¹ The Greek historians, though unanimously praising Theodore's intellectual attainments, differ as to their judgments of his character and reign. Acropolites (ed. Heisenberg, , 1903), Theodore's boyhood teacher and later minister, slurs over his accomplishments in comparison with those of Michael Palaeologos. Pachymeres (Bonn 1835) also is rather unfavorable, while Scutariotes (Bibliotheca Graeca Medii Aevi 7 [Paris 1894], ed. Sathas, ), a close friend to Theodore, praises him lavishly. See the modern work of Pappadopoulos, J., Théodore II Lascaris, empereur de Nicée (Paris 1908), which is probably too favorable to Theodore. Nevertheless, Theodore seems generally to have had Nicaea's interests at heart, however precipitous he was in implementing his aims.Google Scholar

² Note in Theodori Ducae Lascaris Epistulae CCXVII (ed. Festa, N., Florence 1898) 214 No. 1, the extremely affectionate salutation of a letter addressed to George Muzalon by Theodore: Γλυκύτατέ μοι Μουζάλων, ποθεινέ μοι υἱὲ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν μου τὸ γλύκιον. Cf. Gregoras, (Bonn 1829) 62.12-16.Google Scholar

³ Pachymeres (hereafter Pach.) 39.13 and Acropolites (hereafter Acrop.) 154.15-16. Both Gregoras, 62.19ff. and Phrantzes (Bonn 1838) 12.13-15, record that the Patriarch Arsenios was named with Muzalon as guardian of John. This seems logical since the cloak of religion would lend an air of legitimacy to the regency. However, it is to be noted that neither Gregoras nor Phrantzes is contemporary with these events.Google Scholar

⁴ Acrop. 154.13 says John was eight, but Gregoras 62.22 and Phrantzes 12.17 record six; and Pachymeres 35.23, nine.Google Scholar

⁵ Acrop. 154.20 and Gregoras 62.12-13.Google Scholar

⁶ Acrop. 124.10 expresses the nobles’ atttude to Theodore's low-born appointees by calling them ‘little men not worth three obols.’ In a curious passage revealing his anti-Theodorian attitude, Acrop. 154.13 writes that Theodore actually named Muzalon regent more for the latter's benefit than for that of his own son.Google Scholar

⁷ Gregoras 62, esp. line 4.Google Scholar

⁸ Acrop. 155.16-19 and Gregoras 66.1-2.Google Scholar

⁹ See Acrop. 154ff., where the malcontents are listed. Among these is George Acropolites, Grand Logothete and historian, who, at Theodore’s order, had been flogged before his own troops for supposed impertinence. Acropolites at this time was still the prisoner of the Despot Michael II of Epirus. This fact, together with Acropolites’ pro-Palaeologan bias, makes his account of the revolution which followed short.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pach. 54.11-13.Google Scholar

¹¹ On this see Pach. 53-54 Also Gregoras, 63.24 and 64.3-4. Cf. the opinion of Meliarakes, A., ‘Ιστορία τοῦ Βασιλείου τῆς Νικαίας (Athens 1898) 493 (hereafter Nicaea).Google Scholar

¹² For a summary of Theodore's attitude to the Church see Gardner, A., The Lascarids of Nicaea (London 1912) 202 and 208 (hereafter Lascarids).Google Scholar

¹³ On this plan see in Festa, , Epistulae 58, No. 44, a letter to Vlemmydes, in which Theodore writes that he is amassing the country's gold to build an army, not one of Turkish, Italian, Bulgar, or Serb soldiers, but a Greek one, which alone could be depended upon. Note the extraordinary use here, one of the very first, of the word ‘Ελληνικόν instead of ‘Ρωμαῖον to apply to the Greeks: μόνον δὲ τὸ ‘Ελληνικὸν αὐτὸ βοηθεῖ ἑαυτῷ οἴκοθεν λαμβάνον τὰς ἀφορμάς. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Pach. 54.17-19 and 68.6-7. Also 54.19-20, where he says the Italians complained ὡς καταφρονοῖντο ἐφ’ οῖς ἐδικαίουν ἑαυτοὺς τετιμάσθαι .Google Scholar

¹⁶ Pach. 55.1-3.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Gregoras 64.7-8. Cf. Pach. 54.9, who writes that George Muzalon was not aware of all this hatred. This, however, seems difficult to believe. Cf. ibid. 40.17ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Pach. 41.5-8 and Gregoras 64.11. Acropolites does not mention this assembly. Phrantzes 12.17-18, writes that Arsenios convoked and addressed the senate. Cf. Meliarakes, , Nicaea 494 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Pach. 40-48 alone quotes the speech of Muzalon directly. Though probably not an exact record of it, his account seems faithfully to represent what was said. Cf. Gregoras, 64.Google Scholar

²⁰ For the entire speech see Pach. 49-52. The summary quoted is taken from Chapman, C., Michel Paléologue restaurateur de l'empire byzantin (Paris 1926) 31.Google Scholar

²¹ Gregoras 64.15-17. Pach. 48-9 terms the nobles’ approval of Muzalon dissimulation.Google Scholar

²² Gregoras 65.1-5.Google Scholar

²³ Gregoras 65.9-12 informs us that certain nobles incited the army to murder Muzalon. Cf. Pach 55.1-3.Google Scholar

²⁴ These oaths are enumerated in another section of the work mentioned in the introductory footnote.Google Scholar

²⁵ See note 29 infra. Google Scholar

²⁶ See Gregoras 68-70 and Phrantzes 14.3ff.Google Scholar

²⁷ Actually this is a monastic rule written by Michael near the end of his life. It is edited by J Troitskiĭ and entitled De vita sua opusculum, necnon Regulae quam ipse monasterio S. Demetrii praescripsit fragmentum (St. Petersburg 1885). See pp. 5–6: … ἀvaλαμβάνομαι εἰς βασιλέα τοῦ σοῦ λαοῦ παρά σοῦ … ή δεξιά σου ὕψωσέ με καὶ κύριος κατέστην τῶν ὕλων, οὐ πείσας ἀλλὰ πεισθεὶς καὶ βιασθεὶς αὐτός.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pach. 54.15 and Acrop. 134.10-12.Google Scholar

²⁹ Pach. 55.4-7: … ό τῶν πολλῶν λόγος ἔχει. ό τούτων τῆς φάλαγγος ἐξηγούμενος, δς καὶ πάλαι μὲν ὡρμημένους αὐτούς, τότε δ’έξαφθέντας πλέον ἀνεθέντας τοῦ φόβου καὶ δρασείοντας τὰ ἀνήκεστα ἐξ ἑτοἱμου ἠρέθισε τὸν φόνον ἐπιτολμῆσαι καιρὸν ἔχοντας. Google Scholar

³⁰ Pach. 55.8-11.Google Scholar

³¹ See Pach. 284.19-20, where this same assassin (Charles) is mentioned a few years later, still alive and unpunished. Cf. infra, note 65.Google Scholar

³² The sources differ as to the exact date when the service occurred. On this see Pach. 55; Acrop. 154; Gregoras 65; Phrantzes 13. Cf. Meliarakes, , Nicaea 164.Google Scholar

³³ See Acrop. 154–155; Gregoras 65; Pach. 55.Google Scholar

³⁴ Pach. 55, esp. line 21. Also Gregoras 65: Acrop. 154.23; Phrantzes 13.Google Scholar

³⁵ Pach. 56.6 and 57. Also Acrop. 155.10-14.Google Scholar

³⁶ Acrop. 155.16-19 and Gregoras 65.25ff. mention the three brothers. Pach. 60.6-11 differs, stating that two Muzalons were present with their brother-in-law.Google Scholar

³⁷ Pach. 58.3ff. and 59.7-8.Google Scholar

³⁸ Pach. 59.13ff. records that Theophylact was his relative: thus Pachymeres probably had a personal interest in the event. For that reason, plus the fact that his account of the Muzalon murders and Michael's usurpation is the most voluminous, yet in agreement with the others in all salient points, I have elected in the main to follow it.Google Scholar

³⁹ Pach. 60.3-5. Cf. Gregoras 65.22-3, who writes that Muzalon was murdered at the altar while the hymnody still continued.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Pach. 60.6-14.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Pach. 61.8. This was a sinister prognostication of Palaeologos’ later conflict with Charles of Anjou (cf. Pach. 284.20).Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 61.8 and lines 14-6.Google Scholar

⁴³ Pach. 61.16-20 and Acrop. 156.5-6.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Gregoras, 65.12-15, who attributes the troubles of the state to the broken oaths. Cf. this desecration of a Greek altar with that occurring during the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204. On this see Choniates, Nicetas, Historia (Bonn 1835) 759.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Pach. 62.17-21.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Pach. 64.5ff. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Pach. 63.19ff. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The Byzantine historians habitually refer to the state as a ship. For example, Acrop. 157.5 and Gregoras 70.14.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On this coalition see my recent article, ‘Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration: The Battle of Pelagonia (1259),’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 101–41. Michael II of Epirus is often referred to in the Greek documents as ‘the apostate,’ that is, as a Greek renegade from the Nicene Empire, whose people considered themselves the continuators of the old Roman Empire.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Acrop. 158.7-8. Cf. Gregoras, 70.16-17.Google Scholar

⁵¹ According to Pach. 66.7, the nobles alone seem to have been present.Google Scholar

⁵² Pach. 66.10. As mentioned above, Gregoras and Phrantzes write that Arsenios was co-guardian of the boy, John. Google Scholar

⁵³ Pach. 66.13ff. and Gregoras 70.8ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Acrop. 158.16. He doubtless refers here to the Latin mercenary troops, for, as will be noted, the next to be consulted were the Cuman troops, who, of course, were mercenaries. Scutariotes, 538, makes a brief reference to this referendum.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ On the Cumans, a Turkish people, called Scythians in many Greek sources, see Rasovskii, D., ‘Poloytsy,’ Seminarium Kondakovianum 7 (1935) 245, and later issues. Acrop. 158.19 records that in this referendum the Cumans responded, not in a barbarian tongue, but in Greek. It would be interesting to know in what language the Latins replied. Very possibly in Greek also, since as a group they had been in Byzantium for a long time. On the other hand, they were constantly recruited from the West, and thus perhaps many did not know Greek. In this connection Codinus, De officiis (ed. Bonn, ) 57, makes the remarkable statement that as late as the fourteenth century the Varangian troops saluted every newly proclaimed Emperor in English.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Pach. 79.13-14. Though the Grand Duke nominally was commander of the imperial naval forces, Michael does not seem to have exercised effective command of the fleet. See Guilland, R., ‘Études de Titulature et de Prosopographie byzantines,’ Byz. Zeit. 44 (1951) 231.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ That Kelts (i.e., Latins, in particular Englishmen) guarded the imperial treasury is not surprising. The custom of using Latins as imperial guards originated with Alexis I Comnenos, who, during the great Norman threat to Constantinople in the eleventh century, had entrusted to the Varangians, recently come from England newly-conquered by the Normans, the safeguard of his person, family, and treasure. The Kelts of Nicaea were perhaps also Varangians. At least, like the Varangians in Alexis’ era, they carried axes (Pach. 71.10: πελεκυφόρον). The only specific mention of the word ‘Varangians’ that I am able to find in the sources to confirm the thesis that after 1204 the Varangian guard was reestablished at Nicaea is one in the Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως (ed. Kalonaros, , Athens 1940) line 4319. It states that after the battle of Pelagonia (1259) the Varangians of Michael Palaeologos took the Prince of Achaia away to prison (oἱ Βάραγγοι … τὸν πρίγκιπα … τὸν ἐδιαβάσασιν στὴν φυλακήν). Dawkins, R., ‘The Later History of the Varangian Guard: Some Notes,’ Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947) 44, affirms that the guard was reestablished at Nicaea after 1204, but he adduces no evidence for this belief except for the above passage. Quite possibly the Chronicle of the Morea, written c. 1300, may have confused the later reestablishment of the Varangian Guard at Constantinople with its presumed establishment earlier at Nicaea. In this connection the Chronicle mistakenly refers to Palaeologos as already Emperor of Constantinople (line 3104): στὸν βασιλέα εἰς τὴν κωνσταντινόπολιν … στὸν Μέγαν Παλαιολόγον. A double mention of the term ‘Varangian’ is also to be found in a Prostagma of Palaeologos, but this is dated November, 1272, that is, after the Greek recapture of Constantinople: see Heisenberg, A., ‘Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit’, Sitzungsb. d. Bayerischen Akademie der Wiss., Phil.-hist. KI. 1920 No. 10 p. 39.30: ἵva ἔχοις βαράγγους and line 49: oἱ τῶν ἀμφοτέρων ἐγκλινοβάραγγοι. I have found a third use of the word Varangian in the Testamentum of the Patriarch Arsenios, who died in 1273: PG 140.956B: ἄλλοτε δὲ βαράγγονς … ἀπέστειλε φνλάττοντάς με. These three apparently unused or overlooked references substantiate the view expressed by Dawkins (op. cit.) and M. Dendias (Οἱ Βάραγγοι καὶ το Βυζάντιον, in Δελτίον τῆς ‘Iστορικῆς καὶ ‘Εθνολογικῆς ‘Εταιρείας τῆς ‘Ελλάδος 9 [1926] 193) that the Varangians as a group were restored in Constantinople after 1261. However, whether the Latin troops, or in particular the axe-bearing Kelts serving in the Greek armies at the time of the Nicene Empire, are definitely to be regarded as forming a reconstituted Varangian guard at Nicaea, is yet to be conclusively demonstrated.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The imperial bodyguard was famous for its support of the legitimate ruler, and it may well be that this part of the Latin troops looked upon Michael as a threat to the rights of young John.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Pach. 71.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Pach. 72-73. It will be recalled that Theodore II, in contrast, had neglected the clergy.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Pach. 72.13ff.: καὶ ὃς αὐτίκα μαθὼν πρὸ τῶν ἂλλων αὐτὸς ὑπαντᾷ μακρόθεν, τιμὴν τὴν μεγίστην ἀφοσιούμενος τῷ πατριάρχη καὶ παντὶ τῷ ἱερῷ πληρώματι, πεζῇ τε βαδίζων καὶ τὰς τῆς ἡμιόνου τοῦ ἱερέως χαλινοὺς κατέχων. ἕως καὶ αὐτῶν ἐντὸς τῶν ἀνακτόρων προηγούμενος καθιστᾷ. This performance of Palaeologos is probably a conflation of two elements: (1) Christ’s entrance on an ass into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and (2) the Western practice (first appearing in an interpolated passage in the Donation of Constantine) according to which the Emperor, holding the bridle of the papal mule, led it while the Pope rode. In the present case, at Nicaea, however, the circumstances were not the same. Michael at the time was regent and not Emperor; moreover, Pachymeres’ passage says nothing of Palm Sunday, stating only that Michael made the gesture ‘when the Patriarch came to Nicaea.’ Despite these differences it is quite possible that Palaeologos, having heard of the custom from the Latins at Nicaea or even from papal emissaries who were sent there during the reign of Vatatzes, adopted the practice, hitherto unknown in Byzantium, merely to flatter the Patriarch and to secure his support. Significantly enough, we hear nothing further of such a performance on the part of Palaeologos after his accession to the throne. On the practice in general see Kantorowicz, E., ‘The « King’s Advent » and the Enigmatic Panels in the doors of Santa Sabina,’ Art Bulletin 26 (1944) 207ff., and especially 230. Also Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Zum Stratordienst der Herrschers in der Byzantinisch-Slavischen Welt,’ Seminarium Kondakovianum 7 (1935) 193ff.Google Scholar

⁶² Pach. 74.6ff.Google Scholar

⁶³ According to Pach. 75.1-3, Alexis, while holding this rank, had defeated the Italians.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Pach. 79; Acrop. 154; Gregoras 72.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ In particular the Tzamantouroi, as Pach. 80.16 records. It should be noted that according to Acrop. 159.19-24, Karyanites, the Protovestiarites, was responsible for the murder of the Muzalons. He was thrown into prison by Michael, from which he later escaped to the Turks. Since this is mentioned by no other source, and since Acropolites is generally partisan to Michael, one cannot avoid the suspicion that Michael (or possibly Acropolites in his history) might have made Karyanites the scapegoat for the murders.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Acrop. 159.15-17 and Pach. 81.16-18. According to Gregoras 78ff. the nobles raised Michael on a shield at Magnesia on the Kalends of December and proclaimed him Emperor. (Cf. Vlemmydes, N., ed. Heisenberg, [Leipzig 1896] 89.) Whereupon the Patriarch Arsenios threatened to excommunicate those involved, but later judged it best to crown Michael after securing oaths from him that he would abdicate when young John reached his majority. Cf. the similar account of Phrantzes 16. As mentioned, Michael’s Autobiography, 5.25, attributes his accession to the will of God, not to his own actions, but his insistence that he secured the throne through no efforts of his own is somewhat suspect. Acropolites, 159.10-11, expresses the same sentiment, saying that Michael was forced by the nobles to become Emperor whether he wanted to or not.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Dölger, F., Corpus der griechischen Urkunden … Regesten 3 (Munich 1932) 30, dates Michael’s first raising on a shield as 1 December 1258, and his first coronation (the second being held at Constantinople) on 25 December 1258. Laurent, V., ‘La date du premier couronnement de Michel VIII Paléologue,’ Échos d’Orient 36 (1937) 167, supports 1 January 1259. Cf. Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Munich 1952) 357 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On the ceremony and the Latin soldiery see Pach. 101-104, esp. 103: καὶ τὸ κελτικὸν πελεκυφόρον περιεστὸς ἕτοιμον ἦν καὶ κατὰ φυλακὸν καὶ κατ’ ἐπίθεσιν πράττειν. Google Scholar