. Giacomo Badoer also handled such oils, the shipment from Spain amounting to 48,517 liters, the largest and more than twice the one from the Peloponnese. These figures are significant, though not necessarily representative of overall imports of oil to Constantinople. A portion of the oils was reexported to Black Sea ports.233 Egypt produced oil from various vegetables, yet imported olive oil from Yemen and Syria.234 Alexandria was also supplied from southern Italy in the fourteenth century.235 Emmanuel Piloti reports that the Morea, jointly ruled by three brothers of the emperor of Constantinople, produces much oil, all of which is brought to Korone and Methone and from there conveyed in casks to

229 Chrysostomides, MP, 557, no. 293. The oil was on board a ship anchoring in Ragusa which Cremolisi sold to a Venetian, in charge of bringing the oil to its destination: ibid., 556, no. 292. 230  ASV, Senato, Deliberazioni, Misti, reg. 29, fol. 26v. 231  On Cretan oil at that time, see below, 244. 232  Sathas, 4:24 233  Jacoby, “Mediterranean Food and Wine,” 130–31. 234  S. Y. Labib, Handelsgeschichte Ägyptens im Spät­­mit­ telalter (1171–1517), Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirt­ schaftsgeschichte, Beiheft 46 (Wiesbaden, 1965), 239, 321. 235  Pegolotti, 73.

Alexandria.236 In fact, Piloti alludes to the joint rule of the brothers Theodore II, Constantine, and Thomas Palaiologos, sons of Emperor Manuel II, which extended from 1428 to 1443.237 The Des­ potate of the Morea covered large areas of the Peloponnese at that time, including northern and eastern Messenia, whereas Venice ruled over southern Messenia after extending its territory in the region in the early 1420s.238 Piloti presumably pointed to the export of oil from Byzantine Messenia via Korone and Methone, yet his claim that all the oil was shipped to Egypt is clearly incorrect. The small vessel from Korone and the merchants from this city and Methone attested in Alexandria in 1421 and 1422 respectively may well have been involved in oil exports to Egypt.239 Venice imported oil from many regions by the second half of the thirteenth century. A regulation issued in 1263 prohibited the mixing of high-grade oil from the Marche in central Italy with oil from Apulia, while allowing the latter’s mixing with Romania oil, both obviously of lower quality.240 Romania referred primarily to the Peloponnese, since Crete must have hardly exported any oil at that time.241 From 1302 the reexport of olive oil 236  P.-H. Dopp, ed., Traité d’Emmanuel Piloti sur le Pas­ sage en Terre Sainte (1420) (Louvain and Paris, 1958), 151–54. See D. Coulon, “Du nouveau sur Emmanuel Piloti et son témoignage à la lumière de documents d’archives occidentaux,” in Chemins d’outre-mer: Études sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à M. Balard, ed. D. Coulon, C. OttenFroux, P. Pagès, and D. Valérian, Byzantina Sorbonensia 20 (Paris, 2004), 1:160, 169, new dating for the compilation of Piloti’s manual between 1420 and 1438. 237 Zakythinos, DGM, 1:204–25. 238  See above, 215. 239  Ch. Verlinden, “Marchands chrétiens et juifs dans l’État mamelouk au début du XV e siècle d’après un notaire vénitien,” Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome 51 (1981): 58, 71, 77. 240  G. Monticolo and E. Besta, eds., I capitolari delle arti veneziane sottoposte alla alla Giustizia e poi alla Giustizia Vecchia dalle origini al MCCCXXX (Rome, 1896–1914), 2:9–10. 241  Oil is not listed among the products taxed at Candia’s land or sea gate in the late thirteenth century: E. Gerland, ed., Das Archiv des Herzogs von Kandia (Strasbourg, 1899), 108–9, and dating, ibid., 107 n. 1, and 135. However, oil was exported from Candia to Cicilian Armenia in 1300, yet its precise origin is not stated: S. Carbone, ed., Pietro Pizolo, notaio in Candia (1300, 1304–1305) Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Sez. III—Archivi notarili (Venice, 1978–85), 1:11– 12, no. 11.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

243

from Venice was limited by state regulation in order to ensure the city’s supply. Merchants were compelled to deliver a portion of their imports for storage by the Ternaria, the office supervising the oil trade. While restricting free marketing, the delivery guaranteed sales at prices fixed by the Ternaria twice a year, in accordance with expected imports.242 Oil imports, therefore, were fairly attractive, and one would have expected the arrival of Peloponnesian oil in Venice in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century. Around 1340 Pegolotti mentioned imports from Fermo and Ancona in the Marche, as well as from Apulia,243 and around 1400 the Tarifa referred to imports from Gaeta.244 Both trading manuals omit imports from Romania, although Cretan oil appears to have been regularly shipped to Venice around 1357. Indeed, at that time a Venetian settled in Crete exceptionally obtained the right to sell all the oil he would import to Venice within one year, without the customary delivery of a portion to the Ternaria.245 The export of various Peloponnesian commodities to Venice is well documented in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The absence of evidence regarding oil seems to reflect a sharp contraction in that respect. It may well be, therefore, that the bulk of exported Peloponnesian oil was conveyed to Alexandria by the early fifteenth century, as Piloti suggested.246

242  Ciriacono, “L’olio a Venezia,” 307. The volume of oil delivered varied over the years from 1/4 to 1/3. On Venetian soap production, already important by the thirteenth century, see Ciriacono, “Industria e artigianato,” 567. 243  Pegolotti, 146, 160, 171. He also states that Candia imports oil from Ancona and Apulia: ibid., 105–6. 244  [R. Cessi and G. Orlandini, eds.,] Tarifa zoè noticia dy pexi e mexure di luogi e tere che s’adovra marcadantia per el mondo (Venice, 1925), 70, and 4–6, for the dating of its two distinct sections. 245 Orlando, Venezia-Senato, Deliberazioni miste, vol. 15, Registro XXVIII, 21, no. 40. Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne, 319–20, wrongly concluded that the export itself was exceptional. On the other hand, a regulation of 1363 mentions the taxation of oil brought to Candia, but does not refer to export as for other commodities: S. M. Theotokes, ed., Θεσπίσματα τῆς Βενετικῆς Γερουσίας, 1281–1385, Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, Ἀκαδημία Ἀθηνῶν (Athens, 1936– 37), 2:105. 246  As noted above, this report is partly inaccurate, and therefore one should not accept at face value the claim that all the oil was sent to Egypt.

244

david jacoby

Korone and Methone were undoubtedly the major maritime outlets for Peloponnesian oil.247 Not surprisingly, the Venetian oil tax in the two cities yielded large revenues. Its collection in Korone was leased in 1401 for 2,500 hyperpyra, yet because of Turkish raids the leaseholder could not pay that sum.248 The yearly yield rose in the following period. In 1447 the castellan of Korone was instructed to send the annual revenue from the oil tax, around 3,000 hyperpyra, to his colleague in Methone.249 In 1457 a good harvest of olives was expected, which would even yield a larger revenue. It was decided, therefore, to cancel the last auction of tax collection, granted for 1,200 hyperpyra only.250 In sum, Peloponnesian olive growing and oil production in all three major political entities were clearly geared to lucrative export after the Fourth Crusade, as they had been in the twelfth century. In the absence of quantitative data, we must rely upon circumstantial evidence to assess its development. Olive growing, encouraged by large landowners and practiced also by peasant smallholders, appears to have been expanded until the early fourteenth century. In the following period it was presumably slowed down by competition in the main foreign markets, which seems to have led to a concentration of exports toward Egypt. The long-term effect of the demographic contraction initiated by the Black Death must have also limited oil production, which Turkish incursions repeatedly stifled. The Turks’ destruction of olive groves in the region of Nauplion required the import of oil from Athens in 1481.251 Despite similar destruction in the district of Methone the local Venetian tax on oil trade, like other taxes, was raised in 1480.252 This move suggests that the Venetian authorities expected a fairly good revenue, which in turn is indicative of continuous oil production in Venetian-ruled southern Messenia, as well as in 247  There is no evidence on oil exports via Glarentza. 248 Chrysostomides, MP, 507, no. 261. 249  ASV, Senato, Deliberazioni, Mar, reg. 2, 189r. 250  ASV, Senato, Deliberazioni, Mar, reg. 6, fol. 37v. The summary by F. Thiriet, Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie (Paris and The Hague, 1958– 61), 3:218, no. 3045, is inaccurate. 251  Sathas, 6:167. 252  Sathas, 4:42–43.

neighboring areas. Continuity is also suggested by the delivery of oil stipulated in a Greek contract concluded in Methone in 1482.253 It seems rather strange, therefore, that an Ottoman census compiled in the last twenty years of the fifteenth century should record only some 7,000 olive trees in the Ottoman-ruled Peloponnese which, admittedly, did not include Venetian Messenia and the regions of Argos and Nauplion.254

Grains There is no evidence on the Peloponnesian grain economy in the two centuries preceding the Fourth Crusade. In contrast, the information for the following period is fairly abundant. The ex­­ tensive demesne lands in the Frankish and the Byzantine Morea likely provided the bulk of the yields, especially the massarie and zevgilateia. The peasants’ corvée, which extended over twelve, twenty-four, or a maximum of fifty-two days a year in the Frankish Morea, was particularly suited for grain cultivation on large tracts of seignorial land, which required a limited input of work throughout the year. Wheat, barley, also fed to horses, oats, and millet were grown both on the landowners’ demesne and on peasants’ holdings.255 The incentives of seignorial stewards to grow grain were related both to local conditions and market prices. The landowner had to feed the estate’s staff and, for some months of the year, needed fodder for his cattle and horses. In addition, grain was put aside as seed and was used for payments in kind to local officers as well as to salaried labor for agricultural work, transportation, and other services.256 253 Gerland, NQ , 235–39, esp. 238.15. 254  N. Beldiceanu and I. Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Re­­ cherches sur la Morée (1461–1512),” SüdostF 39 (1980): 33; for the dating, see ibid., 19. 255  Horses in the Frankish Morea: LT, 165.9–10, 214.8–15; for the Byzantine and the Venetian Morea, see above, 225– 26. On the various grain varieties: LT, 179–83; on millet: LT, 190.21. Vetch was also grown for cattle fodder: LT, 170.15, 171.9, 181.17.23, 183.9.30. 256  Seeds and payments in kind: LT, 200.13–16. In 1354 large quantities of barley and millet were stored in the castle of Sancto Arcangelo, presumably as fodder: LT, 89.10–11. Salaries in kind are recorded in LT, 157–192, 199–215, docs. IX, XI–XII, passim.

Yet the large landowners and their stewards were also keen to produce surpluses and take advantage of good market prices offered for grain, which in some years were enhanced by prospects of export. Indirect evidence in this respect is also reflected by the numerous massarie existing throughout the Frankish Morea and the establishment of new ones, some even on marginal lands of the seignorial demesne unsuited for this crop, as revealed by a specific case in 1361 already noted earlier.257 In 1379 the absence of grain in Grizi, a village of southern Messenia, was rather exceptional. Aldobrando Baroncelli saw fit to provide an explanation: “From this village there is no yield of grain, because it is a stony place.” 258 The villeins were under constant pressure to deliver the ycomodium and modiaticum to their lord, taxes generally paid in grain though sometimes in cash.259 Microclimate, weather conditions, the nature of the soil, and seed qualities go far to explain substantial differences in local productivity. Grain harvests also varied widely from year to year. The harvest of 1360 on the massarie of Mary of Bourbon was definitely a bad one all over Mes­ senia, as reported from Androusa, Pyla on the Bay of Navarino, as well as Mani and Kalamata in the east. Once seeds were put aside and some supplies were stored in castles, nothing was left for sale.260 The year 1365 was even worse in some places. In Vasilikata, to the northwest of Corinth, there simply was no yield of grain on the massaria and other seignorial land because of the drought, and the poor harvest of the peasants is reflected by the small amounts of grain collected from them as gimorum, a payment to the lord possibly amounting to one-tenth of the produce. Consequently, wheat and barley seeds had to be imported from Patras and from Megara, situated east of Corinth in the Catalan duchy of Athens.261 In 1379 the seignorial millet and oats harvest at Kremmydi, in southern Messenia, did not even yield the amount of seed sown, and in the autumn seeds had to be 257  See above, 231. 258  LT, 203.28–29. 259  On these taxes, see LT, 270–71. 260  LT, 146.22–147.3. 261  LT, 164.14–20: “non frutteron niente per secho”; 187.24–25, 188.34–189.4. On the gimorum, see LT, 269–70. The vine fared better: LT, 166.1–23.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

245

brought from the neighboring village of Macona, which had enjoyed a good harvest.262 Assuming that the cultivated surfaces re­­ mained the same, which is far from certain if a two-year rotation of crops was practiced, yield ratios in ten villages calculated from the figures of grain harvested and the amount of seeds put aside for sowing reveal a large variance from place to place, approximately 1.6–5.0 to one for wheat, 1.6– 6.3 to one for barley, and 1.2–5.1 to one for oats, if there was any yield at all.263 Yields may have been higher in some particularly fertile regions, such as the rich plain of Gastouni.264 In any event, it is impossible to assess the average productivity in these grain varieties, although it must have been lower than in the Turkish period.265 Wheat was presumably also grown in the zevgilateia of the Byzantine Morea.266 Residents of Methone cultivated it on their plots in 1344 and 1372.267 Venice’s instructions of 1410 aimed at the villeins of the district of Korone illustrate the growing of wheat, barley, and oats.268 The zovaticum imposed upon state villeins in the districts of Korone and Methone was a tax paid in wheat.269 In 1418 the castellan of Korone ordered the hanging of four Albanians who were Byzantine subjects for stealing wheat, barley, cotton, wine, and other goods from Venetian territory.270 The extension of grain cultivation in all three political entities of the Peloponnese is also suggested by the continuous import of iron plowshares. In 1389 Venice prohibited the export of these commodities from Korone and Methone to the territories of Nerio Acciajuoli.271 In 1394 it referred to the longtime export of plowshares to 262  LT, 202.5–6, 29–31. 263  LT, 200–205. Crop rotation in cereal cultivation is not attested in the sources bearing on the Frankish Morea, yet not excluded. For thirteenth-century Byzantium, see Lefort, “The Rural Economy,” 258–60. 264  Therefore later called by the Turks “Little Egypt”: Topping, “The Post-Classical Documents,” 71. 265  On which see ibid., 77. 266  On which see above, 231. 267 Nanetti, DV, 1:116–17, no. 1.124. see also 1164, no. 3.53. 268  See above, note 53. 269  Jacoby, “Un aspect de la fiscalité vénitienne,” 412–13, 417–19. 270  Sathas, 3:175. 271 Chrysostomides, MP, 112, no. 51.

246

david jacoby

the Frankish principality and to the despotate.272 Incidentally, this traffic took place despite the arrival of raw iron shipments from Crete to Korone, Methone, Nauplion, and Monemvasia. Strangely, no blacksmiths are recorded in the surveys of Frankish villages. Local blacksmiths’ activity in the Peloponnese, presumably concentrated in cities, appears to have focused on small iron instruments used in cultivation, such as sickles and hoes, and others in domestic use, rather than on plowshares.273 Since the large landowners maintained their hold on the most fertile land in their estates,274 it is obvious that differences in productivity were also partly related to the peasants’ motivation and the amount of work they invested in the lord’s and in their own land, respectively. It is noteworthy that the Italian stewards were aware of the problems they were facing. Two of them, therefore, decided that grain cultivation should be concentrated on fertile land only. Moreover, productivity could also be raised by a proper selection of seeds and more intensive cultivation. To this effect a larger investment of human and animal labor was indispensable. The Italian stewards advocated, therefore, that the lords establish a tighter control over the labor force at their disposal and put to work as many oxen as possible, both their own and those of their peasants.275 They most likely also favored the use of better plows. For lack of information it is impossible to determine to what extent they managed to implement their own recommendations or were successful in their endeavor to enhance the peasants’ input and to raise grain productivity. The milling of grain reveals important aspects of estate management and commercialization in 272  Ibid., 258, no. 134. 273  Ch. Gasparis, “Ἡ ναυτιλιακή κίνηση ἀπό τήν Κρήτη πρός τήν Πελοπόννησο κατά τό 14ο αἰῶνα,” Τά Ἱστορικά 9 (1988): 310, for shipments in the first half of the fourteenth century. It is likely that they continued later. On blacksmiths, see e.g., Nanetti, DV, 2:473, s.v. “faber.” On the objects and the activity of village blacksmiths, some of which were found on a tenth- and eleventh-century site at Nichoria in northern Messenia and later layers at Corinth, see Pitarakis, “Objets métalliques,” 247–65, esp. 248–55, 261–62. 274  See above, 228. 275  See above, 228.

the late medieval Peloponnese. Mills are recorded in almost all the Frankish villages surveyed in the fourteenth century.276 With few exceptions they were owned by landowners. Some were directly operated by the landowner’s officials, while others were leased in return for payments in kind or cash, like four mills at Vourkano and a mill at Corinth.277 Similar ownership existed in the large estates of the Byzantine Morea. A chrysobull issued by Emperor Andronikos II in 1301 lists four mills erected by the metropolitan church of Monemvasia in its estate of Helos. The monastery of the Virgin of Brontocheion in Mistra owned several mills, as recorded from 1312–13 to 1339, each estate containing one or more of them. Mills are also recorded in other estates of the Byzantine Morea. The zevgilateia recorded in an inscription commissioned by the metropolitan of Sparta in 1339 contained a mill.278 Matheos Rhalles Melikes, member of a prominent family in the Byzantine Morea, was granted mills at Mantinea by Despot Demetrios Palaiologos (1449–1460). He apparently lost these mills in the political turmoil generated by the fall of the despotate in 1460. In 1468, following the extension of Venetian rule over Monemvasia and its region, he requested Venice’s assistance in their recovery.279 In 1420 a resident of Patras owned a mill at Sichna, east of the city, operated by a miller in return for a salary or a lease payment.280 Mills are attested in 1482 at Kiveri, present Myloi, in the Argolid.281 The capacity of seignorial mills varied. It is a safe guess that the four seignorial mills operating simultaneously at Vourkano in Messenia were small.282 Others were more powerful. In 1354 Petoni had a water mill operating only in the winter, yet there were surely such mills along perennial

276  See LT, 320, s.v. “molendinus.” 277  LT, 82.27, 139.3–6, 162.21–22. 278  MM, 5:161–65, esp. 164. Millet, “Les inscriptions byzantines,” 100–106. The distinction between one or several mills in individual estates proves that their listing does not reflect a formula. 279  Sathas, 5:35. 280 Gerland, NQ , 199–204, esp. 203. 281  Sathas, 6:197; new ed. Wright, The Greek Correspon­ dence, 239. 282  LT, 100.17.25.30.34.

watercourses at other locations.283 Windmills are recorded at Methone and in the city’s surroundings by the second half of the fifteenth century.284 The ownership of seignorial mills in the Frankish Morea was sometimes divided between two or more landowners, either because they had jointly financed their construction or following the division of an estate among several fiefholders.285 Large mills produced high annual revenues, whether in kind or in cash. In 1337 the one in Boscio yielded six modii of wheat, and those at Kotychi and Mavrion in Elis 20 and 50 hyperpyra respectively.286 In 1379 the lord’s mill at Corinth yielded 80 hyperpyra, 60 in cash and 20 by milling the lord’s grain, thus saving the expense.287 Since mills, especially powerful ones, were a lucrative source of revenue, large landowners ensured their smooth operation and built new mills. The metropolitan church of Monemvasia erected four of them before 1301, as noted earlier. The seignorial steward administering Corinth’s finances invested 33 hyperpyra in the purchase of a milling stone and in repair work to the mill in 1379.288 In the same year Aldobrando Baroncelli built a new mill at Andravida, for which he bought a circular grinding stone costing 15 hyperpyra, a fruitful investment since he assessed the mill’s yearly revenue at 120 hyperpyra.289 The construction and repairs of mills seem to suggest an increase in grain production. Exceptionally a few villeins of Petoni owned mills in 1354. Rather than domestic hand mills used for household consumption, these were 283  Winter only: LT, 113.2. On water mills, see also Sharon E. J. Gerstel, “Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village: Ecclesiastical and Rural Landscapes in the Late Byzantine Peloponnese,” in this volume, notes 44–45. 284  Sathas, 4:178, in 1473; by travelers: Santo Brasca, Viaggio in Terrasanta di Santo Brasca, 1480, con l’itinerario di G. Capodilista, ed. A. L. Momigliano Lepschy (Milan, 1966), 61, par. 38. On Byzantine water mills, see Bryer, “The Means of Agricultural Production,” 111. Windmills are recorded in the Aegean from the thirteenth century onward and may have been introduced from the West. 285  Half a mill: LT, 25.38, 65.22–66.21, mill and other assets divided between two landowners in Krestena; quarter of a mill: LT, 47.26, 78.17–19. 286  LT, 47.26, 38.8, 43.17. 287  LT, 162.1.21–22, 163.23–28. 288  See previous note. 289  LT, 206.18–21, 215.16.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

247

presumably small mills grinding grain in return for payment. They are registered among the assets owned by the villeins, who all paid a uniform sum to their lord, clearly in return for authorization to operate them.290 It follows that within their estates large Frankish and Byzantine landowners alike considered grain milling a source of revenue, as duly illustrated above, and maintained a monopoly on this activity, preventing peasants from erecting or owning mills attending to market demand, except in return for a fee. This monopoly must have been inherited from the pre-1204 Byzantine period.291 Surpluses of grain were irregularly exported from the Peloponnese. In 1271 a cargo of wheat worth over 600 hyperpyra on the way from Glarentza to Crete was captured by pirates.292 Glarentza exported some grain around 1340 to Venice, Ancona, and Florence.293 Grain was traded at Patras, as attested in 1355 and 1408.294 Wheat was exported from Methone to Venice in 1344.295 As noted earlier, grain was grown in the territory of Korone by 1418.296 Ragusan merchants preferably purchased grain directly from estates located between Korone and Glarentza in 1329 or in the gulf of Patras in the 1430s and 1440s rather than 290  LT, 105.15–16, 107.41–48, a mill jointly owned by three villeins, 109.5, 111.39–40.43–45, 127.28–29. Therefore, these were not mills built by dependent peasants on the landowner’s land, the revenue of which was divided between the two parties; such cases in Byzantium have been examined by A. Laiou and D. Simon, “Eine Geschichte von Mühlen und Mönchen: Der Fall der Mühlen von Chantax,” Bolletino dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano, 3rd ser., 30 (1992): 645–48, 662–64. 291 Harvey, Economic Expansion, 133, contends that the Byzan­t ine landowner did not consider milling profitable and lacked authority to compel peasants under his jurisdiction to grind their grain in his mill, unlike the rule in Western Europe, because “the development of feudal jurisdiction was stunted by the bureaucratic apparatus of the state.” These arguments are not tenable in view of the evidence adduced above. Moreover, Harvey, like other authors, has overlooked the informal pressure landowners could exert on their peasants in various economic matters, which will be illustrated below in due course. 292  TTh, 3:242–43; dating by G. Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission of 1278,” BZ 69 (1976): 428, no. 30. 293  Pegolotti, 117, 149, 159, 198; Tzavara, Clarentza, 299. 294 Gerland, NQ , 158, 164. 295  See above, 246. 296  Sathas, 3:175.

248

david jacoby

buying it in these ports, in order to bypass intermediaries. Grain was also available at Nauplion, as in 1455.297 However, the Peloponnese often imported grain, especially after bad harvests. Frankish noblemen obtained permission to bring from the kingdom of Sicily wheat and barley for their households. At several occasions in the 1270s and 1280s King Charles I of Sicily ordered royal wheat and barley from his territories to be sold in Glar­ entza in order to finance his military operations, or authorized exports to the principality.298 These shipments imply temporary shortages in the Peloponnese. Import from Catania to Glarentza is attested in 1314.299 Shortage of grain and a steep rise in price in 1340 induced officials at Glarentza to compel a Venetian merchant to unload 1,500 modii of wheat from a ship anchoring in the port and to sell it at a price below the one he demanded.300 Regional trade in grain from Thebes in Boeotia to Glarentza, and from this port to Patras, as well as imports from Sicily and Apulia, took place around 1340.301 Corinth imported grain from Patras and Megara in 1365, as noted earlier. Later imports are confirmed by a commercial manual presumably composed in the 1380s by a member or employee of the Datini trading company based at Prato, Italy.302 Venice strictly controlled the grain trade in Crete and exports from the island, yet there was also a free trade under the state’s supervision. In the fourteenth century officials granted permits for export to Venice and Venetian territories overseas, primarily to Venetian-ruled territories such as Korone, Methone, as well as Nauplion after 1389, yet also 297  B. Krekic, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au moyen âge (Paris and The Hague, 1961), 188, 308, 318, 325, 342, 393, nos. 139, 140, 868, 927, 967, 1070, 1072, 1335; see also map, 88. 298 Tzavara, Clarentza, 296–98; M. Dourou-Heliopoulou, “Προσέγγιση στην οικονομική πολιτική του Καρόλου Αʹ του Ανδεγαυού (1266–1285) στη Ρωμανία: Οργάνωση εμπορίουεμπορικοί σταθμοί-νόμισμα,” in Moschonas, Χρήμα και αγορά, 50–53. 299 Krekic, Dubrovnik, 182, no. 106. 300  See above, 226, and Leduc, Venezia-Senato: Delibera­ zioni miste, vol. 6, Registro XIX, 346–47, no. 614. 301  Pegolotti, 118, 119, and 113, 166–67, 170, respectively. 302  C. Ciano, ed., La “pratica di mercatura” datiniana (secolo XIV) (Milan, 1964), 60; on the author and dating of this work, see ibid., 7–13 and 30–39.

to Monemvasia.303 Some of the grain must have been used for the provisioning of ships in transit in the Venetian-ruled ports, yet the imports suggest that the southern Peloponnese was not selfsufficient in grain supply. In 1442 a shortage of grain in Methone prompted the local authorities to confiscate seven hundred modii of wheat from a ship sailing to Venice from Negroponte, where the harvest had been abundant.304 The Turkish raids in the late fourteenth and fifteenth century, which inflicted the loss of grain in specific areas, increased the need for supplies from other regions. In short, on the whole grain production was intended primarily for local consumption. Its extension by the establishment of new massarie in the Frankish Morea was sponsored by Italian stewards coming from or having operated in regions of central and especially southern Italy exporting grain on a large scale. Continuous imports of iron plowshares to the principality, the despotate, and Venetian Messenia suggest an intensification of grain cultivation in all three entities. However, the apparent increase in grain production, though concurrent with the continuous decline in local population after the Black Death, did not generate sizeable and regular surpluses for export. Two factors account for this failure: highly variable natural conditions, frankly adverse in some years; and, more importantly, the high vulnerability of grains, crops indispensable for men and beast, to military operations causing interruptions in cultivation and heavy damage to harvests. It should be remembered that cereals were mostly cultivated in valleys and lowlands through which raiding parties and armies traveled.

Wine and Currants Wine of varying quality, whether pure, resinated, cooked, or mixed with water, was a beverage of all 303  See D. Tsougarakes, “Ἡ σιτική πολιτική τῆς Βενετίας στήν Κρήτη τόν 130 –140 αἰώνα: Παραγωγή, διακίνηση καί τιμές τοῦ σιταριοῦ,” Μεσαιωνικὰ καὶ Νέα Ἑλληνικὰ 3 (1990): 333–85, esp. 365–67; Gasparis, “Ἡ ναυτιλιακή κίνηση,” 287–318, esp. 309–10. 304  R. C. Mueller, “Pubblico e privato nel dominio veneziano delle isole greche a metà Quattrocento: Il caso dei Giustinian,” in Venezia e le Isole Ionie, ed. C. Maltezou and G. Ortalli (Venice, 2005), 81.

social strata in the Middle Ages.305 Wine provided vital calories and nutrients and, in small amounts, was included in church services. In addition, various wine and vine products were used in medicine.306 Winemaking in the Peloponnese was oriented toward domestic consumption far more than was oil production. Local and regional demand was sustained by peasants or urban residents not producing their own wine, or whose production failed to cover their household’s needs. This demand stimulated the production of surpluses on a moderate scale and the conduct of short- and medium-range wine trade overland and along the Peloponnesian coast. Since vine growing was carried out in extensive regions around the Mediterranean, the production of surpluses for export was possible and profitable only if quality, price, or both were competitive in external markets. Not surprisingly, viticulture was widespread throughout the Peloponnese wherever conditions were suitable, far more than olive growing.307 Vineyards were included in the estates of 305 Decker, Tilling the Hateful Earth, 122–29, on the vineyard, its management, and wine production in the late antique East. For Byzantium, see M. Kaplan, “La viticulture byzantine (VIIe–XIe siècles),” in Olio e vino, 1:163–207; E. Kislinger, “Retsina e balnea: Consumo e commercio del vino a Bisanzio,” in Storie del vino, ed. P. Scarpi, Homo edens . . . Regimi, miti e pratiche dell’alimentazione nella civiltà del Mediterraneo 2 (Milan, 1991), 77–84; I. Genov, “Vorbereitung des Weins und Weinsorten in Byzanz,” ÉtBalk 25, no. 2 (1989): 114–23, provides some partial evidence, yet without any regard for chronology. On the consumption of must, the unfermented grape juice or new wine, see below. 306  Lev and Amar, Practical Materia Medica, 176–80. See also below, 254. 307  Numerous vineyards are mentioned or implied in the documents pertaining to the Frankish Morea. The following three volumes edited by Y. Pikoulas contain some studies on wine and wine-related topics in the medieval Peloponnese, partly based on LT, yet these studies are merely descriptive and do not consider the data within the evolution of the region’s rural economy: Οἶνον ἱστορῶ, vol. 1, Αμπελοοινική ιστορία και αρχαιολογία της ΒΔ Πελοποννήσου (Αthens, 2001); Οἶνον ἱστορῶ, vol. 6, Αρκαδικά οινολογήματα (Athens, 2007); Οἶνον ἱστορῶ, vol. 9, Πολυστάφυλος Πελοπόννησος (Athens, 2009). Two additional studies cover specific regions: N. I. Skangos, “Η αμπελοκαλλιέργεια στη Λακωνία κατά τους βυζαντινούς χρόνους,” in E. Anagnostakes, Μονεμβάσιος οἶνος—Μονοβασ(ι)ιά—Malvasia, vol. 5 of Οἶνον ἱστορῶ (Athens, 2008), 223–58, for the period from the tenth century onward, partly refers to a region included in LT; A. Nanetti, “Vigne, vitigni, uva, mosto e vini malvasia

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

249

lay and ecclesiastical landowners, in the holdings of dependent peasants, and among the assets of urban residents. They appear in 1292 at several locations around Korone308 and between 1395 and 1440 around Patras as property of Latin and Greek freemen.309 In the eleventh to fourteenth centuries the value of cultivated vineyards in Byzantium was 5.5 to 10 times higher than that of arable land.310 There is no evidence in this respect for the late medieval Peloponnese, although vineyards were clearly a good investment, and their cultivation appears to have been profitable. The location of vineyards was determined by natural conditions ensuring the best possible grape harvests. As a result, many small vineyards were contiguous, and those held by villeins were mostly separated from other land included in their individual holdings.311 Sometimes these vineyards bordered on those included in the landowner’s demesne. Four vineyards abandoned by peasants at Armiro, southeast of Kalamata, had been reinserted within the lord’s demesne by 1336. Measurements for three of them, some 788, 520, and 933 square meters respectively, provide some indications regarding the size of villeins’ vineyards.312 For many peasants the sale of wine

surpluses deriving from the vineyards included in their holdings may have provided a sizeable and vital portion of their income, yet it also explains the wide-scale leasing of seignorial vineyards by villeins in the Frankish Morea. Seignorial vineyards are recorded in several estates.313 Vines trained up olive trees are recorded in 1336 on demesne land in Calivia and in 1354 at Sklavochori and Pyla.314 This cultivation practice is attested in Byzantium by the tenth-century Geoponika and other sources, and depicted in a British Library manuscript of 1355.315 The expansion of vineyards within the landowner’s demesne, apparently on large stretches of land, is attested in Grizi in 1354 and in Vasilikata in 1365.316 Like olive growing their cultivation was carried out either by compulsory labor, a salaried workforce, or by lease contracts. Instances of compulsory service have been mentioned above.317 In 1337 half the yield of must, the unfermented grape juice or new wine from demesne vineyards, was spent on hired labor and other expenses. In the 1360s and 1370s the expenses covered cultivation, pruning, watering, moving the soil, harvesting the grapes, and transporting the must to wine cellars. The workers were paid in wine or cash.318

nei documenti notarili e negli Statuti veneziani di Methone e Korone (secoli XIII–XV),” in Anagnostakes, Μονεμβάσιος οἶνος, 259–78. For Byzantine Lakonia, see Kalligas, “Monemvasia,” in EHB 2:888–90. She points to numerous toponyms and wine presses implying viticulture, yet these cannot be dated. She also partly relies on data included in a report of 1828 to assess wine production, yet backward projections to the Byzantine period must be ruled out given the changes in agricultural production from the late fifteenth to the nineteenth century. The technical terminology of vinegrape cultivation under Latin rule is thoroughly treated by Topping, “Viticulture in Venetian Crete,” 509–20. 308  Pasquale Longo, 13–14, 34, 43–44, 54–57, 69, 76–79, respectively nos. 10, 43, 56, 71, 87, 94. 309 Gerland, NQ , 181–91, 194–97, 224–27; for their location see Bon, La Morée franque, 453–57. 310  Kaplan, “La viticulture byzantine,” 170–72; Laiou, “The Agrarian Economy,” 1:360. 311  LT, 120.3–7, 121.25–26; contiguous vineyards of freemen in the region of Patras: Gerland, NQ , 185.7–13, 187.4–10. 312  LT, 23.28–24.2. The first vineyard appears under a specific name, not found among the local villeins. The other three were contiguous, yet their separate listing implies that at some time in the past they had been included in separate peasant holdings. The measurements are stated in passi, or steps, the value of which is unknown yet must have been

around 1.70 meters (the Venetian passus was 1.74 meters long), which is the length I have adopted for my calculations. 313  One of them as “vinea despotico”: LT, 28.30–31. For the use of the term δεσποτικός in Byzantine registration, see Kaplan, “La viticulture byzantine,” 173, 183, 200–201. 314  This is suggested by the formulation in LT, 26.15–16: “ambellonia, id est quedam terre ubi plantantur vinee et alie res, necnon et eciam arbores olivarum”; LT, 82.9: “lo quarto de le vinee de Sclavoforo co olive”; and LT, 83.15: “la meatate de vinee co l’olive.” 315  Kaplan, “La viticulture byzantine,” 176–77; Bryer, “The Means of Agricultural Production,” after 104 (fig. 1), and see also 105. 316  LT, 87.17: “vinia una in le saline fata da nobu per eudem vicario,” a vineyard recently planted on the orders of the landowner’s agent. The location in a salt pan is implausible and the mistaken reference clearly derives from the listing of a salt pan in the previous line of the survey. Another new vineyard is listed in LT, 166.2–3, “fruttoron la vingne della Bassilichata”; this appears to have been the first time. 317  See above, 227–29, 231–32, 250. 318  LT, 42.17–21, 43.19–21, 173.4–5, 186.4–5.7, 191.8 (“li vinie potare, beverare, rezapare”), 201.18. For rezapare, see above, note 139.

250

david jacoby

Seignorial expenses for winemaking also included the purchase of pine resin,319 the hiring of wine masters,320 and the manufacture of wine casks, which required barrel staves and iron hoops. In 1365 the landowner’s steward hired coopers who were supplied with them at Ayios Georgios. In addition, 114 hoops were sent to Vasilikata and eighty-six to the seignorial keeper of the wine cellar at Corinth.321 Coopers were active at Methone in 1335, 1348, 1374, and a hoop maker at Korone in 1374.322 However, a contract concluded at Korone in 1335 stipulated that a ship from Korone manned by fifteen sailors and two ship boys would pick up eighty casks of the same size produced in the island of Sapienza, south of Methone, and once filled with wine in the city would carry them to Constantinople.323 Various toponyms point to other centers of cask manufacture, such as Porto delle Botte, a site attested in the fourteenth century along the eastern coast of Lakonia close to Hierax.324 Lease contracts were extensively used for vineyard cultivation. The lease of an abandoned and uncultivated peasant vineyard was registered in 1354 in a novo inventario.325 The Byzantine ἡμισεία or ἡμισοφυτευσία contract for the planting of new vineyards is often recorded.326 As noted earlier, it called for the equal division between landowner and cultivator of newly planted vines. This type of contract was especially suited for the cultivation of vines, which require care practically throughout the entire year. It was apparently more common than in the preceding Byzantine period, in view of the extension of vine cultivation, examined below.327 Another form of association was 319  LT, 173.7, 175.6, 184.7, 185.1, 186.5. Pines producing resin were included in the seignorial demesne in Krestena: LT, 71.12–13. On pine resin, see Dunn, “The Exploitation and Control of Woodland,” 291–92. 320  LT, 173.7, 186.9, “alli mastri ispese per vino.” 321  LT, 173.7, 175.5–6, 184.31–33, 186.6.8. 322 Nanetti, DV, 1:190–92, no. 3.94; 2:83–84, no. 6.146; 2:257–58, no. 7.51; and 1:196–97, no. 3.102, respectively. 323  Ibid., 2:67–69, no. 6.115. The casks’ capacity is not stated. 324  Skangos, “Η αμπελοκαλλιέργεια στη Λακωνία.” 325  LT, 118.14–16. 326  On this contract, see above, note 151. 327  LT, 27.21–23: “medietas vinearum despotico,” i.e., seignorial . . . “cum duabus plantis quas plantavit Morroy,”

involved in the ἀνάκαμψις, a long-term Byzantine emphyteusis contract attested in the Byzantine Morea and as accapto in the fourteenth-century Frankish Morea. In some instances it provided for equal shares of the vineyard or the grape harvest, while in others it apparently entailed a yearly payment from the third year after planting, when the first grape harvest was expected.328 Wine produced from seignorial vineyards got spoiled in several Frankish villages in the absence of adequate maturation and storage facilities. In 1354 the steward who built the tower at Krestena included a wine cellar in the new structure.329 In the same year there were eleven casks in the wine cellar at Macona, seven of them belonging to two fugitive villeins who had filled them with wine from their respective vineyards. The wine had obviously been confiscated when it became clear that they would not return. Also in 1354, eleven casks with a total volume of 560 metri were stored in the wine cellars at Sancto Arcangelo, yet in 1379 production exceeded storage capacity and much wine was being discarded. The steward of Angelo Acciajuoli stated that he would attempt to build a wine cellar.330 In the same year most thus newly planted; 49.32: “vinee . . . medietarum”; 70.28: “la miatate de la vinea”; 80.15–16: “medietat[em] unius part[is] vinee”; 113.7: “medietas vinearum”; 121.4–6: “la viggna chi tene a mitate”; 122.32–33: “la viggna chi plantao a mitate”; 123.43–45. Evidence for the area of Patras in 1395: Gerland, NQ , 181–82, doc. 5. On lease contracts in thirteenth-century Crete, see Topping, “Viticulture in Venetian Crete,” 509– 20. See also Jacoby, La féodalité, 37–38; D. Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie: Phénomènes sociaux et économiques (1204–1350 environ),” in XV CEB (Athens, 1976), Rapports et co-rapports (Athens, 1976), I/3, 13–14; repr. in Jacoby, Recherches, no. I; Hodgetts, “Land Problems,” 140; Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Latin Romania,” 18. 328  LT, 121.35–38: “una vignna . . . per accaptto . . . laquali fo datta appyantare a mitate”; 122.32–33, 123.41–42, 186.19– 21. This contract is attested in 1217 in Byzantium and in the survey of 1219 covering Venetian-ruled Lampsakos: respectively MM, 3:237–39, and Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire,” 180 and nn. 134, 199. On its terms, see Zakythinos, DGM, 2:183–87. See also M. Kaplan, “Quelques remarques sur les contrats de bail pour les vignes du monastère de Vatopédi,” in Byzantium, State and Society: In Memory of Nikos Oikonomidès, 283–95. 329  On the tower, see above, note 216. 330  LT, 129.16–18, 127.9–10, 205.22–27, respectively. Wine casks differed in size, as illustrated by data for several wine cellars, namely eleven casks holding 230 metri, eleven holding 560 metri, six holding 200 metri, twelve holding 260

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

251

wine produced at Krestena got spoiled. Elsewhere wine cellars were being rented, yet the steward declared that he would buy one, it is unclear from whom, to save renting expenses. At Kremmydi the seignorial wine was stored in three taverne.331 The documents of the Frankish Morea use both cellarium and taverna for wine cellars, though only the latter functioned as wine shop.332 The volume of wine the landowner’s demesne produced was enlarged by the tax paid by his villeins in must, defined as ycometrum or mostoforia, an unknown proportion of the yield from their own vineyards.333 Moreover, landowners acquired surpluses of must from villeins.334 Villeins were eager to sell them when they lacked storage facilities in which the wine could safely mature or in order to avoid the need to market surpluses on their own. Landowners used some of their must or wine for local consumption, whether selling it in taverns or as partial payment of small salaries in kind in order to obtain cash needed for the operation of the seignorial exploitation and management.335 It should be noted that most taverns appearing in numerous settlements included in seignorial estates were owned by the estates’ landowners.336 The villeins operating the other taverns paid a sum in cash to the landowner, and so did a villein who had established a small tavern on demesne land at Andravida before 1337.337 Since these sums were not included in the annual taxes owed by the villeins for their respective holdings, they appear to have covered the renting or leasing of the taverns or a license to run them, rather than a tax. The payments imply that the taverns were considered seignorial property or that their operation required seignorial authorization. In any event, it is clear that the metri, six holding 260 metri, six holding 114 metri: LT, 127.9–10 128.2–30 129.16–18, 20–24. 331  LT, 201.17–21, 213.27–214.3, 202.8, 211.7. 332  At Kremmydi, “taberna seu celariu”: LT, 77.4; taverna used for wine cellar: 205.22–24. 333  On these two terms, see LT, 271–272, and index rerum, 320 and 324, under these terms. LT, 160.11–21, lists the yield from seignorial vineyards and from the villeins’ mostoforia and states that the volume of wine obtained is smaller by one-quarter than the volume of must. 334  LT, 100.21–22. 335  LT, 161.1–8. On salaries, see above, 232, 245, 250. 336  See LT, 323, Index rerum, s.v. “taberna.” 337  LT, 42.3–4.

252

david jacoby

landowners maintained a monopoly on the commercialization of wine within their own estates.338 This monopoly did not extend to the wine sold elsewhere by villeins, as illustrated in 1336. Giovanetta, wife of Viviano the shoemaker, who resided in Methone, listed in her will several Greek individuals owing her must totaling 326 metri, clearly in return for loans she had granted them in anticipated purchases.339 Two Greeks resided in Maniatochori and four in neighboring Mesochori, villages included in the Frankish Morea at that time and thus outside Venetian territory.340 Five Greek wine producers had also assumed the expenses for the casks, the tar to seal them, and transportation from their village to the lender’s warehouse or wine cellar.341 In other cases Giovanetta assumed these expenses.342 Sale credit, already noted above with respect to oil, often resulted in the heavy indebtedness of cultivators who were compelled to pay interest for the period extending between the grant of the loan and the delivery of the produce.343 In order to protect vine growers, Venice prohibited in 1397 the purchase of must or young wine before the end of August, thus close to the grape harvest. However, a decree of 1447 proves that sale credit for must and wine was still common.344

338  A tavern operated in a settlement next to the castle of Araklovon, in a fief of the Skorta region belonging to Geoffrey of Briel until his death in 1275: Livre de la conqueste, 227, par. 571. The tavern’s owner is unknown. 339 Nanetti, DV, 2:158–59, no. 6.263. 340  On their location, see Topping, “Frankish Estate,” 429 and 430 (map). The villages were situated less than 10 kilometers north of Methone. On sale credit, see above, 241. 341  “Quod mustum debet mihi dare cum omnibus expensis tam vegetum quam pice et agoçi.” Pix is tar, modified resin obtained from the wood and roots of pine: see Dunn, “The Exploitation and Control of Woodland,” 290. Wine containers were capped with a pine-tar mixture to seal the wine container, which gave the wine a pine taste. Agoçi is an italianized version of Greek ἀγωγίον, transportation costs, as in a survey of 1379: LT, 188.18: “per agozia per portare”; for both terms, see LT, 173 n. 47. Nanetti, “Vigne,” 274, has mistakenly assumed that pix and agoçus were substances used in wine production. 342  Transportation costs assumed by the producer are documented in thirteenth-century Crete: Jacoby, “Cretan Cheese,” 52. 343  On sale credit, see above, 241. 344  See above, 242.

The extension of vine growing suggested by various sources examined above was clearly market oriented. Surpluses of low-grade wines, such as resinated ones, were primarily aimed at Pelopon­ nesian customers, while higher qualities could be exported. Transportation costs and market conditions were also important factors. Wine produced at Petoni in northern Messenia could not easily be sold in 1354 because of the settlement’s isolation and because transportation to other locations was difficult. The wine was kept for the landowner’s consumption. It was envisaged that if the wine of Pyla, in the same region but close to the coast, could not be sold on location, it would be exported by sea, presumably to other localities along the Peloponnesian shore.345 Estimated sale prices of must and wine varied widely. In 1336–38 must was valued from 6 2/3 to 8 and 10 hyperpyra for 100 metri, depending on location.346 In 1379 wine was estimated to fetch 49 or 50 and 100 hyperpyra per 100 metri respectively at Kremmydi in Messenia, Sperone in Elis, and Krestena in the same region.347 The first two prices may reflect resinated wine of lower value, while the latter was undoubtedly a superior brand. The sale of seignorial wine in Sperone represented one-third of the total revenue from this estate, which illustrates the importance of wine production in some villages.348 In the same year the salaries of the castellan, four sergeants, and four guards at Sancto Arcangelo in Messenia included 3 metri of wine each month. Aldobrando Baroncelli assessed the price at 8 solidi or 0.4 hyperpyron per metro, thus 40 hyperpyra per 100 metri, an impossible amount.349 He clearly erred in his calculation, and the correct one was presumably 0.4 hyperpyron for 10 metri or 4 hyperpyra for 100 metri, a rather low price. Wine bought in 1379 for Maddalena Buondelmonti, widow of Leonardo I Tocco, lord of Cephalonia, was paid 8.5 hyperpyra per metro,

345  LT, 128.14–17, 129.23–24, 130.4–5. 346  LT, 26.7–13, 27.21–23, 43.19–21, 66.25–26. 347  LT, 200.17–20, 201.17–21, 202.7–10. 348  LT, 200.20, 201.4. 349  LT, 213.9–13. The expression referring to the value of the metri of wine, vagliono per lo mancho, does not mean “valait au moins,” as in Tzavara, Clarentza, 287, but refers to the substraction of the sum from the lord’s revenue.

including the price of the old casks in which it was shipped.350 It must have been of medium quality. Wine from the region of Monemvasia, called malvasia by the Latins, was undoubtedly the most appreciated brand among those exported from the Peloponnese. The wine is explicitly attested for the first time in 1214. In Constantinople Niko­ laos Mesarites was offered a pungent wine from Euboea, others from Chios and Lesbos, the latter sweeter than honey, and the superior one from Monemvasia.351 Some Monemvasiots residing in Constantinople around that time may have furthered the wine’s import to the city.352 On the other hand, the Venetian connections of Georgios Daimonoioannes, member of one of the leading families in Monemvasia, possibly stimulated Venetian interest and trade in the wine.353 By the 1320s Byzantine connoisseurs particularly appreciated Monemvasia wine, according to John Choumnos.354 In the first half of the fourteenth century Constantinople also served as transit station for Monemvasia wine shipped to the Black Sea ports of Caffa and Tana.355 In 1269 a Venetian exported Monemvasia wine to an unstated destination.356 Around 1320 a vessel from Monemvasia carrying the wine was caught off the island of Kea, southeast of the city.357 Venice repeatedly prohibited the import of foreign wines to Crete, including from Monemvasia, in order to shield local wines from competition. Exceptionally, though, 350  LT, 213.22–24, 214.24–25. 351  E. Kislinger, “Dall’ubriacone al krasopateras: Il consumo del vino a Bisanzio,” in La civiltà del vino: Fonti, temi e produzioni vitivinicole dal Medioevo al Novecento; Atti del convegno, ed. G. Archetti, Monticelli Brusati—Antica Fratta, 5–6 ottobre 2001 (Brescia, 2003), 146–47. 352  On these Monemvasiots, see D. Jacoby, “The Greeks of Constantinople under Latin Rule, 1204–1261,” in The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions, ed. T. F. Madden (Farnham, 2008), 69–70. 353  Suggestion by K.-P. Matschke, “Der Malvasier: Byzanz und die lateinische Romania im spätmittelalterichen und frühneuzeitlichen Westen,” Hellenika, n.s., 5 (2010): 101. 354  J. F. Boissonade, Anecdota nova (Paris, 1844), 216, epist. 6. For the dating of the letter, see Kislinger, “Dall’ubriacone al krasopateras,” 149–50. 355  Pegolotti, 24. 356  TTh, 3:240–41; dating by Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission,” 427, no. 3. 357  DVL, 1:126; see also above, note 228.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

253

Venice’s officials granted some permits to the city’s residents, as in 1314.358 Incidentally, Deme­ trios Pepagomenos, a physician who accompanied Emperor Manuel II to the Peloponnese in 1415 and lived there afterward, recommended in his Liber de Podagra the use of lees from Monemvasia wine for the treatment of gout.359 Malvasia vine stocks were introduced into Crete in the 1330s or somewhat earlier. By 1342 Crete was already producing malvasia wine equal in quality and taste to that of Monemvasia and, as a result, upon arrival in Venice it was impossible to determine the wine’s origin.360 Moreover, growing foreign demand stimulated a substantial expansion of vineyards and wine production in Crete.361 From the mid-fourteenth century onward the high-grade Cretan malvasia acquired a growing share among the wines shipped over long distances, whether to Constantinople and the Black Sea or to England and Flanders. As a result, Monemvasia wine from the Byzantine Morea faced increasing competition.362 Its import 358  R. Cessi and P. Sambin, eds., Le deliberazioni del Consiglio dei Rogati (Senato): Serie “Mixtorum,” I (Venice, 1960), 67, reg. 2, no. 239 (23 August 1302); P. Ratti Vidulich, ed., Duca di Candia: Bandi (1313–1329), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Sez. I, Archivi pubblici (Venice, 1965), 20 and 22, nos. 38 and 44. 359  On the attribution and dating of this work, see S. Lazaris, “La production nouvelle en médecine vétérinaire sous les Paléologues et l’oeuvre cynégétique de Dèmètrios Pépagôménos,” in Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453: Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission, Actes de la Table Ronde organisée au XXe Congrès international d’Études Byzantines, ed. M. Cacouros and M.-H. Congourdeau (Paris, 2001), Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 146 (Leuven, 2006), 251–57. The reference to Monemvasia wine may serve as further argument for the attribution of the work to this physician. Anagnostakes,”Oνομάτων επίσκεψη,” 107–8, mistakenly refers to the reign of Michael VIII. For the correct dating, see also ODB 3:1627, s.v. “Pepagomenos.” 360  S. M. Theotokes, ed., Ἀποφάσεις Μείζονος Συμβουλίου Βενετίας, 1255–1669, Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, Ἀκαδημία Ἀθηνῶν (Athens, 1933), 122–23, no. 21: “quia malvasia de Monovasia possit portari sub specie malvasie de Creta, cum una ab alia non cognoscatur.” 361  M. Gallina, Una società coloniale del Trecento: Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio, Deputazione di storia patria per le Venezie, Miscellanea di studi e memorie 28 (Venice, 1989), 135–38. 362  Jacoby, “Mediterranean Food and Wine,” 138–40. See also Anagnostakes, “Oνομάτων επίσκεψη: Μονεμβάσιος

254

david jacoby

to Crete and reexport from the island is nevertheless attested in 1363, and its arrival in Venice is documented until 1381. The wine’s quality and possibly also the lowering of its sale price may have enabled that traffic.363 However, we do not know until when Monemvasia wine reached Venice, nor whether it was shipped to Constantinople in the first half of the fifteenth century. Malvasia wine attested in that period in the imperial capital without reference to origin may have been produced in regions other than the Byzantine Morea. In 1403 the Genoese of Pera offered malvasia, most likely Cretan, to Emperor John VII and to Ottoman dignitaries. It stands to reason that the malvasia sailing in 1415 and 1444 respectively from Methone and Korone to the Black Sea originated in the Peloponnese, rather than in Crete.364 However, it is not excluded that it had been produced from grapes grown close to the two Venetian ports, rather than in Byzantine Lakonia. As in Crete, market incentive may have induced growers in the Venetian and Frankish Morea to plant malvasia vine stocks. Pilgrims drinking malmasy in Methone in the late fifteenth century considered it superior to Cretan malvasia.365 Venice was a major destination for Pelopon­ nesian wine from the twelfth century onward, if not earlier. In 1173 Doge Sebastiano Ziani fixed a maximum price for the retail sale of wines in Venice, except for vinum de Romania.366 It appears, therefore, that this wine was superior in quality to wines imported from regions closer to Venice. It was presumably Monemvasia wine. By the early fourteenth century Venetian troops operating in northern Italy drank that wine, according to οἶνος—μονοβασ(ι)ιά—malvasia,” in Anagnostakes, Μονεμ­ βάσιος οἶνος, 89–146, for the beginning of malvasia cultivation in Crete. 363  See the distinction between wine from Monemvasia and wine from Romania and Crete in 1363, 1371, and 1381 (twice): Theotokes, Θεσπίσματα τῆς Βενετικῆς Γερουσίας, 2:105, pars. 5 and 6; 151, pars. 8 and 9; 217, par. 2; and 225, par. 5. The decrees thus refer to the city and not to the type of wine. 364  Jacoby, “Mediterranean Food and Wine,” 141, for Pera, and ibid., 139, for the Black Sea. 365  Matschke, “Der Malvasier,” 104–5. Malvasia vines were also grown in the region of Ragusa, present Dubrovnik, from the early fifteenth century: ibid. 366  N. Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Le monete di Venezia (Milan and Venice, 1893–1919), 1:307, no. 3.

Ottokar von der Steiermark.367 It had probably been shipped from Methone, a regular port of call for ships returning to Venice from the eastern Mediterranean, as noted above. Glarentza joined other ports exporting wine after its foundation in the 1260s. The city served as an outlet for wine produced in Elis, its rural hinterland, yet was also a relay and transshipment station for wines in transit originating in regions removed from the main shipping lanes leading to Venice. By 1339 the export of wine from Glarentza to Venice had become routine, as illustrated by a decree regarding wine taxation.368 In the same year a vessel owned by the Venetian Donato family carrying wine and other goods picked up at Glarentza sank off the shore of Apulia on her way to Venice.369 The Apulian port of Barletta was also a destination of wine exported from Glarentza in that period.370 The precise origin of the wine cannot be ascertained. The ratio between the wine measures of Thebes and Glarentza, stated by Pegolotti and other trade manuals of the first half of the fourteenth century,371 suggests the arrival of wine from western Boeotia, ruled by the Catalans of the Duchy of Athens from 1311. It must have been shipped from Livadostro on the eastern shore of the Corinthian Gulf. This port became the major maritime outlet of Boeotia following the treaty of 1319 between Venice and the Catalans, by which the latter undertook to abstain from maritime activity in the Saronic Gulf.372 It is doubtful that the labboraggio tax imposed by 1365 on the loading of casks on boats in Corinth was related to wine exports from the city, which is not attested by any source.373 Wine appears in 1408 among the indigenous products taxed in Patras and was presumably exported from there.374 Wine 367  Matschke, “Der Malvasier,” 102. 368 Theotokes, Ἀποφάσεις, 117, no. 11. 369 Leduc, Venezia-Senato, vol. 6, Registro XIX, 91–92, no. 229. 370  Pegolotti, 170. 371  Ibid., 118. 372  K. M. Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311–1388, rev. ed. (London, 1975), 34–35, 85, 88. 373  LT, 162.17–18, 277. For other arguments against wine exports from Corinth, see the section on currants, below. 374 Gerland, NQ , 164.25–28. It is unclear whether the eight casks containing 36 metri of wine left in Lepanto in

from the region of Nauplion, rich in vineyards as noted earlier, was shipped to an unknown destination in 1272 and to Constantinople in 1370.375 Methone and Korone were the major outlets and transit stations for Peloponnesian wine in the fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth century. The export in casks from Methone to Constantino­ ple is attested in 1335.376 In 1372 a Venetian shipped 130 amphoras of wine from Korone to Venice on an Anconitan vessel, since no Venetian vessel was available. The freight was 3 ducats per amphora, the capacity of which is unfortunately not stated.377 The references to “Romania” and “Romania bassa” wines reaching Venice and Constantinople from Korone and Methone in the fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth century point to origin, rather than to specific brands, since they are often associated with references to Crete, which produced several types of wine. The Byzantine Morea was not included in the Venetian definition of “Romania bassa,” which may refer to Nauplion and, more likely, to the region of Messenia close to Korone and Methone.378 A substantial volume of wine reached the two Venetian ports and passed through them around the mid-fourteenth century, as illustrated by a decree of 1348. Venice expected that a tax of one denier tournois per metro of wine arriving by land in Korone, Methone, and their respective suburbs would yield a yearly revenue of 1,500 hyperpyra or more. The tax was also imposed upon wine sold in these locations or exported from them, if not paid earlier.379 At the rate of 80 deniers tournois to the hyperpyron the sum 1430, which were to be shipped to Patras if unsold, had originally been exported from this city: ibid., 214.14–19. 375  Respectively TTh, 3:274–75, with dating by Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission,” 429, no. 60, and S. Borsari, “I movimenti del porto di Candia AA. 1369–1372 (Dal repertorio del notaio Giorgio Aymo),” Università di Macerata, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 30–31 (1997–98): 332. 376  See above, note 323. The use of casks in the region of Methone is also attested in the following year: “vinum inbutatum,” in botti or casks in Nanetti, DV, 2:112, no. 6.212. 377  Ibid., 1:211–12, no. 4.3. The use of amphoras is noteworthy. 378  Pegolotti, 40; Jacoby, “Mediterranean Food and Wine,” 138–39. See also above, 254. 379 Orlando, Venezia-Senato, Deliberazioni miste, vol. 11, Registro XXIV, no. 551, 251. The reference to gates points to land trade.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

255

represented the arrival, sale, or export of 120,000 metri wine, or some 2,160,000 liters.380 This volume may have represented the annual consumption of some 12,350 people.381 It cannot have been produced in Venetian Messenia only and must have partly originated in the Frankish principality, the Byzantine Morea, or both. Shipment in large casks holding 540.70 liters, similar to those used for Cretan wine, would have required around 3,400 units.382 In 1336 smaller casks holding 25 metri were being used for must.383 In order to boost the levy of taxes Venice decreed that wine collected along the coast ex­­ tending from the island of Proti, west of Mes­ senia, to Cape Akritas between Korone and Methone should be exported exclusively from the latter port. This rule was confirmed in 1342, yet three years later the inhabitants of Korone and Methone were exempted from it.384 By the fifteenth century the shipping of wine to Venice was carried out each year in September by the nave da Modon da le vendeme, “the grape harvest vessels from Modon.”385 The important revenue accruing from the wine trade induced Venice to 380  The two sources on the volume of the wine metro of Korone and Methone differ, one yielding 30.047 and the other 18.028 liters. The latter seems more reliable, since the same measure in Negroponte, where Venice also dominated trade, was equivalent to 18.799 liters: Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 146, 153. I have adopted this volume for my calculation. Incidentally, if the annual volume expected in the two Venetian ports, major exporters of wine, was 2,160,000 liters, it is difficult to envisage that wine production in the region of Monemvasia reached 16,000,000 liters in the late fifteenth century, the figure suggested by Kalligas, “Monemvasia,” in EHB 2:889. It is possible that the 32,000 casks ascribed to that period were smaller than assumed by Kalligas, like those mentioned below. 381 Decker, Tilling the Hateful Earth, 122, suggests an average consumption of 100 liters per person for the late antique period. J. Day, “Prix agricoles en Méditerranée à la fin du XIV e siècle,” AnnalesESC 16 (1961): 638, estimates that the average yearly consumption of wine in Venice, Genoa, and Florence was between 250 and 300 liters, yet this was an exclusively urban population, on the average more affluent than the rural one. For the sake of calculation I have adopted a median figure. 382  On the botte used in Candia, see U. Tucci, “La botte veneziana,” StVen 9 (1967): 213–17, esp. 215–16. 383 Nanetti, DV, 2:158–59, no. 6.263. 384  Sathas, 4:9–10; Nanetti, “Vigne,” 266–67. 385  On the complex taxation system, see Nanetti, “Vigne,” 265–68.

256

david jacoby

pay particular attention to wine production in its Peloponnesian territories, taking measures to preserve existing vineyards from encroachments or damage, renew the cultivation of abandoned ones, and stimulate vine planting. There must have been a temporary contraction of exports after the Turkish incursion of 1397 against Argos and the Albanian raids in the region of Nauplion. In the following years Venice offered barren land and abandoned vineyards to foreigners settling with their families in the countryside surrounding these cities, and promised former residents that they would recover their possessions in the plain of Nauplion.386 In order to boost the restoration of the many vineyards destroyed around Methone by 1480, Venice imposed a heavy tax on all wine and must imported from non-Venetian territories.387 The Peloponnese imported some wine from other regions despite its large-scale production. Wine and cheese from Candia reached Korone in 1269.388 A list of wines apparently bought for a festive occasion in Korone or Methone in 1343 or 1344 includes high-grade wine from Crete, malvasia, at that time presumably from Monemvasia, and San Leo wine produced in the vicinity of Methone.389 Trebbiano wine produced in the Marche was im­­ ported from Ancona in 1374.390 Over time local growers diversified their production, probably in response to the demand for wines lighter and cheaper than malvasia from the numerous mariners and pilgrims calling into the ports of Methone and Korone. Pilgrims visiting Methone in the late fifteenth century praised the local muscatello, which was plentiful and cheap.391 Peloponnesian wines continued to be ex­­ ported in the late Middle Ages. However, the shipping of Byzantine malvasia may have gradually declined from the late fourteenth century onward as a result of competition. Venice strongly 386 Chrysostomides, MP, 392, no. 197, 397, no. 200; Sathas, 2:124. See also Nanetti, “Vigne,” 268–70. 387  Sathas, 4:42–43; Nanetti, “Vigne,” 263–64. 388  TTh, 3:254; dating by Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission,” 427, no. 1. 389  Nanetti, “Vigne,” 272–73. Resinated wine in Methone in 1336: Nanetti, DV, 2:158–59, no. 6.263. 390 Nanetti, DV, 1:248, no. 4.56. 391  Nanetti, “Vigne,” 274–76.

backed by a protectionist policy the production, export, and diffusion of Cretan malvasia, initiated around 1340, granting preferential tax rates to wines from its own territories and limiting the entry of Byzantine malvasia. Cretan malvasia also benefited from efficient Venetian trading, transportation, and distribution networks, the operation of which was supported and stimulated by the Venetian authorities, and from what may be termed a continuous public relations campaign.392 Malvasia may have also been produced in regions of the Peloponnese outside the Byzantine Morea, as noted earlier. By the fifteenth century the market contraction Monemvasia wine experienced may have halted the expansion of vineyards in Lakonia. Contrary to wine, produced on a large scale throughout the Peloponnese, partly for local consumption, currants were produced in specific portions of the peninsula in small quantities and were primarily an export-oriented commodity. Small black and seedless grapes were grown in the regions of Corinth, Argos, and Nauplion, and by the 1340s also in the region of Glarentza, as attested by Pegolotti.393 Niccolò de Martoni praised those of Corinth offered to him by the archbishop of Athens in 1395.394 Once dried, the small black grapes, used as sweeteners, were in high demand and were mostly exported.395 The grapes were grown on the landowners’ demesne land, as well as by freemen and villeins in their respective vineyards, yet the marketing and prices of the currants were strictly regulated by the region’s ruler. In 1360 Averardo de’ Medici, who administered the fief of Argos and Nauplion on behalf of Guy of Enghien, faced a revolt of Greek and other inhabitants of Argos and Nauplion when he imposed the compulsory sale of all currants and figs to his lord.396 The opposition of the 392  On the latter, see Matschke, “Der Malvasier,” 107–8. 393  Pegolotti, 118, 149, 159, 198, 297. See also below, note 418. 394  L. Le Grand, ed., “Relation du pèlerinage à Jérusalem de Nicolas de Martoni, notaire italien (1394–1395),” ROL 3 (1895): 659. 395  The word currant derives from Corinth. The terms appearing in the documents are uva passa and zizibum or gigibum. Chrysostomides, MP, 660, has wrongly identified the latter term as Chinese date. 396  Luttrell, “The Latins of Argos and Nauplion,” 39, 51.

inhabitants was presumably motivated by the sale price imposed by the steward, lower than the common one, rather than by the sale practice, which appears to have been customary. Indeed, its continuity is confirmed by a petition submitted in 1396 on behalf of the bishop and the chapter of the church of Argos and the landowners of the region, two years after Venice’s occupation of the city and its rural area. This petition offers more insights into the commercialization pattern of the currants. The petitioners requested that the custom according to which the landowners buy the currants produced by their own villeins should be respected, the purchase from the villeins of other lords being prohibited. Venice reiterated the rule following illegal dealings by some merchants who purchased currants directly from villeins and by landowners who bought them from the peasants of other landowners. Like individual landowners, Venice purchased the currants produced by its own peasants, who were state villeins. A standard fixed price, regardless of the annual yield, was paid by landowners and by the state for one pentalitron of currants producers offered. Since the pentalitron in Nauplion was lighter by one-third than in Argos, in accordance with the specific weight system of each region, the sums paid were respectively 2 and 3 hyperpyra. In turn Venice enforced a monopoly on the sale of all the currants of Argos and Nauplion to exporters, a system clearly inherited from the previous lords of the land. Its officials or an individual empowered to act on its behalf acquired the currants intended for export from the landowners and the freemen. The office of collector was auctioned off by the state in each single year. Those delivering to the state or to a licensed collector sacks containing a prescribed weight of currants, heavier than the pentalitron mentioned earlier, were paid 13 hyperpyra in cash per sack. A tax of 3 hyperpyra was collected on each sack, thus leaving 10 hyperpyra to the seller.397 At 5 hyperpyra to the ducat, the sum was equivalent to 2 ducats.398 397 Chrysostomides, MP, 364–65, no. 182. The weight of the pentalitron varied according to commodity and area. It is unclear what its actual weight was when used for currants. 398  This rate is attested in Korone and Methone around 1400: A. Stahl, The Venetian Tornesello: A Medieval Colonial

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

257

The authorities auctioned off the export of currants and figs from Argos and Nauplia. Some members of the Mourmouris and Catello families residing in Nauplion acquired a dominant position in the export of currants from their city and of figs from Corinth, as attested in the 1420s.399 Their export to Venice was a lucrative business. Manolis Mourmouris and his brother Nikolakis loaned 1,000 hyperpyra to the Despot of the Morea some time before 1423, without any restraining effect on their business activity.400 In that year Manolis acquired currants weighing 310 stera, or 19,530 kilograms, thus almost twenty tons, the precise origin of which is not stated.401 Some merchants in Venice ordered currants for the following year. In 1430 Giovanni della Torre asked Giovanni Catello to acquire on his behalf all those of Nauplion and Corinth and half the figs of the latter city, thus intending to act as sole importer of Peloponnesian currants to Venice in that year.402 The currants were shipped in casks.403 As noted earlier, casks were manufactured in the Peloponnese, yet possibly not in sufficient numbers. In 1377 Federico Cornaro obtained permission from Venice’s government to send forty wine casks and forty other

Coinage, The American Numismatic Society, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 163 (New York, 1985), 18. 399  A. Tzavara, “Devozione, violenza e uva passa: Le famiglie di Mourmouris e Catello di Nauplion nel XV secolo,” in Maltezou, Tzavara, and Vlassi, I Greci durante la venetocrazia, 597–606. On earlier members of this family: an inscription of 1244 recording Manouil Mourmouras: S. Kalopissi-Verti, Die Kirche der Hagia Triada bei Kranidi in der Argolis (1244): Ikonographische und stilistische Analyse der Malereien, Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 20 (Munich, 1975), 2 and fig. 2; at Mavromati in Messenia, a fourteenthcentury inscription bearing the name of Georgios Mour­ moures: Feissel and Philippidis-Braat, “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques,” 335–36, no. 74; in the fourteenth-century Frankish Morea: Jacoby, “The Encounter of Two Societies,” 896 n. 108; 900 n. 125; Pessotto, “Burocrati del Principe d Acaia,” 17–18. 400  Tzavara, “Devozione,” 600, 608. 401  Ibid., 608. The stera or staio weighed 63 kilograms: see F. C. Lane, “Tonnages, Medieval and Modern,” EcHistR 17 (1964–5): 223. 402  Tzavara, “Devozione,” 604. 403  Some casks for currants were made of oak wood: A. Panopoulou, “Aree boschive del Peloponneso: Protezione e sfruttamento fra Seicento e Settecento,” in Maltezou, Tzavara, and Vlassi, I Greci durante la venetocrazia, 615–16.

258

david jacoby

barrels to Argos and Nauplion, from where he intended to bring currants and other goods.404 It is likely that hired workers harvesting the grapes on demesne land in the region of Corinth were also entrusted with their processing into currants. Yet, in addition, the landowner bought currants from his villeins, as revealed by a report of 1365. The sale price was 12 hyperpyra per modius.405 In that year 3 1/2 modii from San Basilio (Ayios Vasileios), a village belonging to Niccolò Acciajuoli, were stored in Corinth before being sent to Naples.406 The labboraggio tax on the loading of casks on board ships collected at Corinth at that time seems to be related to currants rather than to wine. The collection of the tax over a whole year was auctioned off for 6 hyperpyra only, which implies the loading of a small number of casks.407 The commercialization pattern attested for Argos and Nauplion is also attested in the region of Corinth in the second half of the fourteenth century. In 1389 Venice decreed an embargo on trade in currants and figs originating in the dominions of Nerio Acciajuoli, which was temporarily lifted in some of the following years and definitively in 1394.408 Some merchants were brought to trial for breaching the ban.409 The full implications of the embargo are revealed by Nerio’s function in the commercialization of these products, which was not limited to the collection of taxes on their sale and their export. Indeed, Nerio’s administration included a special staff handling currants and 404  P. Topping, “The Cornaro of Venice and Piscopia (Cyprus) in Argos and Nauplion, 1377–1388,” in Φίλια: Ἔπη εἰς Γ. Ε. Μυλωνᾶν διὰ τὰ 60 ἔτη τοῦ ἀνασκαφικοῦ του ἔργου (Athens, 1989), 324–25, 329–30, no. II. Wine was not included among the goods he wished to export from the Peloponnese. Therefore, the barrels may have been intended for wine making in the region. 405  LT, 171.20–21, 173.11–12, 175.1–2, 184.15, 29. 406  LT, 172.15–19. On this settlement, see T. Gregory, “People and Settlements of the Northeastern Peloponnese in the Late Middle Ages: An Archaeological Exploration,” in this volume. 407  LT, 162. 17–18. 408 Chrysostomides, MP, 111–12, no. 51, 167, no. 84, and 284, no. 145. 409  Thomas of Verona, a resident of Korone, was condemned for shipping currants to Venice, the origin of which is not stated yet implied: F. Thiriet, Délibérations des assemblées vénitiennes concernant la Romanie (Paris and The Hague, 1966–71), 2:390, no. 910.

figs. Andrea de Massa was responsible for their storage, while the Jew Abraam Calomiti held the office of “weigher of currants” and was in charge of their sale. The existence of these functions and the large amounts of currants and figs assembled by Nerio imply that he bought a large portion of them from his subjects and underline their importance as a source of income. The total yield of 1394 amounted to one thousand sacks of currants and four hundred of figs, sold at 5 ducats or 25 hyperpyra and 3 hyperpyra per sack respectively. The considerable price difference between the two items is noteworthy. An Italian merchant purchased the currants.410 The overlord’s monopoly on the sale of currants to exporters in the territory of Corinth, similar to the one inherited by Venice in Argos and Nauplion, is indirectly confirmed somewhat later. Philibert of Naillac, Grand Master of the Hospitallers, the military Order ensuring the defense of the territory from 1400 to 1404, granted in 1402 limited dispensations from the monopoly to four individuals.411 Damianos of Corinth was allowed to sell the currants produced from grapes grown in his own vineyard, yet no other currants, to any merchant, in fact to any exporter of his choice. However, his portion of the sale price was limited to 12 hyperpyra per sack, any amount above that sum belonging as customary to the overlord, which was the Hospitallers’ Order at that time.412 It is noteworthy that the sum Damianos would retain was identical to the price paid in 1365 by a steward of Niccolò Acciajuoli for one moggio of currants bought from the villeins of Vasilikata.413 In other words, while Damianos could sell his currants before the Order, he did not derive any additional gain from 410 Chrysostomides, MP, 443, 448–52, 455, no. 225. 411  On defense, see Bon, La Morée franque, 474–75. 412 Chrysostomides, MP, 497, no. 253. 413  LT, 184.27–29. 171.20–21. This seems to imply that the sack mentioned in 1402 weighed one moggio or modius. According to Pegolotti, 118, the pound ratio between Glar­ entza and Corinth was 100:102 and the moggio or modios for currants in Corinth “grows by 4 pounds in Chiarenza” (“cresce in Chiarenza libbre 4”). This incomprehensible formulation has induced Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 146, to propose 4 pounds or 1.483 liter for the Corinth unit, which is clearly mistaken. The correct interpretation must be a ratio of 100:104 pounds for Corinth versus Glarentza, hence 25.572 versus 26.595 liters: On the modios of Glarentza, see ibid., 146, 148 and n. 15.

the sale unless he concluded some secret agreement with the buyer he chose. A different privilege was granted by the Order to an archimandrite of Corinth. He was allowed to buy freely as much currants as he wished, yet with his own money only, and sell them freely provided the price was identical to the one obtained by the overlord.414 This grantee enjoyed a larger profit, yet the second restrictive clause prevented him from lowering the price so as to compete with the lord’s sale and get rid of his currants before the Order sold its own. Andrea Canakari of Vasilikata was allowed to sell yearly six sacks of currants and fifty strings of figs from his own land, the string standing for a specific number or weight of figs attached to it.415 Finally, Nikolaos Didaskalos of Corinth was allowed to buy and sell ten sacks of currants and fifty strings of figs, presumably also yearly, no restrictive clause being attached to this privilege.416 The documentation bearing on Peloponnesian currants is rather limited. It nevertheless illustrates a few important features of their marketing. The landowners were eager to preserve their monopoly over purchases from their own villeins, yet the overlord was the sole source of currants from which exporters could purchase the currants. Their profit margin cannot be calculated for the regions of Argos and Nauplion, since the relation between the pentalitron and the weight of the sack used there is unknown. On the other hand, if the sacks used in the region of Corinth were of a standard weight at all stages of commercialization, which seems likely, the overlord’s profit was substantial. While paying his suppliers 12 hyperpyra per sack, he sold the sack for some 25 hyperpyra. The marketing structure and the profits deriving from it must have encouraged the extension of small black grape cultivation, which was not limited to the northeastern Peloponnese. Production in the region of Glarentza around 1340 is suggested by Pegolotti’s comparison between the measuring units used for currants in that city and in Corinth.417 Currants were also produced in 414 Chrysostomides, MP, 487, no. 244: “ad precium do­­­ minationis.” 415  Ibid., 485, no. 242. 416  Ibid., 490, no. 246. 417  Pegolotti, 149, 159, 198. In the formula moggio 1 d’uve passe di Chiarenza the city’s name definitely refers to the

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

259

the region of Patras and exported from the city to Venice, as attested by an anonymous Florentine trading manual of the 1320s or 1330s.418 Production in the late fifteenth century is recorded in an Ottoman fiscal census and Venetian documents of the years 1495–97.419 It is likely that the currants traded in Korone around 1320 were only in transit and originated in the region of Nauplion.420 Currants were on board a Venetian ship originally sailing to Constantinople in 1182, before being diverted to Alexandria. The currants had undoubtedly been picked up in the port of Nau­ plion, at which the vessel had called. 421 There is no later evidence of exports to Constantinople. Pegolotti only refers by name to Syria when mentioning currants reaching the city around 1340, and a Greek account book compiled in Constantinople around 1360 has six entries mentioning currants without stating their provenance.422 By the fourteenth century the bulk of currants exported from the Peloponnese were being shipped to Italy. Around 1340 the recorded destinations were Venice, Ancona, Florence, and Naples.423

Cotton Mass production of cotton goods at relatively low cost developed rapidly in northern Italy in

currants, and not to the city’s measuring unit, stated in a different way: see e.g., “moggia 100 di vallonia alla misura di Chiarenza.” 418  Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS Tordi 139, fol. 34r. 419  Beldiceanu and Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Recherches sur la Morée,” 31, 51, par. 10: the districts of Corinth and Patras (Turkish Balyabadra) were the only Peloponnesian regions under Ottoman rule producing currants: for the dating, see ibid., 19; the region of Nauplion was still Venetian at that time. Evidence for Patras in the 1490s: Sathas, 4:22–27. 420  Zibaldone da Canal, 58, fol. 35v., lines 25–26. For the dating of this manual, see Jacoby, “A Venetian Manual,” 404–5, 410. 421  See above, 235. 422  Pegolotti, 33, 297; Schreiner, Texte, 38–46, lines 19, 63, 73, 216, 229, 235. 423  Pegolotti, 118, 145, 149, 159, 198; Libro d’abaco, 162; this anonymous trade manual must have been compiled in the first half of the fourteenth century. For Naples, see also Tzavara, Clarentza, 290.

260

david jacoby

the twelfth and thirteenth century.424 Cotton also entered in the manufacture of mixed fabrics, such as fustian.425 The operation of the industry required a large and uninterrupted flow of raw material imported from several regions, especially from the eastern Mediterranean. Some scholars have suggested that cotton was already cultivated in the Peloponnese by the twelfth century. A Venetian will drafted in 1132 at Palormo mentions 5 cantars raw cotton, 80 rotules spun cotton, and 36 rotules indigo. Palormo has been tentatively identified with several sites along the navigation route from Constantinople to Venice, one of them in the Peloponnese.426 Whatever the case, the weight units used for the cotton and the indigo, cantars and rotls, imply that both these commodities had been bought in the Levant. A deal concluded in 1167 envisaging the delivery of cotton weighing four light milliaria, or 1,204 kilograms, in Corinth has also been adduced to suggest cotton growing in the twelfth-century Peloponnese. 427 This is rather unlikely, considering the total absence of evidence regarding cotton cultivation in the following two centuries. Indeed, the various sources from the late thirteenth century onward supposedly documenting cotton cultivation in the Peloponnese fail to prove such activity. A decree issued in 1295 authorized Venetians to bring cotton to Venice on board armed galleys from Glarentza and from locations farther west in the Ionian Sea, while any ship could be used from ports within the Adriatic, a region considered safer. In dealing with the Adriatic the decree explicitly refers to bambacium ultra marinum, or cotton from the Levant. It may be assumed, therefore, that this definition also applied to 424  M. F. Mazzaoui, The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages, 1100–1600 (Cambridge, 1981), remains fundamental despite the recent study by J.-K. Nam, Le commerce du coton en Méditerranée à la fin du Moyen Âge (Leiden and Boston, 2007). For Venice, see also Ciriacono, “Industria e artigianato,” 550–51. 425 Mazzaoui, The Italian Cotton Industry, 166–67; Nam, Le commerce du coton, 61–69. 426 Lanfranchi, Famiglia Zusto, 29–32, and introductory note; Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio, 102 and n. 160. 427  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, 1:192, no. 192; M. Gerolymatou, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο (90ς–120ς αι.) (Athens, 2008), 164. The Venetian light milliarium contained 1,000 pounds of 301 grams.

Glarentza.428 The Libro d’abaco of the first half of the fourteenth century, a trading manual containing extensive data regarding Acre before its destruction in 1291, compares the cantar of Acre with the weight unit for cotton in Glarentza. 429 Acre was the outlet of a cotton-growing region, both before and after 1291. It is likely, therefore, that the decree of 1295 refers to the transshipment of Levantine cotton in Glarentza.430 Such an operation is indeed attested in 1299 and 1305 with respect to cotton from Thessalonike and from the Levant, respectively. A Venetian decree of 1305 and a purchase in Glarentza in 1351 also fail to offer any indication regarding cotton growing in the Peloponnese.431 It would seem that cotton transshipment and trade in Glarentza was rather occasional in the first half of the fourteenth century. This is implied by the absence of cotton from trading manuals dealing with the Peloponnese in that period. The so-called Zibaldone da Canal, a Venetian manual compiled in the 1320 at the latest, records the weighing of silk and other commodities by the light pound of Glarentza, yet omits cotton.432 Around 1340 Pegolotti cites freight charges from Glar­ entza, Korone, and Methone to Venice, yet without mentioning cotton, nor does he include the Peloponnese among cotton-growing regions.433 The bambagio di Romania to which he refers presumably originated in the region of Thessalonike, where cotton growing is attested from 1299 onward, or was exported from Crete, which by 1307 was already shipping its cotton to Venice.434 428  R. Cessi, ed., Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio di Venezia (Bologna, 1931–50), 3:389–90, no. 92: “possint adducere Venecias bambacium a Clarencia et inde ultra cum galeis armatis nostris, sicunt possunt modo,” “as they may now.” 429  Libro d’abaco, 154. 430  On Acre, see Mazzaoui, The Italian Cotton Industry, 23, 34–40; Nam, Le commerce du coton, 108–16. 431  For these three cases, see Tzavara, Clarentza, 273–74, who mistakenly considers that the last one points to cotton growing in the Peloponnese, as conveyed by the opening sentence of her following paragraph. Nam, Le commerce du coton, 185, 188 n. 152, has also misinterpreted the decree of 1295. 432  Zibaldone da Canal, 58, fol. 35v., lines 16–18. 433  Pegolotti, 145, 293, 366–67. 434  For the region of Thessalonike, see Pegolotti, 93, 203, 293. For 1299, see above, note 431, and for the following period, D. Jacoby, “Foreigners and the Urban Economy

Significantly, cotton does not appear in the surveys and reports of the first half of the fourteenth century bearing on the western Peloponnese, in which its cultivation is attested later. Secure evidence of cotton growing in the Peloponnese appears for the first time in 1365, yet only in three villages. Dependent peasants residing in them paid a tax in cotton out of the yield from their own plots. This yield was rather small in Ligourio and Piada, located in the Argolid, since the collected cotton tax amounted merely to 13 1/2 pounds or 4.6 kilograms. Conditions for cultivation were clearly more favorable and cotton growing more extensive in the villeins’ plots of Vasilikata, in Corinthia, since the tax revenue reached there 1,503 “small” or light pounds, or 515.5 kilograms picked cotton. 435 Since the tax appears to have amounted to one-tenth of the peasants’ yield, the latter had reached respectively around 46 kilograms and 5,155 kilograms in these villages.436 Cotton was also grown on demesne land in Vasilikata. Plowing before the sowing of cotton seeds and weeding throughout in Thessalonike, c. 1150–c. 1430,” DOP 57 (2003): 105–6, 108; repr. in Jacoby, Latins, Greeks and Muslims, no. VII. For Crete, see Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 219; also G. Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel et le coton de Santorin (fin XIV e–début XVe siècle),” in Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz o. p., Venezia, 1–2 dicembre 2000, ed. C. Maltezou and P. Schreiner, Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, Centro Tedesco di Studi Veneziani, Convegni 5 (Venice, 2002), 389–90. 435  LT, 176.11 and 24: “banbaso di gienmori”; ibid., 190.27: “banbaso . . . da geomuri.” Cotton was weighed by the light pound of 12 ounces, except in one instance, where it was equivalent to 36 ounces of the “large” or heavy pound: ibid., 190.31. It is likely that the light pound for cotton was equivalent to the one used in Glarentza, Korone, and Methone for several commodities, which according to Zibaldone da Canal, 58, fol. 35v, lines 16 and 19, was equal to 1.14 light pound of Venice in Glarentza, yet to 1.15 light pound in Korone. This difference may be the result of a scribal error. Since the Venetian light pound weighed 301 grams, the Peloponnesian one weighed 343 grams, based on the first equivalence, which was also valid in Candia: Pegolotti, 106. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 217, arrived at a different result by relying on another entry of Pegolotti, 153, which is clearly erroneous. For the heavy Venetian pound, see below. 436  On the gimorum, a tax paid on the produce of all cultivated land, regardless of the latter’s status, see LT, 269–70.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

261

the growth season are not mentioned in the seignorial expense accounts for this settlement. The work was presumably carried out in the framework of the villeins’ compulsory labor service, for which no payment was made. On the other hand, the accounts for Vasilikata list expenses for the purchase of cotton seed, as well as for the supply of grain, wine, and payments in cash to hired workers “cleaning” the cotton, which involved removing the seeds from the cotton fibers harvested from the boll, the rounded seed pod of the cotton plant.437 “Cleaned” cotton was one-third the weight of picked cotton. 438 Although not explicitly stated, it is likely that the hired workers also picked the cotton and packed it in sacks for transportation. The purchase of seeds suggests an extension of cultivation, for which the volume of seeds available from the previous harvest had been insufficient, or the introduction of cotton growing to demesne land. Like several other agricultural products, cotton served sometimes as payment in kind to seignorial staff, namely at Ligouri.439 The seignorial accounts list neither the yield from demesne land nor the proceeds from the landowner’s cotton sale. Cotton growing appears to have been ex­­ tended to other regions of the Peloponnese in the following decades. In 1403 it is attested in “Amorea,” which may refer to the districts of Korone and Methone and some territories farther north, since the cotton was exported from these two ports. Specific evidence regarding the two districts appears in 1405, 1409, and 1411. 440 In 1418 the castellan of Korone ordered the hanging of four Albanians who were Byzantine subjects for stealing cotton, grain, wine, and other goods from Venetian territory.441 A will drafted in 1419 lists cotton from “Gretia,” continental 437  LT, 178.27–28, 188.31–33, 189.19–21.30–32, 190.29–34, 191.22, 192.18.21. In this context carne stands for basic “food” rather than for meat, too expensive to be served to hired laborers. 438  LT, 190.29–34:450 left from 1,357 pounds. This may somehow account for the triple number of ounces used for the weighing of “clean” cotton, so as to reach the weight unit used for gross cotton, yet it does not explain the heavy pound. 439  LT, 177.7–13. 440  Sathas, 2:107, 131, 135, 219–20, 257. The origin of cotton brought to Methone is not stated: Sathas, 4:46. 441  Sathas, 3:175.

262

david jacoby

Greece, most likely the Peloponnese.442 Amorea is again mentioned in 1437 and 1444.443 By 1443 the region of Nauplion was producing fairly large amounts of cotton. Since most land belonged to the state, the Venetian podestà administering this territory was ordered to lease tracts of land by auction each year in May in an attempt to boost cotton growing.444 Nauplion was still exporting raw and spun cotton to Venice by the late fifteenth century.445 A resident of Patras shipped 847 pounds cotton valued 100 florins to Ragusa in 1386.446 The price of 11 8/10 ducat per pound in Patras was thus inferior to the more or less contemporary one paid for cotton from Santorin in 1393, namely 12 1/3 ducats for 100 pounds of Candia, which appears to have been of high quality.447 The fiber is also listed in 1408 among the indigenous products taxed in Patras, and in 1430 another resident of the city stated in his will that he had exported four sacks containing a total of 1,148 pounds cotton to Venice. The precise origin of the cotton is not recorded. 448 Shortly before 1418 the philosopher George Gemistos Plethon wrote his Address to Emperor Manuel II in which he pleaded for the weaving of textiles from locally produced fibers, including cotton.449 At that time the Despotate of the Morea did not yet extend over Frankish territories cultivating the fiber. One may wonder, therefore, whether Plethon alluded to its growing in the Byzantine Morea, for which there is no direct evidence. Significantly, Dolfin Venier did not include cotton among the resources of the Peloponnese in his report to the 442  Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel,” 383–84, suggests that “Gretia” possibly included the island of Santorini. This is an anachronistic backward projection of Greece’s contemporary territorial extent. 443  Sathas, 3:439, and Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel,” 370 n. 24. 444  ASV, Senato, Deliberazioni, Mar, reg. 1, fol. 143r.–v. 445 Nam, Le commerce du coton, 186 n. 139. 446 Krekic, Dubrovnik, 238, no. 453. 447  The light pound of Patras weighed 369 grams, based on Pegolotti, 119: Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, 220. It was thus heavier than the one of Candia, which weighed around 345 grams (ibid., 212). On the price in Candia, see Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel,” 391. 448 Gerland, NQ , 164, 213–14. 449 Lampros, Παλαιολόγεια καi Πελοποννησιακά, 3:263; dating by C. M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes (Oxford, 1986), 100.

Venetian Senate, compiled in 1422 in connection with the Byzantine offer to extend Venetian rule over the despotate, nor did the contemporary chronicle of Antonio Morosini, which refers to that offer, mention cotton in that context. 450 The draft treaty submitted in 1431 by Ragusa to Despot Constantine Palaiologos cites explicitly silk, yet not cotton among the commodities traded by its merchants.451 By that time the despotate covered the entire Peloponnese, except for the Venetian territories. It follows that the scale of cotton cultivation was then rather limited. The Peloponnesian cotton exported in 1474 was presumably grown in the countryside of Nauplion.452 As noted earlier, cotton growing in the Peloponnese is securely documented for the first time in 1365, when it appears to have already been practiced for some time. It is first attested in the same period in the Cycladic island of Santorini. It was already well developed there by 1362 when Fiorenza Sanudo, duchess of the Archipelago, sold to two Venetians the total annual yield she would obtain from the island in the following three years, 150 sacks per year, each weighing approximately 150 light pounds of Candia or 51.5 kilograms, thus an annual total of 7,725 kilograms. Several cotton sales by the island’s rulers took place in the following decades.453 The introduction of cotton cultivation and its stimulation in Santorini may be safely ascribed to the island’s rulers, who assumed the role of sole middlemen between local producers 450  Marino Sanuto, Vita Ducum Venetorum, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed. L. A. Muratori (Milan, 1733), 22:943; A. Nanetti, ed., Il codice Morosini: Il mondo visto da Venezia (1094–1433), Edizione critica, introduzione, indice e altriapparati (Spoleto, 2010), 2:935, pars. 64.1041–42. 451  The treaty was apparently not concluded: Krekic, Dubrovnik, 51–52. Incidentally, the treaties of 1340 and 1372 between Ragusa and Ancona, the latter confirmed in 1378, mention cotton without specific reference to Glarentza or the Morea, as for silk and silk textiles: ibid., 78–79, 101; treaty of 1372 in C. Ciavarini, ed., Statuti anconitani del mare, del terzenale e dalla dogana, e patti con diverse nazioni (Ancona, 1896), 238–46, esp. 240. 452  Decree of the Venetian Senate: Nam, Le commerce du coton, 458, Annexe II, no. 3. See above, 262, on the region of Nauplion. 453  Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel,” 371–80, 388: “totum meum bombicem bonum et mercantantem quem habuero de mea insula Sancte Herini qui de firmo annuatim successive in tribus annis suprascriptis esse debeat quantitatis sachorum centum quinquaginta.”

and foreign merchants. The maintenance of this role was furthered by the maritime isolation of San­ torini.454 It is likely that the Italian stewards of feudal lords were instrumental in the development of cotton growing in the Frankish Morea. There is no evidence regarding the commercialization of the peasants’ or the landowner’s cotton or the revenues it yielded, yet we may postulate a pattern similar to the one attested in Santorini. However, cotton cultivation in the Peloponnese appears to have been limited by foreign competition. The region’s role as supplier of Venice, which dominated its maritime trade, must have remained rather small compared to that of Syria, Egypt, and Cyprus, the main regions shipping cotton across the Mediter­ ranean.455 In the second half of the fourteenth and in the fif­­t eenth century cotton from various regions in the eastern Mediterranean was transshipped in Methone and Korone on the way to Venice.456

Acorn Cups and Kermes So far we have considered crops cultivated for human consumption. Two important economic resources of the Peloponnese, acorn cups and kermes, offer a different aspect of rural exploitation. Found without investment in cultivation, they were collected for industrial use. Tanninrich acorn cups, called valania by Westerners, from Greek βάλανος, acorn, served as tanning and dyeing agents. Kermes (Coccum ilicis L.), called πρινοκόκκι in Greek and grana by Westerners, yielded a high-quality, solid vermilion dyestuff obtained from the pregnant female kermes parasite, once it was dried and crushed. The parasite settles on the holly oak, an arborescent bush 454  Ibid., 392–93; G. Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires: Les Cyclades au temps de la domination latine (XIIIe– XVe siècle),” Médiévales 47 (2004): 40–41. According to a statement of 1484 it was customary in Santorini to sell the goods to the island’s lord and not to others. This was not an exaggeration, as assumed by Saint-Guillain, but should be taken literally with respect to this export-oriented commodity. 455 Nam, Le commerce du coton, 107–36, 152–59, 173–83, 207–15. 456  Ibid., 130 n. 108, in 1474; 144–45, in 1447; 155 n. 252; 233, in 1374, etc.; 243–248; trans. in H. Noiret, ed., Documents inédits pour servir à l’histoire de la domination vénitienne en Crète de 1380 à 1485 (Paris, 1892), 19–20.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

263

common practically in the entire Peloponnese, as well as in Boeotia and Euboea.457 The collection of grana called for a substantial input of labor, the substance was available in limited quantities, and it was in high demand in Western textile manufacturing centers. A member of the Datini trading company claimed in 1397 that tutto il mondo domanda grana, “the whole world requests kermes.”458 As a result, it was very costly, selling in 1292 at Korone for one hyperpyron per light Venetian pound of 301 grams before shipping to Venice.459 Kermes was exclusively used for the dyeing of high-grade silk and woolen textiles and, not surprisingly, it was often traded together with silk fiber. In 1301 Emperor Andronikos II granted the metropolitan church of Monemvasia the right to the entire yield of acorn cups collected in the oak wood of its monastery of Prinikos, whereas half of that yield had previously belonged to the state.460 The peasants were obviously paid according to the volume of acorn cups they delivered. The imperial concession implies that originally the state had exercised the exclusive right to their purchase from the paroikoi who gathered them in an oak wood belonging to the church of Monemvasia. Some time in the past the church had obtained by imperial grant the right to one-half of the yield and, at a second stage, in 1301, it was awarded the remaining half. It follows that the state exercised a monopoly over the purchase of valania in the Byzantine Morea, regardless of individual property rights. Its monopolistic standing was not limited to church property, as implied by an agreement concluded in 1342. In that year the imperial authorities in Mystras promised in writing to sell the entire valania yield of the Byzantine Morea and a specific quantity of kermes to the Venetian 457  See Dunn, “The Exploitation and Control of Wood­ land,” 274–75, 285–86, 290–92. 458  L. Molà, La comunità dei Lucchesi a Venezia: Immi­ grazione e industria della seta nel tardo medioevo, Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti: Memorie, classe di scienze morali, Lettere ed Arti, 53 (Venice, 1994), 161. 459  Pasquale Longo, 86, no. 109. 460  MM, 5:161–65, esp. 164. For the monastery’s location, see Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia, 224 n. 110, and the map facing the title page of the volume. The toponym Belanidia (Valanidia), some 7 kilometers northwest of Cape Malea, suggests the collection of acorn cups.

264

david jacoby

Marino Viadro, an undertaking confirmed by the emperor’s signature.461 The state was thus the only buyer of acorn cups collected in the province and the sole source from which they could be purchased for export, although in particular circumstances it ceded some of its authority in this respect to ecclesiastical institutions or individuals. One may wonder whether the state’s monopoly had been established after the empire’s return to the Peloponnese in 1262 and was restricted to that province, or whether it had been inherited from the period preceding the Fourth Crusade and was being implemented in all the territories of the empire. The complaint submitted in 1319 by a former Venetian consul in Thessalonike does not offer any clue in this respect. Marco Celsi reported that he had bought all the acorn cups he could find in the region, but for some time the city’s authorities prevented him from shipping them because the Venetian balance by which they were to be weighed was broken. 462 This statement seems to imply multiple local sellers, yet these could either have obtained the right to purchase valania from collectors, like the metropolitan church of Monemvasia, or had bought the valania from the state in order to resell it to exporters. In the Frankish Morea the landowners sold the acorn cups their villeins collected. The amounts varied widely. In 1336 the revenue from the landowner’s forest in a territory of western Mani yielded twenty modii acorns valued 2 hyperpyra.463 No sum is mentioned for the acorns collected from oak trees on demesne land at Petoni in 1354.464 On the other hand, a large quantity amounting to 1,106 pounds, gathered in 1360 by the residents of a village in Elis, could not be 461  However, they failed to carry out the deal. The matter was discussed by the Venetian Senate in the following year: C. Azzara and L. Levantino, eds., Venezia-Senato: Deliberazioni miste, vol. 8, Registro XXI (1342–1344), Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti (Venice, 2006), 204–5, no. 397: “totam valaniam imperii de illis contratis et aliquam quantitatem grane.” Incorrect and incomplete summary by Thiriet, Régestes, 1:52, no. 156, who has mistaken grana for grain. 462  DVL, 1:134. 463  LT, 27.27–28; on the region in which the Xiromilia was located, see ibid., 19. 464  Strangely, the survey mentions separately arbores balanidas and arbores glandiis: LT, 113.10–11.

sold at any price, clearly because the valania had missed the autumn shipping season.465 In 1365 one modius only was collected at San Basilio (Ayios Vasileios) in Corinthia.466 In 1397 Jani Crimolisi granted power of attorney to Matteo da Napoli to seize in Negroponte and Athens property belonging to the late Nerio Acciajuoli, whose creditor he was. Acorn cups partly collected in Nerio’s Peloponnesian estates are explicitly mentioned among the assets.467 The multiple sources of valania in the Frankish Morea are reflected by exports from several ports. From Glarentza it reached Venice, Ancona, and Florence, according to Pegolotti.468 In 1340 officials in Glarentza apparently confiscated a consignment belonging to the Venetian Marino Falier.469 In 1343 the Venetian Zanino de Medio exported acorn cups from Kalamata,470 while others were being sent from Argos or Nauplion by 1378.471 Korone and Methone were important tanning centers, yet also exported acorn cups.472 There is no evidence of a Venetian state monopoly in the valania trade.473 However, in the early fifteenth century Venice attempted to become the only valania market in the Adriatic region. In 1415 it prohibited Venetian citizens and 465  The report was compiled at the end of January 1361: LT, 146.17–18. On the location of the village, see ibid., 146 n. 16. 466  LT, 184.16. 467 Chrysostomides, MP, 391, no. 196. 468  Pegolotti, 149, 159, 198; Zibaldone da Canal, 58, fol. 35v., line 27. 469 Leduc, Registro XIX, 347–48, no. 614. 470  ASV, Cassiere della Bolla Ducale, Grazie, reg. 10, fol. 15v. 471  Topping, “The Cornaro of Venice and Piscopia,” 324– 25, 329–30, no. II. 472  Korone’s “tanners’ street” is attested in 1335: Nanetti, DV, 2:63, no. 6.108; a tanner died in Methone in the same year: 2:132–34, no. 6.243. For later evidence, see D. Jacoby, “The Jews in Byzantium and the Eastern Mediterranean: Economic Activities from the Thirteenth to the MidFifteenth Century,” in Wirtschaftsgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Juden: Fragen und Einschätzungen, ed. M. Toch with the collaboration of E. Müller-Luckner, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Kolloquien 71 (Munich, 2008), 25–48; numerous documents in Sathas, 4:33–186, passim. On the abundance of animals for slaughter in Korone in the early fifteenth century, see below, note 502. On the export of valania: Zibaldone da Canal, 58, fol. 35v., lines 25–26; Thiriet, Régestes, 1:147, no. 595, in 1378. 473  Contra Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne, 325.

subjects to ship acorn cups from Corfu, Korone, Methone, Negroponte, and Nauplion to locations in the Adriatic other than Venice, under threat of severe punishment. The repetition of the decree in 1421 implies that the implementation of this policy was not successful.474 Direct information regarding the collection of kermes in the late medieval Peloponnese is extremely meager. In 1301 Emperor Andronikos II granted the metropolitan church of Monemvasia the right to buy kermes gathered in two areas of its property by paroikoi residing in the village of Gan­ ganeas and those of the monastery of Zaraphon, respectively at some 25 and 60 kilometers northwest of Monemvasia. However, the emperor retained control over kermes they would gather on state land.475 Both the imperial concession and its implications recall the system governing acorn cups in the despotate. The whole yield of grana had previously been bought by the state, the purchase from gatherers and the sale to merchants being imperial monopolies and the subject of imperial grants. This proposition is supported by the deal concluded in 1342 between Marino Viadro and the Byzantine authorities in Mystras, mentioned earlier.476 A large volume of kermes belonged to Nerio Acciajuoli at the time of his death in 1394, namely 288 pounds.477 It suggests a similar concentration and commercialization pattern in the Frankish Morea favoring the main feudal lords, in accordance with the fragmentation of political power and the absence of a central state authority. Simone Sigoli, who traveled to the Holy Land in 1384, stated that the best kermes came from Korone.478 A Venetian state monopoly on the grana trade may be discounted, in view of the free trade policy Venice implemented in these territories. The kermes shipped from Nauplion to Con­ stantinople in 1182 was on its way to silk workshops

474  Sathas, 3:90–91, 231–32. 475  See above, note 460. For locations, see Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia, 223–24 nn. 108 and 111, and the map facing the title page. 476  See above, 264. 477 Chrysostomides, MP, 452, no. 225, lines 428–29. 478  C. Gargiolli, ed., Viaggi in Terra Santa di Lionardo Frescobaldi e d’altri del secolo XIV (Florence, 1862), 157: “e quivi vi nasce la migliore grana da tignere scarlatti che sia al mondo.”

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

265

in the imperial city.479 It is likely that Pelopon­ nesian grana was also supplied to Thebes, the major manufacturer of silk textiles in western Byzantium from the eleventh century onward, and to Corinth until the early thirteenth century, when it ceased to produce silk textiles. Thebes was renowned for its kermes-dyed silks and continued to produce them under Frankish and Catalan rule until the late fourteenth century.480 Yet neither kermes nor silk was apparently shipped from Byzantium to the West in the period preceding the Fourth Crusade, presumably because their export was prohibited.481 Following the Latin conquest of the early thirteenth century, Peloponnesian kermes began to reach Western textile centers. The Italian city of Lucca, a producer of highgrade silk textiles from the mid-twelfth century, was a major destination of the colorant. Kermes from Romania, in all likelihood from the Pelo­ ponnese, was sold in 1210 in Genoa, the main supplier of raw materials to Lucchese silk workshops. A consignment from Corinth is documented in Lucca in 1273, and in 1292 two Genoese merchants bought in Monemvasia a large amount of the colorant for 1,648 hyperpyra, yet the merchandise was not delivered to them.482 Kermes was shipped from Nauplion to Apulia in 1272.483 In 1277 residents of Byzantine Mani robbed grana presumably bought in their region from a Venetian settled in Korone.484 A decree of 1281 authorized Venetians to reexport from Venice kermes and silk originating in Romania, a term also referring 479  On this shipment, see above, 235. 480  Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium,” 464, 466, 498; Jacoby, “The Production of Silk Textiles,” 23–28. 481  On silk, see D. Jacoby, “The Jews and the Silk Industry of Constantinople,” in Jacoby, Byzantium, 3–5, 16; Jacoby, “Byzantine Trade with Egypt,” 41–42. 482  On these purchases and the role of Genoa, see D. Jacoby, “Genoa, Silk Trade, and Silk Manufacture in the Mediterranean Region (ca. 1100–1300),” in Tessuti, oreficerie, miniature in Liguria, XIII–XV secolo, ed. A. R. Calderoni Masetti, C. Di Fabio, and M. Marcenaro, Istituto internazionale di Studi liguri, Atti dei Convegni 3 (Bordighera, 1999), 16–23; repr. in Jacoby, Commercial Exchange, no. XI. 483  TTh, 3:274–275; dating by Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission,” 429, no. 60. 484  TTh, 3:233; dating by Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission,” 433, no. 201. The kermes weighed 18 light Venetian pounds if valued at the same price as stated in 1292, for which see above, 264.

266

david jacoby

to the Peloponnese. An anonymous commercial manual compiled in Florence about 1320 records that kermes obviously collected in the Byzantine Morea was being exported from Monemvasia.485 The Pisan tariff of 1323 lists Corinthian alongside Spanish kermes.486 Pegolotti listed all the available types and advised how to check their quality.487 With the development of the Venetian silk industry, initiated in the early thirteenth century, Venetian merchants displayed growing interest in kermes, and by the second half of the century Greece appears to have become their major source of the colorant. The kermes trade in Korone is well attested. Ermolao Zorzi, who resided there for many years, owned two bales of kermes at the time of his death in 1263. A merchant from the city robbed of grana in 1277 has already been mentioned. Five notary charters record exports from Korone to Venice in the years 1289–92. A consignment of kermes from Methone was sold in Venice in 1312. A Venetian decree of 1306 deals with the shipping of kermes from Korone and other ports located westward to Venice. Much kermes was sailing from Glarentza to Venice around 1320, and Pegolotti states around 1340 the freight charges for its shipping on board armed galleys from Glarentza, Korone, Methone, and Negroponte to Venice.488 In 1373 Venice demanded the return of silk and kermes the Venetian Pietro Cavaça 485  Florence, Biblioteca Marucelliana, MS C 226, fol. 53v. Some excerpts of this manual have been published by R.-H. Bautier, “Les relations économiques des Occidentaux avec les pays d’Orient au Moyen Age: Points de vue et documents,” in Sociétés et compagnies de commerce en Orient et dans l’Océan indien, ed. M. Mollat (= Actes du Huitième colloque international d’histoire maritime, Beyrouth, 1966) (Paris, 1970), 313–20; repr. in R.-H. Bautier, Commerce méditerranéen et banquiers italiens au Moyen Âge (Aldershot, 1992), no. IV; his dating of the manual to 1315, suggested on 311–13, should be slightly corrected for reasons that will be explained elsewhere. 486  F. Bonaini, ed., Statuti inediti della città di Pisa dal XII al XIV secolo (Florence, 1854–57), 3:593. The tariff is reproduded in the manual of Pegolotti, 206–9, esp. 208. 487  Pegolotti, 297, 382–83. 488  See D. Jacoby, “Dalla materia prima ai drappi tra Bisanzio, il Levante e Venezia: La prima fase dell’industria serica veneziana,” in La seta in Italia dal Medioevo al Seicento: Dal baco al drappo, ed. L. Molà, R. C. Mueller, and C. Zanier (Venice, 2000), 273, and on the development of the Venetian silk industry, 275–94; repr. in Jacoby, Commercial Exchange, no. X.

owned, which had been confiscated in the region of Glarentza by the bailli of the Frankish Morea, Balthazar de Sorba, who claimed that they be­­ longed to a resident of Patras apparently condemned for some crime.489 It is unclear in which region the kermes had been collected, yet it was presumably to be shipped from Glarentza. In 1394 a dyer operating in Venice owned a sack of kermes from Corinth, yet also Cretan and Spanish kermes. Spanish kermes, though of inferior quality, was also imported when supplies from the Peloponnese and other territories in the eastern Mediterranean became irregular because of pirate attacks around 1400.490 Patras was yet another maritime outlet for kermes, as attested in the first half of the fifteenth century.491 The dyeing of silk cloth with this colorant must have been practiced in the city well before it is attested there in 1430.492 Methone and Korone continuously maintained their function as ports of call for Venetian state galleys sailing home, except when navigation was disrupted by war. Most Peloponnesian kermes appears to have been concentrated in these two ports for shipment to Venice, especially after 1350, when Glarentza ceased to be visited regularly by Venetian state galleys.493 This development presumably accounts for transfers of grana from Glarentza to Methone and Korone. In 1355 Venice demanded reparations for silk and kermes seized by some Genoese from Venetian merchants involved in such a transfer.494 A Venetian decree of 1418 states that all the silk and kermes from the Morea is brought to Korone,495 and an agreement of the same year concluded at Grizi between Venice and Centurione II Zaccaria, the 489  ASV, Senato, Deliberazioni, Misti, reg. 34, fol. 38v. 490 Molà, La comunità dei Lucchesi, 154, 160–61. 491  Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS Tordi 139, fol. 34r; in 1401, 1418, 1430, 1434: Chrysostomides, MP, 479–80, no. 238; Sathas, 3:169–70, 380–81, 423, 460; Gerland, NQ , 244 n. 1. 492 Gerland, NQ , 214.3–9. 493  On the galleys, see D. Stöckly, Le système de l’incanto des galées du marché à Venise (fin XIII e –milieu XVe siècle) (Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1995), 103, 122, 133, 145; Tzavara, Clarentza, 240–63. 494  Ibid., 284. 495  Sathas, 4:140–41, adopted when Marin Cocho was castellan, his tenure of office being dated in 1418: ibid., 4:136.

last ruler of Frankish Greece, determined that only those selling these commodities, in others words the subjects of the principality, would be taxed.496 In order to boost its own fiscal revenue Venice prohibited in 1430 the purchase of silk and kermes by Venetian citizens and subjects in the region of Mystras, other regions of the despotate, and former Frankish territories under Byzantine rule, including recently conquered Patras, under threat of heavy fines. The measure was aimed at compelling foreign subjects to sell the costly goods in Venetian territory, where they would be taxed. An attempt to cancel the prohibition was defeated in 1434. In 1439 the villeins of Methone complained that the regulation provided undue trading advantages to Byzantine subjects and severely curtailed their own income. In response Venice allowed them to resume their purchases in the despotate’s territory. The authorization was extended in 1445 to Venetian citizens, who had also complained, since the measure adopted in 1439 had not generated large-scale trading by Byzantine subjects in Methone.497

Conclusions The preceding lengthy investigation has centered on the evolution of key elements in the rural economy of the late medieval Peloponnese in a longterm perspective. These included demographic factors; the structure, management, and operation of large estates; and the exploitation of small tracts of land as well as various commodities produced or collected, processed, and distributed in and outside the region. Once these elements are correlated, they provide new insights into economic developments beyond general assessments and statements. However, it should be remembered that the extant documentation covers only small portions of the Peloponnese, particularly its southern and northeastern regions, and that any reconstruction may be valid for these regions only. Various indicators pointing to demographic growth in the period preceding the Black Death 496  Ibid., 4:148–49. 497  Ibid., 3:380–81, 423, 460; Thiriet, Régestes, 3:121–22, no. 2679.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

267

have already been noted. The diffusion of im­­ ported iron plowshares suggests better grain yields. The extension of cultivation into marginal land presumably reflects population pressure requiring an increase in food supplies, the availability of an adequate workforce, and land clearance. Significantly, after the Black Death, demographic contraction and diminishing re­­ turns in marginal lands induced the stewards in charge of large estates to alter the exploitation mode of these tracts or entirely abandon their cultivation. The vineyard in Lithero, a “stony place” in Elis recorded in 1337, had obviously been planted after the plot had been cleared of some of its stones.498 As recorded in 1361, a massaria on soil inadequate for grain growing was converted into a vineyard.499 In 1379 Aldobrando Baroncelli was clearly opposed to further attempts to grow grain in Grizi, “a stony place.”500 The instability of manpower was neither a general nor a continuous phenomenon. The flight of individual or large groups of peasants was of a local or regional nature and was at times temporary. Moreover, it should be noted that while causing depopulation in specific villages, it resulted, in many cases, in a concurrent concentration of fugitive villeins in others, even in the same region, as the case of Rubenichi illustrates.501 Piracy af­­f ected only coastal regions. Other relatively safe inland areas, as in northern Messenia, enjoyed a high degree of manpower stability over several decades. De­­population and devastation by warfare had more serious and long-term, yet differentiated, effects on the countryside. Military operations generally took place in the summer along valleys and in lowlands, affecting or destroying grain fields and harvests. Transhumant livestock suffered less, since the animals were grazing in the mountains. Herds could also hastily retreat to mountainous areas as soon as rumors of impending incursions arrived. The pace of recovery was also differentiated. It was fast in livestock breeding, which required a smaller workforce than agriculture. By 1417, barely two years after the restoration of the Hexamilion Wall across the Isthmus of Corinth, the respite from 498  499  500  501 

268

See above, note 136. LT, 147.11–13.24–25 See above, note 258. See above, 222.

david jacoby

Turkish incursions enabled a partial restoration of the rural economy and resulted in an abundance of animals for slaughter coming from all sides to Korone, more than any time earlier.502 Still, as a result of security concerns some small settlements were temporarily abandoned, or, if deserted permanently, the migration of their inhabitants resulted in the concentration of population in larger, more defensible centers, as revealed by archaeological evidence in the Argolid.503 The resumption of grain cultivation depended upon the availability of beasts of labor. The recovery of trees and vines was the slowest, since it took several years before they again bore fruit, and vines required the most labor. The impact of the plague on the rural population cannot be assessed, yet on the whole may have been limited to areas close to the main Pelopon­ nesian ports, as suggested above. In the absence of quantitative evidence, the surveys and reports bearing on the large estates of the Frankish Morea provide some sense about the effects of the disease. The earliest ones, compiled in 1354, merely six years after the onslaught of the Black Death, do not reflect any acute demographic depression. To be sure, the recurrent bouts of plague resulted in cumulative losses and may have prevented population growth over a long period. Yet the advice given by the managers of large estates about the full use of the available human and animal workforce convey the impression that the exploitation of the countryside ran rather smoothly. The frequency of leaseholds in the Frankish Morea reflects the availability of labor not entirely ab­­sorbed by the exploitation of the peasants’ holdings or other domestic activities. To be sure, conditions changed in some areas of the Peloponnese from the late fourteenth century onward as a result of Turkish incursions and Albanian raids. Still, one should beware of sweeping generalizations, since there is no evidence of a massive population contraction. This is also the impression conveyed by the rural production recorded in the Ottoman censuses of the late

502  Sathas, 3:162–63. The inhabitants of Korone de­­ manded, therefore, the establishment of an additional slaughterhouse outside the city. 503  For the latter, see the chapter by T. Gregory, “People and Settlements of the Northeastern Peloponnese, in this volume.

fifteenth century, despite the deportation of captive peasants.504 Overall figures of rural population cannot be calculated or even assessed, and the rare figures regarding population movements or losses in specific localities or areas must be used with extreme caution. A Venetian official’s mistreatment prompted the inhabitants of Munista in Messenia to abandon their village shortly before 1328, yet their claim that 6,000 of them had relocated in Frankish territory is preposterous.505 This is also obvious in the light of figures provided by official Venetian sources, although these refer to a later period. In 1386, before the Turkish forays in Messenia, the Venetian authorities estimated that there were around 1,200 households of state villeins, or between 4,800 and 6,000 individuals in the entire district of Korone and approximately the same number in the countryside of Methone. The number of villeins subject to ecclesiastical institutions was definitely smaller.506 In any event, the rural hinterland of Korone and Methone appears to have been fairly densely populated some forty years after the Black Death. In 1451 the residents of Argos reminded Venice of the massive abduction of inhabitants the Turks carried out in 1397, yet the number of 14,000 they mentioned was presumably inflated to induce the Venetian authorities to take measures in their favor.507 The figure nevertheless conveys the impression that the region had previously been well populated, like Venetian Messenia somewhat earlier. The Turkish incursions from that period onward crippled the workforce in specific locations, at times for fairly lengthy periods, and had a disruptive effect on the regional economy. In 1447 the Venetian government cited rumors according to which the Turks had abducted 60,000 inhabitants from the Peloponnese, a figure that one may

504  Beldiceanu and Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Recherches sur la Morée,” 30–43. 505  See above, 221. 506  See Jacoby, “Un aspect de la fiscalité vénitienne,” 409, 417–19. Topping, “The Post-Classical Documents,” 69, has overlooked the fact that only state villeins were liable to the delivery of hay to the authorities, mentioned in that context. 507  Petition to the Senate, edited by Tzavara, “Η οργάνωση της διοίκησης,” in Maltezou and Panopoulou, Πρακτικά της διεθνούς επιστημονικής συνάντησης Βενετία-Άργος, 59–60.

safely dismiss.508 While the campaigns against Corinth in the 1440s and 1450s brought devastation to the countryside, the abundant booty the Turks took in 1459 attests to the prosperity of the northwestern Peloponnese before that event.509 The conjunction of two major developments exercised a decisive impact upon the rural economy of the Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade. The first one was promoted by Italian settlers in the Frankish and Venetian Morea. In the principality knights as well as commoners, among them merchants and bankers, became fiefholders owning rural land.510 After imposing his rule over the Frankish Morea in 1278 Charles I of Anjou, king of Sicily, took over the princely estates, introduced in them the massaria system,511 and distributed fiefs to various dignitaries of his kingdom. In the following century Italian lords and the stewards administering the large feudal estates of absentee landowners based in the Angevin kingdom of Naples made a decisive contribution to the evolution of rural exploitation in the Peloponnese. To be sure, both Greeks and Italians were active at all ranks of seignorial administration in the Frankish Morea.512 The Greeks ensured the continuity of rural exploitation and taxation. On the other hand, the Italians, whose economic background was urban and market-oriented, constituted a dynamic element spearheading the implementation of an innovative market- and export-oriented approach in the exploitation of rural resources, far broader than the archontes of Sparta in the twelfth century with respect to oil. This approach was decisively extended to several commodities.513 The new modes of rural exploitation interacted with the second development, which occurred in the Mediterranean context. The contraction 508 Thiriet, Régestes, 3:136, no. 2,735. 509  One should not extend this conclusion to the entire Peloponnese, as done by J. Chrysostomides, “Merchant versus Nobles: A Sensational Court Case in the Peloponnese (1391–1404),” in Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Δ´ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελο­ ποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν (Athens, 1992–93), 2:127–28. 510  Jacoby, “Italian Migration and Settlement,” 98–99, 107–8, 121–22. 511  Martin, “Fiscalité et économie étatique,” 646. 512  A perusal of the names in the survey of 1365 is convincing in that respect: LT, 157–92. See also Pessotto, “Burocrati del Principe d Acaia,” 5–22. 513  On oil, see above, 233–45.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

269

of Constantinople’s economy after 1204 and the growing Western demand for foodstuffs, wine, and industrial raw materials generated a restructuring and partial reorientation of commercial and maritime networks. The shift was especially pronounced in former Byzantine provinces previously geared toward Constantinople, whose surpluses were increasingly redirected toward Western markets.514 As with respect to oil in the twelfth century, landowners and the managers of large estates provided the impetus in the rural economy of the Peloponnese in the following period. The attitudes and operation of the Italian stewards have already been illustrated above to some extent. Arriving in the Peloponnese with a rich experience gathered in the Angevin kingdom of Naples, they displayed flexibility in response to changing circumstances. The extension of land cultivation before the Black Death gave way to a more selective exploitation of soils after the 1340s. The concentration on grain cultivation and cash crops and the introduction of new types of culture went hand in hand with the expansion of more advanced farming methods targeting a rise in output. The stewards possibly stimulated the diffusion of iron plowshares. The raising of buffalo enabled a better and faster plowing of soils, including heavier soils as in some relatively well-watered areas of Elis. It was accompanied by the gathering and use of manure. Irrigation and manure ensured the success of intensive cultivation, as emphasized by the surveyor of the estates formerly owned by Lise du Quartier.515 Irrigation was also extended to cotton growing. In addition, the stewards practiced a more selective and differentiated exploitation of the workforce, using the peasants’ corvée, hired labor, and leasing in seignorial land wherever they would ensure the optimal revenue. They advocated the exercise of seignorial authority to take full advantage of human and animal labor for the corvée. They also introduced improved management techniques and new accounting systems,

increased storage facilities, and invested part of the revenue in infrastructure and security.516 Rural exploitation in the Venetian Morea, exclusively in small tracts of land or small estates, was clearly export-oriented. It was dominated by the function of Korone and especially Methone as maritime outlets for rural products and as important ports of call within the Mediterranean commercial and maritime networks. Sale credit acted in a similar way. Yet the impact of both these two factors also extended to rural products from neighboring territories. This is illustrated, for instance, by the sale credit that a resident of Methone granted in 1336 in return for must to peasants residing in the Frankish Morea,517 as well as by the export of silk grown in the principality via Methone and Korone.518 The large landowners of the Byzantine Morea, both lay archontes and the heads of ecclesiastical institutions, must have already been acquainted by the second half of the thirteenth century with the new forms of rural exploitation and management developed in the Frankish principality. The “casaux de parçon” or “partitioned villages,” the revenue of which was shared by Frankish and Byzan­­tine landlords, offered ample opportunity in that respect. The encounter of landowners of both territories at regional fairs, as at Vervena in the Skorta region, provided another channel of communication and transfer of expertise. The Byzantine archon who in 1296 attended that fair, held in Frankish territory, sold silk, the production of which in Byzantine territory was stimulated by Western demand.519 The growing of cash crops and the collection of industrial raw materials such as valania and kermes in the Byzantine Morea was also promoted by transactions with merchants and bankers in Methone and Korone. In sum, there is good reason to believe that, though with some delay, the Byzantine Morea also benefited from developments in rural exploitation in the principality and that, in that respect, it was more attuned to the market economy than

514  D. Jacoby, “The Economy of Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261,” in Laiou, Urbs Capta, 210–14; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 213, 220–21. 515  Manure is mentioned only once in the Frankish surveys and reports, yet its use was obviously not restricted to a single estate.

516  Jacoby, “Italian Migration and Settlement,” 123–27. On infrastructure and security, see Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 250–51. 517  See above, 252. 518  Jacoby, “Silk Production,” 55–57, 59–61. 519  Ibid., 45, 59–60.

270

david jacoby

some other Byzantine provinces. This may have involved a larger use of hired labor in agriculture and livestock breeding and increased land leasing, as in the Frankish Morea, given the use of cash in tax and rent payments.520 It would seem that, more generally, the importance of wage labor in Byzantine rural exploitation has been underestimated, due to the predominantly fiscal nature of the documentation.521 Olives producing oil; cereals; wine; and various textile fibers such as cotton, silk, and flax re­­quire processing. Primitive oil presses, winepresses, and hand mills were surely in domestic use in peasant households, yet the processing of agricultural produce directed toward commercialization was firmly controlled and channeled by large landowners. They could muster the capital indispensable for the construction and servicing of powerful and sophisticated equipment. In the Frankish Morea large landowners exercised seignorial authority over their villeins to impose the exclusive use of their own facilities for the processing of marketable surpluses, in return for a payment in kind or cash, and prevented them from establishing competing installations. As noted above, these landowners owned or built oil presses, winepresses, and mills. To these installations one may add silk workshops for the rearing of cocoons and especially for reeling, the unwinding of silk fiber,522 and retting pits in which flax was soaked for a prolonged period to separate the fibers from the wood.523 The monopoly system also extended to additional installations. Since there was no mangle for pressing and smoothing cloth in Nauplion in 1419, a Greek resident of the city obtained from the Venetian authorities the right to build one and operate it in his own house, in return for an annual payment after the first five years.524 This licensing procedure had clearly been inherited

by Venice from the earlier feudal lords, like the monopolies on the sale of currants, valania, and kermes for export in the territories of Argos and Nauplion. The monopoly on processing installations the large landowners implemented recalls the seignorial bannum of western feudal lords, yet it is unlikely that it was introduced into the Frankish Morea in the thirteenth century. Rather, it seems to have perpetuated a system already existing in Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade, as suggested by the ownership of similar installations by large lay and ecclesiastical landowners in the empire, including in the Byzantine Morea. As noted above, they operated mills in this territory. It is unfortunately impossible to determine whether the landowners’ monopoly resulted in technological stagnation, or whether market demand and competition led to improvements in processing equipment. Incidentally, the information on mills in Frankish surveys and reports underlines once more the economic nature of the data in these documents, in contrast to the predominantly fiscal aspect of the Byzantine sources on mills.525 As always, the peasant’s priority was the cultivation of crops ensuring the feeding of his household and his animals. In addition, he was compelled to produce surpluses for the payment of taxes and for the purchase of raw materials and manufactured goods, such as clothing, tools, and other essential objects not produced by his own household. In order to increase the value of his surpluses, he followed the lead of landowners in the cultivation of cash crops. He faced several options for the trading of his surpluses. One of them was barter or sale in return for cash, whether locally within his own village community, at a nearby market, or at a regional fair, provided the latter was not too distant from his residence.526 Peasants also sold surpluses to the landowners whose land

520  Gemistos Plethon recorded that use: see below, 273. 521  Laiou, “The Agrarian Economy,” 336–37, 357, states that paid agricultural laborers do not appear very frequently in the sources; ibid., 357, she further states that “there was no labor market of any consequence.” On the deficiencies of the fiscal documentation, see below, 275. 522  Jacoby, “Silk Production,” 51–52. 523  The peasants paid the ius linobrosii for the use of these pits: see LT, 275, s.v. 524  Sathas, 3:191–92.

525  On Byzantine mills, see Laiou, “The Agrarian Econ­­ omy,” 359–60. 526  Although belonging to the second half of the ninth century, the story of the peasant Metrios going to an annual fair in Paphlagonia represents a type of trading involving surpluses: see A. E. Laiou, “Händler und Kaufleute auf dem Jahrmarkt,” in Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, ed. G. Prinzing and D. Simon (Munich, 1990), 68–69; repr. in A. E. Laiou, Gender, Society, and Economic Life in Byzantium (Aldershot, 1992), no. XI. On barter, see also below.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

271

they cultivated, as noted above. In addition, itinerant merchants collected products and conveyed them to markets, fairs, or cities.527 Villeins engaging in trade are attested in the principality and in Venetian Messenia, and some paroikoi must have acted likewise in the Byzantine Morea.528 Significantly, in 1327 a state villein from Venetian Munista brought silk cocoons he purchased from villeins residing in the Frankish Morea to Korone, yet another instance of economic interaction across political boundaries.529 As noted above, in addition to crops from their own demesne, large landowners in the Frankish Morea also marketed the produce of their dependent peasants delivered to them as tax or as payments for leases. Some of them bought produce from their own peasants, at times by the exercise of social constraint and at imposed prices, and possibly also acquired surpluses from the peasants of neighboring landowners. They could collect and acquire large quantities of produce and muster transportation facilities more easily than individual peasants. Their function as intermediaries between producers and merchants and as wholesalers suited to a large extent all the parties concerned. The same pattern is attested between 1355 and 1357 in the region of Thessalonike.530 We may thus safely assume that it was likewise known in the Byzantine Morea. The sale of specific commodities—namely, currants, acorn cups, and kermes—was strictly channeled in the Duchy of Athens, which in­­ cluded Corinthia, and in the regions of Argos and Nauplion. The landowners exercised a monopoly on purchases from their own villeins and the overlord over all the produce of his lordship, 527  In the absence of direct evidence from the Pelopon­ nese, an example from Crete illustrates this point. In 1276 an itinerant merchant from Canea was robbed of wax, silk, and grain while trading in the countryside east of the city along the bay of Suda: TTh, 3:257; dating by Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission,” 431, no. 137. 528  For the Frankish Morea: Libro dele uxanze, 214–15, par. 215: “lo villan [che] faza mercadantia”; see also Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie,” 40. 529  Jacoby, “Silk Production,” 44–45, 60–61. 530  K.-P. Matschke, in SüdostF 52 (1993): 467–68, review of Schreiner, Texte, 79–106, no. 3. Matschke wonders whether this was a special case or common. In view of the evidence regarding the Frankish Morea, the latter was certainly the case.

272

david jacoby

when directed toward export. This two-tier monopsony ensured large profits both to the large landowners and to the overlord, the state in Venetian territories. The lords took advantage of their monopolistic standing as sole purchasers to impose sale prices, regardless of market conditions, whereas supply and demand were at play at the following stage of commercialization, which involved exporters. One may wonder whether the same pattern existed elsewhere in the principality. As noted earlier, it is definitely attested in the Byzantine Morea. Free marketing and the absence of monopolies in the Venetian territories of Korone and Methone contrasted sharply with this system. Since cash crops such as oil, cotton, and some of the wines were largely directed toward export, their success largely depended on demand in foreign markets and the amount of competition they faced. The export of raisins, acorn cups, and kermes was assured in any event, because of heavy demand, yet the number of peasants benefiting from them was rather limited. The ongoing, vigorous, and dynamic Western demand for specific rural products resulted in an ever-stronger economic interaction among the countryside, the main port cities, and maritime trade, which in turn generated an extension and acceleration of monetary circulation. The pivotal function of Methone and Korone in Mediterranean trade and shipping, which rapidly increased from the first half of the thirteenth century onward, ensured a thorough monetization in the immediate hinterland of the two ports. Their impact also extended beyond the boundaries of Venetian territory, as the grant of sale credit from Korone to peasants residing in Frankish Messenia illustrates.531 The two Venetian ports also contributed to the monetization of the economy of the despotate. Byzan­­ tine subjects, including peasants, increasingly brought their produce for sale to the two ports, and Venetian merchants operated in Byzantine territory.532 There is good reason to believe that 531  See above, 252. Loans granted by merchants to entire village communities would have acted likewise. Such loans are attested in 1225 in Euboea: see Jacoby, “New Evidence on the Greek Peasantry,” 239–56. 532  On monetary circulation, see also Zakythinos, DGM, 2:266–67.

the rural economy of the despotate was largely monetized by the first half of the fifteenth century, as implied by the Byzantine philosopher George Gemistos Plethon, who lived in Mystras from around 1410. He advocated a shift from the peasants’ payment of rent and tax in cash to a share of their actual produce.533 The process of monetization also spread from Corinth, Patras, and Glarentza, which functioned as maritime outlets of rural products. Its extension from Glarentza is well illustrated by stray and excavation coin finds in Elis.534 A large variety of coins circulated in all three political entities of the late medieval Peloponnese.535 Still, the implications of numismatic evidence are rather limited with respect to the rural economy. To be sure, especially hoards accumulated over long periods may illustrate to some extent the pace and degree of its monetization and provide general information regarding trade relations. Yet even if discovered in a controlled archaeological context and especially if restricted to stray finds, coins cannot be related to specific commodities, nor do they reveal the intensity or volume of commercialization or the distribution range of rural products. Monetization is duly attested by the written documentation bearing on the large Frankish estates. Taxes, lease payments, and wages were delivered in cash alongside transfers in kind, or in a conjunction of both.536 The commutation of compulsory labor service always entailed payments in cash. Yet barter must have remained an important factor in the rural economy of the three political entities, especially in small exchanges between 533 Lampros, Παλαιόγεια καὶ Πελοποννησιακά, 3:254–56; Laiou, “The Agrarian Economy,” 337–38. 534  See D. Athanasoulis and J. Baker, “Medieval Clarentza: The Coins 1999–2004, with Additional Medieval Coin Finds from the Nomos of Elis,” NC 168 (2008): 278– 89, and 265 (map). One of the sites, Krestena, appears in several surveys and reports. Zourtza was one of the “partitioned villages”: Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie,” 114– 15, and above, note 28. Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza,” 241–61; J. Baker and A. M. Stahl, “Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade,” in this volume. 535  For Corinth, see Lock, “The Franks in the Aegean,” 263. 536  Numerous tax payments in cash are recorded, some explicitly as by several Greek archers at Vourkano in Mes­ senia: LT, 99.8–9: “sic restat liquide solvere”; ibid., 100.9: “arcerii xxij qui tenetur (sic) solvere liquide.”

peasants, as well as at local markets and regional fairs, the value of commodities being determined by supply and demand.537 It is noteworthy that barter was practiced even in the complex, sophisticated, and thoroughly monetized trading system of fifteenth-century Constantinople.538 The political boundaries separating the three political entities of the late medieval Peloponnese were porous, as repeatedly illustrated above. They did not prevent or limit the mobility of people, beasts, and goods or the transfer of information and expertise, except during short periods of tension and conflict. Moreover, this mobility emphasizes the economic interdependence and the high degree of integration between the rural economies of the three entities. The broad exportoriented approach introduced into Frankish rural exploitation and into the Venetian territories spread into the Byzantine Morea from the thirteenth century onward. In all three regions it was stimulated by their connection to marketing and shipping networks increasingly dominated by Venice, the interaction being the strongest in Venetian Messenia. It is highly significant that both George Gemistos Plethon and Cardinal Bessarion, respectively around 1418 and around 1444, did not direct their criticism toward rural management and exploitation in the Byzantine Morea, but toward the weakness of the region’s manufacturing, hampered by technologies and quality lagging behind those of the West, as well as toward the commercial and fiscal policies of the despots.539 The distinction between rural exploitation and other aspects of the economy is of fundamental importance in this context. 537  On barter in the story of the peasant Metrios, see above, note 526. A. E. Laiou, “Economic and Noneconomic Exchange,” in EHB 2:694, unduly minimizes the scope of barter in Byzantium, especially in the rural economy. It is obviously not recorded in fiscal documents or in reports on the revenues of landowners, which accounts for the paucity of evidence in that respect. 538  In 1437 and 1438 the Venetian merchant Giacomo Badoer exchanged textiles for raw materials: see D. Jacoby, “The Silk Trade of Late Byzantine Constantinople,” in 550th Anniversary of the Istanbul University: International Byzantine and Ottoman Symposium (XVth century) (30–31 May 2003), ed. S. Atasoy (Istanbul, 2004), 144. 539  Respectively Lampros, Παλαιολόγεια καὶ Πελο­πον­ νησιακά, 3:263 and 43–44; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:267–69. This emphasis has been overlooked so far.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

273

Incidentally, two Venetian observers writing in 1422, thus around the same time, considered that the rural economy of the Peloponnese, obviously including that of the Byzantine Morea, had a substantial production capacity. In his report to the Venetian Senate Dolfin Venier estimated that the fiscal revenue the region yielded was far superior to that obtained from Venetian Crete, and Antonio Morosini stressed the region’s ability to recover rapidly from the Turkish forays and regain its prosperity.540 The following period, though, witnessed a decline. The evidence bearing on the rural economy of the Frankish principality and the Venetian territories reveals important aspects of rural exploitation in the contemporary Byzantine Morea. It may also provide new insights into the Byzan­ tine rural economy before the Fourth Crusade, considering the high degree of continuity in rural exploitation and taxation with respect to the Byzantine period observed in the Frankish Peloponnese. This point is illustrated by the function of middlemen performed by the large landowners of this region in the marketing of surpluses their dependent peasants produced, a perpetuation of Byzantine practices. Considering the evidence culled from Frankish documents, it may be safely assumed that the oil sold by the archontes of Sparta in the twelfth century was not exclusively the product of their own olive trees but also included oil delivered as payments by peasants or bought from them. This raises some questions regarding the common economic interpretations of the Byzantine praktika. The affinity between these documents and the Frankish surveys and reports has often been stressed, and rightly so, since the latter are modeled after the former. However, the Frankish documents were compiled to assess or determine the revenue accruing from economic exploitation, whereas the praktika were fiscal censuses that fail to record many aspects of economic management and operation. This essential difference must be constantly kept in mind when comparing the information the two types of sources and their economic implications provide. The assessment 540  Sathas, 1:115–19; Nanetti, Il codice Morosini, 2:918, par. 64.1001: “per puocho tempo se redrezeria a grandisimo rendedo”; 2:935, par. 64.1042.

274

david jacoby

of revenues accruing from rural exploitation may illustrate this point. Some collective ventures for the building or decoration of rural churches in the late medieval Peloponnese, attested by inscriptions, have drawn deserved attention.541 It is commonly assumed that the differentiated contributions of the donors reflect their economic capacity and that, given the level of tax payments imposed upon the peasants, their donations were on the whole substantial. These propositions call for two remarks. First, individual religious devotion must also be taken into account when considering the size of contributions. More importantly in our context, assessing the peasants’ standard of living primarily or exclusively on the basis of tax payments recorded in the Byzantine praktika, the common method, is clearly deceptive. Nor can cereal crops be the only criterion,542 considering the importance of income yielded by vine cultivation and other activities. Indeed, fiscal censuses focus upon specific estates and register the taxes owed by the peasants’ households residing in them, the amounts of which are based on economic factors such as the assets included in their holdings and their labor force within these same estates. As a result, the praktika fail to fully reflect the flexibility and range of the peasants’ economic occupations and the income these yield. In contrast, the Frankish surveys and reports record all the landowner’s revenues from specific estates, regardless of the place of residence of the workers producing them. They reveal that many peasants, not necessarily the poorest among them, leased land or worked in return for wages outside the boundaries of the estate in which they resided.543 Salaried work could also be performed in neighboring 541  On such cases, see S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Church Foun­ dations by Entire Villages (13th–16th c.): A Short Note,” ZRVI 44 (2007): 333–39. The ventures do not reveal the legal status of the peasants. I therefore do not understand why Laiou, “The Agrarian Economy,” 318, states that the villagers in the Mani undertaking these ventures were “possibly [. . .] independent.” 542  As suggested by Lefort, “The Rural Economy,” 299–303. 543  The economic standing of the lessee can be better determined when his name appears both in his place of residence and in a neighboring village in which he leased land or worked as hired laborer, as in some Frankish surveys.

urban centers. However, since the Byzantine and Frankish documents do not record all the peasants’ income from their various activities or from the sale of their surpluses, it is impossible to correctly evaluate their economic condition, although the ownership or absence of oxen provides some indication in this respect. On the whole, the peasants seem to have been better off than generally assumed on the sole basis of the taxes registered in fiscal surveys. The calculation of revenue obtained by the large Byzantine landowners from single estates on the basis of fiscal documents faces the same methodological pitfalls as the assessment of the peasant’s income.544 The estimates presented so far fail to take into account 544  For such calculations, see Lefort, “The Rural Econ­ omy,” 299–303.

revenues accruing from the operation of processing installations, from the landowners’ function as middlemen channeling the produce of their dependent peasants and possibly others too, and from the fairs held on their estates.545 These considerations regarding the nature and limitations of the praktika warrant a partial reinterpretation of the economic information Byzantine fiscal sources offer, as distinct from the fiscal information that has largely been the focus of attention in scholarly research.546 545  On these fairs as sources of revenue in Byzantium, see Laiou, “Händler und Kaufleute,” 54–64; on fairs held in the large Frankish estates: Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns,” 214–15. 546  The following study reached me after the correction of the second set of proofs: G. C. Maniatis, “The Byzantine Olive Oil Press Industry: Organization, Technology, Pricing Strategies,” Byzantion 82 (2012): 259–77.

Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese

275

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village Ecclesiastical and Rural Landscapes in the Late Byzantine Peloponnese

KL Sh a ron E . J. Gerst el

I

n the last two decades, archaeologists, geographers, and anthropologists focusing on landscape have developed a rich theoretical framework to support discussions of settlement patterns, community identity, place, memory, and collective ritual.1 In examining the southern Peloponnese I would like to consider overlapping landscapes—agrarian, sacred, and artistic—and the place of villagers, settlements, and churches within these landscapes. Nominally returned to Byzantine control in 1263, the land and its people were knit together by the relationship of peasant and overlord, a relationship that inscribed settlements within an agricultural landscape that was centuries old and engaged villagers in a seasonal cycle regulated by planting and harvesting, growth and decline. Yet the landscape was also set under the protection of holy powers. Divided by metropolitan jurisdictions and marked by monasteries, hermitages, and small shrines, this sacred landscape was ordered by a calendar of ritual celebration that had other temporal dimensions. The natural environment plays a critical role in initiating any discussion of landscape. The Taygetos and Parnon mountain ranges divide the southern Peloponnese into geographic microregions of highlands and valleys (fig. 1).2 Through the valley that rests between them flows the Eurotas River, which starts its journey at the border of Arkadia and flows south to meet the Lakonian Gulf below the fertile plains of Helos. Its many tributaries, formed from the torrents of water that descend from Taygetos and Parnon, carved out deep ravines that separated populations on a seasonal basis.3 Divisions in populations that 1  The bibliography on this subject is extensive. See, among others, J. B. Jackson, Discovering the Vernacular Landscape (New Haven, 1984); K. F. Anschuetz, R. H. Wilshusen, and C. L. Scheik, “An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions,” Journal of Archaeological Research 9, no. 2 (2001): 157–211; W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, eds., Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives (Malden, 1999); E. Hirsch and M. O’Hanlon, The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space (Oxford, 1995). For a recent analysis of landscape studies within a Greek context, see H. Forbes, Meaning and Identity in a Greek Landscape: An Archaeological Ethnography (Cambridge, 2007), 9–49. 2  For a discussion of the region’s topography, see A. Philippson, Der Peloponnes:Versuch einer Landeskunde auf geologischer Grundlage (Berlin, 1891). 3  On the effects of these torrents, see P. Armstrong, W. G. Cavanagh, and G. Shipley, “Crossing the River: Observations

335

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, Chamber of the Chrysobulls, detail of vault and north wall (photo: courtesy of the Fifth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Sparta)

Figure 1 

Map of the southeastern Peloponnese (map by M. Saldaña)

resulted from these barriers were established from ancient times; they are reflected, to some extent, in the boundaries of modern-day prefectures. In the late medieval period, these geographical features created opportunities for the establishment of segregated communities, as demonstrated by the large number of small hermitages and cave chapels burrowed into the stone walls of gorges that were carved out of the land by millennia of the waters’ flood and retreat. Parnon divided the region’s two largest population centers, Mystras and Monemvasia. In the fourteenth century, each was a powerful on Routes and Bridges in Laconia from the Archaic to Byzantine Periods,” BSA 87 (1992): 293–310.

336

sharon e. j. gerstel

metropolitan center, and each was associated with well-known monasteries. These ecclesiastical institutions were closely tied to the surrounding countryside—the agricultural lands that supported them and the tax revenue that ensured their survival. This relationship is critical to understanding the place of the villager within the larger landscape, for in the Morea, as in other regions of Byzantium, many villagers were paroikoi (dependent peasants). Registered in fiscal surveys of ecclesiastical estates and listed in imperial and patriarchal acts, they owed the monastery and metropolitan both taxes and labor. As we shall see, divisions between these metropolitan centers, and the relations of these centers with dependent monasteries and endowed villages,

also influenced artistic and architectural commissions in the region. Written and material sources provide critical information about the landscape and the location of Orthodox settlements in the fourteenth century. A large number of imperial and episcopal acts list the land holdings and privileges of monasteries and bishoprics in the region. These documents record endowments, including villages and their paroikoi, but they also chart agricultural features. The documents additionally mention a large number of metochia or monydria, small satellite establishments that made the boundaries of the central monastery visible and set the borders under divine protection.4 The analysis of texts from three places allows us to consider where endowed properties were located and what their location reveals about mapping landscapes in this period.

wall connects the small chamber to the church narthex (figs. 3, 8). At the apex of the vault was once an image of the “blessing Christ” held aloft by angels. Four rays emanate from the framed figure and terminate in hands that hold broad, open scrolls, one on each of the chamber’s walls (fig. 4); these painted copies of chrysobulls sent by the ruling emperor to the monastery were rendered permanent and incontestable through their inscription on the walls. Painted on surfaces usually reserved for images of standing

The Church of the Virgin Hodegetria, Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras The first set is painted on the walls of the southwest chamber of the Hodegetria church, the katholikon of the powerful Brontocheion Mon­ astery in Mystras (fig. 2).5 The vaulted chamber is small—3.1 meters long by 2.7 meters wide—and dark.6 The north wall is pierced by a steep stairway that leads through a narrow portal to the galleries above;7 an arched doorway in the same 4  For a recent study of churches as boundary markers, see L. Nixon, Making a Landscape Sacred: Outlying Churches and Icon Stands in Sphakia, Southwestern Crete (Oxford, 2006). 5  I thank Panagiotes Perdikoulias of the 5th Directorate of Byzantine Antiquities for providing me with images from this chamber. Permission to use these images was granted by the Regional Archaeological Council. I am very grateful to the members of the council and to the former director of the Fifth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Kalliope Diamante, for their support of this research. I also thank Aimilia Bakourou, Evangelia Pantou, and Michalis Kappas for their advice and assistance. 6  G. Millet, “Inscriptions byzantines de Mistra,” BCH 32 (1899): 98. 7  At some point in the church’s history this stairway was rebuilt. The decoration of the chamber, which framed the stairway with a stepped border, demonstrates that the space was always intended as a pass-through from the lower floor to the gallery above.

Figure 2 

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, exterior from the east (photo: S. Gerstel)

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

337

Figure 3 

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, plan (after H. Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Typologie des ‘Mistratypus’,” MarbJb 18 [1969]: 106)

Figure 4 

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, Chamber of the Chrysobulls, view of vault and north wall (photo: courtesy of the Fifth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Sparta) 338

sharon e. j. gerstel

saints, the monumental texts, held aloft by otherworldly hands and sealed with the likeness of Christ’s face, are iconic.8 Placed below the blessing Christ, the enumerated privileges are thus sanctioned by heaven. This relationship is spelled out in the iambic verse that is divided by the angels into four stanzas that mention Christ as the lord of lords, the Palaiologoi, and the founder of the church, Pachomios.9 Painted in a single campaign, the chrysobulls are ordered by date, beginning on the east wall with a text of 1314–15 and ending on the north with a text of 1322.10 The text on the north wall covers an earlier one, most likely also a chrysobull.11 The scrolls originally had likenesses of golden seals at the bottom.12 Writing in 1892, Constantine Zesiou observed the likeness of Christ on one, but this image and the others are long gone.13 The letters, painted reddish brown, are approximately 8  For a reading of illuminated chrysobulls as the animated record of imperial donation, see A. Cutler, “Legal Iconicity: The Documentary Image, the Problem of Genre, and the Work of the Beholder,” in Byzantine Art: Recent Studies; Essays in Honor of Lois Drewer, ed. C. Hourihane (Princeton, 2009), 63–79. 9  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 99–100; A. Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken, vol. 1 of Byzantinische Epigramme in Inschriftlicher Überlieferung (Vienna, 2009), 239–41. 10  K. Zesiou, “Ἐπιγραφαί Λακωνικῆς: Μυστρά Ἐπιγραφαί,” in idem, Σύμμικτα (Athens, 1892), 45–71 (hereafter Σύμμικτα); idem, “Ἐπιγραφαί τῶν χριστιανικῶν χρόνων τῆς Ἑλλάδος: Μέρος Αʹ,” in Πελοπόννησος, vol. 1, Ἐπιγραφαί Λακεδαίμονος (Athens, 1917), 72–94, nos. 201–4; Millet, “Inscriptions,” 97–156; F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströ­ mischen Reiches von 565–1453 (Munich and Berlin, 1960), 4:2305, 2341, 2437, 2438, 2483, 2485, 2633. I am very grateful to Liz James, who provided me with a copy of her unpublished master’s thesis, “Four Chrysobulls from the Monastery of the Brontochion, Mistra” (University of Birmingham, 1986). For Byzantine chrysobulls, see A. E. Müller, “Imperial Chrysobulls,” in Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. E. Jeffreys, J. Haldon, and R. Cormack (Oxford, 2008), 129– 35. For chrysobulls of Andronikos II, see P. Alexander, “A Chrysobull of the Emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus in Favor of the See of Kanina in Albania,” Byzantion 15 (1940– 41): 167–207. 11  This chrysobull mentions the church of SS. Theodore. It is the only one of the five to use the term Morea. Millet, “Inscriptions,” 118. 12  For a discussion of golden seals, see P. Grierson, “Byzan­ tine Gold Bullae, with a Catalogue of Those at Dumbarton Oaks,” DOP 20 (1966): 239–53. 13 Zesiou, Σύμμικτα, 43; Millet, “Inscriptions,” 99 n. 1.

2 centimeters in height. The names of the reigning emperors, Andronikos II and, in one of the texts, Michael IX, originally scribed in red ink in imitation of the cinnabar used for imperial signatures, have worn off, leaving only faint traces at the bottom of each scroll. The texts begin with praise for the emperor’s justice and then laud “the most honorable abbot of the monastery sited at Mystras, the archimandrite and protosynkellos, Lord Pachomios.” Then, as common in such texts, the chrysobulls enumerate the properties and people, that is, paroikoi, that were endowed to the monastery, charting the relationship of village and landlord, but also mapping the borders, of both monastic holdings and Orthodox territories.14 The chrysobulls of 1314–15 and 1319, located on the east and south walls, endow the monastery with substantial properties, paroikoi, mills, trees, fields, and vineyards (fig. 5).15 According to these, the monastery is given: a zeugelateion next to the river called Brysiotos, as great and of such kind as it is, with a two-eyed mill on it, at the site called Kalyvitos, land of 150 modii; other land in different places, also of 150 modii; vineyards, olive trees and various fruit-bearing trees; paroikoi in the area of Mystras, in various places, a two-eyed mill, an agrid­ ion at the place called Philetos, known as Dragobiaston,16 as great and of such kind as it is with its surrounds; four paroikoi at Delvina; a monydrion in the revered name of St. Demetrios and known as Pelatos, with its surrounds; a metochion dedicated to the holy and all-praiseworthy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian, and known as Kausalos,17 with its paroikoi, 14 Zakythinos, DGM, 1:196–97, 296–97. 15  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 103, lines 31–104, line 37; 109, lines 30–110, line 38. 16  For the site of Dragobiaston, see N. Skagkos, “Η αμ­π ε­­λ ο­­κ αλλιέργεια στη Λακωνία κατά τους βυζαντινούς χρόνους,” in Μονεμβάσιος οἷνος—μονοβασ(ι)ά—malvasia, ed. I. Anagnostakes (Athens, 2008), 251 n. 130. This excellent article came to my attention after this chapter was written. Translations are by the author unless otherwise noted. 17  Ibid., 252 n. 135 where the author provisionally associates the monydrion with the late Byzantine single-aisled chapel of

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

339

Figure 5 

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, Chamber of the Chrysobulls, south wall (photo: courtesy of the Fifth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Sparta)

vineyards, choraphia, olive trees and other fruit-bearing trees, and mills; another met­ ochion dedicated to the more-than-holy Theotokos, also called Kalogonia,18 with its paroikoi, and the choraphia there and other rights, including those of water for ploughing which this metochion takes from that river, the Gephyratos, for the irrigation of the choraphia; the agridion called Mitatova with its surrounds;19 another metochion St. John the Theologian at Vouvali in the modern village of Mystras. For this chapel, see Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 51 (1996): 159, pl. b. 18  Kalogonia is immediately to the south of Sparta. 19  Modern-day Agrapidoula. For archaeological remains of this settlement, see W. Cavanagh et al., Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey (London, 2002), 1:393.

340

sharon e. j. gerstel

around Helos,20 dedicated to St. Basil, with its paroikoi and choraphia and mills; at Mouchlion,21 another metochion dedicated to the saints Theodore, and called Brontochei[on], with the choraphia that belong to it, paroikoi and a mill; another metochion dedicated to St. Nicholas, and 20  For medieval Helos, see J. M. Wagstaff, The Devel­ opment of Rural Settlements: A Study of the Helos Plain in Southern Greece (Amersham, England, 1982); W. D. Taylour and R. Janko, Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia, The British School at Athens, suppl. vol. 44 (London, 2008), 606–9 (with collected bibliography). 21  On Mouchli and its relations with Mystras and Amyklion, see E. Darkó, “Ἡ ἱστορικὴ σημασία καὶ τὰ σπου­ δαιότερα ἐρείπια τοῦ Μουχλίου,” Ἐπ.Ἑτ.Βυζ.Σπ. 10 (1933): 454–82.

Figure 6 

Sites identified in the chrysobull of 1319 (map by M. Saldaña)

to Mouchlion

Androusa

Br

os iot

r ve

Ri

Mitatoba (Agrapidoula)

ys

Mystras Kalogonia R as rot Eu r

ive

known as Molochos, with its surrounds and the choraphia that it possesses; another monydrion at Androusa dedicated to the honored commanders of the heavenly powers and known as Ligude, with its rights.22 22 The monydrion should likely be identified as the church of the Archangel Michael (Ἁγ. Ταξιαρχής), a monastic church first constructed in the 10th or 11th century. Located on a hill above the village of Polichne, approximately 20 km

Of the sites that can be identified, several are close to the city of Mystras, including Kalogonia and Mitatova (fig. 6). The Brysiotis and Gephyratos north of Androusa, the monastic enclosure was transformed into a kastro in the later medieval period, the castle of the Holy Archangel named in the Acciajuoli estate inventories. Most recently, see M. Breuillot, Chateaux oubliés de la Messénie médiévale (Paris, 2005), 190–200 (with earlier bibliography). I thank Michalis Kappas for bringing this site to my attention.

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

341

Astros,26 the Maleve plain around Cholodome­ tikon, and around the site called St. Nicholas, known as Phouska. The donor of these properties is recorded as the Sebastos Ioannes Polemianitos, a member of a Moreote noble family.27 At least one church from the named regions can be linked to the period in which the lands were deeded to the monastery. In Kato Meligou/Cheimerini near Astros, remains of monumental decoration in the small, single-aisled church of St. George, a metochion of the Old Panagia Church, have been dated to the late thirteenth or fourteenth century (fig. 7).28 The September 1322 chrysobull, painted on the north wall, includes a number of additional properties gifted to the monastery by Lord Andronikos Palaiologos [Asen], the “kephale of the land of the Peloponnese (κεφαλῆς τῆς κατὰ τὴν πελοπόννησον χώρας)” (fig. 8).29 Gained in battle, these include:

Figure 7 

St. George, Kato Meligou, apse with inscription (photo: courtesy of the Fifth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Sparta)

are tributaries of the Eurotas River. The list ends with two known locations outside of Lakonia: Mouchli, in Arkadia, and Androusa, across Tayge­ tos, in Messenia.23 The two later texts secure the rights to properties at a greater distance from Mystras. According to the chrysobull of February 1320 painted on the chamber’s west wall the monastery purchased properties at Zaravos.24 The same text records the donation of properties at Passava,25

23  That Pachomios had an interest in properties in Mes­ senia should come as no surprise. Androusa, located in fertile agricultural lands, was sited at the west end of a pass that connected Messenia and Lakonia. Material evidence—in this case fragments of ecclesiastical sculpture that had been transported from Sparta to Mystras—have been linked to a workshop active in the region of Androusa around the year 1200, demonstrating that even before the Frankish conquest there was an artisanal connection between the two areas. On this workshop see G. Pallis, “Νεότερα για το εργαστήριο γλυπτικής της Σαμαρίνας (τέλη 12ου–αρχές 13ου αι.),” Δελτ. Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 27 (2006): 91–100 (with collected bibliography). 24  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 113, lines 5–9. 25  The fortress is located in the northeast corner of the Mani. See M. Breuillot, “Το κάστρο του Πασσαβά στον Μορέα: Τοπωνυμία και Ιστορία," Λακ.Σπ. 11 (1992), 299–309.

342

sharon e. j. gerstel

a metochion in the area of Skorta30 dedicated to the more-than-holy Theotokos and known as Bogale (Θεοτόκος ἡ Βόγαλη), with its rights being paroikoi, vineyards, choraphia, olive trees (fig trees, apple trees), 26  Astros is located to the east of Mount Parnon. Although the text specifies the shore, the lands must have included properties in the hills leading up to Mount Maleve. For Astros, see Bon, La Morée franque, 515–17. 27  Kyr Ioannes Polemianitos is also mentioned as the patron of a manuscript (Madrid, Escurial, cod. Ω-II-5) dated 1311–19, which contains homilies of St. John Chrysostom. The colophon identifies the scribe as Nicholas Malotaras. See S. Lampros, “Λακεδαιμόνιοι βιβλιογράφοι καὶ κτήτορες κωδίκων κατὰ τοὺς μέσους αἰῶνας καὶ ἐπὶ τουρκοκρατίας,” Νέος Ἑλλ. 4 (1907): 164–66, 357. In 1317 and 1319 the same scribe produced a manuscript for Pachomios, abbot of the Brontocheion Monastery (Serres, Monastery of John the Baptist, cod. 74). For this manuscript, see P. N. Papageorgiou, “Αἱ Σέρραι καὶ τὰ προάστεια, τὰ περὶ τὰς Σέρρας καὶ ἡ μονὴ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Προδρόμου,” BZ 3 (1894): 322–23. That the nobleman and the abbot employed the same scribe suggests that the two men knew each other and that the gift of properties from the Sebastos to the monastery was a donation made to a familiar institution. 28  For the church of St. George, see Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 36 (1981): 2.1:142. A large settlement of the eleventh or twelfth century is located on the road between Astros and Oreini Meiligou (the specific site is called Sabbanas after a small chapel dedicated to St. Sabbas at this location); see Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 29 (1973– 1974): 2.2:423; BCH 104 (1980): 605. 29  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 115, lines 5–161, line 11; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:297. 30  For Skorta, see Bon, La Morée franque, 363–66.

and other fruit-bearing trees; and also two choria called Zourtza31 and Mountra,32 enclosing within their borders Pacheia, Choutza, Pratzydake and Klenova, with their mills and trees. Similarly he gave to this monastery land gained at Pistiana, Topolana, and at the site of St. John. In like manner through the prostagma and the patriarchal sigillion grammaton is attached to the same monastery another metochion on the plain of Karytaina dedicated to the more-than-holy Theotokos and known as the New Monastery, with its paroikoi, vineyards, choraphia, olive trees and mill. Also [the monastery] has land of 600 modii at Passava through purchase. These sites stretched the geographical reach of the monastery substantially to the north, plotting a chain of villages that ran in a line between Byzantine and Frankish-held lands. In May 1366 landowners deeded additional lands to the monastery through a patriarchal sigil­ lion.33 These properties are located in the immediate vicinity of Mystras—vineyards, mills, fields, and paroikoi near the area of Brysi,34 Barsova,35 Kalybitas, Trypi,36 Kalogonia, and Theologos 31  For medieval building remains at Zourtza (modern Kato Phigaleia [Bon, La Morée franque, 389]), see C. Bouras, “Zourtza: Une basilique byzantine au Péloponnese,” CahArch 21 (1971): 137–49. The basilica dates to the late tenth century but was still in use in the later period. I thank Kostis Kourelis for discussing the location of this village with me. 32  Modern-day Phaskomelia. See Bon, La Morée franque, 389. For a discussion of the legal and fiscal status of these villages, see D. Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie grécofranque en Morée: Les ‘Casaux de Parçon’,” MélRome 75 (1963): 111–25; repr. in D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine (London, 1975), IV. 33  MM, 1:479–83. 34  For Βρύσις, see A. Philippidis-Braat, “Inscriptions du Péloponnèse: Inscriptions du IXe au XV e siècle,” TM 9 (1985): 324. 35  Modern-day Ayia Eirene. A post-Byzantine church may be built on the foundations of an older monument. 36  Several Byzantine churches are located in or close to the village. SS. Theodore, now in ruins, was decorated with wall paintings in the late thirteenth century. See N. B. Drandakes, “Ὀ ναὸς τῶν Ἁγίων Θεοδώρων τῆς Λακωνικῆς Τρύπης,” Ἐπ.Ἑτ.Βυζ.Σπ. 25 (1955): 38–87. To the northeast of the village is the cave church of St. Nikon, with paintings dated to the late thirteenth century. See K. Diamante,

(fig. 9).37 The acquisition of properties in close proximity to Mystras was undoubtedly intended to augment the finances of the monastery. Finally, in 1375, landowners gave arable fields at Terkova to the monastery.38 “Οἱ τοιχογραφίες τοῦ ἁσκηταριοῦ τοῦ Ἁγίου Νίκωνα στὴν Τρύπη τῆς Λακωνίας,” Λακ.Σπ. 9 (1988): 347–87. 37  Several churches around this village date to the fourteenth century. St. Nicholas Achragias is dated to the end of the fourteenth century. For this church, see note 117 below. The Old Monastery of the Forty Martyrs near Theologos is decorated with wall paintings of the thirteenth century, 1304–5, and the fifteenth century. N. B. Drandakes, “Τὸ Παλιομονάστηρο τῶν Ἁγὶων Σαράντα στὴ Λακεδαίμονα καὶ τὸ ἀσκηταριό του,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 16 (1991–92): 115–38. The church of the Virgin, between the village of Theologos and the monastery, has wall paintings of 1304–5. PhilippidesBraat, “Inscriptions,” 326–27. Drandakes recorded two additional churches in the area that are in ruins. See N. B. Drandakes, “Σχεδίασμα καταλόγου βυζαντινῶν και μεταβυζαντινῶν ναῶν Λακωνίας,” Λακ.Σπ. 13 (1996): 172. 38  The donation is recorded in a nonscribal colophon

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

343

Figure 8 

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, Chamber of the Chrysobulls, north wall (photo: courtesy of the Fifth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Sparta)

Brysi

Br

to sio

sR

r ive

y

Theologos Trypi

Mystras

Barsova (Ayia Eirene) Kalogonia ta ro Eu sR r ive

Figure 9 

Identifiable properties from sigillion of 1366 (map by M. Saldaña)

on fol. 244 of cod. Vat. Gr. 352. N. Bees, “Διορθώσεις καί παρατηρήσεις εἰς ἀφιερωτήριον τοῦ 1375 ἔτους πρὸς τὴν ἐν Μυστρᾷ Μονὴν τῆς Παναγίας τοῦ Βροντοχίου,” in Νέα Σιῶν (Jerusalem, 1907), 241–48; K. Maxwell, “Another Lectionary of the ‘Atelier’ of the Palaiologina, Vat. Gr. 352,” DOP 37 (1983): 47–54. The inscription of the colophon in the Gospel Book, like the inscription of the chrysobulls within the Hodegetria Church, was intended to safeguard the terms of the donation. Is it possible that Terkova is the village Tserova (modern-day Drosopege, located between Areopolis and Gytheion)? Paintings in the church of St.

344

sharon e. j. gerstel

The Hodegetria chrysobulls form part of the integral program of a single chamber—a test case for considering the intersection of word, image, and spatial experience. Serving as a transitional zone, the chamber connected liturgical space on the ground floor to what might have been a more George in this village have been dated to the first quarter of the fourteenth century. Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1981): 263–64. The village is located near Karyoupolis.

private space of monastic contemplation or one for administrative functions in the church’s galleries.39 Passing through the chamber literally meant passing by lists of rites and properties, a visible proclamation as the bounty of the words proclaimed status and mapped landscapes. Like acts written within Gospel books,40 the inscription of chrysobulls on the walls of the chapel rendered the privileges permanent and afforded protection to documents that were subject to removal or destruction. In a sense, the chamber acted as a small treasury, housing texts whose words translated into wealth and material sustenance. In addition to endowing properties to the monastery, the chrysobulls exempted the community from taxes and proclaimed the monastery’s alienation from the oversight of the local metropolitan. The documents thus empowered the monastery and fostered its relative independence. Yet the permanent inscription of endowed properties suggests that the monumental representation of the chrysobulls also served a larger purpose in mapping imperial territories in the region. The inscription of churches and villages in contested realms or recently conquered lands reveals an attempt to establish boundaries among Byzan­ tine, Frank­ish, and Venetian territories. Androusa bordered Venetian-held properties in Messenia as well as the large land estates that would come 39  Scholars have yet to understand the function of the galleries in this church and others of the “Mystras type.” The stairway to the upper level is steep and the galleries are narrow. The unusual representation of life-sized figures of the seventy disciples, visible from the ground floor of the church (even if one allows for the restoration of screens), made the gallery appear to be populated with standing figures and may indicate that the upper levels of the church were more ceremonial than functional. On the galleries in churches of Mystras, see most recently, G. Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος, η Μητρόπολη του Μυστρά (Athens, 2002), 199– 212. See also C. Delvoye, “Considérations sur l’emploi des tribunes dans l’église de la Vierge Hodigitria de Mistra,” in Actes du XIIe CEB, vol. 3 (Belgrade, 1964), 42–47; H. Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Typologie des ‘Mistratypus’,” MarbJb 18 (1969): 105–18. On the imagery of the seventy disciples, which was later copied in the Pantanassa Church at Mystras, see S. Dufrenne, Les pro­ grammes iconographiques des églises byzantines de Mistra, Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques 4 (Paris, 1970), 43–44, 61, pls. 14–16. 40  For the inscription of acts in Gospel books, see the chapter by H. Saradi in this volume.

into the possession of the Florentine Acciajuoli.41 Mouchli, in Arkadia, and Skorta and its associated villages bordering Elis, were close to Frankishheld territories in the northern Peloponnese. The texts also provide evidence of land and population exchange, mapping shifting political landscapes. Two villages recently liberated from Latin control (δύο χωρία λατινικὴν μερίδα) are included in the texts.42 Moreover, the chrysobull on the south wall of the chapel authorizes the resettlement of eleutheroi (landless peasants) from Latin-held lands onto monastic properties.43 The texts inventory settlements, workers, and agricultural features that were necessary to sustain the monastery. These are precious sources for the study of the agrarian economy of late medieval Lakonia. The chrysobulls carefully differentiate among zeugelateia, agridia, and choria, legal terms concerning the size, nature, and duration of agricultural settlements. Valuable information is provided about the location of vineyards, arable fields, and fruit trees that provided figs, apples, and, of course, olives. Together with these are listed the villagers, the paroikoi, who were bound to the land and beholden to the monastery. Water mills, frequently mentioned, were a common feature of agricultural communities, especially in mountainous regions, where the kinetic energy of fast-flowing streams exerted the necessary power to turn the wooden paddle wheel that rotated the millstone.44 The chrysobulls list both mills and “two-eyed mills,” that is, two-channeled or twinflumed mills.45 The repeated mention of mills in 41  For the Acciajuoli estates in the region, see J. Longnon and P. Topping, Le régime des terres dans la principauté de Morée au XIV e siècle (Paris, 1969). The residents of Androusa (Drusa) are listed in the 1354 inventory of the estates of Niccolò Acciajuoli. See ibid., 94–95. 42  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 118. 43  Ibid., 111; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:206 44  On middle Byzantine water mills, see J. Teall, “The Byzan­t ine Agricultural Tradition,” DOP 25 (1971): 52. 45  An example of a two-channeled or twin-flumed mill of the late Byzantine or early Ottoman period was recorded by a British survey team during field reconnaissance in the Langada Valley near Sparta. See W. Cavanagh et al., Con­ tinuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, vol. 2, Archaeological Data (London, 1996), 352–55, ill. 24.22. Ironically, Cardinal Bessarion, writing in 1444 to Constantine Palaiologos, despot of the Morea, seems to advocate the introduction of vertical water wheels to the

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

345

the documents established title to these facilities but also asserted control over their water sources. The income derived from the use of the inventoried mills would have benefited the monastery. Reciprocally, the oversight of the monastery would have ensured the smooth operation of the facility, which could have been used by a number of villagers.46 Reference is also made to a sacred landscape that is marked by the location and dedication of chapels and hermitages. Noteworthy is the large number of churches mentioned in the earlier texts: two monydria and five metochia. The military saints, Demetrios and Theodore, are among those who guard the territory of the monastery through the dedication and placement of related chapels. These small establishments presumably maintained close links with the Brontocheion Monastery, a link that was reified through the duplication of the monastery’s name, and the name of one of its churches, for the dedication of SS. Theodore, called Brontocheion, at Mouchli.47 The Mystras chrysobulls can be compared to a small number of imperial edicts that were recorded in churches, either in paint or in sculpture, beginning in the middle Byzantine period but increasing in number in the late Byzantium.48 region. This technological innovation was used for waterdriven sawmills and iron mills in Italy and the West. A transcription of the letter, found in Biblioteca Marciana, cod. 533, was published by S. Lampros, “Ὑπόμνημα τοῦ καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος εἰς Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν Παλαιο­ λόγον,” Νέος Ἑλλ. 3 (1906): 26, lines 5–10. See also A. G. Keller, “A Byzantine Admirer of ‘Western’ Progress,” Cam­ bridge Historical Journal 11, no. 3 (1955): 343–48. 46  This is surely one incentive for the donation of mills or shares of mills to monasteries in the late Byzantine period. The number of dishonest millers lampooned in paintings in village churches, damned for eternity and strangled by the weight of their filled sacks, scoops, millstones, and measures, provides visual evidence that the smooth running of the mill was critical to the village economy and also to social order. 47  Hagioi Theodoroi was the first church built in the Brontocheion Monastery. On its foundation and decoration, see A. K. Orlandos, “Δανιὴλ, ὁ πρῶτος κτήτωρ τῶν Ἁγίων Θεοδώρων τοῦ Μυστρᾶ,” Ἐπ.Ἑτ.Βυζ.Σπ. 12 (1936): 443–48; Dufrenne, Les programmes iconographiques, 3–5. 48  On these texts, see most recently S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Church Inscriptions as Documents: Chrysobulls, Eccle­ siastical Acts, Inventories, Donations, Wills,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ. Ἑτ. 24 (2003): 80 (with collected bibliography). An additional chrysobull, issued by Theodore Angelos of Epiros in June 1228 and inscribed on marble, once found in the

346

sharon e. j. gerstel

The existence of permanent chrysobulls in katho­ lika suggests the enhanced role of monasteries as agents for the distant emperor in repatriating lands (and people) that had been lost to Byzantium in recent times of conflict. The chrysobulls concretized through permanent inscription the rights to regained territories and tenants. And yet, although the inscription of monumental chrysobulls in the Hodegetria chamber can be related to an established Byzantine practice,49 it is also very much the product of a Peloponnesian mentalité, where the presentation of lengthy texts for public display had a long history.50 Such inscriptions were common both at Mystras and, more broadly, in Lakonia—a local and regional practice that may have informed the design of the chrysobull chamber and suggests something about the intentions of the abbot, Pachomios. Understood within a local context, the painting of imperial chrysobulls may reveal an attempt to define a closer boundary, one that was manifested in physical terms through the construction of the very walls that enclosed the monastery, separating it not only from the lay public but also from a neighboring church that occupied the same corner of the city. St. Demetrios, the metropolitan church, also contained permanent inscriptions that listed properties and set boundaries, and these must be seen in connection with, and in contrast to, the documents on display in Pachomios’s church. Although Nikephoros Moschopoulos, the builder of the church of St. Demetrios, gifted the eighteenth-century collection of Senator Giacomo Nani in Venice, is today in the Capitoline Museum in Rome. The marble plaque, which measures 1.12 × 0.60 meters, has forty lines of text. For the transcription of the text and a photograph of the stone, see I. Guidi, “Iscrizione Greca medievale Cercirese,” Bollettino della Commissione Archeologica, Communale di Roma 9 (1881): 189–96, pl. 12; A. Martin, “Inscription grecque de Corcyre de 1228,” MélRome 2 (1882): 379–89, pl. XIII. See also the chapter by Saradi above. 49  The Nemanid rulers of Serbia copied the Byzan­t ine practice; these painted documents are also largely found in churches close to the border of the empire. See KalopissiVerti, “Church Inscriptions,” 80–83 (with collected bibliography). 50  One has only to think of the Edictum Diocletiani, promulgated in AD 301. Fragments of the lengthy inscription were built into churches in Geraki and Oitylon (Mani) and have also been recovered in Gytheion (Mani) and in Megalopolis.

Figure 10 

Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphentiko), Brontocheion Monastery, Mystras, view of nave (photo: S. Gerstel)

Figure 11 

Church of St. Demetrios (Metropolitan Church), Mystras, view of nave (photo: S. Gerstel) Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

347

Brontocheion Monastery with an inscribed gospel book (Moscow, Synodal Library, cod. gr. 12),51 it is clear that he and Pachomios also vied with each other over the acquisition of lands and the adornment of their churches. It is, perhaps, not by accident that the lower level of the Hodegetria church, a basilica, appropriates an architectural type most often associated with metropolitan churches in the middle and late Byzantine periods (fig. 10).52 One catalyst behind the decoration of the chamber of the chrysobulls at the Hodegetria church may have been an inscribed column in the metropolitan church, also in the southwest corner of the building. This was the first of several columns that would display the holdings of the Church. The accretion of inscribed texts within the two buildings suggests that the metropolitans and abbots were actively and simultaneously soliciting properties to sustain their respective establishments.

St. Demetrios, Mystras Four episcopal acts are inscribed on columns in the nave of the metropolitan church (fig. 11). These acts record gifts of lands, villages, and paroikoi primarily in the immediate vicinity of Mystras.53 The earliest of the texts, dated 1312 and linked to the metropolitan Nikephoros Moscho­poulos, is carved into the westernmost column of the basilica’s south colonnade, that is, to the right of the west entrance to the church (fig. 12). The text mentions the acquisition of a mill at Magoula and vineyards at Leuki, both villages close to Mystras.54 51  See Archimandrite Vladimir, Sistematicheskoe opisanie rukopisei Moskovskoi sinodal’noi biblioteki, vol. 1, Rukopisi grecheskii (Moscow, 1894), 12–13; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:285; A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Νικηφόρος Μοσχόπουλος,” BZ 12 (1903): 220. 52  P. L. Vocotopoulos, Ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ εἰς τὴν δυτικὴν Στερεὰν Ἑλλάδα καὶ τὴν Ἤπειρον ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους τοῦ 7ου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους του 10ου αἰῶνος (Thessalonike, 1975), 104–5. 53  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 122–27; Zesiou, “Ἐπιγραφαί,” 1:24–29; G. Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος: Η Μητρόπολη του Μυστρά (Athens, 2002), 239–43. For a history of this metropolitan seat, see M. Galanopoulou, Ἐκκλησιαστικαὶ σελίδες Λακωνίας (Athens, 1939), 12–62. 54  Zesiou, “Ἐπιγραφαί,” 1:24; 2:432; Millet, “Inscriptions,” 122–23; Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος, 239; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:282, 284; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Νικηφόρος

348

sharon e. j. gerstel

The third column to the left of the west entrance, that is, confronting the south portal, an act of 1330 of the metropolitan Luke, confirms the properties mentioned in the first and adds a vineyard.55 Below this act is another of 1341,56 under the name of the metropolitan Neilos, which mentions the paroikoi of the villages of Magoula, Leuke, Parori,57 and Sapikos. Two other acts issued by Neilos in May and December 1339, carved into the easternmost column of the south colonnade, list more extensive properties, including a zeugelateion near Brysi; paroikoi and unworked stasia near Magoula; mills, olive trees, vineyards, and paroikoi in Parori and Sapikos; properties at Leuke;58 and the Monydrion of John the Baptist “next to the river,” a location that has been identified as Trypi (fig. 13).59 The properties listed in the acts are all close to Mystras (fig. 14). Several of them, such as Magoula and Parori, have substantial Byzantine remains dated to circa 1300, including three churches with wall paintings from this period.60 Important evidence of habitation can also be seen in recent excavations at Parori, which unearthed modest graves dating to the period in which the acts were promulgated (fig. 15).61 In addition to the remains of Μο­σ χόπουλος,” 220. See also the chapter by A. Papalexandrou in this volume. 55  Zesiou, “Επιγραφαί,” 1:26–27; 2:435–36; Millet, “Inscrip­ tions,” 123–24; Marinou, Άγιος Δημήτριος, 240. 56  Zesiou, “Επιγραφαί,” 1:27; 2:433–37; Millet, “Inscrip­ tions,” 124; Marinou. Ἁγιος Δημήτριος, 242. 57  Paintings in the cave church of the Virgin Langadiotissa outside of Parori have been dated to the fourteenth century. According to Drandakes, the painted bishops stylistically resemble the episcopal figures in the Hodegetria Church, Mystras: N. B. Drandakes, “Ἀπὸ τὰ χριστιανικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Λακωνίας,” Ἀρχ.Ἐφ. (1994): 31–33. 58  Spolia from the Byzantine period are incorporated into the walls and pavement of the church of the Zoodochos Pege in Leuke. See Drandakes, “Σχεδίασμα,” 180 n. 9. 59  Zesiou, “Ἐπιγραφαί,” 1:26–29; 2:432–35; Millet, “In­scrip­­ tions,” 124–26; Marinou, Άγιος Δημηήτριος, 240–41. For surviving Byzantine structures at Trypi, see Drandakes, “Ὁ ναὸς τῶν Ἁγίων Θεοδώρων τῆς Λακωνικῆς Τρύπης,” 87 n. 2. 60  The church of St. Nikander is located at Ambrazi, to the right of the road from Magoula to Varsova. St. Nicholas is located outside of the village, adjacent to the Salvara tower, on the road that leads to Trypi. See N. B. Drandakes, “Βυζαντινὰ καὶ μεταβυζαντινὰ μνημεῖα Λακωνικῆς,” Ἀρχ.Ἐφ. (1969): 4–9. 61  The rescue excavation in 1995 by D. Charalambous provided critical evidence for the existence of a late medieval

Figure 12 

Church of St. Demetrios (Metropolitan Church), southwest column of nave (photo: A. Papalexandrou). “I had it (the church of St. Demetrios) built to glorify God and the Holy Great Martyr of God, Demetrios, and I also raised from the foundations five mills in Magoula, and I also planted both an olive grove and an orchard in Magoula, and in Leuke I planted vineyards. I also bought the houses of the Chartophylax Eugenios right next to the church. Afterwards he tried coercively or with whatever means he could to remove them from the Church”: Greek text in G. Millet, “Inscriptions byzantines de Mistra,” BCH 23 (1899): 122.

Figure 13 

Church of St. Demetrios (Metropolitan Church), southeast column of nave (photo: S. Gerstel)

several individuals, the graves contained glazed pottery and plain wares as well as iron shoe protectors. Connections between the metropolitan church and its endowed properties must have been tight. The similar, though later, inscribing of columns—seventeen or eighteen lines divided over five columns—in the church of the Virgin at Parori shows that the practice of using church settlement in this location. The excavation of eight tombs yielded glazed and unglazed pottery, parts of shoes, clasps from garments, coffin nails, and two Venetian torneselli, one dated to the reign of Antonio Venier (1382–1400). See Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 50 (1995): 145, 168–69; BCH 124 (2000): 815. A second rescue excavation in Parori, in 1997 and 1998, to the west of the church of the Dormition of the Virgin, brought to light three tombs and the grave of a child. An earring and bells for the decoration of clothing were found in one of the tombs housing the bones of a woman: Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 53 (1998): 2.1:221–22 (and private conversation with the excavator). I thank Ms. Charalambous for providing photos from her excavation for this publication.

columns as surfaces for the inscription of lengthy texts may have traveled from St. Demetrios to a church in its dependent village.62 Further evidence 62  For the text of 1389 concerning Despot Theodore I Palaiologos, which was once carved on five columns in the church of the Virgin at Parori, see Millet, “Inscriptions,” 151–55. For an English translation see the Appendix to the chapter by Leonte in this volume. S. Kalopissi-Verti has also noted the one-time existence of carved columns in the katholikon of the monastery of Varnakova in Aetolia. The columns were destroyed during the reconstruction of the old church in 1831. See Kalopissi-Verti, “Church

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

349

Trypi

Mystras Magoula Parori Leuke

er

Eur ot a s Riv

Figure 14 

Identifiable properties from acts of the metropolitan Neilos of 1339 and 1341 (map by M. Saldaña)

Figure 15 

Parori, excavated tombs (photo: D. Charalambous)

of a connection between St. Demetrios and Parori may be detected in the hand of a sculptor who may have carved reliefs in both the metropolitan church and the village. The relief of a warrior saint found at Parori and a capital from the sanctuary screen of St. Demetrios carved with the figure of a centaur display the same treatment of facial

Inscriptions,” 84; K. Sathas, Χρονικὸν ἀνέκδοτον Γαλαξειδίου ἢ Ἱστορία Ἀμφίσσης: Ναυπάκτου, Λοιδορικίου καὶ τῶν περι­ χώρων, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων μέχρι τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρόνων μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ ἄλλων ἱστορικῶν σημειώσεων (Athens, 1865; repr. Athens, 1962), 42–44.

350

sharon e. j. gerstel

features; the figures hold their shields in a very similar fashion (figs. 16, 17).63 Column shafts inscribed with lengthy texts were found not only in St. Demetrios and at the Church of the Virgin in Parori; such texts were also displayed in other churches in Mystras and elsewhere in Lakonia. A verse of forty-six lines was carved into the four columns that formed the portico of the church of St. Sophia at Mystras.64 Α fourteenth- or fifteenth-century testament carved on a column shaft today in the Pikoulas Tower Museum in Areopolis, Mani, records vineyards and farmland from the bishoprics of Amyklion and Kranoupolis given in exchange for memorial services (fig. 18).65 The columnar shape and inscription of an act endowing properties recalls the large number of boundary stones preserved from Byzantium, many of them marking out the limits of monastic properties and many terminating in curses placed upon anyone who might move them.66 A document of 1755 describes a column of 63  Of bluish marble, the plaque measures 0.85 × 0.53 meters. See A. J. B. Wace, “Lakonia, V: Frankish Sculptures at Parori and Geraki,” BSA 11 (1904–5): 139–40; Bon, La Morée franque, 592. For the centaur, see S. Gerstel, “An Alternate View of the Late Byzantine Sanctuary Screen,” in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Views on Religious Screens, East and West, ed. S. Gerstel (Washington, DC, 2006), 148, fig. 14. 64  Millet, “Inscriptions,” 143–46. For the church, see M. Emmanouel, “Η Αγία Σοφία του Μυστρά: Παρατηρήσεις στις τοιχογραφίες και στο εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα,” in Μίλτος Γαρίδης (1926–1996): Αφιέρωμα (Ioannina, 2003), 153–98. 65  The fragmentary column preserves seventeen lines of the inscription: Philippidis-Braat, “Inscriptions,” 322– 24 (with collected bibliography); R. Etzéoglou, “Karyou­ polis: Une ville byzantine désertée,” Byzantion 52 (1982): 83–123, pl. II; Tales of Religious Faith in Mani, exh. cat., Pikoulas Tower Museum, Areopoli, Mani (Athens, 2005), 70–71. 66  See, for example, a similar text on a white marble column shaft mentioning the metochion of the monastery of St. Nicholas τῶν Βαρσῶν (located between the villages of Loukas and Neochorio near Tripoli) in the region of Skorta. The malediction of the 318 Nicaean fathers is close to that inscribed on the columns at St. Demetrios: Philippidis-Braat, “Inscriptions,” 344–45; N. Bees, “Βυζαντιναὶ ἐπιγραφαὶ Γορτυνίας,” VizVrem 11 (1904): 63–67. Such markers are also found in other parts of the Byzantine world. An inscribed marker from the region of Nicomedia, Bithynia, “between the Monastery τῶν Μ(η)τροπολίτου toward the west and toward the east the monastery τοῦ Στύλου” places a curse on

Figure 16  

Figure 17 

Parori, immured figure of a soldier (photo: S. Gerstel)

Church of St. Demetrios (Metropolitan Church), centaur capital from icon screen (photo: S. Gerstel)

1340 found at the monydrion of St. John the Baptist at Trypi, which was inscribed with the name of the metropolitan of Lakedaimonia and confirmed the metropolitan’s possession of fields and a vineyard in that village. The monydrion of St. John the Baptist at Trypi is recorded among the endowed

properties and institutions in the act of 1339 carved into the southeast column of St. Demetrios (fig. 13).67 This valuable document demonstrates

whomever moves the marker: A. Avramea and D. Feissel, “De Chalcédoine à Nicomédie,” TM 10 (1987), 432–33. The inscription is dated to the tenth or eleventh century. An engraved column from Trikala, dated 1372–73, now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, ensures the rights to the villages (?) of Megalommatou and Monampelon. See A. Avramea and D. Feissel, “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance, IV: Inscriptions de Thessalie,” TM 10 (1987): 383–85, pl. IX.2. For common curses, see H. Saradi, “Cursing in the Byzantine Notarial Acts: A Form of Warranty,” Βυζαντινά 17 (1994): 441–553.

67  Charles Buchon recorded an inscribed column of 1340 at the monastery of St. John the Baptist at Trypi. The inscription listed the property endowed to the metropolitan of Lakedaimonia: J.-A. Buchon, Recherches historiques sur la principauté française de Morée, 2 vols. (Paris, 1845), I. LX, LXXIX. Buchon notes: “La colonne subsiste cependant encore; et si l’église du couvent, placée dans une situation ravissante, s’écroule avant peu, il sera facile de la transporter à Misitra (sic), qui n’en est éloignée que d’une lieue.” The document of 1755 reads: Ἐπεὶ τὸ μονήδριον τοῦ τιμίου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου, τῆς Χαλκοματικῆς, πλησίον τοῦ παρὰ ποταμῷ Τρύπης, Λακεδαιμονίας ἦ ἀνέκαθεν τῇ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἁγιωτάτῃ μητροπόλει, ἐν ὑποτελεσμῷ ἀενάῳ ὡς τὸ βραβεῖον διέξεισιν· αὖθις τάττεται εἶναι ὑπ’αὐτήν· καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ χωράφια, καὶ τὸ περιβόλιον, καὶ τὸ ἀμπέλιον,

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

351

Figure 18 

villages and broader regions under the jurisdiction of Frank, Florentine, Venetian, or Byzantine. These boundary lines were not simply markers of territory, but signifiers of power.68 Artificially created and dynamic in their frequent redefinition, these boundaries exploited the natural landscape of the region and fixed the place of villages and villagers within an imagined landscape.

Areopolis, Mani. Pikoulas Tower Museum. Column (after Tales of Religious Faith in Mani, exh. cat., Pikoulas Tower Museum [Athens, 2005], 70). “. . . are the same, irrevocably and eternally not to be returned, from the bishopric of Amyklion the vineyard of Yeranos, from that of Kranoupolis (Karyoupolis?) the vineyard of Daps/nou and, by purchase from the Vrysiotoi free farmland and vineyards on this site, in order to hold services on three days of the week, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, in the church and at the saint’s tomb. If anyone dares remove any of the said properties of the church, let him have the curse of the inspired fathers in Nicaea, and of myself, the sinner. Year . . . Indiction . . .

Monemvasia Monemvasia, located on the eastern coast of the Peloponnese and divided from the region of Mystras by Parnon, was also guaranteed lands and people by imperial decree. A chrysobull of June 1301 issued by Emperor Andronikos II to the metropolitan of Monemvasia enumerates substantial properties given to the city.69 These rich agricultural lands include: the village of Ganganeas,70 with its paroikoi, estates, its rights and its use, land in the village of Nomia with its paroikoi,71

how inscribed and prominently displayed stone markers established, irrevocably, the legal obligations of monastic landlord, subsidiary metochion, and tenant farmers for the region. In Lakonia, lengthy texts were inscribed on the walls and columns of churches in order to delineate and concretize the boundaries of monastic properties; to exert episcopal authority; and to place καὶ ἄλλο ἄν εἴ τι δίκαιον ἔχει ἐν αὐτῷ πνευματικάτον τῆς ἁγιωτάτης μητροπόλεως Λακεδαιμονίας, ὡς ἂν δοξάζηται Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ. Ὁ δὲ πειραθησόμενος εἰσέπειτα ἀφελέσθαι τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς δεσποτείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἷος ἄρα καὶ εἴη ἐχέτω καὶ ἀρὰς τῶν ἑπτὰ καὶ οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν τιη θεοφόρων πατέρων· καὶ τὸν ἀφορισμὸν ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ. Ἔτει πίστεως τῆς ϛωμη (6848 = 1340).

352

sharon e. j. gerstel

68  On such a concept, see H. Kuper, “The Language of Sites,” American Anthropologist 74 (1972): 411–25. 69  MS Escor, S-I-12. Fols. 72r–73r. E. Miller, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de la bibliothèque de l’Escurial (Amsterdam, 1966), 61–65; MM, 5:163–64. On the identification of some of these villages, see T. Gritsopoulos, “Ἱστορικὲς καὶ τοπογραφικὲς ἀναζητήσεις ἀνὰ τὴν περιοχὴν τῆς Κοίλης Λακεδαίμονος,” in Αʹ Τοπικὸν Συνέδριον Λακωνικῶν Μελετῶν (Athens, 1982–83), 45–46. For a rough translation of the text and commentary, see H. Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia: The Sources (Athens, 1990), 223–27. Kalligas’s translation changes the order of the listed villages; I have amended the text to accord with the original Greek version, which lists the village in roughly topographical order. A chrysobull of 1405 issued by Manuel II Palaiologos endows the metropolitan with additional villages. For this text, see MM, 5:168–70. 70  Outside of Ganganeas, the church of the Panayitsa or Chrysaphitissa, the katholikon of a monastery, may have been built on the remains of an earlier building: N. Drandakes, S. Kalopissi, and M. Panayotidi, “Ἔρευνα στὴν Ἐπίδαυρο Λιμηρὰ,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1983): 237 (M. Panayotidi). 71  The double-naved Church of the Holy Apostles, located at the site of Vrysika, between the villages of Lyra and Nomia, has been dated to the first half of the fourteenth century based on stylistic comparison of its wall paintings to others in Geraki and the Mani: N. Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα στὴν Ἐπίδαυρο Λιμηρὰ,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 391–94 (V. Kepetzi).

and those in the village of Teria.72 A hamlet (ἀγρίδιον) in Lyra, with its paroikoi and estates, of Mountouson, and estates at Sion; a village in the plain called Episkopia with its paroikoi and the land owned by the church; fields in different locations of Helos with water mills that were erected by the church and a vineyard;73 a hamlet called St. Kournoutos with its paroikoi; another hamlet called Kamara with its paroikoi and estates; the Monastery of St. George at Prinikos with its paroikoi,74 a lake, and the entire contribution of acorns, half of which previously went to the civil administration;75 the village of Peziamenoi with its paroikoi and estates and all of the rights that go with it;76 the village of Philodendron with its paroikoi and estates; the monastery of St. John the Baptist in Zaraphona with its paroikoi 72  The wall paintings in Teria’s cemetery church of the Dormition have been compared stylistically to late thirteenth-century frescoes in the church of the Taxiarchs in the village of Ayios Nikolaos near Monemvasia and the church of St. Nicholas near Geraki: Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 386–89 (V. Kepetzi). Wall paintings in the chapel of St. Anna, attached to the north side of the church of the Dormition, have been dated to the late twelfth or thirteenth century based on style. See Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 389–91 (V. Kepetzi). For an architectural study of the two buildings, see A. G. Kalligas et al., “A Church with a Roman Inscription in Tairia, Monemvasia,” BSA 97 (2002): 469–90. 73  For the area of Helos, which is also mentioned in the Mystra chrysobulls of 1314–15 and 1319, see above, note 20. 74  The site of the church of St. George at Prinikos can be identified as Brinikon, modern Asteri. See Gritsopoulos, “Ἱστο­­ρικὲς,” 45; G. A. Pikoulas, Λεξικὸν τῶν οἰκισμῶν τῆς Πελο­­ ποννήσου: Παλαιὰ καὶ νέα τοπωνύμια (Athens, 2001), no. 543. 75  Centuries later William Leake described Prinikos as “about a mile from the sea side; opposite to it begins the lagoon which extends for a mile along the shore, and then becomes a marsh as far as the south-eastern extremity of the plain, where the beach ceases, and the hills end in cliffs over-hanging the sea. The lake is about half a mile broad in the widest part”: W. M. Leake, Travels in the Morea, 3 vols. (London, 1830), 1:199. Leake (200) also noted the ruins of a chapel outside of the village. 76  Modern-day Glykovrysi. See Gritsopoulos, “Ἱστορικὲς,” 45; Pikoulas, Λεξικὸν, nos. 884, 885 (Βεζάνι). The church of St. George in the cemetery of Ano Glykovrysi may have been constructed in the Byzantine period. See Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1983): 236 (S. Kalopissi).

and all of the rights attached to it;77 vineyards at Phota;78 in the village of Pollon Xenion the amount of 25 hyperpyra; a hamlet at Ripiai with its neighboring site of Kalamion and Dikasterion, and the possessions of the most holy church at Sorakas,79 Koulendia,80 Koumaraia, Voulkane, Mese, and Dodaia, but also at Nodys, which also comprises a lake, a tower, and an old castle. Most of these villages can be located today, and many preserve the remains of modest churches that were painted in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century (fig. 19). Several of the villages, including Zaraphona (modern-day Kallithea), Phota (modern-day Phoutia), and Koulendia (modern-day Helleniko), preserve two or even three churches that can be dated to the late Byzan­ tine period, a pattern of multiple church construction that is typical for agrarian villages of this period. Like the Mystras chrysobulls and acts, the Monemvasia chrysobull includes agricultural features such as mills, vineyards, and fields. The 77  Modern-day Kallithea. The cave church of St. John the Baptist, outside of the village, is dated to the early fourteenth century: N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἅϊ-Γιαννάκη στὴ Ζαραφώνα,” in Εὐφρόσυνον: Ἀφιέρωμα στὸν Μανόλη Χατζηδάκη (Athens, 1991), 136–40. In the fourteenth century, a narthex was added to the impressive basilica at the center of Zaraphona. See D. Hayer, “La Dormition-dela-Vierge de Zaraphona (Laconie): Des éléments nouveaux,” BZ 80 (1987): 360–70. 78  Modern-day Phoutia. The church of St. John is found north of the settlement of Ayia Sophia, which belongs to Phoutia. The singled-aisled church is in ruins: Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 401–2 (V. Kepetzi). The single-aisled church of St. George, today the village’s cemetery church, preserves paintings from circa 1400. The paintings have been compared stylistically to those preserved in the Cheimatissa Monastery near Phloka: Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 402–4 (V. Kepetzi). V. Kepetzi, “Ὁ ναός τοῦ Ἁγίου Γεωργίου στά Φούτια τῆς Ἐπιδαύρου Λιμηρᾶς καί ἰδιόμορφη παράσταση ἀπό τή Θεία Λειτουργία,” in Αντίφωνον: Αφιέρωμα στον Καθηγητή Ν. Β. Δρανδάκη (Thessalonike, 1994), 508–30. 79  The church of St. John to the east of the abandoned village has been dated to the late thirteenth century: Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 400 (V. Kepetzi). 80  Modern-day Helleniko. At least three Byzantine churches are preserved in the village and its surrounds: St. Paraskeve, the Transfiguration, and St. John. See Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 407–8 (V. Kepetzi).

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

353

Mystras as rot Eu

Zaraphona (Kallithea)

Ri v er

Prinikos (Asteri) Helos

Peziamenoi (Glykovrysi)

Ganganeas

Monemvasia

Teria Lira Nomia Sorakas Phota (Phoutia) Koulendia (Elleniko) Figure 19 

Identifiable properties from chrysobull of 1301 (map by M. Saldaña)

terminology of settlements is precise, differentiating between villages (choria) and hamlets (agridia). Within this text, one can relate the location of many of the villages to a local agricultural product: grapes. Many of the named churches and villages are clustered along roads or in valleys, mostly on the eastern side of the peninsula, the side that had white, chalky soil capable of sustaining vineyards and the areas that had a longer exposure to the sun. For example, the church of 354

sharon e. j. gerstel

Aï-Tzouras (Panagia Kyra) marks the medieval site of Lyra (Lira), which is mentioned in the document as a hamlet (fig. 20).81 Archaeologists have 81  The church, in the middle of olive groves, is located approximately 2 kilometers south of modern-day Lira and is accessed by dirt roads. The cross-in-square church, today in ruins and filled with vegetation, has cloisonné masonry on the upper exterior walls. Traces of the base of a built feature, perhaps a bishop’s throne, are preserved along the lower register of the east wall of the central apse. To either side of this

Figure 20 

Aï-Tzouras (Panagia Kyra), Lira, exterior (photo: S. Gerstel)

noted fragments of medieval walls and at least one wine press in the fields surrounding the church; these material remains help test the accuracy of the chrysobull. Phota (Phoutia), mentioned together with its vineyards, is also located on the eastern side of the peninsula; medieval wine presses have been documented in that village as well as in the villages of Sorakas and Koulendia.82 The iron-rich soil on the west, darker, side of the peninsula was, and still is, used to grow other crops such as olives. The chrysobull thus mapped feature are still preserved paintings from the dado zone of the apse, which was decorated to imitate marble revetment with blue and red veining. I thank Mr. Petros Andresakis for guiding me to the church and for discussing architectural remains in the surrounding fields. According to Andresakis, numerous walls belonging to houses have been dismantled in recent years. A wine press located in close proximity to the church was no longer visible in August 2010. Wine presses in the region are discussed in G. Skagkou, “Ληνοί στην περιοχή της Μονεμβασίες,” in Μονεμβάσιος οἷνος— μονοβασ(ι)ά—malvasia, ed. I. Anagnostakes (Athens, 2008), 309–19. I thank Panayiotes Skagkos for discussing this site and its agricultural features with me. For the church, see Drandakes et al., “Ἔρευνα,” Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 397–99 (V. Kepetzi). The paintings Kepetzi described have deteriorated dramatically. 82  Skagkou, “Ληνοί,” 311–13, 317.

specific villages within the territorial borders of Monemvasia, especially those with vineyards on the eastern side of Epidauros Limera, guaranteeing the economic stability of the city by protecting the source of its wine trade. These documents—chrysobulls and episcopal acts—established boundaries between recaptured Byzantine territories and ones recently re­­ gained from the Franks. The Hodeget­­ ria chrysobulls ex­­plicitly mention lands captured by Andronikos Asen and given to the monastery, the resettlement of populations from Latin-held regions, and the names of villages in disputed territories. In this fashion, and on behalf of the emperor, the monastery guarded the frontier of Byzan­tium, defending the line not only by settlements, but by the holy powers evoked through the dedication of dependent churches—a meto­ chion dedicated to the warrior saints Theodore at Mouchli; a monydrion dedicated to the archangels, the commanders of the heavenly powers, at Androusa; and a monastery dedicated to St. George at Prinikos. Divine powers also protected the boundary, summoning otherworldly assistance but also assuring the integrity of the borderline through the presence of the church building, more permanent a marker than a boundary stone.

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

355

Figure 21 

Chrysobull of Andronikos II, 1301, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Athens, acc. no. 534 (courtesy of the Byzantine and Christian Museum, Athens) Figure 22 

Chrysobull of 1314 (Athens National Library 1462) (courtesy of the National Library of Greece)

Figure 23 

Chrysobull of 1314 (Athens National Library 1462) (courtesy of the National Library of Greece)

356

sharon e. j. gerstel

Figure 24 

Astros

Identifiable properties from chrysobull of 1314 and boundary line (map by M. Saldaña)

Kastanitza Dyrrachion Voulkano

Zinzina (Polydroson)

r ve

Ri

sR ota Eur

ysi

Mystras

Socha Pylos

Prophetes Elias

iver

Br

s oto

St. Euthymios

Amyklion Arkasa

Kyparissaia

St. George Lykovouno

Zarax (Gerakas)

Monemvasia

It is this belief in the eternality of consecrated structures that is revealed in the abundant mention of churches and small chapels in the documents—a web of connected buildings endowed to a single institution. We see this link between churches in the two related columns, one in the church of St. Demetrios and the other in its met­ ochion at Trypi. By inscribing the columns, the relationship of the churches is codified, in terms of both a metropolitan church and its dependency, but also of an urban church and its source of income, that is, the agricultural and fiscal benefits that accrued from the endowed village and taxes paid or labor performed by its paroikoi. The texts also set the boundaries between metropolitan jurisdictions, especially in a region where the status and possessions of the bishops were still contested. The boundaries of the territory of Monemvasia are set out in an imperial chrysobull related to the famous “original” of 1301 displayed in the Byzantine and Christian

Museum in Athens (fig. 21).83 The chrysobull (Athens, National Li­brary, cod. 1462, figs. 22, 23) has until recently been considered a sixteenthcentury forgery of the earlier document. Charis Kalligas has established convincingly, however, that the chrysobull was actually issued circa 1314, at approximately the same time when Andronikos II issued his first chrysobull to the Hodegetria church.84 The document of 1314 establishes Monemvasia’s territorial border, which extends north from Epidauros Limera along the coast to

83  S. Binon, “L’histoire et la légende de deux chrysobulles d’Andronic II en faveur de Monembasie, Macaire ou Phrantzès?” EO 37 (1938): 274–311; W. Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient (Amsterdam, 1964), 235. 84  H. Kalligas, “The Miniatures in the Chrysobulls of Andronikos II for Monemvasia,” in Mare et litora: Essays Pre­ sented to Sergei Karpov for his 60th Birthday, ed. R. Shukurov (Moscow, 2009), 365–78; eadem, Byzantine Monemvasia, 228–39; MM, 5:159–60.

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

357

Astros (fig. 24).85 The borderline then turns west, following the slope of Parnon, to the villages of Kastanitza and Tzitzina (Polydroso).86 From there the boundary extends to the church of St. Euthymios, before turning south to the monastery of St. George at Lykobouno.87 Claimed within the borders of the city is the town of Socha at the foot of Mount Taygetos.88 The line then extends over the mountains to Pylos (later Navarino) on the Messenian coast. Ambitious in scope, the boundary lines en­­ compass towns and monasteries primarily on the eastern side of Mount Parnon, before turning and claiming properties on the east side of Taygetos and then, farther west into Messenia, lands also claimed by Mystras. Yet the border carefully, and perhaps intentionally, skirts Amyklion, one of the most contested bishoprics in this period. Nikolaos, metropolitan of Monemvasia and Nikephoros Moschopoulos, metropolitan of Lakedaimonia, both fought over the bishopric of Amyklion, located close to Mystras. The issue was settled only in 1340, when Amyklion became a permanent suffragan of the metropolitan of Lakedaimonia.89 We might see the attempt to draw the borderline as an attempt to define metropolitan sees and

85 Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia, 112–13. For a topographical discussion of this text, see the excellent article by G. Pikoulas, “Τὰ ὅρια τῆς Μητροπόλεως Μονεμβασίας,” Λακ.Σπ. 13 (1996): 393–404. For Astros, see above, note 26. 86  A cave church dedicated to John the Baptist is located outside of Polydroso. Preserved frescoes from the Byzantine period include a representation of John the Baptist, the Deesis, four frontal full-length bishops, and St. Nicholas. An inscription in a narrow band above the Deesis asked the Lord to “Remember your servant, Leo the priest, and his wife and child, Amen.” A later inscription suggests that the paintings were completed in 1335. See Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 35 (1980): 2.1:167, figs. 71a, b; N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Προδρόμου στὰ Τζίντζινα,” in Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Δʹ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν, Πελοποννησιακά, Παράρτημα 19 (Athens, 1992–93): 17–36. 87  K. Diamanti, “Μία άγνωστη βυζαντινή θέση στο Λυκοβουνό της Λακωνίας: Στοιχεία από την πρόσφατη αρχαιολογική έρευνα,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 32 (2011): 19–31. 88  See J. M. Cook and R. V. Nicholas, “Laconia,” BSA 45 (1950): 261 n. 3. 89  MM, 1:216–21; Zakythinos, DGM, 2:282–83; On the complicated history of Amyklion, see E. Kislinger, “Αμύκλιον επισκοπή της μητροπόλεως Λακεδαιμονίας,” Βυζαντιναί Μελεταί 2 (1990): 74–91.

358

sharon e. j. gerstel

constituencies in the period following Latin rule over the region.90 The documents described above literally mapped the landscape by accurately describing features of topography, such as lakes, and built features, such as churches and monydria. The listing of sites in an order that actually reflected their position within the landscape further suggests that the documents accurately mapped territorial borders. Yet the documents also map an imagined landscape, a landscape of loss and reconquest. This imagined landscape conjured memories of a distant ruler and ordered communities through shared religious and political affiliations.

Sacred Landscapes Borders are as important for the territories they enclose as for those they exclude. Between the boundaries and endowed villages of Mystras and Monemvasia lay the elevated ground of Parnon, whose sloping hills, occasionally cut by deep ravines, played host to numerous monasteries and hermitages. Like their brethren in other regions of Byzantium,91 monks in the southern Peloponnese created a sacred landscape that exploited dramatic physical features of mountaintops and, conversely, chasms carved into the earth’s surface. The monasteries of the Holy Forty Martyrs near Theologos (fig. 25), the Virgin Chrysaphitissa in Chrysapha, the Old Monastery at Vrontamas (fig. 26), and St. George at Lykobouno (near Daphni)92 are all

90  A dated letter from Pope Nicholas III to Haymon, bishop of Lakedaimonia, reveals that a Latin prelate was still nominally present in the region in August 1292. See J.-A. Buchon, La Grèce continentale et la Morée: Voyage, séjour et études historiques en 1840 et 1841 (Paris, 1843), 432. 91  A.-M. Talbot, “Les saintes montagnes à Byzance,” in Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident, ed. M. Kaplan (Paris, 2001), 263–75; V. della Dora, “Gardens of Eden and Ladders to Heaven: Holy Mountain Geogra­ phies in Byzantium,” in Mapping Medieval Geographies, ed. K. Lilley (Cambridge, forthcoming). 92  Drandakes, “Τὸ Παλαιομονάστηρο τῶν Ἁγὶων Σα­­ ράντα,” 115–38; idem, “Τὸ Παλαιομονάστηρο τοῦ Βρον­­ταμᾶ,” Ἀρχ.Δελτ. 43 (1988): 159–94; J. P. Albani, Die byzan­­tinischen Wandmalereien der Panagia Chrysaphitissa-Kirche in Chrysapha/Lakonien (Athens, 2000) (with collected bibliography); Diamante, “Μία άγνωστη βυζαντινή θέση.”

Figure 25 

Old Monastery of the Forty Martyrs near Theologos (photo: S. Gerstel)

located in the highlands; their locations exploited the rugged Lakonian topography in the late Byzantine period to further the spiritual needs of the brethren, who presumably sought more remote locations to heighten spiritual contemplation. These monasteries were connected to one another through a network of paths and kalderimia that traversed the highlands of Parnon and ran through the dry beds of the gorges the tributaries of the Eurotas River formed on a seasonal basis.93 Dozens of hermitages that created intermediate points between the monasteries are located in the ravines carved into the lower hills of Parnon, and these charted their own landscape of eremitic isolation, interrupted only by the occasional (and seasonal) visits of pilgrims.94 The cave church of Aï-Giannaki, at Zoupena, for example, attracted pilgrims in the fourteenth century as it does today. Medieval and later inscriptions are painted on or scratched into the monumental icons on its walls, naming supplicants such as the late Byzantine nun Euphrosyne Glyka and a woman named Kale, her

93  A modern-day road connects the first three monasteries. According to local residents, a path that runs across the plateau connects the monasteries at Vrontamas and Lykobouno (near Daphni). 94  Cave chapels are found in a number of ravines, on both the Taygetos and Parnon sides of the valley. See N. B. Drandakes, “Σπηλαιώδεις ναοὶ Λακωνίας βυζαντινῶν χρόνων,” in Πρακτικὰ Γʹ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν, Πελοποννησιακά, Παράρτημα 13 (1987–88): 213–18; A. Bak­ ourou, “Τοιχογραφίες από δύο ασκηταριά της Λακωνίας,” in Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Αʹ Τοπικοῦ Συνεδρίου Λακωνικῶν Μελετῶν (Athens, 1982–83), 404–40; N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τῆς Ζωοδόχου Πηγῆς κοντὰ στὸ Μυστρᾶ,” in Εἰλαπίνη, τόμος τιμητικὸς γιὰ τὸν καθηγητὴ Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα, ed. L. Kastrinake, G. Orphanou, and N. Giannadakes (Heraklion, 1987), 1:79–84; Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Προδρόμου στὰ Τζίντζινα,” 17–36; N. Dran­ dakes, “Τὸ ἀσκηταριὸ τῆς Ἀνάλήψης στὸ Μυριάλι τοῦ Ταϋγέτου,” in Θυμίαμα στὴ μνήμη τῆς Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα (Athens, 1994), 1:83–89; N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Προδρόμου κοντὰ στὴ Χρύσαφα τῆς Λακεδαίμονος,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 15 (1989–1990): 179–93; Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἅι-Γιαννάκη στὴ Ζαραφώνα,” 136–39; N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ Ἅι-Στράτηγος στὸ Μαριόρεμα,” Δελτ. Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 17 (1993–1994): 223–29.

Figure 26  Old Monastery, Vrontamas

(photo: S. Gerstel)

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

359

Figure 27 

Cave chapel of Aï-Giannaki, Zoupena (Hagioi Anargyroi). St. Catherine with adjacent inscription naming Kale Alype (photo: S. Gerstel)

husband and child (fig. 27).95 Two other women’s names are inscribed adjacent to the figure of St. Kyriake in the hermitage of St. John the Baptist built into the cliffs of the Sophroni Gorge above the Old Monastery of the Forty Martyrs (fig. 28).96 The painted cave was intended as a retreat for a hermit, judging from the imagery painted within and its architectural plan, which incorporated a small cell for the monk, which may have served ultimately as his burial chamber. In the ravines that cut through Parnon, and also to some extent in the craggy foothills on the east side of Taygetos, a population of monks and hermits occupying a spiritual state between the living and the dead exploited a 95  N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἅι-Γιαννάκη στὴ Ζούπενα,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ 13 (1985–1986): 79–91. 96  N. B. Drandakes, “Τὸ Παλαιομονάστηρο τῶν Ἁγὶων Σαράντα,” 129–38.

360

sharon e. j. gerstel

Figure 28 

Chapel of St. John the Baptist, Monastery of the Forty Martyrs near Theologos, St. Kyriake with adjacent inscription naming Kyriake and Kale (photo: S. Gerstel)

topography that was, in and of itself, liminal. Not only were the monasteries located within a mountain range, but they also fell between territorial borders that were both political and ecclesiastical.97 The southern Peloponnese included another sacred landscape that can be tracked only through analysis of church dedications in the region (fig. 29). Both Monemvasia and Mystras promoted the Constantinopolitan cult of the Virgin 97  For such notions of liminality, see, for example, V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago, 1969), 95.

Figure 29 

Monasteries and hermitages in Lakonia (map by M. Saldaña)

Vassaras

Aï-Giannaki

Tzitzina

St. John the Baptist

Theologos

Forty Martyrs/St. John the Baptist

Mystras

Panagia Hodegetria Panagia Peribleptos Panagia Pantanassa

Chrysapha

Zaraphona (Kallithea)

Panagia Chrysaphitissa Aï-Giannaki St. John the Baptist Cave Chapel of St.John the Baptist

Eur otas Ri

ver

Lykobouno St. George

Zoupena (Hagioi Anargyroi) Aï-Giannaki

Vrontamas

Old Monastery

Phloka

Panagia Cheimatissa

Lyra Monasteries Cave Chapels

Hodegetria, a competition that may have caused friction between the residents of Mystras and Monemvasia, if not between their clergy.98 The 98  See the chapter by T. Papamastorakis in this volume and the discussion of the icon of the Virgin Hodegetria “Monemvasiotissa” below. In the early fourteenth century, a nun and the metropolitan of Lakedaimonia were involved in a dispute over possession of a copy of an icon of the Virgin

Monemvasia Panagia Hodegetria (Hagia Sophia)

Panagia Kyra (Aï-Tzouras) Panagia Pantanassa

imposing monasteries of Mystras were all dedicated to aspects of the Virgin: the Hodegetria, Peribleptos, Pantanassa; many of them were also linked through specific imagery to important Marian cults in Constantinople, such as the Zoodochos Pege. Monemvasia, too, promoted Hodegetria. See N. Oikonomidès, “The Holy Icon as Asset,” DOP 45 (1991): 40.

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

361

the cult of the Virgin. The main church of the kastro was dedicated to the Virgin Hodegetria.99 Additional monasteries dedicated to the Virgin in lands and villages endowed to the city include the Virgin Cheimatissa, the Virgin Pantanassa,100 and Aï-Tzouras (Panagia Kyra). The territories of Monemvasia and Mystras were explicitly placed under the protection of Christ’s mother, and her presence was marked on the ground by the multiplication of shrines built in her name. Her presence sanctioned the reinstatement of Byzantine hegemony in the region and established her spiritual over-ladyship. The monastic zone of Parnon, to the contrary, was placed under the protection of John the Baptist, the model par excellence of eremitic monasticism. At least seven churches in the hills are dedicated to the Baptist, most of them cave chapels or hermitages.101 To these sacred locales, as traced by inscriptions, villagers traveled, leaving their names alongside painted offerings. The Landscape of Painting

Although scholars have cataloged surviving churches and monasteries in the southern Pelo­ ponnese, there has been little work done in mapping settlements, especially those in the region of 99  H. Kalligas, “The Church of Hagia Sophia at Mone­ mvasia: Its Date and Dedication,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 9 (1977–79): 217–21. 100  The five-domed church, the katholikon of a monastery, is located in Kryovrysi, between the villages of Helleniko and Pantanassa: A. K. Orlandos, “Ἡ Παντάνασσα τῆς Μονεμβασίας,” Ἀρχ.Βυζ.Μνημ.Ἑλλ. 1 (1935): 139–51. 101  St. John the Baptist, Chrysapha (N. B. Drandakes, “Ὁ σταυροειδὴς ναὸς τοῦ Προδρόμου στὰ Χρύσαφα τῆς Λακεδαίμονος,” Λακ.Σπ. 9 [1988]: 301–33); the cave chapel of St. John the Baptist near Chrysapha (Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Προδρόμου κοντὰ στὴ Χρύσαφα,” 179–96); the cave chapel of Aï-Giannaki near Zaraphona (Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἅι-Γιαννάκη στή Ζαραφώνα,” 136–40, pls. 60–74); the cave chapel of St. John the Baptist at Tzitzina (Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Προδρόμου στὰ Τζίντζινα,” 17–36); the cave chapel of Aï-Giannaki near Verria (Bakourou, “Τοιχογραφίες ἀπὸ δυὸ ἀσκηταριὰ τῆς Λακωνίας,” 404– 24); Chapel of St. John the Baptist above the Old Monastery of the Forty Martyrs (Drandakes, “Τὸ Παλαιομονάστηρο,” 129–38); the cave chapel of Aï-Giannaki at Zoupena (Hagioi Anargyroi) (Drandakes, “Ὁ σπηλαιώδης ναὸς τοῦ Ἅϊ-Γιαννάκη στὴ Ζούπενα,” 79–91).

362

sharon e. j. gerstel

Monemvasia. To the south of the village of Lira, the remains of a medieval settlement is evidenced by the scatter of sherds and fragmentary stone walls that still remain in the fields surrounding the church of Aï-Tzouras; the settlement has yet to be studied.102 A British survey team has made progress in charting the locations of some small settlements in the region of Sparta through the analysis of sherd scatter; the medieval names of many of the sites, however, remain elusive.103 The excavation of graves at two locations in Parori (fig. 15), as noted above, revealed the bones of residents of that village, but other evidence of habitation, such as traces of domestic architecture, has not been found.104 The one-time existence of endowed villages and dependent villagers is best witnessed in decorated churches of the period, many of them still in fairly good condition. These survive in abundance—village churches and cemetery churches in a surprisingly wide range of architectural types. Approximately eighty decorated churches of the late Byzantine period survive in Lakonia and fifty additional churches in the region of Monemvasia. The painted cycles of many of these remain unpublished; a number are in decay.105 The churches suggest, both in the rendering of certain subjects on their walls and in the style of their painting, an awareness of ecclesiastical jurisdictions and regional boundaries that mountains and men set. The representation of certain saints, for example, displays an interest in the biographies of local holy men, which appears to have regional significance. The portrait of St. Nikon, as Nikolaos Drandakes has demonstrated, was particularly common in churches in Lakonia, where there are at least eighteen surviving monumental icons of the saint.106 In only one case, as far as I know, is his portrait included in the decoration of a church 102  See above, note 81. 103  Cavanagh et al., The Laconia Survey, vol. 2, Archaeo­ logical Data. 104  See above, note 61. 105  Drandakes, “Σχεδίασμα,” 167–235. 106  Idem, “Εἰκονογραφία τοῦ Ὁσίου Νίκωνος,” Πελο­ ποννησιακά 5 (1962): 306–19. For the state of research on the identification of the church of St. Nikon in Sparta, see R. Sweetman and E. Katsara, “The Acropolis Basilica Project, Sparta: A Preliminary Report for the 2000 Season,” BSA 97 (2002): 429–68.

belonging to the metropolitan of Monemvasia.107 Conversely, the portrait of the ninth-century saint, Theophanios of Monemvasia, is found in the church of the Virgin Cheimatissa in Phloka,108 an influential monastery close to the city’s endowed villages. His image is also included among the saints represented in the church of St. Nicholas in the village of Ayios Nikolaos, near Teria, a village mentioned in the Monemvasia chrysobull (fig. 30).109 As far as I am aware, representations of this saint are not found in the region of Mystras. Other themes within church decoration may suggest a certain affiliation to a church or metropolitan center—artistic corroboration of a territorial boundary. The frequent representation of Christ on the Road to Calvary in the lower register and adjacent to the main entrance of small churches in Epidauros Limera and on the island of Kythera may reflect the popularity of a local cult focused on Monemvasia’s icon of Christ Elkomenos, which was located in the city’s metropolitan church.110 Although the icon, described by Niketas Choniates as an “ἔργον ἀξιάγαστον καὶ τὴν τέχνην καὶ τὴν χάριν,”111 was taken from Monemvasia by the emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195),112 the holy palladion was so important to the region that 107  St. Andrew in Kato Kastania. Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 430–33 (M. Panayotidi). 108  Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 355 (N. Drandakes). The paintings in the church are dated circa 1400. The half-length portrait of the saint is found above the entrance to the diakonikon. For the saint, see H. A. Kalligas, Monemvasia: A Byzantine City State (London and New York, 2009), 10–11. 109  The portrait of the saint is located in the prothesis chamber. See N. Drandakes, “Οἱ τοιχογραφίες τοῦ Ἁγίου Νικολάου στὸν Ἅγιο Νικόλαο Μονεμβασίας,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ. Ἑτ. 9 (1977–1979): 40–41. 110  The church, originally dedicated to St. Anastasia, was renamed for the icon. See Kalligas, Monemvasia, 22, 138– 42; N. A. Bees, “Ὁ Ἑλκόμενος Χριστὸς τῆς Μονεμβασίας μετὰ παρεκβάσεων περὶ τῆς αὐτόθι τῆς Παναγίας Χρυσαφιτίσσης,” BNJ 10 (1933–34): 199–262. See also V. Foskolou, “Αναζητώντας την εικόνα του Ελκομένου της Μονεμβασίας: Το χαμένο παλλάδιο της πόλης και η επίδρασή του στα υστεροβυζαντινά μνημεία του νότιο ελλαδικού χώρου,” Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 14 (2001): 229–57. 111  Niketas Choniates, Χρονικὴ διήγησις, ed. J. L. van Dieten (Berlin and New York, 1975), 3.54–58 (442). 112  The icon was installed in the chapel of the Archangel Michael of the Sosthenio in Constantinople. See R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantine, vol. 3, Les églises et les monastères (Paris, 1969), 348.

later churches continued to evoke the power of the prototype by including copies of the image in their decorative programs.113 The dissemination of the 113  Annemarie Weyl Carr has recently suggested that an image of Christ Elkomenos and Andronikos II now serving as the prefatory miniature for a twelfth-century lectionary (London, British Library, Add. 37006, fol. 1 verso) was originally the top portion of Andronikos’s chrysobull of 1284 for Monemvasia. Supplementing the views expressed in this chapter about monumental representations of Christ Elkomenos in the region of Monemvasia (and referring to the oral presentation of this chapter), Carr sees the image as visually manifesting “the identity of the commune” for which the chrysobull was promulgated. See A. W. Carr, “The Illuminated Chrysobulls of Andronikos II?” in Νέα Ῥώμη: Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche 6 (2009): 451–63.

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

363

Figure 30 

St. Nicholas, Ayios Nikolaos, St. Theophanios (photo: S. Gerstel)

image of Christ Elkomenos throughout the region of Monemvasia, and even in churches in Geraki and on Mount Parnon, suggests not only the power of the icon but also the power of the metropolitan church that promoted its cult. The clustering of subject matter within a small number of churches suggests that painters and patterns traveled within limited regions and that certain subjects were common within bounded areas.114 The question of artistic style is harder to trace, particularly given the still incomplete photographic record for churches in the region. Scholars well know the influence of Mystras on painting in the region, and most studies of local monuments refer to the “Mystras School” of painters. Painters from this school, such as the one who created the chrysobulls in the Hode­getria church, were responsible for a number of churches in the city of Mystras115 as well as ones in villages in the surrounding region. Paintings, for example, in the ruined church of St. George in the village of Daphni (close to Mystras) have been attributed to the same artist who was responsible for the portraits of the apostles on the south wall of the metropolitan church of St. Demetrios.116 Painters from Mystras were also involved in the decoration of the church of St. Nicholas Achragias on the outskirts of the endowed village of Theologos, and in churches at Longaniko, Leondari, and Nikandri in the Mani.117 Despite the fame of the Mystras

School, however, its skilled painters seem to have been somewhat localized. Writing in 1973, Doula Mouriki wisely observed that artistic activities at Mystras were not far-reaching and did not affect painting, for example, at Chrysapha or Geraki,118 that is, in areas that fell between the regional boundaries of Mystras and Monemvasia. Considering Monemvasia’s wealth in the same period,119 it would be likely that a group of painters belonging to a “Monemvasia School” worked in that city and in its hinterlands. As is the case at Mystras, these painters would have benefited from the city’s close ties to Constantinople and its extraordinary economic resources. Monumental decoration surviving in Monemvasia is too fragmentary to provide an accurate picture of the painting style that prevailed in the city.120 Close ties to the Byzantine capital would have guaranteed that works painted in Constantinople, such as manuscripts and icons, reached Monemvasia; these may have influenced painting in the city and its hinterlands. The “icons” at the top of the two chrysobulls issued by the emperor, Andronikos II, to Monemvasia, for example, exemplify the highstyle painting of the Byzantine capital in the early fourteenth century (figs. 21, 22).121 Andronikos II also sent a well-known icon, the Virgin Hodegetria “Monemvasiotissa” to the city. Decorated with pearls and precious stones, the famed icon is recalled only in a surviving synaxarion from

114  For a type of the melismos found only in the region of Monemvasia and in Geraki, see C. Konstantinide, “Ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Ἁγ. Γεωργίου στούς Μολάους τῆς Ἐπιδαύρου Λιμηρᾶς,” in Αντίφωνον: Αφιέρωμα στον Καθηγητή Ν. Β. Δρανδάκη, 61–69 (with collected examples and bibliography). 115  N. Drandakes, “Σπαράγματα τοιχογραφιῶν ἀπὸ παρεκκλήσια τοῦ Μυστρᾶ,” Ἀρχ.Ἐφ. (1995): 1–28. 116  Drandakes, “Σχεδίασμα,” 182. 117  On St. Nicholas Achragias, see T. Papamastorakis, Ὁ διάκοσμος τοῦ τρούλου τῶν ναῶν τῆς παλαιολόγειας περιόδου στὴ Βαλκανικὴ Χερσόνησο καὶ τὴν Κύπρο (Athens, 2001), 47–48, 317–18, figs. 52–54; S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Τεχνο­τροπικές παρατηρήσεις στο γραπτό διάκοσμο του Αγίου Νικολάου Αχραγιά Λακωνίας,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 27 (2006): 181–92. For a plan of the monastery and discussion of its outbuildings, see Cavanagh et al., The Laconia Survey, vol. 2, Archae­ ological Data, 348–50. For the churches in Longanikos, see O. Chassoura, Les peintures murales byzantines des églises de Longanikos, Laconie (Athens, 2002). For churches in Leondari, see J. Albani, “Die Wandmalerei der Kirche Hagios Athanasios zu Leondari,” JÖB 39 (1989): 259–94; eadem, “The Painted Decoration of the Cupola of the Western Gallery in

the Church of the Holy Apostles at Leondari,” CahArch 40 (1992): 161–80. Aimilia Bakourou is publishing the chapel at Nikandri. 118  D. Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends in Monumental Painting of Greece at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century,” in L’art byzantin au début du XIV e siècle: Symposium de Gračanica, 1973 (Belgrade, 1978), 74. 119  See H. Kalligas, “Monemvasia, Seventh-Fifteenth Centuries,” in EHB 3:879–97. 120  The very damaged paintings in the church of the Virgin Hodegetria (now St. Sophia) have been dated to the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. See E. Stikas, “Ὁ ναὸς τῆς Ἁγίας Σοφίας ἐπὶ τοῦ κάστρου τῆς Μονεμβασίας,” Λακ.Σπ. 8 (1986): 271–376. Traces of wall paintings are preserved in St. Andrew, a small, single-aisled church in the lower city. The paintings have been dated to the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. A single color image of a female saint is reproduced in A. Bakourou, Tour of Monemvasia (Athens, 2005), 30. 121  Kalligas, “The Miniatures in the Chrysobulls,” 365–78.

364

sharon e. j. gerstel

Figure 31 

Crucifixion, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, acc. no. 981 (photo: courtesy of the Byzantine and Christian Museum)

Zakynthos.122 Yet another famous icon, a representation of the Crucifixion, is said to have come from the church of Christ Elkomenos (fig. 31).123 122  K. Kalogeras, Μονεμβασία, ἡ Βενετία τῆς Πελοποννήσου, TFByzNgPhil 46 (Athens, 1950), 22–24; N. Katramis, Φιλολογικὰ ἀνάλεκτα ἐκ Ζακύνθου (Zakynthos, 1880), 188. 123  M. Chatzidakis, Κατάλογος: Έκθεση για τα εκατό χρόνια της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας (1884–1984): Βυςαντινό και Χριστιανικό Μουσείο Αθηνών (Athens, 1984),

Dated to the second half of the fourteenth century, the icon is an example of the refined style of 21–22, pl. 8; A. Xyngopoulos, “Ἡ εἰκὼν τῆς Σταυρώσεως εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Ἑλκομένου Μονεμβασίας,” Πελοποννησιακά 1 (1956): 23–49. The icon, through stylistic comparisons to paintings in the Peribleptos Church, has been attributed to an artist from Mystras. Although the icon was found in the church of Christ Elkomenos, Monemvasia, its original location in the city remains unknown.

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

365

between 1287 and 1302.124 A painter from the metropolitan center may have decorated the walls of the Monas­tery of the Virgin Cheimatissa in Phloka, in close proximity to Monemvasia.125 The paintings of this unpublished katholikon have been used as a stylistic benchmark for a number of smaller monuments in the region, suggesting the existence of an identifiable, regional style.126 Other churches in the region of Monemvasia reveal a style of painting that is quite different from that of Mystras, but yet one that rivals the quality of its monumental decoration. The very abraded painting of a bishop in Aï-Tzouras, for example, shows attention to modeling and graded tonalities in color and reveals an awareness of the volumetric style of painting common in Constantinople in this period (fig. 32). Unpublished paintings in the sanctuary of the Pantanassa katholikon, located between the villages of Pantanassa and Geroumana (Kryobrysi), are monumental in scale and of extremely high quality (fig. 33).127 Unlike the flat, linear paintings found in many churches in the Lakonian countryside, the preserved figures of Christ and a frontal bishop in the five-domed church are modeled, and the color application is sophisticated. Similarly, the fourteenth-century decoration of the narthex of the church of St. George Babylas in

Figure 32 

Aï-Tzouras (Panagia Kyra), Lira, hierarch (photo: S. Gerstel)

late Byzantine painting, which incorporated some Italianate features. As is the case at Mystras, where painters from the city also worked on commissions in the hinterlands, including at churches within en­dowed villages, we might detect a similar phenomenon in the region of Monemvasia. In­­ scrip­tions in churches on the island of Kythera name painters from Monemvasia. According to its founder’s inscription, St. Demetrios, Pourko “ἐσ[τη]λογραφείσ(θη)” by the hand of the archdeacon Demetrios of Monemvasia at some point 366

sharon e. j. gerstel

124  The paintings date to either 1287 or 1302, years in which Kythera was under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Monemvasia. See M. Chatzidakis and I. Bitha, Corpus of the Byzantine Wall Paintings of Greece: The Island of Kythera (Athens, 1997), 181. See also the comments by C. Maltezou in her essay “From Byzantine to Venetian Kythera” in the same volume. 125  In a recent article, Maria Panayotidi linked the Cheimatissa painter to a group of churches in the region. She asserted, however, the influence of Mystras in the style and in certain subject matter. See M. Panayotidi, “Παρα­­ τηρήσεις γιά ἕνα τοπικό ‘ἐργαστήρι’ στήν περιοχή τῆς Ἐπιδαύρου Λιμηρᾶς,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 27 (2006): 193–206. 126  Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 352–62 (N. Drandakes). 127  Orlandos, who first published the church, dated it architecturally to the twelfth century. See Orlandos, “Ἡ Παντάνασσα τῆς Μονεμβασίας,” 139–51. The church has recently been redated by A. Loube-Kize to the fourteenth century, which appears to correspond with the date of the painting decoration, in my opinion. See A. Loube-Kize, “Παντάνασσα της Γερουμάνας: Ένα μνημείο των Ιωαννιτών Ιπποτών,” Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 16 (2003): 357–78. Neither author refers to the paintings within the church, which were first revealed in 2008.

Figure 33 

Church of the Pantanassa, Geroumana/ Kryobrysi, Christ (photo: S. Gerstel)

a valley between Lachi and Belanidia, located to the south of the villages listed in the Monemvasia inventory, is of extremely high quality.128 At least one of the painters working on the extended cycle of the Last Judgment in the narthex was an artist who used a broad color palette and was a master of shading. The composition of the angels rolling up the scroll of heaven, though damaged and coated with salt accretions, displays a high style of painting reminiscent of, though not identical to, works in Mystras (fig. 34). Indeed, the volume of the figures, the thickness of the neck, and the sharpness 128  Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. (1982): 445–50 (V. Kepetzi). According to Kepetzi, the church is located near an old settlement.

of the folds on the drapery are much closer to the style of Byzantium’s metropolitan centers in this period. The majority of painted cycles in the region of Monemvasia are characterized by a flat, linear style of painting familiar in churches in Geraki, on Parnon, and in the Mani. However, the existence of examples of fine painting suggests that painters with exceptional abilities were also at work in Epidauros Limera. Whether these painters were visitors to Monemvasia or permanent residents is unknown. But a more complete assessment of the region’s painting, independent of a consideration of Mystras, may yet reveal the existence of a group of artists who accepted commissions in the region of the area’s most vital port—a port and city that maintained close connections to Constantinople and other regions of the Byzantine world. This landscape of painting has yet to be fully explored. In the late medieval Peloponnese the landscape—both natural and constructed—was

Mapping the Boundaries of Church and Village

367

Figure 34 

Church of George Babylas, Belanidia. Angels rolling up the scroll of heaven (photo: S. Gerstel)

transformed through the interconnection of (“ur­ban”) monasteries or metropolitan jurisdictions and (rural) villages. Texts, whether in­­ scribed in churches or scribed on parchment scrolls, place metropolitan and monastic centers and their endowed properties and peasants together, binding them through mutual obligation and the understanding of setting. The texts mapped the landscape, and, for the medieval viewer, set the boundaries of imperial and regional jurisdictions. Artistic commissions in the region, witnesses to a landscape of religious faith and community memory, may have been influenced by the natural topography and the boundaries drawn around and against institutions and neighbors. The texts also show us a way to look at or question the remains of human habitation on the landscape and to assess the

368

sharon e. j. gerstel

influence of monastic and metropolitan centers on the villages and villagers in the valleys below and the hinterlands beyond. In the absence of actual maps, the inscribed and scribed words and images established both place and identity within a many-layered and often-shifting landscape. These landscapes had dimensions that were both temporal and geographical. In the Byzantine mind, sacred landscapes were both ritual and otherworldly. Shifting landscapes mixed the present world with the ancient world, reconsecrating caves and reinscribing ritual on the land. Mountains played off chasms, and cities with villages. These landscapes invited the medieval villager to consider intricate, overlapping territories that were simultaneously sacred, fiscal, agricultural, personal, bounded by river and mountain, and divided by God and man.

A bbr e vi ation s

KL



AHR American Historical Review AJ Archaeological Journal AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJPA American Journal of Physical Anthropology Ἀκαδ.Ἀθη.Πρ. Ἀκαδημία Ἀθηνῶν Πρακτικά ΑΜ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung AnnalesESC Annales: Economies, sociétés, civilisations Ἀρχ.Βυζ.Μνημ.Ἑλλ. Ἀρχεῖον τῶν βυζαντινῶν μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Ἀρχ.Δελτ. Ἀρχαιολογικὸν δελτίον Ἀρχ.Ἐφ. Ἀρχαιολογικὴ ἐφημερίς ArtB Art Bulletin AStIt Archivio storico italiano AStNap Archivio storico per le province napoletane ASV Archivio di Stato, Venice (unpublished documents) BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique





BEFAR Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome BHG Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca BHR Bulgarian Historical Review/Revue bulgare d’histoire BMFD Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ “Typika” and Testaments, ed. J. Thomas and A. C. Hero, DOS 35 (Washington, DC, 2000) BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies BNJ ByzantinischNeugriechische Jahrbücher BSA Annual of the British School at Athens BSR Papers of the British School at Rome BullMon Bulletin monumental ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 477



CahArch Cahiers archéologiques CEB Congrès international des études byzantines: Actes CFHB Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae Chrysostomides, MP J. Chrysostomides, ed., Monumenta Peloponnesiaca: Documents for the History of the Peloponnese in the 14th and 15th Centuries (Camberley, Surrey, 1995) CIG Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, ed. A. Boeckh et al. (Berlin, 1828–77) ClMed Classica et mediaevalia CSHB Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. Δελτίον τῆς Xριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας ΔΕΕ Δελτίον τῆς ἱστορικῆς καὶ ἐθνολογικῆς τῆς Ἑλλάδος DGM See Zakythinos, DGM DOC A. R. Bellinger, P. Grierson, and M. F. Hendy, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection (Washington, DC, 1966–99) DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers DOS Dumbarton Oaks Studies DV See Nanetti, DV DVL G. M. Thomas and R. Predelli, eds., Diplomatarium venetolevantinum sive acta et diplomata res Venetas Graecas atque Levantis (Venice, 1880–99) EcHistR Economic History Review EHB A. E. Laiou, ed., The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through

478

abbreviations



EHR EO Ἐπ.Ἑτ.Βυζ.Σπ.

EtBalk EtByz Gerland, NQ



GOTR



IG



JArS



JHS JIAN



JÖB



JSAH



JSav JWarb



Κρ.Χρον. Λακ.Σπ. Libro d’abaco



Libro dele uxanze

Livre de la conqueste

the Fifteenth Century (Washington, DC, 2002) English History Review Echos d’Orient Ἐπετηρῖς ἐταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν Études balkaniques Études byzantines A. E. Gerland, Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Erzbistums Patras (Leipzig, 1903) Greek Orthodox Theological Review Inscriptiones graecae (Berlin, 1873–) Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal international d’archéologie numismatique Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Journal des savants Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Κρητικὰ χρονικά Λακωνικαὶ σπουδαί G. Arrighi, ed., Libro d’abaco: Dal codice 1754 (sec. XIV) della Biblioteca Statale di Lucca (Lucca, 1973) A. Parmeggiani, ed., Libro dele uxanze e statuti delo Imperio de Romania, edizione critica, Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica 1 (Spoleto, 1998) J. Longnon, ed., Livre de la conqueste de la princée de l’Amorée: Chronique de Morée (1204–1305) (Paris, 1911)



LT J. Longnon and P. Topping, eds., Documents sur le régime des terres dans la principauté de Morée au XIV e siècle (Paris and The Hague, 1969). [Cited by page and line numbers] MarbJb Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft MélRome Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, École française de Rome MHR Mediterranean Historical Review MittIÖG Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung MM F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (Vienna, 1860–90) MP See Chrysostomides, MP Nanetti, DV A. Nanetti, ed., Documenta veneta Coroni & Methoni rogata: Euristica e critica documentaria per gli oculi capitales Comunis Veneciarum (secoli XIV e XV), vol. 1, Fondazione Nazionale Ellenica delle Ricerche; Istituto di Ricerche Bizantine, Fonti 3 and 7 (Athens, 1999–2007) NC Numismatic Chronicle NCirc Numismatic Circular NCMH New Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge and New York, 1995–2005) Νέος Ἑλλ. Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων NQ See Gerland, NQ OCP Orientalia christiana periodica ODB A. P. Kazhdan et al., eds., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York and Oxford, 1991)

Pasquale Longo A. Lombardo, ed., Pasquale Longo notaio in Corone, 1289–1293, Deputazione di Storia patria per le Venezie, Monumenti storici, n.s. 6 (Venice, 1951) Pegolotti Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La pratica della mercatura, ed. A. Evans (Cambridge, MA, 1936) PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857–66) PLP Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp et al. (Vienna, 1976–) Πρακτ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας RA Revue archéologique RBK K. Wessel, ed., Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst (Stuttgart, 1963–) REB Revue des études byzantines RESEE Revue des études sud-est européennes RIN Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini RN Revue numismatique ROL Revue de l’Orient latin RS H. Spanke, ed., G. Raynauds Bibliographie des altfranzösischen Liedes (Leiden, 1980) RSI Rivista storica italiana Sathas C. N. Sathas, ed., Documents inédits relatifs à l’histoire de la Grèce au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1890–1900) ST Studi e testi StMed Studi medievali StVen Studi veneziani SüdostF Südost-Forschungen

abbreviations

479







480

Synaxarium CP H. Delehaye, ed., Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta sanctorum Novembris (Brussels, 1902) TFByzNgPhil Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinischneugriechischen Philologie TIB H. Hunger, ed., Tabula imperii byzantini (Vienna, 1976–) TM Travaux et mémoires TTh G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, eds., Urkunden zur älteren Handelsund Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig (Vienna, 1856–57)

abbreviations

VizVrem Vizantiiskii vremennik Zakythinos, DGM D. A. Zakythinos, Le despotat grec de Morée, vol. 1, Histoire politique, and vol. 2, Vie et institutions, revised and amplified edition by C. Maltézou (London, 1975) Zibaldone da Canal A. Stussi, ed., Zibaldone da Canal: Manoscritto mercantile del sec. XIV, Fonti per la Storia di Venezia, Sez. V—Fondi Vari (Venice, 1967) ZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta, Srpska akademija nauka

A b ou t t h e Au t hor s

KL

Demetrios Athanasoulis is director of the 25th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities. Charged with the excavation, field research, and restora­ tion projects of the medieval monuments and sites in the Argolid (castles of Acronauplia and Argos), Arkadia (Karytaina, Leontari, Tegea), Corinthia (Corinth, Lechaion, Acrocorinth, Ayionori, the Byzan­tine churches of Corinthia), and Elis (Glar­ entza), he is also directing the installation of the Byzantine museum of the Argolid and is a mem­ ber of the committee for the restoration of the castles of Pylia (Methone, Korone, Old and New Navarino). Athanasoulis led the project to restore Chlemoutsi castle and to establish within its walls a museum devoted to the crusader Morea. An architectural historian and archaeologist, his many publications, including his disserta­ tion “Church Architecture of the Olena Diocese during the Middle and Late Byzantine Periods” (2006), focus on Byzantine and Frankish archi­ tecture in the Peloponnese. Julian Baker is curator of medieval and mod­ ern coins at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University. He specializes in the monetary his­ tory of late medieval southern Italy, Greece, and Byzantium, on which he has published many articles, including “Coin Circulation in Early

Fourteenth-Century Thessaly and South-Eastern Mainland Greece,” in N. Moschonas, ed., Money and Markets in the Palaiologan Period (Athens, 2003), 293–336; “Three Fourteenth-Century Coin Hoards from Apulia Containing Gigliati and Greek Deniers Tournois,” RIN 102 (2001): 219– 80; and (with M. Ponting), “The Early Period of Minting of Deniers Tournois in the Principality of Achaïa (to 1289), and Their Relation to the Issues of the Duchy of Athens,” NC 161 (2001): 207–54. His book Coinage and Money in Greece, 1200–1430 is forthcoming with Brill (Leiden). Veronica della Dor a is Senior Lecturer in Geographies of Knowledge at the School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol. In 2011 she was a Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks, where she worked on a project on Byzantine sacred land­ scapes. Her research interests and publications span cultural and historical geography, history of cartography, and science studies, with a spe­ cific focus on sacred geographies and the eastern Mediterranean. She is the author of Imagining Mount Athos: Visions of a Holy Place from Homer to World War II (Charlottesville, 2011) and coeditor of High Places: Cultural Geographies of Mountains, Ice, and Science (London, 2008) and Visual and Historical Geographies (London, 2010). 481

Sandr a J. Garvie-Lok is Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Alberta. She is a bioarchaeologist specializing in the reconstruction of human diet and mobility using stable isotope analysis. Her current research interests include regional and status-linked dietary variation in Late Roman Greece and changing diet in the Peloponnese in the Hellenistic through Ottoman eras. Her recent publications include “Breast-Feeding and Weaning Patterns in Byzantine Times: Evidence from Human Remains and Written Sources” (with C. Bourbou), in Becoming Byzantine: Children and Childhood in Byzantium, ed. A. Papaconstantinou and A.-M. Talbot (Washington, DC, 2009), as well as contributions to the American Jour­nal of Physical Anthropology, the Journal of Anthropologi­ cal Archaeology, and the International Journal of Historical Archaeology. Sharon E. J. Gerstel is Professor of Byz­ antine Art and Archaeology at the University of California, Los Angeles. An art historian and archaeologist, her research focuses on the late Byzantine village and on the intersections of art and ritual. She is author of Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary (Seattle, 1999) and has edited A Lost Art Rediscovered: The Architectural Ceramics of Byzan­tium (with J. Lauffenburger) (Baltimore and University Park, PA, 2001); Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Archaeologi­ cal, Liturgical, and Theological Views on Religious Screens, East and West (Washington, DC, 2007); and Approaching the Holy Mountain: Art and Liturgy at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai (with Robert S. Nelson, Turnhout, 2010). She was a recipient of a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship in 2010. Timothy E. Gregory is Distinguished Pro­­fes­­ sor of Byzantine History and Classical Archae­­ol­­ ogy in the Department of History and Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Anthro­ pology at Ohio State University, Colum­bus. He has written or edited six books, the most recent of which is A History of Byzantium, published in a second edition by Wiley-Blackwell in 2010. Professor

482

about the authors

Gregory has worked in archaeological excavations and field projects in Cyprus, Athens, Corinth, Voiotia, Messenia, and Kythera. He is currently Director of the Ohio State University Excavations at Isthmia (a project of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, in cooperation with the Greek Ministry of Culture) and Deputy Director of the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey (a project of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens, again in collaboration with the Greek Ministry of Culture). John Haines is Professor of Music and Medi­ eval Studies at the University of Toronto. He has published on the music of the Middle Ages and its modern reception in a variety of journals, both musicological—from Early Music History to Popular Music—and nonmusicological—from Romania to Scriptorium. Recent books include Medieval Song in Romance Languages (Cam­bridge, 2010) and Satire in the Songs of Renart le nouvel (Geneva, 2010), number 247 in the series “Publi­ cations romanes et françaises.” He is a contributor, among others, to The Cambridge History of Medieval Music and The Oxford Handbook of Music Revivals, both forthcoming. David Jacoby is Emeritus Professor of History, Department of History, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. He has been Visiting Professor at several universities in the United States and in Venice. He is the recipient of fellowships and research grants in the United States, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Greece. In 1973 he was awarded the Prix Gustave Schlumberger of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in Paris. He is a member of the editorial board of the journals Mediterranean Historical Review and Crusades. His research and publications focus on Byzantium and its former territories, the crusader states of the Levant, Cyprus, and Egypt, and cultural exchange between the West and the eastern Mediterranean in the ninth to fifteenth centuries. He is currently writing a book on medieval silk production and trade in the Mediterranean region. His latest collection of studies is Latins, Greeks, and Muslims: Encounters in the Eastern Mediterranean, Tenth–Fifteenth Centuries.

Elizabeth Jeffr eys is Emerita Bywater and Sotheby Professor of Byzantine and Modern Greek Language and Literature at the University of Oxford, and Emerita Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Her publications include The War of Troy (with Manolis Papathomopoulos) (Athens, 1996); Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions (Cambridge, 1998); The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ (with John Pryor) (Leiden, 2006); Iacobi Monachi Epistulae (with Michael Jeffreys) (Turnhout, 2009); and Four Byzantine Novels (Liverpool, 2012). Florin Leonte is a doctoral candidate at the Central European University, Budapest. He was Junior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks in 2009–10 and is currently finishing his dissertation on the renewal of Byzantine imperial ideology during the reign of Manuel II Palaiologos, under the supervision of Professor Niels Gaul. A m y Papa lex a ndrou is an independent scholar and research associate at the University of Texas at Austin, where she occasionally teaches. She is an art and architectural historian as well as archaeologist, working primarily on the monuments and material culture of late antiquity and Byzan­tium. Her publications have appeared in various journals and collected studies, most recently t ium,” in A “The Memory Culture of Byzan­ Companion to Byzantium (Malden, MA, 2010) and “On the Shoulders of Hera: Alternative Readings of Antiquity in the Greek Memoryscape,” in Archaeol­ogy in Situ: Sites, Archaeology, and Com­ munities in Greece (Lanham, MD, 2010). She is currently investigating the soundways and sonic environments of premodern cultures, especially that of Byzantium. This interest had its beginnings in her fieldwork on the ninth-century church of Skripou, in central Greece, the study of which she is currently moving toward publication. Titos Papa m astor akis (1961–2010) was Associate Professor of Byzantine Archaeology and Art in the Department of History and Archae­ ology of the University of Athens. In addition to Iconography of the Dome in Churches of the Palae­ ologan Period in the Balkan Peninsula and Cyprus

(Athens, 2001), Papamastorakis published numerous book chapters and articles, including “A Visual Encomium of Michael VIII Palaeologos: The Exterior Wall-Paintings of the Mavriotissa at Kastoria,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 15 (1989–90): 221–38; “Funerary Representations in the Middle and Late Byzantine Periods,” Δελτ.Χρ.Ἀρχ.Ἑτ. 19 (1996–97): 285–303; “Ioannes ‘Redolent of Perfume’ and His Icon in the Mega Spelaion Monastery,” Zograf 26 (1997): 65–73; “Tampering with History: From Michael III to Michael VIII,” BZ 96 (2003): 193– 209; and “Pictorial Lives: Narrative in ThirteenthCentury Vita Icons,” Μουσείο Μπενάκη 7 (2007): 33–63. Helen Sar adi is Professor of Byzantine His­ tory and Byzantine Civilization at the University of the Peloponnese. Her research interests lie in the Byzantine notarial system and related socioeconomic issues, the Byzantine city, and the ancient tradition and monuments in Byzantium. Her publications include Le notariat byzantin du IX e au XV e siècles (Athens, 1991), Il sistema notarile bizantino (VI–XV secolo) (Milan, 1999), and The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century: Literary Images and Historical Reality (Athens, 2006). She is currently working on the rhetoric of the city in the Palaiologan period. Ter esa Shawcross is Assistant Professor in Byzantine History at Princeton University. Her research is concerned with the history and culture of the eastern Mediterranean in the late medieval period. Recent work has explored the consequences of the fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire in the period between the crusader and Ottoman conquests. She is currently writing on Byzan­tine political theory. Her publications include The Chronicle of Morea: Historiography in Crusader Greece (Oxford, 2009). She received a New Directions Fellowship from the Mellon Foundation in 2012. A lan Stahl is Curator of Numismatics at Princeton University and a lecturer in the Depart­ ments of Classics and History. His work focuses on the coinages of the medieval Mediterranean and the history of Venice in the Middle Ages

about the authors

483

and the Renaissance. Among his books are The Venetian Tornesello: A Medieval Colonial Coinage (New York, 1985) and Zecca: The Mint of Venice in the Middle Ages (Baltimore, 2001). He has edited for Dumbarton Oaks The Documents of Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella: Venetian Notaries in Fourteenth-Century Crete (2000) and is coeditor

484

about the authors

with Pamela O. Long and David McGee of The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript (Cambridge, MA, 2009). He is a recipient of a 2008 John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship and the 2010 Medal of the Royal Numismatic Society.

i n de x

KL

Page numbers in italics indicate illustrative material. Medieval persons are listed, when possible, by family name. Kings, popes, patriarchs, and persons with toponyms (e.g., Guillaume le Vinier) are listed by first name, except where the toponym is especially familiar (e.g., Joinville, John of). Churches are found under their location rather than under the name of the church unless otherwise indicated (e.g., the church of the Koimesis at Merbaka is listed under Merbaka). Manuscripts are gathered under the main entry “manuscripts” and then listed by city and institution. Abouri, Andrea (notary), 192 Abulafia, David, 73 Acciajuoli, Angelo, 251 Acciajuoli, Antonio, 202 Acciajuoli, Bartolomea, 202 Acciajuoli, Bindaccio, 203 Acciajuoli, Donato, 297n70 Acciajuoli, Francesca, 202 Acciajuoli, Giovanni, 204 Acciajuoli, Nerio, 195, 201–2, 204, 226, 258–59, 265 Acciajuoli, Niccolò historical writing and sense of the past, 15, 19 private legal transactions of, 209 rural exploitation and market economy, 15, 19, 218, 220, 222, 228–31, 241, 246, 258, 259 settlement analysis and, 297, 298 Acciajuoli, Renier, 171 Acciajuoli family and lands in the Morea, 5, 299, 341n22, 345, 448 Achaia. See Frankish Morea; Morea acorn cups and kermes, 226, 230, 263–67 Acre cotton exports and, 261 fall of (1291), 280–81, 284

Acrocorinth Bordone on, 465 castle of, 127, 130, 137, 140, 280 coins found at, 154n12, 160, 171 Ad Thaliarchum (Horace), 54 Address to the Despot Constantine (Bessarion, 1444), 445 Address to the Emperor Manuel on the Affairs in the Peloponnese (Plethon, 1407–1418), 422–23, 434, 435, 438, 439, 443, 447 Adeliza of Louvain (queen of England), 65–66 Adenet le Roi (poet and musician), 92 Advisory Address to the Despot Theodore on the Peloponnese (Plethon, 1407–1418), 422–23, 434, 435, 438, 439, 443, 447 Aegean ware, 281 Aegina, Omorphi Ekklesia, 37n49 Aeneas, foundation myths associated with, 10, 443, 462 Against Plethon’s Doubts about Aristotle (Gennadios), 440n155 Agallon, Nicholas Boullotes, 421n16 Agapitos, Panagiotis, 18 Agathias (monk), 444 Agesilaus (ruler of ancient Sparta), 437, 444 Agnes of Courtenay, 77

485

Agnes (Anna Komnena Doukaina) of Epiros, 58, 97–100, 101, 107, 107–8, 114, 137n133 Agnes of France (princess), 80 Agnes panel, 23–25, 24, 25, 35, 107, 107–8, 114 agrarian economy. See rural exploitation and market economy Aigues-Mortes, France, 3, 88, 116, 125 Aipeia (Messenia), church of St. George at, 29n20 Akova, castle of, 140, 293 Akronauplia castle of, 125 coins found at, 154n12, 160 Albanians in the Morea, 221–22, 224, 256, 262, 268, 411, 468 Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (chronicler), 76, 80, 82n146 Albigensian Crusade, 68, 78, 79 Alexander the Great, 437 Alexios I (emperor), coins of, 157, 236n176 Alix of Brabant, 92 Almyros, Battle of (1311), 286 Alphonse of France, 81, 89, 161 Alype, Kale (supplicant), 359–60, 360 Amadeo VI of Savoy, 169 Amauri (Amaury) of Jerusalem, 14–15n37, 75n94 Ambelos (site), 299 Ambroise of Evreux, 67 amorevolezza, 88, 90 Amyklion, bishopric of, 350, 358 Anagnostakis, Elias, 393 Ancelin of Toucy, 80, 81, 101, 102 ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis of skeletal remains, 314–15 Ancona pennies, 174 Andravida abandonment of, 115, 142 as administrative center, 113–15, 114 political geography of Frankish Morea and, 112, 113, 141 rural exploitation and market economy, 230, 247, 252 St. James, cathedral church of, 35n1, 83–84, 107, 115, 201 St. Sophia, church of, 35n1, 110, 113–14, 114, 124 St. Stephen, church of, 115 William of Villehardouin and, 83–84, 101, 102 Andreas son of Mathey de Bononia, 193 Andrews, Kevin, 51n98, 140 Andronikos II Palaiologos (emperor), 177, 220, 223, 247, 264, 265, 339, 352, 356, 363n113, 364, 373, 374, 389, 392, 393, 425 Andronikos III Palaiologos (emperor), 425 Andronikos IV (emperor), 401, 404, 406, 407, 412, 415n111 Andronikos V Palaiologos (emperor), 413 Androusa Brontocheion properties in, 342, 345, 355 castle of, 126, 137, 140, 141 rural exploitation and market economy, 229, 245 St. George, church of, 28n20, 150 as urban center, 126, 131

486

index

Angel, J. Lawrence, 314 Angelov, Dimiter, 415 Anglo-Norman England, origins of vernacular writtenout songs in, 63–68, 67 Anilio, church of the Koimesis at, 28n20 Ankara, Battle of (1402), 414 Anna Komnena Doukaina (Agnes) of Epiros, 58, 97–100, 101, 107, 107–8, 114, 137n133 Anne of Savoy, 18 Anonymous of Trani, 98 Antonio de Reis (witness to will), 201 Antonios (patriarch), 424–25n36 Antonius Stephani de Campo Fellone (notary), 193 apanage, 81–82 Aphendiko. See Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras Aphthonius, 400 Apokaukos, Alexios, 425 Apokaukos, John, 13, 20 Apophthegmata (Plutarch), 436 appactuatio, 232–33 apprenticeship contracts, 205 archaeological evidence. See ceramic evidence; entries at settlement analysis; skeletal remains architecture of Frankish Morea, 3, 111–51 Andravida, as administrative center, 113–15, 114. See also Andravida Byzantine churches, Frankish and local architectural idiom in, 142–51, 143–45, 147–50. See also specific churches, by town name Chlemoutsi, 127–41, 128–36. See also Chlemoutsi, castle of Glarentza, 115–27, 117, 118, 120–25. See also Glarentza Gothic architecture, 113, 123, 138, 141, 142, 144–51 identity politics of, 151 political geography of principality and, 112, 113, 141–42 spolia, incorporation of. See spolia archontes architecture of Frankish Morea and, 112, 142, 145 Brontocheion monastery, iconography of south portico of, 399 Plethon and, 442–43, 448 rural exploitation and market economy, 219, 225, 234–36, 238–39, 241, 269, 270, 274 Argos castle of, 140 coins found at, 152, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 171 Ottoman abduction of citizens from, 269 Ottoman capture of, 430 private legal documents, loss of, 196 rural exploitation and market economy, 216, 221, 223, 225, 245, 256, 257–59, 265, 271, 272 St. John the Baptist, knotted cross panel from church of, 23–24n2 as Venetian stronghold, 431 Argyropoulos (merchant), 432

Argyropoulos, John, 425 Aristotle, 5, 33–35, 401n40, 420n12, 436, 437, 438n141, 439, 448, 457 Arkadia (Kyparissia) castle at, 20, 49–51, 51, 140 coins found at, 157 Arlos, castle of, 299 Armiro (village), 250 Armstrong, Pamela, 11 Arras and songbook production, 58, 73–75, 91, 93–97 Arras Puy, 73, 89, 96 Arrian, 14 arrow slits, 119, 127, 137, 139, 140 Asanes, Manuel, 415 Asen, Andronikos Palaiologos, 219, 342, 355, 393 Asopos, 226 Asperti, Stefano, 104n301 aspron trachy (coin), 155n16 Assizes of Jerusalem, 82 Assizes of Romania, 82, 166, 192, 202–3, 207, 209, 218, 232n144, 233 Astrona, castle of, 299 Astros (site), 342, 358 Athanasios I (patriarch), 373 Athanasoulis, Demetrios, 3, 26, 111, 481 Athanassopoulos, Effie, 304 Athens Attiki Odos chapel, 306n98 church of the Virgin, Parthenon, 201–2 coins found at, 155, 156, 159, 160, 174 coins issued by lords of, 163, 174–75 Hephaisteion, burials at, 312, 321–22 Little Metropolis, church of, 53 palace at, 133 Parthenon, 30n29, 46n75, 51, 201 St. John Mangoutes, church of, 52 St. Nicholas, Orthodox sanctuary of, Agora, 311, 321–22 skeletal remains, Agora, 311, 312, 321–22, 324, 331–32, 333 as Venetian stronghold, 431 Atlante Veneto (Coronelli, 1692), 456, 462 Atlas (Hondius, 1606), 462, 466, 473 Atlas (Mercator, 1578–1588, 4th ed. 1616), 458, 462, 466 Attaleiates, Michael, 191, 196 Audefroi le Bastart, 73 Ayionori, 140, 294, 299 Ayios Nikolaos church of St. Nicholas at, 363 church of the Taxiarchs in, 353n72 Ayios Vasileios. See San Basilio baccini (bowls immured in church walls), 27, 29, 30, 46, 53 Badoer, Giacomo (merchant), 242, 243, 273n538, 432 Baker, Julian, 3, 153, 154n4, 157, 481 Balard, Michel, 171n193, 195

Baldwin I (Latin emperor of Constantinople; Baldwin IX of Flanders), 75, 160 Baldwin II Courtenay (Latin emperor of Constantinople), 86, 87, 102–3, 161, 165 Barbarigo, Agostino (doge of Venice), 174 Barbarigo, Gregorio (Bishop of Padua), 463 Bardi family, 448 Barnes, Ethne, 284–85, 313–14 Baroncelli, Aldobrando, 245, 247, 253, 268 Barons’ Crusade, 83 barrels, casks, and coopers, 251, 258 Barsova (village), 343 barter economy Bessarion’s proposals regarding, 445–46 feudal institutions and, 200 Plethon’s proposals regarding, 429, 435, 438–39, 447 survival of, 242, 271, 273 Basil I (emperor), 415 Basilicu, 219, 228, 229n112 Bayezid (sultan), 401, 404, 405, 411n89 Beck, Jean and Louise, 59, 75n94, 90, 100, 104n301 Belanidia, Church of St. George Babylas at, 366–67, 367 Belvoir Castle, 132n103–4, 136n119, 139 Benedeit, Brendan, 66 Benedict of St. Alban, 67 Benevento, Battle of (1266), 103, 104 Benoît de Sainte-Maure Chronique des ducs de Normandie (London, BL Harley 1717), 56, 67, 69 Roman de Troie, 17, 18, 19, 20, 70n66 Berbati, coins found at, 161, 162 Berger, Roger, 89 Bernart de Ventadorn (troubadour), 63, 64–65, 95, 96 Bessarion, Cardinal, 5, 14, 273, 436n127, 445–46, 460 Bestournés, 73n87 billon trachy (coin), 152, 153, 156–57, 158, 160 Bintliff, John, 292n54, 304 Blachernai, monastery church of, Glarentza architecture of Frankish Morea and, 112, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 spolia, use of, 28–29, 35–39, 36–38 Blachernai church, Constantinople, 374, 392 Black Death, 218, 222, 223, 224, 244, 249, 267–70, 450–51n231 Blegen, Carl, 293 Blondel (John II of Nesle), 75, 79 Boccaccio, 15 Bodonitza (Mendenitsa), 466 Boeotia, church of St. Nicholas “sta Kambia” in, 36n49 Boiano, Nicola de, 221 Bon, Antoine, 11, 20, 30n29, 51n98, 120, 140, 293 Boniface of Montferrat, 156 Bono, Lorenzo (chancellor of Nauplion), 203 Book of Essays (Metochites), 441 Book of Laws (Plethon, ca. 1428), 423, 440–41, 447

index

487

Bordone, Benedetto (cartographer), 462, 464–65, 468 Boscio, 219, 228–29, 231, 247 Boulogne-sur-Mer, castle of, 132, 139 Bourbou, Chryssa, 332 Bourbouhakis, E. ca., 402n42 Bouvines, Battle of (1214), 79 Bracciolini, Poggio, 448n205 Branaina of Branas, 80, 81 Branas, Theodoros (general), 80 Brasidas, 13 Brauron, coins found at, 160 Brendan (Benedeit), 66 Bresciano, Antonio (priest and notary), 196n56 Brindisi, mint at, 177 Broneer, Oscar, 287 Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras Chamber of the Chrysobulls, 13, 337–48 agricultural landscape, information about, 345–46 dedicatory epigram, 373–74 endowments enumerated in texts, 337–43, 341, 344 integral landscape program of, 344–46 painter of south portico and, 386–91, 387, 388, 390, 391 purpose of paintings, 346, 348, 355 script of chrysobulls, 394–95 vault and north wall painting and texts, 334, 337, 338, 340, 343, 387, 388 exterior, 337, 370 founding of, 373–74 galleries, 345n39 interior nave, 347 “Mystras school” of painting and, iv, 364 narthex and nave, iconography of, 374, 388–89 plan, 338 rural exploitation and market economy, 223, 247, 345–46, 374 St. Demetrios, Mystras, and, 345–48 sigillion, 343, 374, 389 south portico iconographic program, 5, 371–95 Constantinopolitan cults of the Virgin, Mystras identified with, 374, 391–93 dating, 389–90 decorative motifs, iv, 386–87, 387, 390–91 Dormition of the Virgin, 375, 381–85, 382–86, 388–90, 392 Hodegetria icon, dispute over ownership of, 393 Magi, visit of, 375, 379 Massacre of the Innocents, 375, 376, 379–80, 380, 381, 390, 391 Nativity cycle, 375–79, 376–79, 391 painter of Chamber of the Chrysobulls and, 386–91, 387, 388, 390, 391 plan of, 375, 376

488

index

Protevangelium of James text, 375, 376, 377n25, 379, 380, 391–92 St. Demetrios, Mystras, nave and narthex paintings of, 390, 390–91, 391 script of inscriptions in, 394–95 state of preservation, 374–76 Synaxarium of Constantinople text, 375, 376, 381, 385, 391, 392 as textual pictures or pictorial texts, 385–86 Zacharias, murder of, 375, 376, 380, 381, 391, 392 Theodore I Palaiologos as monk Theodoretos, northeast chapel, 396 town, relationship to, 374 Zoodochos Pege, 375, 389, 392 Brown, R. A., 67 Bruni, Leonardo (historian), 426, 426–28, 448n205 Brut of Wace, 17 Brysi, 343, 348 Bucho, Nichola (cellar keeper), 298 Buchon, Charles, 351n67 Buchon, Jean, 2, 76n100, 76n107, 80 Buchthal, Hugo, 17 Buondelmonti, Cristoforo, 461, 464 Buondelmonti, Maddalena, 253 burials. See skeletal remains Byzantine churches of Frankish Morea, 142–51, 143–45, 147–50. See also specific churches, by town name Byzantine Despotate. See also Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea; Mystras; Orthodox landscapes; Plethon; rural exploitation and market economy casaux de parçon or partitioned villages on borders of, 218–19, 226, 270 establishment of, 2, 4–5, 12, 101–2, 216, 372 expansionist policy, 443, 446 historical writing and sense of the past in, 13–14, 20–21 in latter part of 15th century, 423–25 local hostility to Palaeologian despots, 441–43, 444n181 Byzantine reconquest of Constantinople, 97–98, 100–103, 284 Caesarea, stable isotope analysis of skeletal remains from, 318, 325, 326 Caffa, Genoese colony of, 195 Calivia (village), 225, 250 Calomiti, Abraam, 260 Canakari, Andrea, 259 Candia, 223n70, 243n241, 256, 262, 263 Carceri, Alberto dalle, 85, 87 Carceri, Berta dalle, 85, 87 Carceri, Carintana dalle, 85–88, 87, 90, 95, 97, 99 Carceri, Felisa dalle, 86, 87 Carceri, Guglielmo I dalle, 85, 87, 97, 99 Carceri, Guglielmo II dalle, 87, 88 Carceri, Isabella dalle, 85, 87

Carceri, Marino I dalle, 85, 87 Carceri, Narzotto dalle, 85, 87 Carceri, Ravano dalle, 85, 86, 87 Carceri, Rizzardo dalle, 85, 86, 87 Carceri family, 80–81, 81, 82, 95, 97, 99 Carr, Annemarie Weyl, 363n113 Carruthers, M., 35n45 cartography. See Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as casaux de parçon or partitioned villages, 218–19, 226, 270 casks, barrels, and coopers, 251, 258 Catalans in Morea, 12, 108 Almyros, Battle of (1311), 286 ceramic evidence of, 127 coins and money, 157, 167, 168, 175 Corinth, sack of, 284 rural exploitation and market economy, 221, 242n227, 245, 255, 266 catastica, 225 Catello family, 258 Catherine de Valois, 15, 16, 19 Catzicova, 229, 230 Cavaça, Pietro, 266–67 Cavaza, Giovanni and Maria, 203 Celsi, Marco, 264 ceramic evidence. See also specific pottery types, e.g., Aegean ware, Imitation Luster ware, ProtoMaiolica ware at Corinth, 281–84, 282, 291n53, 292, 305–6, 330 from Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS), 301–3 of economic and political relationships of Frankish Morea, 126–27 immured bowls in church walls (baccini), 27, 29, 30, 46, 53 at Isthmia, 289, 290–92, 292, 305–6 from Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP), 305 Parori, 349 at San Basilio (Ayios Vasileios), 297 settlement analysis in southern Peloponnese, 362 at Zygouries, 299 Chalkokaidides, John, 193 Chalkokondyles, Laonikos, 14, 372, 413n100, 446n199 Chalkoprateia church, Constantinople, 374, 391–92 Chamber of the Chrysobulls. See Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras chamotsoukin, 76 Les chansons au Roy de Navarre (Thibaut IV), 93 Chantore, Antonio, 201 Chappe, Pierre (Cypriot baron), 69 Charitonymos, Hermonymos, 438 Charles I of Anjou apanage of, 81 architecture of Kingdom of Naples and, 141n182

coins of, 161, 165, 169, 176 as commissioner of songbook of William of Anjou, 15n37, 58, 59, 60, 89–93, 99–100, 102, 104n301 in possession of songbook of William of Anjou, 104–5 as prince of the Morea and king of Naples and Sicily, 103–5, 107, 161, 165, 216, 248, 269, 284 in Seventh Crusade, 89–90, 91 War of Troy and, 19 Charles II of Anjou (prince of the Morea), 166, 286 Chartia of Klabazos (1572), 196 Chartres, William of Ferrières, Vidame of, 79, 93 Chasini, Nichola (bailiff), 298 Chatzidakis, Manolis, 389 Chazaud, A.-M., 70n65 cheese and dairy products rural exploitation and market economy, 225–26, 234, 237 stable isotope analysis and consumption of, 330–31 Le chiese (Coronelli, 1709), 473 Childe, V. Gordon, 278 children, weaning and feeding, 332 Chlemoutsi, castle of, 127–41 abandonment of, 141 architectural influences and castralization of the palace, 132–36, 138–39 bathing facilities, 134n119 Byzantine churches of Frankish Morea influenced by, 142 ceramic evidence from, 126 chapel, 131, 132–33, 133, 134, 136–37 Chronicle of the Morea and, 119, 127, 140 coins found at, 154n12, 171 compared to other castles, 127, 130, 133–34, 137, 138, 139, 140–41 defensive architecture of, 127–30, 129, 130, 137–39 fireplaces, 130, 137 first and second building stages of, 127–30, 129, 140 Glarentza and, 119, 129, 138 great hall, 131–34, 132–34, 136–37 kitchens, 131, 134, 136–37 latrines, 130, 136 plan and layout, 127, 128, 131 political geography of Frankish Morea and, 112, 113, 141 private apartments, 130, 131, 134–36, 134–37 purpose of, 129–30, 137, 140 spolia, use of, 23, 35 third, palatial phase of, 130–36, 130–37 Chlemoutsi, monastery at, 144 Chomatenos, Demetrios, 12–13, 206 Choniates, Michael, 11, 12 Choniates, Niketas, 13, 281, 282n21, 330, 363 Chora Monastery, Constantinople, 386 Chortasmenos, John, 415 Choumnos, John, 253 Choumnos, Phokas, 193 Chrétien de Troyes, 68

index

489

Christ Elkomenos, Monemvasia icon of, 363–64 Chronicle of Fredegarius, 10 Chronicle of the Morea Chlemoutsi and, 119, 127, 140 Glarentza in, 115, 120 historical writing and sense of the past in, 2, 15–16, 19, 20 on mints, 164 on Mystras, 372 on private legal transactions, 196, 201 on San Basilio (Ayios Vasileios), 293 songbook of William of Villehardouin and, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84, 88, 95, 99, 101, 104, 107, 108 spolia and cultural perspective on the past in, 28, 48–52 on tournament at Isthmia, 286 The Chronicle of Muntaner, 77n112 Chronik 42, 20n76 Chronique des ducs de Normandie (Benoît de SainteMaure; London, BL Harley 1717), 56, 67, 69 Chrysapha monastery of the Virgin Chrysaphitissa, 358–59 St. John the Baptist, 363n101 Chrysobulls, Chamber of the. See Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras Chrysokephalos, Matthew, 400n19 Chrysoloras, Demetrios, 415 Chrysoloras, Manuel, 398n5, 399, 400, 402, 403, 415, 416, 420n9, 460 Chrysostomides, Julian, 416 Cicero, 457, 458 Clement IV (pope), 102 Clement, Paul, 287, 288n49, 289 Clementia of Hungary (queen of France), 61 Clüver, Philipp, 462 coins and money, 2–3, 153–84. See also mints, and specific types of coin Bessarion’s proposals to limit, 445–46 checklist of coin finds, 154n4, 179–84 in early modern period, 174 excavated single coins, 154 first Achaian petty denomination issues of 1250s, 152, 158–59, 163–64, 177 founding of Glarentza, as evidence of, 115 Fourth Crusade and first half of thirteenth century, 156–63, 158, 178 Gresham’s Law, 167 hoards, 154, 171, 179–81 international dimensions of, 176–78 local counterfeits and imitations, 156–60, 158, 159, 164, 167, 169, 173, 174, 175 local Peloponnese terminology for, 156 from mid-13th to mid-14th century (1267–1353), 159, 164–70 Moreote hyperpyron of account, 171–73 Plethon’s proposals to limit, 429, 435, 438–39

490

index

regional variations in circulation patterns, 174–76 rural exploitation and market economy, monetization by, 272–73 settlement analysis and, 289–90, 290, 296–97 significance of, 153, 178 sources and evidence, 154–55 Turkish coins, 174, 177 twelfth century, 155–56, 158 Venetian dominance of Morean coinage from mid14th century, 169–71, 175, 176, 434 of William II of Villehardouin, 84, 85, 163, 164–65, 177 Colart le Boutellier, 94, 94–95 Colonna, Guido della, 17 columns, commemorative meaning of, 46–47 commemorative medals, 463–64, 464 commutation of labor service, 228–29 confraternities, 424 Conon of Béthune, 14, 73, 75, 79 Conrad I Hohenstaufen (king of Sicily), 87, 97, 115 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos (emperor), novels of, 200n82 Constantine XI (emperor), 425 Constantine Palaiologos (despot), 127, 193, 263, 421, 443n177, 445–46 Constantinople acorn kermes shipped to, 265–66 Blachernai church, 374, 392 Byzantine reconquest of, 97–98, 100–103, 284 Chalkoprateia church, 374, 391–92 Chora Monastery, 386 cults of the Virgin at, 360–61, 374, 391–93 foodstuffs, importation of, 234, 237, 270 Fourth Crusade (1204), 2 in Funeral Oration for Theodore, 400 as New Rome, 2, 10 Ottoman siege of (1394–1402), 413 Ottomans, fall to (1452), 424 in The Present State of the Morea (Randolph, 1689), 468 The Constitution of the Lakedaimonians, 436 Contredit, Andrieu, 89 coopers, casks, and barrels, 251, 258 Corfu, mint at, 175 Corinth ceramic evidence, 281–84, 282, 291n53, 292, 305–6, 330 coins found at, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 166–67, 171, 173, 174, 177 dietary evidence from, 281–83, 282, 330, 331, 333 fortifications at, 84 Isthmia excavations and, 289, 291n53, 292, 305–6 Kraneion basilica, 174 mint at, 155–56, 160, 162n92, 163–64 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP) and, 305 rural exploitation and market economy, 220–21, 231, 235n173, 247, 248, 251, 257–60, 266–69, 273

St. John, monastery of, 174 sale of, in Funeral Oration for Theodore, 410 settlement analysis, 278–85, 279, 280, 282 skeletal remains at, 284–85, 309, 311, 312 children, weaning and feeding, 332 dietary evidence, 330, 331–32, 333 morphological analysis, 313–14 stable isotope analysis, 320–21, 322–27, 323–26, 331–33 thalassemia, 285, 314 in Tutte l’isole del mondo (Bordone, 1528), 464–65 Corinthia, analysis of settlements in. See settlement analysis in northeastern Peloponnese Cornaro, Federico, 258 Coronelli, Vincenzo, 455–57 Atlante Veneto (1692), 456, 462 Le chiese (1709), 473 classical focus of, 469 dramatic geography of, 470–72, 471, 472 as globe-maker, 456 locus amoenus, the Morea viewed as, 468 on “melancholy-pleasing remains” of the Morea, 455, 464 Memorie istoriografiche delli regni della Morea e Negroponte (An Historical and Geographical Account of the Morea, Negropont, and the Maritime Places, 1687), 2n5, 455–56, 456, 459n20, 468n52, 471, 474 on Morosini, 462–63, 463 power, maps as instruments of, 472–73, 473, 474, 475 Ritratti di celebri personaggi, 462 on shape of the Morea, 459 Teatro della guerra (1708?), 454, 456–57, 463, 470, 472 Venetian-Ottoman war and, 455–56, 469–70, 470, 471, 472 Coroneus, Nicolaus, 218n16 cortesia, 88, 90 corvée labor (angareia, servicium personale, or sputica), 218, 227–30, 231, 245 Cosgrove, Denis, 475 cotton production and export, 260–63 Coucy, Castellan of, 79, 93 Coucy Castle, 132, 138 Covens, Johannes, 473–75, 474 Crèvecoeur Castle, 127, 140 Crimolisi, Jani, 202, 242–43, 265 Crucifixion icon, Monemvasia School, 265, 265–66 Crusades. See also Fourth Crusade First Crusade, 16 Second Crusade, 10n5, 67, 71 Third Crusade, 68, 80 Fifth Crusade, 78 Seventh Crusade, 57–58, 60, 68, 77, 88–90, 91, 93, 95, 103, 104 Albigensian Crusade, 68, 78, 79 Barons’ Crusade, 83 Holy League of 1684 and Venetian-Ottoman war in the Morea (1683–1714), 455–56, 475

songbook of William of Villehardouin, as favored theme in, 68, 73, 78–79 Cyriacus of Ancona, 20–21, 31n31, 53n111, 372, 446 Daimonoioannes, Georgios, 253 dairy products and cheese rural exploitation and market economy, 225–26, 234, 237 stable isotope analysis and consumption of, 330–31 dalle Carceri family. See entries at Carceri Damala, coins of lordship of, 159, 167–68n145 Damianos of Corinth, 259 Damietta, siege of (1218), 69 Dante, 98 Dares the Phrygian, 19 Datini trading company, 248, 264 De architectura (Vitruvius), 457 De Wit, Frederick (cartographer), 472–73, 474 defensio, 199 Definitions (Plato), 420 della Dora, Veronica, 5–6, 455, 481 demesne and estate lands, 227, 230–31, 252 St. Demetrios, 366, 372 Demetrios the Magister, 400n19 Demetrios Palaiologos (despot), 4, 247, 421, 440n155 Demosthenes, 13 denier tournois (coin), 153, 158, 159, 161–62, 164, 166–68, 171, 173–78 Descent/Journey to Hades (Mazares/Mazaris), 20, 21, 195, 372, 442 Description of the Entire Peloponnese, Coastal and Interior (Plethon), 436 Despotate of the Morea. See Byzantine Despotate Dialogue with His Mother the Empress on Marriage (Manuel II Palaiologos, 1396), 398, 413 Dictys of Crete, 19, 20–21 Didaskalos, Nikolaos, 259 Didymoteichon, 466 diet children, weaning and feeding, 332 cooking pots, evidence derived from, 281–83, 282 stable isotope analysis, evidence from, 328–32, 333 Diocletian, price edict of (301), 43, 346n50 Diodorus Siculus, 436, 437 disease Black Death, 218, 222, 223, 224, 244, 249, 267–70, 450–51n231 Florence, mortality rates in, 450 thalassemia, 285, 314 DNA analysis of skeletal remains, 314–15 Dokeianos, Ioannes (John), 14, 445n187 Dolfin, Giovanni (doge of Venice), coins of, 152, 159 Dominicans, 29, 33, 35, 39 donations to churches and monasteries, 188, 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 205–7

index

491

Donato family, 255 Dormition of the Virgin, south portico, Brontocheion Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras, 375, 381–85, 382–86, 388–90, 392 Dorotheos of Monemvasia, 99n257 Dossopatri, Todero and Damiano, 298 Douglas, David, 68 Dragoumis, Stephanos, 373 drama. See theater Drandakes, Nikolaos, 362 ducat (coin), 168–69, 171, 173 Dunbabin, Jean, 105 dyeing and tanning agents from acorn cups and kermes, 226, 230, 263–67 Dyggve, Holger Petersen, 79 Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS), 301–4, 302–3 economic issues. See barter economy; coins and money; rural exploitation and market economy; taxes and taxation Economics (attrib. Aristotle), 448 Edictum Diocletiani (301), 43, 346n50 Edwards, K. M., 157 Eleanor of Aquitaine (queen of England), 17, 66 electrum trachy (coin), 155, 156 Elis. See Frankish Morea emphyteusis, 208, 209 Encomium of St. Demetrios (Symeon of Thessalonike), 415 Enguerrand III (Lord of Coucy), 138 enthroned Christ, icon of, with knotted cross, 23n2 Enzio (king of Sardinia), 72 Epidauros Limera, 355, 357, 363, 367 Epistolary Discourse (Chrysoloras, 1415), 403, 415 Erart, Jean, 95 Erier, Thomas, 73 Esopo, 226n83 estates and demesne lands, 227, 230–31, 252 Estoir des Engleis (Gaimar, 1140), 65, 108 Estoire de la guerre sainte (Ambroise of Evreux), 67 Estoire de Joseph, 66 ethnic communities of the Morea, 4, 5, 11–12. See also private legal transactions; skeletal remains Etymologies (Isidore of Seville), 458 Etzeoglou, Rodoniki, 374 Euboea (Negroponte), 85–87, 95, 97, 104, 172, 220, 230, 249, 253, 256n380, 265 Eudamonoiannes, George, 432 Eudamonoiannes family, 11, 239 Eudes of Nevers, 70, 73 Eudo III of Burgundy, 89 Eugenikos, John, 14, 227 Eugenios (metropolitan of Lakedaimon), 372 Eugenios (metropolitan of Mystras), 44 Eugenius IV (pope), 448

492

index

Euphrosyne-Marinia (nun), 393 Evergates, Theodore, 80, 82n141 Everist, Mark, 75n92 Evrenos Beg, 430 Falier, Marino (doge of Venice), 159, 265 Farmer’s Law, 206 farming. See rural exploitation and market economy Ferdinand of Majorca, 146, 166n126 Fermor, Patrick Leigh, 53–54 Ferrara-Florence, Council of (1439–1439), 419, 438 feudal system imperial finances and, 430–31 Orthodox landscapes marked by, 335 private legal transactions and, 187, 192, 193, 196, 200, 201, 207, 209, 210, 211 rural exploitation and market economy, 216, 232, 271–72 songbook of William of Villehardouin and, 82–83 Ficino, Marsilio, 420, 422 Fifth Crusade, 78 figs and fig trees, 204, 225, 257, 258, 259 Filangieri, Riccardo, 70n62 Filippo di Novara, 69–70, 78n113 First Crusade, 16 fish consumption of, 329, 331–32, 333 meanings associated with depictions of, 33–34, 34, 35n45 Flamun, Anna, 206 Florence. See also entries at Medici On the Constitution of the Florentines (Bruni), 426, 426–28 Ferrara-Florence, Council of (1439–1439), 419, 438 the Morea and, 5 mortality rates in, 450 Plethon’s economic and political philosophy and, 448–52 Praise of the City of Florence (Laudatio Florentinae Urbis; Bruno), 427 Procession of the Magi (Benozzo Gozzoli), 418, 423 Florent of Hainaut (prince of the Morea), 114, 125, 166, 168, 169 florin (coin), 159, 168–69 Folda, Jaroslav, 70, 91, 95 Folena, Gianfranco, 70, 72n78 Foro, Pietro, 298 Foundations of an Imperial Education (Manuel II Palaiologos, 1406), 398, 413 Fourth Crusade (1204) coins and money in the Morea and, 156–63, 158, 178 establishment of Frankish Morea and, 2, 18 songbook of William of Villehardouin and, 68, 73, 75, 76, 78–79 Franciscans, 29, 35, 39 Frangopoulos, Manuel, 432

Frankish Morea. See also architecture of Frankish Morea; coins and money; private legal transactions in Frankish Morea; rural exploitation and market economy; settlement analysis in northeastern Peloponnese; skeletal remains; songbook of William of Villehardouin casaux de parçon or partitioned villages on borders of, 218–19, 226, 270 end of, 216 establishment of, 2–4, 11–12, 75–76, 215–16 Greek subjects in, 111, 112, 145, 151 historical writing and sense of the past in, 14–20 political geography of, 112, 113, 141–42 spolia, use of, 23–25, 28–39. See also spolia Frankopoulos, Ioannes, 14 Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (Holy Roman Emperor and king of Sicily), 72, 87, 98, 139 Funeral Oration for Palla Strozzi (Oratio Funebris; Bruno), 427 Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea (Manuel II Palaiologos, ca. 1410), 5, 397–417 composition, delivery, versions, and circulation of, 398–400 extended nature of narrative elements of, 401–2 ideological implications of narrative in, 412–16 laconism, revival of, 444 literary and political significance of text, 397–98 metanarrative of, 405 narratological analysis, 405–12 narrator’s homodiegetic relationship to, 402–5, 416 outline of Manuel’s narrative, 408–9 outline of Morea narrative, 409–10 outline of Theodore’s narrative, 407–8 political history of despotate included in, 401 rhetorical templates and, 400–401 Gabrielopoulos, George, 444 Gace Brulé (troubadour), 61–62, 68, 78, 79, 93, 95, 102 Gaimar, Geoffrey, 65, 66, 108 Galani-Krikou, M., 160 Ganganeas (village), 265, 352 garum, 330 Garvie-Lok, Sandra, 4, 285, 309, 332, 482 Gastouni Panagia Katholike (church of the Virgin) at, 27, 29, 112, 145, 146, 306 rural exploitation and market economy, 224, 246 Gattilusio burials, Mytilene, church of St. John, 311, 312, 322, 328, 331, 332, 333 Gautier de Coincy (troubadour), 68–69, 100 Gautier d’Epinal (troubadour), 68n49 Gemistos, George. See Plethon Geanakoplos, Deno, 99n260 Genette, Gérard, 404n58 Gennadios (patriarch; formerly George Scholarios), 5, 423n21, 440, 445n187, 447n203

Geoffrey of Karytaina, 97, 101, 107 Geoffrey of Villehardouin (chronicler and uncle of Geoffrey I), 75, 77, 79, 88n189, 89n192, 90n200 Geoffrey I of Villehardouin (prince of the Morea) architecture of Frankish Morea and, 112, 127, 141 burial of, 84 coins and money, 164 establishment of Frankish Morea, role in, 2, 12, 75–76, 215 family tree, 77 as literary patron, 14 spolia and, 49 will of, 200 Geoffrey II of Villehardouin (prince of the Morea) court of, 76–77 dying requests of, 83–84, 85 as literary patron, 14 marriage of, 77, 80 rule of Frankish Morea by, 2, 12, 76, 82 spolia and, 35 verbal will of, 201 in will of Geoffrey I, 201 geography. See also Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as empirical objects, association of geographical forms with, 459 as information system, 457–58 paradoxical geography of the Peloponnese, 457–58 Geography (Ptolemy), 465 Geoponika, 250 Gephryratos, 341 Geraki Christ Elkomenos images in churches of, 364 Mystras School of painting not affecting, 364 St. George, church of, 39–43, 40, 41, 53 St. John Chrysostom, church of, 42, 43–44, 44, 47, 53 St. Nicholas, church of, 353n72 Gerard (scribe), 437 Gerland, Ernst, 188, 204, 205, 209 Gerokomites, Andreas, 204 Geroumana, Church of the Pantanassa at, 112, 366, 367 Gerstel, Sharon E. J., 1, 4–5, 44, 83, 311, 335, 387, 482 Ghisi, Bartolomeo, 16 gigliato (coin), 159, 168 Gille le Vinier (troubadour), 73, 89, 95 gimorum tax, 261n436 Giovanetta, wife of Viviano the shoemaker, 252 Glarentza, 115–27 abandonment of, 116, 127, 142 acorn cups and kermes, 265, 266–67 Aigues-Mortes, France, resemblance to, 3, 116, 125 Andravida, administrative capital transfered from, 115 Blachernai, monastery church of architecture of Frankish Morea and, 112, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 spolia, use of, 28–29, 35–39, 36–38

index

493

Glarentza (continued) Chlemoutsi and, 119, 129, 138 coins found at, 115, 154, 171, 177 cotton exports, 260–61, 263n451 currants and currant trade, 257, 259 East Gate, 119, 120 as economic center of Frankish Morea, 116, 126–27 founding of, 115–16 grain sales and exports, 248 “hôtel des princes” at, 120, 122, 141 as military and strategic site, 116, 119 mint, 3, 115, 119, 120, 126, 159, 162n92, 163, 164–70, 172, 175, 176 monetization of economy and, 273 olive oil consumption in, 242 plan, fortifications, and gates, 116–20, 117, 118, 120–22, 125 political geography of Frankish Morea and, 112, 113, 141–42 population, 117 St. Francis, church of, 123, 123–25, 124, 125, 144, 151 St. Mark, Venetian church of, 120–23 Sea Gate, 118–19 as urban settlement, 120, 125–26 as Venetian stronghold, 431 Villehardouin family castle at, 84 wine exports from, 255 Glatsa, churches of the Panagia and the Savior at, 145–46, 149 Glyka, Euphrosyne, 359 Gonia, 301 Gorgias (Plato), 420n9 Gospel books, private legal transactions written in, 188–91, 189, 190, 196, 345 Gothic architecture, 26, 38, 113, 123, 138, 141, 142, 144–51 Gothic manuscripts, 19, 105 Gozzoli, Benozzo (painter), 418, 423 grains mills and milling, 246–48, 345–46 rural exploitation and market economy, 225, 231–32, 245–49, 270 stable isotope analysis and consumption of, 328–29, 330–31 Grandes Chroniques de France, 17 Greek Despotate. See Byzantine Despotate Greek subjects in the Frankish Morea, 111, 112, 145, 151. See also settlement analysis in northeastern Peloponnese; skeletal remains under Ottoman and Venetian rule, 468, 472–73 Gregoras, Nikephoros, 372, 424, 434 Gregory IX (pope), 83n153 Gregory the Monk, 421n16 Gregory of Nyssa, will inscribed on omophorion of, St. Nicholas, Klenia, 186, 191, 203–4 Gregory, Timothy E., 4, 5, 277, 482 Gresham’s Law, 167

494

index

Grierson, Philip, 157 Grizi, 221, 232, 241, 245, 267, 268 gros tournois (coin), 168, 176 grosso, Venetian (coin), 153, 158, 162, 168, 174 Guarino Veronese (scholar), 397–98, 399, 414, 416 Guillaume le Vinier (troubadour), 73, 94, 95, 106 Guillielmo di Napoli, 298 Guy, Castellan of Coucy, 73, 75, 79 Guy of Enghien (Lord of Argos and Nauplia), 257 Guy I of La Roche (Duke of Athens), 84, 86, 88, 90, 97, 101 Guy II of La Roche (Duke of Athens), 168 Hagioi Notarioi (Markianos and Martyrios), 194, 195 Haines, John, 3, 57, 482 Halcyon (Plato), 420 Harley, Brian, 458 Harmenopoulos, Constantine, 206 Harvey, Alan, 248n201 Helen of Epiros, 98, 99 Helena Angela, lady of Karytaina, coins of, 159, 167–68 Helleabourkos family, 442 Hellenika (Xenophon), 438 helots, 439 Hendy, Michael F., 177n243 Henri III of Brabant, 88–89, 90, 92–93 Henry I (king of England), 65, 66, 108 Henry II (king of England), 17, 66, 67, 68 Henry III (king of England), coins of, 158 Henry the Liberal of Champagne, 68 Herakles in Funeral Oration for Theodore, 444 in Plethon’s works, 435 herbadigo or jus herbagii, 226 Hermogenes, 400 Hermoniakos, Constantine, 19 Herodotus, 5, 14, 52, 439 Hexamilion Wall, 117, 268, 285, 287, 288, 290, 413, 435 Histoire universelle, 95 historical writing and sense of the past, 2–3, 9–21 administration of the Morea before and after 1204 and, 10–12 in Byzantine Despotate, 13–14, 20–21 Byzantine Greek background, writers with, 12–13, 21 in Byzantium, 9–10 Chronicle of the Morea, 2, 15–16, 19, 20 in Frankish Morea, 14–20 MS Koutloumousiou 220, 20 St. Nikon, Life of, 11, 12 Plethon and, 14 Roman empire, sense of continuity with, 9–10, 425 War of Troy, 3, 16–21 in Western Europe, 10 History of John Kantakouzenos (emperor), 372 hoardings, 127, 138

Hodegetria church, Mystras. See Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras Hodegetria icons Mega Spelaion icon, dispute over ownership of, 393 “Monemvasiotissa,” 264–65 Holy League of 1684 and Venetian-Ottoman war in the Morea (1683–1714), 455–56, 475 Homer, 2, 12, 18–19, 20 Hondius, Jodocus, 462, 466, 473 Honorius III (pope), 76 Hopf, Karl, 84n159, 87, 97, 102, 107 Horace, 54 Hospitallers (Knights of St. John of Jerusalem) architecture of Frankish Morea and, 112, 132, 137, 139 coins and money, 176 Funeral Oration for Theodore and, 401, 404–6, 408, 409, 411–14, 416 historical writing and sense of the past, 12, 15 rural exploitation and market economy, 216, 259 Hugh V of Berzé, 68, 73, 75, 79 Hugh of Brienne (Count of Brienne and Lecce), 168 Hugh IV of Burgundy, 70, 89, 91–93, 96n246, 103, 104 Hugh of Les Baux, 103n289 Hugh of Oisi, 102 Hugh of Saint-Quentin, 79 human remains analysis. See skeletal remains Hunger, Herbert, 10n4 Huon, Castellan of Arras, 94 Hutter, Irmgard, 19 hyperpyron (coin), 153, 155, 156, 158, 161, 162, 163, 171–73 icons Christ Elkomenos, Monemvasia icon of, 363–64 Crucifixion icon, Monemvasia School, 265, 364–66 enthroned Christ with knotted cross, 23n2 Mega Spelaion icon of Virgin Hodegetria, dispute over ownership of Hodegetria icons, 393 Virgin Hodebetria “Monemvasiotissa,” 264–65 identity politics of architecture in Frankish Morea, 151 al-Idrisi, 459 Iliad (Homer), 19 Imitation Luster Ware, 289 inheritance agreement between husband and wife, 204 Innocent III (pope), 52 Innocent IV (pope), 81, 87 Innocent XI (pope), 455 Inscription of Parori (1389), 413, 417 Insula (Nesi), 221 Introductio in universam geographiam (Clüver, 1652), 462 iron plowshares, 223–24, 246, 270 irrigation and water resources, 230–31, 270 Isaac II Angelos (emperor), 297, 363 Isabelle of Villehardouin (princess of the Morea), 99, 103, 104, 108, 165, 166, 167

Isidore of Kiev, 399, 400, 402, 413n101, 414n109, 415 Isidore of Seville, 458 isolarii (island books), 458, 461, 461–62, 470 Isolario (Sonetti, 1480), 458 L’isole piu famose del mondo (Porcacchi, 1575), 461, 462, 466 Isova Monastery church of Our Lady, 143 church of St. Nicholas, 143, 144 Isthmia ceramic evidence, 289, 290–92, 292, 305–6 coins found at, 154, 161, 289–90, 290 Corinth excavations and, 289, 291n53, 292, 305–6 Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS) and, 301, 302–3, 303 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP) and, 305 Poseidon, Panhellenic Sanctuary of, 154, 286–87, 301 St. John the Baptist, church of, 289 settlement analysis of, 285–92, 286, 287, 290–92 Italy. See also specific cities castles of Frederick II Hohenstaufen in, 139 coinage of, 168–69, 174 governmental reform in, 425–28, 447 Plethon in, 419–20, 423, 448–52 song collections and songbooks, 72–73 Jacoby, David, 4, 5, 69, 70, 163n98, 213, 305, 482 Jann de Broera, 201 Jansonius, atlas of, 473 Jeanne of Toucy, 81, 91 Jeffreys, Elizabeth, 3, 9, 483 Jenkins, Romilly, 286–87 John III Vatatzes (emperor), 97, 158, 162 John V Palaiologos (emperor), 404, 406, 412, 414 John VI Kantakouzenos (emperor), 13, 14, 210, 372, 445n184 John VII Palaiologos (emperor), 254, 412, 413 John VIII Palaiologos (emperor), 174, 195, 400, 402, 413, 414n109, 421, 425, 433n102, 448 John (king of England), coins of, 160 John of Brienne (king of Jerusalem and Latin regentemperor of Constantinople), 72, 73, 76, 77, 78–79, 80, 82, 87, 93, 97, 98–99 John III Sobieski (king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania), 455 John the Baptist, Parnon monastic zone dedicated to, 362 John Chrysostom, 13 John of Gravina, 166 John of Ibelin, 69 John de la Roche (Duke of Athens), 52, 175 John II of Nesle (Blondel), 75, 79 John II of Rousi, 79n120 Joinville, John of, 57, 58, 61, 75n95–98, 79n117, 79n123, 88n189, 89n192, 90n200 Joseph the Monk, 400n19, 402–3

index

495

Journey/Descent to Hades (Mazares/Mazaris), 20, 21, 195, 372, 442 Joyner, Louise, 281–83, 284n28 Juan Fernandez de Heredia, 15, 20 jus herbagii or herbadigo, 226 Justinianic Code, 204 Justinianic Novels, 192, 203n97 Kalamata castle of, 49, 81–82, 107, 201 rural exploitation and market economy, 240, 241, 245, 265 Kalavryta castle of, 293 Mega Spelaion monastery, 393 Kaldellis, Anthony, 51 Kalekas, Manuel, 413n102 Kalligas, Charis, 357 Kalligopoulos brothers, 145 Kallimachos, 17–18 Kallinike (nun), 200 Kalogonia, 341, 343 Kalopheros, John Laskaris, 433 Kalybitas, 343 Kamateroi (Chamateroi), 11 Kantakouzenoi, 444 John VI Kantakouzenos (emperor), 13, 14, 210, 372, 445n184 Manuel Kantakouzenos (despot), 4, 372, 413 Matthew Kantakouzenos (despot), 372 Karbuqa, 283n21 Karpozilos, A., 282–83n21 Karytaina castle of, 133, 137, 138, 140 coins minted at, 159, 167–68, 175 Kastanitza, 358 Kastri, coins found at, 160 Kato Kastania, St. Andrew in, 363n107 Kato Meligou, church of St. George at, 342 Kaukesel, Guibert, 73 Kavakes, Demetrios, 438 Kazhdan, Alexander, 282n21 Kenchreai, 167, 301 Kinney, Dale, 46 Kiveri (Myloi), 118, 140, 247 Klenia, church of St. Nicholas, will inscribed on omophoroion of Gregory of Nyssa in, 186, 191, 203–4 Knights Hospitallers. See Hospitallers Knossos, stable isotope analysis of skeletal remains from, 318 knotted cross motif, 23–24n2, 24 kommerkion tax, 431, 432 Kontogiannis, Nikos, 312 Kordokopi, coins found at, 161, 162 Kordosis, Michael S., 297

496

index

Korone (Coron) acorn cups and kermes, 264, 265, 266, 267 coins and money, 172 cotton, 261, 262, 263 currants, 257n398, 258n409, 260 export-oriented agriculture and, 270, 272 grains, 246, 248 labor service, 227n97 in Liber insularum archipelagi (Buondelmonti, 1420), 464 livestock for slaughter in, 268 monopolies, absence of, 272 olives and olive oil, 236, 239–44 peasant workforce, 216, 217, 219–23, 225, 269 pirate attacks on, 102 polyculture and polyactivity, agricultural, 226 private legal transactions, 188, 204, 205 as Venetian port city, 12, 85, 431, 432 wine and vineyards, 250, 251, 254, 255, 256 Kosmina, 218, 229, 240, 241 Kotychi, 230, 247 Koudouma, monastery at, 315 Koulendia (Helleniko), 353, 355 Kountoura, 240 Kourelis, Kostis, 125n72, 141–42n176 Krak des Chevaliers, 127, 130n101, 132, 139 Kreipe, Heinrich, 54 Kremmydi, 218n16, 240, 245–46, 252, 253 Krestena, 218, 229, 241, 251, 252, 253, 273n534 Kritoboulos, Michael, 372 Krokodeilos family, 442, 443n172 Kryovrysi, 362n100 krypteia, 439 Kydones, Demetrios, 372, 444–45 Kyprianos (abbot of Brontocheion monastery, Mystras), 389 Kyriakakis, James, 310, 311 Kythera, 194, 195, 363, 366 La Borria, 231n134 labboraggio tax, 255, 258 labor service/corvée labor (angareia, servicium personale, or sputica), 218, 227–30, 231, 245 Laborde, Jean-Benjamin de, 58 laconism, revival of Florence, Plethon, and Cosimo de’ Medici, 452 medieval view of ancient Sparta, 441 Mystras as new Sparta, 443–46, 448 by Plethon, 435–41, 437, 447 precursors to and influences on Plethon, 436–40, 444–45 successors of Plethon on, 445–46 “Ladies’ Parliament,” 101 Laiou-Thomadakis, A., 217n13, 273n537 The Lakedaimonian Constitution, 436 Lakonian churches, spolia used in, 39–47, 40–42, 44, 45

Lakonica, 436 Lampoudios, Matthew, 438 Lampros, P., 169 Lampros, Spyridon, 20, 188, 210 Lampsakos, 228n110 Lando, Marco, 222 landscapes, Orthodox. See Orthodox landscapes Laskaris, Nikolaos, 310–11 Laurent, Vitalien, 373 Laws (Plato), 438n140, 440, 447 Le Goff, Jacques, 68 Le Vot, Gerard, 60n17 Leake, William, 286, 353n75 leases of land, 207–10, 232–33, 251, 271 leasing of olive oil presses, 241 legal transactions, private. See private legal transactions in Frankish Morea Leo X (pope), 420 Leondari, 364 Leonessa, Aikaterina de, 203 Leonessa, Egidio de, 201 Leonessa, Niccolò de, 207, 210 Leonte, Florin, 5, 397, 483 Lepanto, 431 Leslie, Brian, 327 Letter to the Emperor on the Isthmus (Plethon, 1407–1418), 422–23, 434, 438, 439, 443, 447 Leuke, 348 Liber de Podagra (Demetrios Pepagomenos), 254 Liber insularum archipelagi (Buondelmonti, 1420), 461, 464 Libro d’abaco, 261 Libro de varie romanze volgari, 72, 73, 91, 93, 98–99, 100 Life of St. Louis (John of Joinville), 57, 58, 61 “Lignages d’Outremer,” 82–83 Ligourio coins found at castle of, 154n12 cotton grown at, 261, 262 Likinnioi, 20 Limenites, Nicholas, 437 Lira. See Lyra literary spolia, 31, 47–48 Lithero, 231n136, 268 Liudprand of Cremona, 330 Livadi, Kythera, Hagioi Notarioi in church of St. Andrew at, 195 lives of saints. See saints’ lives in Peloponnese livestock, 225–26, 268, 270 Livistros and Rhodamne, 17, 18, 19 Livre de la conqueste (French version of Chronicle). See Chronicle of the Morea livre des usages, 95 Longaniko, Laconia, 364 Longo, Pascquale, 169, 188

Louis VII (king of France), 67, 80n128 Louis VIII (king of France), 75, 80, 89, 158, 161 Louis IX (king of France) architecture of Frankish Morea and, 3, 115–16, 125, 141 coins and money, 158, 161, 164, 176, 177 historical writing and sense of the past, 19 songbook of William of Villehardouin and, 57–58, 76, 81, 82, 88–89, 91, 95, 97, 103 Louis X (king of France), 61 Louis de Bourgogne, 146 Louvre Castle, Paris, 138 Lug, Robert, 71, 79n120 Luke (metropolitan of Mystras), 348 Lurier, Harold, 58 Lusignan Cyprus, political geography of, 112 Lykobouno, Laconia, monastery of St. George at, 358–59 Lykourgos (Lycurgus; lawgiver in ancient Sparta), 435–37, 439–41, 444–47 Lyra (Lira), Epidauros Limera, 353, 354–55, 355 Aï-Tzouras (Panagia Kyra), 354–55, 355, 362, 366 Macona, 246, 251 Magi Procession of the Magi (Benozzo Gozzoli), 418, 423 south portico, Brontocheion Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras, 375, 379 Magoula, 348 Mahaut of Brabant, 96 Mahaut of Hainaut (princess of the Morea), 115, 159, 166, 167, 175 Maina Byzantine reconquest of Peloponnese and, 2, 101 fortifications at, 84 rural exploitation and market economy, 220 Maiolica ware, 297 Makarios of Ankara, 412 maledictions, 199–200, 350n66 Maliscura, Barduccio, 298 malmsey (Malvasia wine), 253–54, 256–57, 424 Malotaras, Nicholas, 342n27, 393 Malvasia. See Monemvasia Malvasia wine (malmsey), 253–54, 256–57, 424 Mamonas family, 239 Manfred (king of Sicily), 72–73, 98–99, 100, 103 Manfred Bible, 98, 100 Mangani, Giorgio, 457 Maniatochori, 252 Manolada Palaiopanagia at, 146–48, 147 Panagia Katholike at, 146 Mansourah, Battle of (1250), 89 Mantinea, 247 Manuel I Komnenos (emperor), 155, 158, 163, 296, 415

index

497

Manuel II Palaiologos (emperor). See also Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea Address to the Emperor Manuel on the Affairs in the Peloponnese (Plethon, 1407–1418), 209, 422–23, 434, 435, 438, 439, 443, 447 coins of, 159, 173, 174, 434 Dialogue with His Mother the Empress on Marriage (1396), 398, 413 Foundations of an Imperial Education (1406), 398, 413 Hexamilion Wall, reconstruction of, 288, 435 literary reputation of, 398, 413–15 Plethon and, 209, 421 political position of, 412–13 rural exploitation and market economy, 254, 262 Seven Ethico-Political Orations (Manuel II Palaiologos, 1404–1408), 413 on traditional imperial authority, 425 on Venetian trade freedoms, 432 Manuel III Palaiologos (emperor), 401n36 Manuel Kantakouzenos (despot), 4, 372, 413 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (ruler of Thessalonica and Thessaly), 10, 158 manuscripts Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, acc. no. 534, 356, 357 Athens, National Library of Greece MS 70, 189, 190 MS 1462, 356, 357 Cambridge, Pembroke College 113, 67 Erfurt, Universitäts- und Forschungsbibliothek, Dep. fol. Erf. CA. (Amplonianus) 80 32, 67 Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Laurentianus 691, 437n132 Plut. 85.9, 420, 422 Leiden, University Library Perizonianus F. 6, 438n135 London, British Library Add. 5117, 188, 189 Add. 37006, 363n113 Harley 1717, 56, 66–67, 67, 69 Harley 3775, 67, 68 Royal 20 D 1, 17n56 London, Lambeth Palace Library 1681, 61–62, 62 Madrid, Escurial, cod. Ω-II-5, 342n27 Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana Ambrosianus 1000 (D. 538), 437n132 Ambrosianus graecus 348, 437n132 Modena, Biblioteca Estense MS 144, 437n134 MS R. 4.4, 62–63, 64–65, 71, 96 Moscow, Synodal Library, cod. gr. 12, 348 Mount Athos Koutloumousiou 210, 48n83 Koutloumousiou 220, 29 Oxford, Bodleian Library Ashmole 125, 67 Rawlinson G. 22, 67 Roe 22, 13n30 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France

498

index

fonds fr. 844. See songbook of William of Villehardouin fonds fr. 12615, 93–94 fonds fr. 20050, 61, 71, 75 fr. 1610, 17n56 fr. 12473, 71, 72 gr. 135, 19n17 gr. 708, 13n30, 373n13 gr. 1634, 14n31 gr. 1672, 438n137 gr. 1699, 437n132 n. acqu. fr. 10036, 66, 67 Patmos, monastery of St. John Patmiacus 103, 14n30 Patmiacus 275, 13n30 Serres, Monastery of John the Baptist, cod. 74, 342n27 Vatican Library gr. 632, 402 gr. 2236, 438n136 lat. 36, 98 lat. 3793, 72 Ottob. 67, 14n31 Palat. 256, 437n132 Psalter 381, 386 Reg. Lat. 1659, 67, 68 Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. gr. 379, 436n127 Marc. gr. 517, 436n127 Marc. gr. Z. 406, 426, 436n127, 437 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Tabula Peutingeriana (Codex Vindobonensis 324), 459 Map, Walter, 52 maps, Renaissance. See Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as marble in the Peloponnese, 27n15 Margaret of Flanders, 91 Margaret of Toucy, 81 Margaret of Villehardouin, 99 Margat, 130n101, 132 Marguerite of Passava, 196 Marie de Champagne, 68 Marinou, Georgia, 45 Marinus of Ragusa, 205 market economy. See rural exploitation and market economy marriage agreements, 204 St. Martin of Tours, 84n159 Martinos, Iohannes (John), 207, 210 Martoni, Niccolò de, 2, 257 Mary of Bourbon, 168, 169, 231, 245 Massa, Andrea de, 260 Massacre of the Innocents, south portico, Brontocheion Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras, 375, 376, 379–80, 380, 381, 390, 391 Massaio, Pietro del, Ptolemaic Table of the Peloponnese (ca. 1470–80), 459–60, 460, 465–66

massarie or zevgilateia, 228, 231–32, 245, 246, 247, 249, 268, 269, 298n73 Matilda of Brabant, 92 Matilda of Scotland (queen of England), 65 Matteo da Napoli, 265 Matthew I (patriarch), 412 Matthew Kantakouzenos (despot), 372 Maure, Erard le, 16 Maurice II of Craon, 79n123 Maurice III of Craon, 79 Maurozoumes, 432 Mavrion, 247 Mayer, H. E., 60n12 Mazarin, Cardinal, 105 Mazaris (Mazares), 20, 21, 195, 372, 442 Mazze, Filippo dalle, 202–3 meat, Greek versus Latin consumption of cooking pots, evidence from, 281–83, 282 stable isotope analysis, evidence from, 328–32, 333 medals, commemorative, 463–64, 464 Medici, Averardo de’, 257 Medici, Cosimo de’, 420, 422, 423, 427, 448–52 Medici, Lorenzo de’, 420, 452n240 Medici family and bank, 420, 448–49, 450 Medio, Zanino de, 265 Megalopolis, 467 Megara, 245, 248 Mehmet II (sultan), 440n155 Melachrinos, Nicholas, 437 Melikes, Matheos Rhalles, 247 Melingoi, 5, 11n17 Memorie istoriografiche delli regni della Morea e Negroponte (An Historical and Geographical Account of the Morea, Negropont, and the Maritime Places, Coronelli, 1687), 2n5, 455–56, 456, 459n20, 468n52, 471, 474 memory and the past, 2–3, 5–6, 457. See also historical writing and sense of the past; Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as; spolia Menander, 400 Merbaka, church of the Koimesis (Panagia) at, 22, 28–35, 30, 32, 34, 36–37, 38, 39, 111–12, 150, 151 Mercator, Gerardus, 458, 462, 466 Mesarites, Nikolaos, 253 Mesochori, 252 Mesqui, Jean, 139 Messene, coins found at, 154n8 Methone (Modon) acorn cups and kermes, 265, 266, 267 coins and money, 172 cotton, 261, 262, 263 currants, 257n398 export-oriented agriculture and, 270, 272 Geoffrey I’s landing at, 2 grains and milling, 246, 247, 248, 249 labor service in, 227

in Liber insularum archipelagi (Buondelmonti, 1420), 461, 464 messarie, 232 monopolies, absence of, 272 olives and olive oil, 235–37, 239–45 peasant workforce, 216, 217, 219–21, 223–25, 269 private legal transactions in, 188, 204, 205 spolia, 49 as Venetian port city, 5, 12, 431, 432 William II of Villehardouin and, 85, 102 wine and vineyards, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256 metochia, 337, 346 Metochites, Theodore, 424, 432n102, 441 Metrios (peasant), 271n526, 273n537 Metz, episcopal-bourgeoisie rivalry in, 71 Michael (metropolitan of Old Patras and Lakedaimon), 393 Michael VIII Palaiologos (emperor), 100–102, 115, 158, 162n93, 177, 216, 239, 371–72, 392n54 Michael IX (emperor), 223, 339 Michael II Angelos Doukas Komnenos (despot of Epiros), 97–98, 99, 100, 101, 108, 114 Mila castle, 133, 137, 141 Millard, Andrew, 318, 325 Miller, William, 58 Millet, Gabriel, 373, 382 mills, grain, 246–48, 345–46 Minio, Bartolomeo, 221–22, 466n47 mints. See also coins and money Athens, coins issued by lords of, 163, 174–75 Brindisi, 177 Corfu, 175 Corinth, 155–56, 160, 162n92, 163–64 Glarentza, 3, 115, 119, 120, 126, 159, 162n92, 163, 164–70, 172, 175, 176 Karytaina, 159, 167–68, 175 Monemvasia, 4, 173 Mystras, 4, 173, 434 Naupaktos, 166, 175 Negroponte, 172 Neopatras, 175 Salona, 175 Thebes, 155, 166, 172, 175 Thessalonike, 155, 157, 158 Tinos, 175 Miracles de Nostre Dame (Gautier de Coincy), 68–69, 100 Mitatova, 341 Mitchell, Piers, 318, 325 Mocenigo, Tomaso (doge of Venice), 174, 297 Mokista, St. Nicholas and the Archangels at, 52 Monceaux, Paul, 286 Monemvasia (Malvasia) Byzantine reconquest of Peloponnese and, 2, 101, 216, 284 Christ Elkomenos, icon of, 363–64 chrysobulls, Orthodox landscapes delineated in, 351–58, 354, 356, 357, 363n113, 364 index

499

Monemvasia (Malvasia) (continued) coins minted in, 4, 173 cults of the Virgin at, 360–62 fortifications at, 84 as metropolitan center, 336 paintings in village and cemetery churches of, 362–68, 363, 365–67 private legal transactions from, 188, 210 in Renaissance cartography, 466–67, 468 rural exploitation and market economy, 220, 221, 226, 228n107, 239, 242, 246, 247, 249, 253–54, 256–57, 264–66, 424 St. Andrew, 364n120 St. Sophia (formerly Virgin Hodegetria), 362, 364n120 settlement analysis in, 362 as Venetian stronghold, 431 Virgin Hodegetria “Monemvasiotissa” and Crucifixion icons, 264–66, 365 money. See coins and money Moniot d’Arras (monk and composer), 62–63, 64–65, 73, 96 monopolies, 241, 248, 252, 257, 259, 264, 265, 271, 272 monydria, 337, 346, 358 Morea, 1–6 before 1204, 10–11 agrarian economy of, 4, 213–75. See also rural exploitation and market economy architecture of Crusader kingdom, 3, 111–51. See also architecture of Frankish Morea Byzantine Despotate, 2, 4–5, 12, 101–2. See also Byzantine Despotate Byzantine reconquest of Constantinople and, 97–98, 100–103, 284 ethnic communities of, 4, 5, 11–12 etymology of term, 1–2 Florence and, 5 Frankish kingdom in, 2–4, 11–12. See also Frankish Morea Funeral Oration by Manuel II Palaiologos and, 5, 397–417. See also Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea historical writing from, 2–3, 9–21. See also historical writing and sense of the past maps, x, 78 numismatics of, 3–4. See also coins and money Orthodox landscapes of, 4–5, 335–68. See also Orthodox landscapes Ottoman rule in, 5, 12, 20, 108, 127, 210, 216, 221 past, importance of, 2–3, 5–6 Plethon (George Gemistos) and, 5, 419–52. See also Plethon private legal transactions in, 4, 187–211. See also private legal transactions in Frankish Morea as Renaissance memory theater, 5–6, 455–75. See also Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as settlement analysis in, 4, 277–306. See also settlement analysis in northeastern Peloponnese

500

index

skeletal remains from, 4, 309–33. See also skeletal remains songbook of William of Villehardouin of, 3, 57–109. See also song collections and songbooks; songbook of William of Villehardouin spolia, use of, 3, 23–54. See also spolia Venetian influence in, 3–4, 5, 11, 12. See also Venice moriai, 206 Morosini, Antonio, 263, 274 Morosini, Francesco, 462–64, 463, 464 morphological analysis of skeletal remains, 313–14 Mortier, Cornelis, 473–75, 474 Moschopoulos, Nikephoros, 13, 44n68, 46–47, 346–48, 358, 373, 390, 391–93 Mouchli act of donation from, 188, 198 Brontocheion properties in, 340, 342, 345, 346 Mount Athos, monastery of Iviron on, 222 Mountra Brontocheion property in, 343 church of St. Anne in, 146, 148 Mourmouris family, 258 Mouskés, Philippe, 76, 89 Mouzalon, Nikolaos, 11 Munista (village), 221, 269, 272 murder of Zacharias, south portico, Brontocheion Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras, 375, 376, 380, 381, 391, 392 must (young wine), 252 Mycenae, aDNA analysis at, 315 Mystras, 4–5, 371–72. See also Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras; St. Demetrios, Mystras Aï-Giannaki, chapel of (outside walls of Mystras), 389 architectural idiom of, 146 book copying at, 5 Byzantine Despotate and, 2, 4, 13, 101 coins found at, 154n9 coins minted in, 4, 173, 434 cults of the Virgin at, 360–62, 374, 391–93 Frankish fortifications at, 84, 86 in Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea (Manuel II Palaiologos), 5 historical writing and sense of the past in, 13, 20–21 in latter part of 15th century, 424 as metropolitan center, 336 as new Sparta, 443–46, 448 Ottoman rule of, 5 painted churches and painting style of, 4, 125, 364, 366 palace at, 120n56, 133, 140 Pantanassa church and monastery, 8, 14 private legal transactions and notaries in, 193, 195 in Renaissance cartography, 466 St. Sophia, 350

Mytilene, church of St. John, Gattilusio burials at, 311, 312, 322, 328, 331, 333 Myzithras. See Mystras Nafplioti, Argyro, 318, 326 Nanetti, Andrea, 188, 204, 249–50n307 Naples, Kingdom of architecture of, 141n182 ceramic evidence from Glarentza and Chlemoutsi, 126 coins of, 159, 168, 176 founding of Glarentza and, 115, 116 Napoli Vechio, 466 Narjot II of Toucy, 80, 81 Narjot III of Toucy (Latin regent-emperor of Constantinople), 80–81, 81, 87 Nativity cycle, south portico, Brontocheion Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras, 375–79, 376–79, 391 Naudé, Gabriel, 105–7 Naupaktos, mint at, 166, 175 Nauplion castle of, 140 private legal transactions in, 196, 202 in Renaissance cartography, 466–67 rural exploitation and market economy, 216, 226, 235, 236, 245, 246, 248, 255–60, 262, 263, 265, 266, 271, 272 as Venetian stronghold, 431 Navari, Leonora, 471 Navarrese in the Morea, 13, 127, 202, 413, 420 Neapolites, Nicholas, 192, 195 Neidinger, Giovanni Francesco, 463, 464 Neilos, metropolitan of Mystras, 348 Nemea coins found at classical sanctuary of, 154, 155, 160, 161, 162, 171 stable isotope analysis of skeletal remains at, 321, 322, 323, 324, 331, 333 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP), 304–5, 306 Neopatras, mint at, 175 Neophytos (monk), commemoration of, 46n75 Neoplatonism, 419, 420n12, 438, 447, 448, 452 Nicaea coins from, 157n34, 162 malediction of 318 Fathers of (Council of 325), 47, 199–200, 350n66 nicarii, 228 Nicholas III of St. Omer, 286 Nicholas, son of Joannes Allelouia, 205 Nicol, Donald, 98n251 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte, coins of, 159 Nicolaus son of Iohannes of Neapolis, 193 Nicosia, siege of (1228), 69 Nikandri, Mani, 364

Nikolaos (metropolitan of Monemvasia), 358 St. Nikon the Metanoeite Life of, 11, 12, 31n34, 48, 233–34, 236, 441 portraits of, 362–63 will of, 53n114 Nilsson, Ingela, 402n42 Nivelet, 219 Noise, Parrin, 71 Nomia, Mani, 352 Nomikos, Basilakes, 373n13 Nora, Pierre, 458 notary, office of, 192–95, 194, 196–97 numismatics. See coins and money Oikonomides, Nikolaos, 195 olives and olive oil, 233–45 assets, olive trees as, 239–41 domestic consumption, 242 exports, 234–39, 242–45 importance of, 233, 238–39, 330 Lakonia, olive tree in, 212 leasing of presses, 241 price of oil, 241–42 production of, 233–34, 235n172, 239–41, 244 prohibition on felling olive trees, 240 qualities or grades of oil, 242 omophoroion of Gregory of Nyssa, St. Nicholas, Klenia, will inscribed on, 186, 191, 203–4 On the Constitution of the Florentines (Bruni), 426, 426–28 On the Events after the Battle of Mantinea (Plethon), 436–37, 437 On How Plato Differs from Aristotle (Plethon, ca. 1439), 419n4, 440n156 On Memory and Reminiscence (Aristotle), 35 Opheomachos, Damianos, 195 Orsini, John, of Epiros, 19 Ortelius, Abraham, 457, 458, 462–63, 463, 470, 472 Orthodox landscapes, 4–5, 335–68 boundaries, setting and describing, 357–58 Chamber of the Chrysobulls, Brontocheion monastery. See under Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras ecclesiastical institutions in, 335, 336–37 eternality of consecrated structures, belief in, 355–57 feudal relationships marking, 335 in Monemvasia chrysobulls, 351–58, 354, 356, 357, 363n113, 364 natural environment, 335–36, 336 paintings in village and cemetery churches of Monemvasia, 362–68, 363, 365–67 Parnon highlands, monasteries and hermitages of, 358–62, 359–61 Parori, church of the Virgin column shaft, 348–50, 350 Pikoulas Tower Museum engraved column shaft, 350, 352

index

501

Orthodox landscapes (continued) St. Demetrios, Mystras, episcopal acts on columns of, 346–52, 347, 349, 350, 351, 357 St. Sophia, Mystras, engraved column shafts, 350 Trypi, monydrion of St. John the Baptist at, 348, 351, 357 Osphino, ruins of church at, 49, 50 Otho of Cicon, 86, 87 Otho of La Roche, 84 Ottens, atlas of, 473 Ottomans alliance of Theodore I Palaiologos (despot) with, 413, 414, 417, 430 coins of, 174, 177 fall of Constantinople to (1452), 424 rule in the Morea, 5, 12, 20, 108, 127, 210, 216, 221 siege of Constantinople by (1394–1402), 413 threat to existence of Palaiologan polity in the Morea from, 430 Venetian-Ottoman battle for control of the Morea (1684–1714), 455–56, 462, 469–71, 475 Vienna, defeat at (1683), 455 Pachomios (abbot of Brontocheion monastery), 339, 342n23, 342n27, 348, 373–74, 391–93 Pachymeres, 371–72 Page, Gill, 15, 48n87, 60n12 painting. See also Brontocheion monastery, Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras; icons Monemvasia chrysobull miniatures, 356, 363n113 Monemvasia School, 362–68, 363, 365–67 Mystras School, 4, 125, 364, 366 Parnon highlands, monasteries and hermitages of, 359–60, 360 Procession of the Magi (Benozzo Gozzoli), 418, 423 song collections and songbooks, painted miniatures in, 59, 71, 72, 73, 74 songbook of William of Villehardouin, miniatures in, 59, 73, 74, 84, 92, 94, 95, 96, 102, 105 pakton, 207–9 Palaiochora, coins found at, 161 Palaiologan romances, 17–18, 19n70 Palaiologos, Manuel (kephali of Vassilika), 203 Paliomonastero, monastic church of the, 28n20 Palladio, Andrea, 457, 458 Pallas, Demetrios, 287 Palormo, 260 Panakton (site), 300, 300–301, 306 Pandopulos, Giovannino, 204 Panegyric for John VIII Palaiologos (Isidor of Kiev), 400, 402, 413n101, 414n109, 415 Papachatzes, Nikos, 51n98 Papadopoulou, Pagona, 157–60 Papalexandrou, Amy, 3, 23, 483 Papamastorakis, Titos, 5, 371, 483 Parallel Lives (Plutarch), 436, 437, 439

502

index

parataxis, 410 Pardos, Gregory, 11 Paris, lack of songbooks for, 63 Paris-Acre Master, 95 Parnon highlands, monasteries and hermitages of, 358–62, 359–61 paroikoi (villeins), 216–17 Parori burials at, 348–49, 350, 362 church of the Virgin in, 13, 348–50, 350, 441– 42 Inscription of Parori (1389), 413, 417, 441–42 Parthenon, Athens, 30n29, 46n75, 51, 201 “Parti de mal” (song, London, BL Harley 1717), 56, 66, 67, 69 partitioned villages or casaux de parçon, 218–19, 226, 270 Passava, 342 past, importance of, 2–3, 5–6. See also historical writing and sense of the past; Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as; spolia Patras fortifications at, 140 guesthouse of Latin archbishop in, 2 private legal transactions from, 188, 192–93, 195, 197–200, 203–7, 210 rural exploitation and market economy, 220, 222, 234, 240, 242, 245, 247, 248, 250, 255, 260, 262, 267, 273 St. Nicholas, monastery of, 207, 210 as Venetian stronghold, 431 Paul the Confessor, 195 Pausanias, 51n99, 438 Pazzi Conspiracy, 452n240 peasants corvée labor (angareia, servicium personale, or sputica), 218, 227–30, 231, 245 paroikoi (villeins), 216–17 surplus production, 271–72 workforce demographics, 216–25, 267–69 Pegolotti, Francesco Balducci on coins and money, 161, 172, 177 rural exploitation and market economy, 242, 244, 248n293, 255, 257, 259n413, 260, 261, 265, 266 Pelagonia, Battle of (1259), 2, 101, 103, 104, 167 Peloponnese, as term, 1–2. See also Morea Penna, Vasso, 157 Pepagomenos, Demetrios, 254 Pericles, 427 Perpignan, Palace of the Kings of Majorca at, 139, 140 Peruzzi family, 448 Petenello, Stefano, 222 Peter I of Courtenay (Latin emperor of Constantinople), 23n2, 80 Peter II of Courtenay (Latin emperor of Constantinople), 23n2 Peter of Argos, 11n16 Petoni, 230–31, 239, 247–48, 253, 264

Petrarch, 15 Peutinger Table (Codex Vindobonensis 324), 459 Philibert de Naillac, 137, 259 Philip II Augustus (king of France), 3, 137, 138–39, 161 Philip III (king of France), 19 Philip of Anjou, 103, 104, 107, 165 Philip of Savoy, 108n316, 164, 166, 286 Philip of Taranto, 166, 167 Philip of Toucy (Latin regent-emperor of Constantinople), 80, 81, 87 Philippe d’Alsace, 68 Philippe de Thaon, 66 Philippidou-Braat, Anna, 189 Phlious, church of Rachiotissa at, 28n20 Phloka, Epidauros Limera, church of the Virgin Cheimatissa at, 363, 366 Phota (Phoutia), 353, 355 Piada (village), 240, 261 Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius (later Pope Pius II), 449n216 Pierre of Craon, 79 Pierre de Saint-Supéran, 201 Pigkes, Theodore, 192, 193, 195, 198, 205, 206 Pikoulas Tower Museum column shaft, 350, 352 pine resin, 251 piracy, 85n169, 102, 220–21, 248, 267, 268, 284, 403, 468 Pius II (pope; formerly Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini), 449n216 Plato and Platonism, 419–20, 422, 436, 438–40, 447–48, 452, 457 Platsa, church of St. Nicholas in, 389 Plethon (George Gemistos), 5, 419–52. See also laconism, revival of Address to the Emperor Manuel on the Affairs in the Peloponnese (Plethon, 1407–1418), 209, 422–23, 434, 435, 438, 439, 443, 447 Advisory Address to the Despot Theodore on the Peloponnese (Plethon, 1407–1418), 422–23, 434, 435, 438, 439, 443, 447 Against Plethon’s Doubts about Aristotle (Gennadios), 440n155 Book of Laws (c. 1428), 423, 440–41, 447 Byzantium and Morea, ties to, 420–23 contemporary conditions in the Peloponnese, response to, 430–35 Cosimo de’ Medici and, 420, 422, 423, 427, 448–52 death of, 423–24 Description of the Entire Peloponnese, Coastal and Interior, 436 On the Events after the Battle of Mantinea (Plethon), 436–37, 437 Funeral Oration for Theodore and, 399–400, 402, 444 in Gozzoli’s Procession of the Magi, 418, 423 grave at Tempio Malatestiano, Rimini, 419, 421 historical writing and sense of the past, 14, 20–21 On How Plato Differs from Aristotle (c. 1439), 419n4, 440n156

ideological framework, political philosophy as means of recreating, 447–48 Italian governmental reform influencing, 425–28, 447 in Italy, 419–20, 423, 448–52 Letter to the Emperor on the Isthmus (Plethon, 1407– 1418), 422–23, 434, 438, 439, 443, 447 local hostility to Palaeologian despots and, 441–43, 444n181 Mystras proposed as new Sparta by, 443–44 Plato and Neoplatonism, 419–20, 422, 436, 438–40, 447–48, 452 practicality of ideas of, 446–47 private legal transactions and, 209 reform proposals of, 423–29, 434–35 Regarding Scholarios’s Beliefs In Favor of Aristotle (Plethon), 440n155 rural exploitation and market economy and, 262, 273 school of philosophy of, 371 writings of, 422–23 Pliny the Elder, 461n18 Plotinus, 420, 438 plowshares, iron, 223–24, 246, 270 Plutarch, 5, 436–40, 437 Poe, Elizabeth, 72n78 Polemianitos, Sebastos Ioannes, 342 Polemitas, church of the Archangel Michael, inscriptions from, 191, 207, 239 Polichne, church of the Archangel Michael at, 341n22 Politics (Aristotle), 436n126, 438n141 Polyphengi, 305 polyphonic motets, 72, 75 Pons de Capduelh, 73n88 Porcacchi, Thomaso, 461, 462, 466 Porcari, Stefano, 448n205 Porphyrios, Andreas, 204 Porphyry, 438 Port-de-Jonc castle, 140 Porto delle Botte, 251 Potamos, Kythera, Hagios Notarios in church of St. John at, 194, 195 pottery. See ceramic evidence Praise of the City of Florence (Laudatio Florentinae Urbis; Bruno), 427 preferential right (protimesis), 200 Prény, Helois de, 71 The Present State of the Morea (Randolph, 1689), 467, 467–68, 469 price edict of Diocletian (301), 43, 346n50 Prinet, Max, 79n123 Prinikos, St. George at, 353, 355 private legal transactions in Frankish Morea, 4, 187–211 Assizes of Romania and, 192, 202–3, 207, 209 church walls, inscriptions on, 186, 191, 203–4, 346. See also Orthodox landscapes

index

503

private legal transactions in Frankish Morea (continued) donations to churches and monasteries, 188, 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 205–7 feudal system and, 187, 192, 193, 196, 200, 201, 207, 209, 210, 211 form of the acts, 196–200 Gospel books, written in, 188–91, 189, 190, 196, 345 leases of land, 207–10, 232–33, 251, 271 maledictions, 199–200, 350n66 marriage agreements, 204 notarial registries and acts, 187, 188 notary, office of, 192–95, 194, 196–97 olive oil trade and, 235 range of social classes and professions involved in, 205 sales and business contracts, 205 significance of, 187, 210–11 subject matter and purpose of, 187 surviving acts, number, publication, and study of, 187–92 titles of ownership, 195–96 trees, ownership of, 206–7 warranty, formulas of, 198 wills, 200–204 Procession of the Magi (Benozzo Gozzoli), 418, 423 Prodromos, Manganeios, 10n5 Prokopios, 287 pronoia, granting of estates in, 430 property titles, 195–96 Propp, Vladimir, 416n119 Protevangelium of James, 375, 376, 377n25, 379, 380, 391–92 protimesis (preferential right), 200 Proto-Maiolica ware, 281, 284, 289, 297, 305 Psalidas, Nicholas, 206 Psimares, Iohannes, 204 Ptolemaic Table of the Peloponnese (Pietro del Massaio, ca. 1470–80), 459–60, 460, 465–66 Ptolemy, 436, 437, 459–60, 462, 465–66, 470 Puy of Arras, 73, 89, 96 Pyla, 219, 232, 250, 253 Pylos (Navarino), 358 Quartier, Lise du, 224, 225, 270 Queen Melisande’s Psalter, 95 Randolph, Bernard, 467, 467–68, 469 Raoul of Soissons, 87, 89, 90 Raynaldus de Odonibus de Vedano, 193 Regarding Scholarios’s Beliefs In Favor of Aristotle (Plethon), 440n155 Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as, 5–6, 455–75. See also Coronelli, Vincenzo ancient and medieval maps of the Morea, 459–60 antiquarian versus scientific nature of mapping Greece, 465–66 concept of memory theater, 457–58, 458

504

index

contemporary enterprises, the Morea as stage for, 459, 470–75, 471–74 isolarii (island books), 458, 461, 461–62, 470 L’isole piu famose del mondo (Porcacchi, 1575), 461, 462, 466 Liber insularum archipelagi (Buondelmonti, 1420), Korone and Methone in, 461, 464 locus memoriae, the Morea as, 458, 459–64, 460, 461, 463, 464 Mercator/Hondius atlases, 458, 462, 466, 473 palimpsest or container of loci, the Morea as, 458, 459, 464–70, 465, 467, 469, 470 power, maps as instruments of, 472–73, 473, 474, 475 The Present State of the Morea (Randolph, 1689), 467, 467–68, 469 Ptolemaic Table of the Peloponnese (Pietro del Massaio, ca. 1470–80), 459–60, 460, 465–66 selective nature of maps, 458–59 Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Ortelius, 1570), 457, 458, 462–63, 463, 470, 472 Totius Graeciae Descriptio (Sophianos, 1550), 465, 466 Tutte l’isole del mondo (Bordone, 1528), 462, 464–65 “Venetian Morea,” new myth of, 455–56, 459, 462– 64, 463, 464, 466–67, 469–75, 471–74 Renart the fox, in song collections, 69–70 Renaut of Magny, 79n120 Rendi, Dimitri, 195, 202 Republic (Plato), 420n9, 438n141 Rhetoric (Aristotle), 401n40 Rhodian penny, 175–76 Richard I Lionheart (king of England), 67, 68 Ritratti di celebri personaggi (Coronelli), 462 Ritsos, Yiannis, 9, 14, 19, 20, 21 Robert (emperor), 164 Robert of Anjou (king of Sicily), 159, 166, 167 Robert of Artois, 81, 82, 89, 91, 92, 96 Robert VI of Béthune, 79 Robert VII of Béthune, 79 Robert of Taranto, 159, 164, 167, 169, 170, 220, 223, 297 Roger II (king of Sicily), 235n168 Roger of Hovedon, 236 Roger of Lluria, 220 Roman de Troie (Benoît de Sainte-Maure), 17, 18, 19, 20, 70n66 Roman empire, historical sense of continuity with, 2, 9–10, 425 Rosenberg, Samuel N., 78 Rubenichi, 222, 268 Rudel, Jaufre, 61, 71, 72 Runciman, Steven, 69, 80, 87, 103, 106 rural exploitation and market economy, 4, 213–75. See also olives and olive oil; peasants acorn cups and kermes, 226, 230, 263–67 advances in, 270–71 beasts of burden, 227–28 Bessarion’s proposals regarding, 445–46

Black Death, effects of, 218, 222, 223, 224, 244, 249, 267–70 cheese production and sale, 225–26, 234, 237 commutation of labor service, 228–29 Constantinople, importation of foodstuffs by, 234, 237, 270 coopers, casks, and barrels, 251, 258 cotton, 260–63 currants, 257–60 demesne and estate lands, 227, 230–31, 252 documentary sources, 214–15, 274–75 feudal system and, 216, 232, 271–72 in fifteenth century, 424, 433–34 figs and fig trees, 204, 225, 257, 258, 259 grains, 225, 231–32, 245–49, 270 hired labor, 232, 271 interplay of three political entities in Peloponnese, 213–15, 214 iron plowshares, 223–24, 246, 270 labor service/corvée labor (angareia, servicium personale, or sputica), 218, 227–30, 231, 245 land as backbone of, 217, 225 landowners, commercial exploitation of production by, 272–73 lease contracts, 232–33, 251, 271 livestock, 225–26, 268, 270 massarie or zevgilateia, 228, 231–32, 245, 246, 247, 249, 268, 269, 298n73 mills, grain, 246–48 monetization of economy, 272–73 monopolies, 241, 248, 252, 257, 259, 264, 265, 271, 272 Plethon’s proposals regarding, 429, 435, 438–39, 447 political and territorial history, 215–16, 269–70, 273–74 polyculture and polyactivity, 225–27 silk industry, 237, 239, 261, 263, 264–67, 270, 271, 272 stasis or stasia (household unit), 218 taxes and taxation, 216–20, 223, 225–27, 229, 230, 231n133, 238, 240, 242, 243n241, 244–46, 252, 255–58, 261, 262, 267, 269, 271–75 warfare and political upheaval, effects of, 218–22, 268, 269 water resources and irrigation, 230–31, 270 wine and vineyards, 231, 232, 233, 249–57 woodland and scrubland products, 226–27 Rutebeuf (poet), 101 Sabatini, Francesco, 70 Saccocci, Andrea, 167 St. Demetrios, Mystras construction of, 372–73 episcopal acts on columns of, 346–52, 347, 349, 350, 351, 357 interior, nave, 347 nave and narthex paintings, 390, 390–91, 391 spolia, 13, 44–47, 45, 53 town, relationship to, 374 St. Martin of Tours, coins issued by Abbey of, 161 saints, cults of, 194, 195, 360–62, 363, 374

saints’ lives in Peloponnese, 11, 31 salamander motif, 23n2, 24 Salic Law, 166 Salona, mint at, 175 San Basilio (Ayios Vasileios) castle, 140, 276, 294, 295, 297, 299 ceramic evidence, 297 coins found at, 296–97 rural exploitation and market economy, 258, 265 settlement analysis of, 276, 292–301, 293–96, 306 Sancto Arcangelo, castle of, 222, 226, 228, 245n256, 251, 253, 341n22 Sanders, Guy, 29, 289, 305 Santomeri castle, 140, 141 Santorini, cotton from, 263 Sanudo, Fiorenza (Florence), 204, 263 Sanudo, Giovanni I, 204 Sanudo, Marco II, 88 Sanudo Torsello, Marino, 58, 76, 88, 97, 99, 102, 164, 263n450 Saphlaouro castle, 127, 133, 137, 141 Sapikos, 348 Saradi, Helen G., 4, 31, 187, 483 “Saronic Gulf Group” coins, 158, 160 Sathas, Constantine, 208 Sauvage of Béthune, 73n87, 79 Savracu family, 218 Schenk, atlas of, 473 Schilbach, Erich, 259n413 Schlumberger, Gustave, 169 Schmitt, Oliver Jens, 402 Scholarios, George (later Patriarch Gennadios), 5, 423n21, 440, 445n187, 447n203 Schwan, Eduard, 63 scribes, notaries operating as, 192–93 Second Crusade, 10n5, 67, 71 secondary burial, 311 Serbia, Nemanid rulers of, 346n49 Serragli, Niccolò d’Agnolo, 449 settlement analysis in northeastern Peloponnese, 4, 277–306. See also ceramic evidence coins, 289–90, 290, 296–97 Corinth, 278–85, 279, 280, 282 Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS), 301–4, 302–3 Isthmia, 285–92, 286, 287, 290–92 maps of sites, 293, 302, 303 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP), 304–5, 306 Panakton, 300, 300–301, 306 San Basilio (Ayios Vasileios), 276, 292–301, 293–96, 306 settlement analysis in southern Peloponnese, 362 Seven Ethico-Political Orations (Manuel II Palaiologos, 1404–1408), 413

index

505

Seventh Crusade, 57–58, 60, 68, 77, 88–90, 91, 93, 95, 103, 104 Sgouroi, 11 Shawcross, Teresa, 5, 6, 14, 15, 18, 419, 483 Short, Ian, 65 Short Chronicles, 372 Sichna, 247 Sicilian School of poetry, 72–73, 75, 91, 93, 98–99, 100 The Sicilian Vespers (Runciman), 103 sigillion, Brontocheion monastery, 343, 374, 389 Sigismund (Holy Roman Emperor), 427 Sigoli, Simone, 265 silk industry Plethon’s reform proposals and, 422, 429, 433, 443, 452n239 rural exploitation and market economy, 237, 239, 261, 263, 264–67, 270, 271, 272 Simona of Villehardouin, 99n259 Siripando, Giovanni, 229 skeletal remains, 4, 309–33. See also stable isotope analysis ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis, 314–15 Athenian Agora, 311, 312, 321–22, 324, 331–32, 333 Corinth. See under Corinth dietary insights, 328–32, 333 Gattilusio burials, Mytilene, church of St. John, 311, 312, 322, 328, 331, 332, 333 morphological analysis, 313–14 Nemea, 321, 322, 323, 324, 331, 333 osteological approaches, 309, 313 Parori, 348–49, 350, 362 stylistic approaches to establishing Greek versus Frankish identity, 310–12 Stymphalos, 307, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 331, 333 thalassemia lesions, 285, 314 Zaraka, Cistercian monastery at, 312, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 331, 333 Sklavochori, 250 slaves and slavery, 205, 220, 235n166, 430 Socha, 358 soldino (coin), 152, 159, 167, 169, 170–71, 172–73, 175 Solon, 13, 445n184 Sonetti, Bartolommeo da li, 458 song collections and songbooks, 60–75 attribution issues, 62–63, 64–65 crusades as favored theme in, 68 earliest extant songbook, 61, 71, 75 international nature of songbook production and trade, 58, 60–61, 63, 66, 73 Italian and Sicilian songs, 72–73, 75, 91, 93 Levant, written-out song in Old French koine from, 68–70 nonbook song collections, 61–62, 62 organization and structure of, 62–63, 71, 72, 73 origins of vernacular written-out songs in AngloNorman England, 63–68, 67 painted miniatures in, 59, 71, 72, 73, 74

506

index

place of William of Villehardouin’s songbook in history of, 73–75 polyphonic motets, 72 tables of contents, 62, 71, 72 transition from castle to city, 70–71 from Venice, 71–72, 73, 75, 88 songbook of William of Villehardouin (Paris, BN fonds fr. 844), 3, 57–109. See also William II of Villehardouin alternative commissioners of, 99–100 Arras or Arrageois scribes, production by, 58, 73–75, 91, 93–97 attribution of songs in, 63, 64–65 “Au novel tans quant je voi la muance,” 109 Charles of Anjou, as commissioner of, 15n37, 58, 59, 60, 89–93, 99–100, 102, 104n301 Charles of Anjou, in possession of, 104–5 in context of songbook history, 73–75 crusades as favored theme in, 68, 73, 78–79 dating of compilation, 93, 94, 95, 100 feudal system and, 82–83 history of possession of, 104–7, 108 later additions to, 105, 106 Levant, evidence of written-out song in Old French koine from, 70 literary activity in princely entourage and, 14–15 “Loiaus amours qui m’alume,” 78, 109 organization and structure of, 73, 75, 90–91, 93, 100 painted miniatures in, 59, 73, 74, 84, 92, 94, 95, 96, 102, 105 polyphonic motets in, 72, 75 li prince de le Mourée, songs of, 14, 75, 90–91, 102n280, 108, 109 reordering, rebinding, and later restoration, 59 research and study of, 58–60 table of contents, 73, 78, 82–83, 95, 100, 109n320 transition of songbooks from castle to city and, 70, 73 unfinished nature of, 102 unique features of, 72, 75 vandalization of, 105 Venetian and Sicilian elements, 75, 88, 90, 91, 99, 100 Virgin Mary, opening songs to, 75, 83n151, 84, 90, 95, 105, 106 Sophianos, Ioannes, 432 Sophianos, Michael or Paul, 432 Sophianos, Nikolaos, 465, 466 Sophianos family, 239 Sophiko, 303 Sorakas, 355 Sorba, Balthazar de, 267 Soteras, church at, 150 Souliardos, Michael, 438 Spanke, Hans, 90, 105 Sparta coins found at, 154, 155, 157, 162, 167, 171, 173, 175, 177 rural exploitation and market economy, 233–39, 241, 247 San Nicolò, Venetian church of, 235 settlement analysis in, 362

Sparta, ancient. See laconism, revival of Sparta, Mystras mockingly referred to as, 372 Sperone, 253 Spetia, Lucilla, 96n238 Sphrantzes, George, 195, 372n2, 425n39 spolia, 3, 23–54 Agnes panel, 23–25, 24, 25 Blachernai, monastery church of, 28–29, 35–39, 36–38 Chronicle of the Morea and, 28, 48–52 columns, commemorative meaning of, 46–47 cultural perspectives on the past and, 28, 43–44, 48–53 exterior walls of churches, focus on, 26–28 in Frankish Morea, 23–25, 28–39 Geraki church of St. George at, 39–43, 40, 41, 53 church of St. John Chrysostom at, 42, 43–44, 44, 47, 53 in Glarentza fortifications, 119, 122 Greek versus Latin use of, 47, 51–52, 53 in Lakonian churches, 39–47, 40–42, 44, 45 Leuke, church of the Zoodochos Pege in, 348n58 literary, 31, 47–48 Merbaka, Church of the Koimesis at, 22, 28–35, 30, 32, 34, 36–37, 38, 39 Mystras, church of St. Demetrios at, 44–47, 45, 53 “new spolia,” 33 outside the Peloponnese, 52–53 overtly pagan images, meaning of use of, 31 patron’s interests and use of, 33–35, 39, 52, 53 planned use of, 30–31, 38 in post-antique construction generally, 27 stable isotope analysis, 310, 315–33 Athenian Agora, 321–22, 324, 331–32, 333 Caesarea, 318, 325, 326 children, weaning and feeding, 332 Corinth, 320–21, 322–27, 323–26, 330–33 Gattilusio burials, Mytilene, church of St. John, 322, 328, 331, 332, 333 Knossos, 318 map of site locations, 320 Nemea, 321, 322, 323, 324, 331, 333 nonlocal origins, evidence of, 322–28, 323, 328 Stymphalos, 307, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 331, 333 summary of key site information, 320 theory and applications, 315–19 Zaraka, Cistercian monastery at, 312, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 331, 333 stage. See theater Stahl, Alan M., 3, 153, 483–84 Staïs, Valerios, 289n50 Staniario, Dobramiro, 234–35 Staniaro, Pietro, 235n166 Stasino family, 218n19 stasis or stasia (household unit), 218 Steiermark, Ottokar von der, 255 sterling penny, English, 158, 160–61, 168n158, 172–73

Strabo, 461n18 Strategopoulos, Caesar Alexios, 392n54 Strovoiati, Dimitrius, 241 Strozzi, Palla di Palli, 427, 449 Strozzi, Salamone di Carlo, 449 Stymphalos, stable isotope analysis of skeletal remains at, 307, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 331, 333 Succhyna, 220 Summa Theologiae (Thomas Aquinas), 426 surnames, kinship patterns, and population stability, 217–18, 219 Symeon of Ragusa, 205 Symeon of Thessalonike, 412, 415 Symes, Carol, 73 Synaxarium of Constantinople, 375, 376, 381, 385, 391, 392 Synkrisis (Demetrios Chrysoloras), 415 Synopsis Minor, 197 Tabula Peutingeriana (Codex Vindobonensis 324), 459 Tagliacozzo, Battle of (1268), 103, 104 Taillebourg, Battle of (1242), 96 Talbot, Alice-Mary, 311 tanning and dyeing agents from acorn cups and kermes, 226, 230, 263–67 Taranto, Nicola, 233n152 taverns, 252 taxes and taxation coins and money, 178 French taxes on travelers, 68 land taxation in 15th century Morea, 430–31 Orthodox landscapes and, 336, 345, 357 Plethon and, 428–29, 430–32, 435, 438, 442n169 private legal transactions and, 200, 207, 209 rural exploitation and market economy, 216–20, 223, 225–27, 229, 230, 231n133, 238, 240, 242, 243n241, 244–46, 252, 255–58, 261, 262, 267, 269, 271–75 settlement analysis and, 297–99 Venetian, 472 Venetian trade freedoms in the Morea, 431–32 Taxiarches of Kontostephanos, monastery of, 210 Teatro della guerra (Coronelli, 1708?), 454, 456–57, 463, 470, 472 Teatro Olimpico, Vicenza, 457, 458 Tempio Malatestiano, Rimini, grave of Plethon at, 419, 421 Teria, 353, 363 Terkova, 343 Ternaria document (1285), 172 tetarteron (coin), 155–56, 157–60, 158, 174 Teutonic Knights, 140 textiles. See also silk industry cotton production and export, 260–63 fifteenth-century trade patterns and, 433–34 thalassemia, 285, 314

index

507

theater. See also Renaissance memory theater, maps of the Morea as as metaphor in Renaissance culture, 458 Morea narrative in Funeral Oration for Theodore as drama, 410–11 Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Ortelius, 1570), 457, 458, 462–63, 463, 470, 472 Thebes coins found at, 173 grain trade, 248 mint at, 155, 166, 172, 175 palace at, 133 textile production at, 237, 239, 266 wine measure of, 255 Theodericus dictus Sroter de Louffenberg, 193 Theodora (wife of Despot Demetrios Palaiologos), 440n155 Theodore Angelos of Epiros, 346n48 Theodore I Palaiologos (despot), 13–14, 202, 349n62, 372, 396, 399, 417, 425, 430, 434n110. See also Funeral Oration for Theodore, Despot of the Morea Theodore II Palaiologos (despot), 14, 413, 421 Theologos Brontocheion properties in, 343 hermitage of St. John the Baptist, 360 Old Monastery of Holy Forty Martyrs, 358–59, 359, 360 St. Nicholas Achragias, 364 St. Theophanios of Monemvasia, 363 Theotokos Krivitzon, private legal transactions of monastery of, 188, 207 Theotokos Podarea, or Podariotissa, private legal transactions of monastery of, 189, 191, 199, 204, 206–7, 210 Thessalonike cotton production in, 261 Holy Apostles Church, 386 mint at, 155, 157, 158 Thibaut II of Bar, 73n87, 80–81, 81, 89, 91–92, 92 Thibaut IV of Champagne (king of Navarre), 62, 68, 78, 82, 89, 93, 96 Third Crusade, 68, 80 Thomas Aquinas, 426 Thomas Becket, 67 Thomas Palaiologos (despot), 4, 127, 207, 210 Thomas of Verona, 258n409 Thompson, Margaret, 157 Thucydides, 12, 427, 436, 437, 439 Tinos, mint at, 175 titles of ownership, 195–96 Tocco, Carlo, 21, 201, 202 Tocco, Leonardo I, 127, 253 Tocco Chronicle, 116, 119, 120, 372 Topping, Peter, 209, 269n506 tornese (coin), 159, 172, 173, 177, 178 tornesello (coin), 159, 164, 167, 170–71, 173–78, 434

508

index

Torre, Giovanni della, 258 Toscano, Bernardo, 232 Totius Graeciae Descriptio (Sophianos, 1550), 465, 466 Toucy family, 80–81, 81, 83, 85, 87, 91 tournament at Isthmia, 286 tournois coins denier tournois, 153, 158, 159, 161–62, 164, 166–68, 171, 173–78 gros tournois, 168, 176 Traversari, Ambrogio, 397 trees, ownership of, 206–7 Tripolitza (Tripolis), 466, 467 Tritsaroli, Paraskevi, 331–32 Trivoles, Demetrios, 438 troubadour and trouvère songs. See song collections and songbooks; songbook of William of Villehardouin Troy, origin myths associated with, 2–3, 10, 16–21, 52 Trypi, 343, 348, 351, 357 Turchio, Marata, 233n152 Turks. See Ottomans Tutte l’isole del mondo (Bordone, 1528), 462, 464–65, 468 Tyrtaeus, 438 Tzakonians, 11n17 Tzavara, Angeliki, 261n431 Tzetzes, John, 2, 19 Tzitzina (Polydroso), 358 Tzykandyles, Manuel, 14, 19 tzykanion, 424 Umur I Beg (ruler of Aydin), 220 Urban IV (pope), 103 Val de Calamy, 216, 229 Valentin, Frédérique, 332 Van der Vin, J. P. A., 52n108 Vanni, Franca M., 167 Vasilikata, 221, 231, 239, 245, 251, 259, 261–62 Vasilitsi, church at, 312 Venerio, Antonio, 297 Veneto ware, 289 Venice Arras and, 96 coins and money, 152, 158, 159, 162, 168–71, 173, 175, 176, 434 “Fondamenta dei Mori,” 432, 433 in Fourth Crusade, 75 influence in the Morea, 3–4, 5, 11, 12 new “Venetian Morea,” myth of, 455–56, 459, 462– 64, 463, 464, 466–67, 469–75, 471–74 Ottoman-Venetian battle for control of the Morea (1684–1714), 455–56, 462, 469–71, 475 silk industry, 266 songbooks from, 71–72, 73, 75, 88, 91

territories in Peloponnese, 216. See also rural exploitation and market economy trade freedoms in the Morea, 431–32 William of Villehardouin and. See under songbook of William of Villehardouin Venier, Dolfin, 262–63, 274 Veroli, Leonardo de, 15, 19, 70, 73, 81, 90, 101, 107, 202 Vervena, 270 Viadro, Marino, 264, 265 Vidal, Pierre, 61, 71 Vilain of Arras, 94 Villehardouin coat of arms, architectural elements displaying, 114, 120, 122 vineyards and wine, 231, 232, 233, 249–57 Virgil, 10 Virgin Mary. See also specific churches dedicated to the Virgin, under place name cults of, 360–62, 374, 391–93 Filippo di Novara’s songs in honor of, 69 Hodegetria icons Mega Spelaion icon, dispute over ownership of, 393 “Monemvasiotissa,” 264–65 maledictions of, 199–200 songbook of William of Villehardouin and, 75, 83n151, 84, 90, 95, 105, 106 Zoodochos Pege, cult of, 361, 374, 375, 389, 392 Viterbo, Treaty of (1267), 19n70, 103, 104, 105, 115, 116, 126, 164, 165 Vitruvius, De architectura, 457 Vituri, 231 Vostitsa (Aigion), 221, 466 Vourkano, 240, 247 Vouvali, chapel of St. John the Theologian at, 339–40n17 Vranoussi, Era, 188, 199, 207 Vrontomas, Old Monastery at, 358–59, 359 Vrysika, Church of the Holy Apostles, 352n71 Walcheren, Battle of (1253), 91, 93n87 War of Troy, 3, 16–21 warranty, formulas of, 198 water resources and irrigation, 230–31, 270 William I the Conqueror (king of England), 65 William II of Villehardouin. See also songbook of William of Villehardouin Anna Komnena Doukaina (Agnes) of Epiros, third marriage to, 58, 97–100, 107, 107–8, 114, 137n133 Byzantine Greeks, war with, 97–98, 100–103, 115, 215–16, 220, 284, 372 Carintana dalle Carcere, second marriage to, 85–88, 87, 90, 95, 97, 99 church and castle building by, 83–85, 86, 151 coins of, 84, 85, 152, 158, 159, 163, 164–65, 177 death of, 107, 165 family background, birth, and upbringing, 75–79, 77

Glarentza, establishment of, 115, 141 imperial ambitions of, 86–88, 99 literary activity in princely entourage of, 14–15 Marguerite of Passava, grant of land to, 196 Monemvasiot families and, 239 in princely role, 81–82, 83, 88, 90 Seventh Crusade and, 57–58, 60, 68, 77, 88–90, 91, 93, 95 Toucy, first marriage to Lady of, 80–81, 81, 82, 85, 87 Venice, rivalry with, 73, 75, 83, 84–87, 95, 96, 97 will of, 201 in wills of Geoffrey I and Geoffrey II, 201 William of Barre, 153 William of Champlitte, 12, 14, 112, 215 William of Dampierre, 88 William of Ferrières, Vidame of Chartres, 79, 93 William de la Roche of Athens, 168, 175n225 William of Malmsbury, 65n36 William of Moerbeke, 29, 33–35, 53, 111–12 Williams, Charles, 279–85, 289, 292, 305 wills, 200–204, 222, 252, 260, 262 wine and vineyards, 231, 232, 233, 249–57 wine cellars, 251–52 woodland and scrubland products, 226–27 Xenocrates, 420 Xenophon, 5, 12, 436, 437, 438, 439 Yakub Pasha, 430 Yolanda of Brienne, 72 Yolanda of Flanders, 23n2 Yolanda of Montferrat, 18 Zaccaria, Centurione II, 267 Zaccaria, Martin, 168n145 Zacharias, murder of, south portico, Brontocheion Church of the Virgin Hodegetria (Aphendiko), Mystras, 375, 376, 380, 381, 391, 392 Zakythinos, Dionysios A., 14, 20 Zane de Visnadelis, Bartholomaeus, of Triviso, 193, 203 Zaraka, Cistercian monastery at burials at, 312, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 331, 333 coins found at, 154, 161 Zaraphon, monastery of, 265 Zaravos, 342 Zariphona (Kallithea), 353 Zeno, Reniero (doge of Venice), coins of, 158 Zervos, Orestes H., 160 Zesiou, Constantine, 339, 373 Zeuxippos and Zeuxippos-derivative wares, 281 zevgilateia or massarie, 228n101, 231–32, 245, 246, 247, 249, 268, 269, 298n73 Ziani, Sebastiano (doge of Venice), 254 Zibaldone da Canal, 261

index

509

Zigabenos, 13 Zink, Michel, 71n74 Zoodochos Pege, cult of, 361, 374, 375, 389, 392 Zorzi, Bertolome, 68 Zorzi, Ermolao, 266 Zoupena, cave church of Aï-Giannaki at, 359–60, 360, 362n101 Zourtza (Kato Phigaleia), 343 zovaticum, 246 Zufferey, F., 71n75 Zygouries, 293, 299

510

index