Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture: From the Thematic Session 'Epirus Revisited' of the 23rd International Congress ... in Byzantine History and Civilization) 9782503592619, 2503592619

Citation preview

EPIRUS REVISITED

BYZANTIOς Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 16

Series Editors Michael Altripp Lars Hoffmann Christos Stavrakos

Editorial & Advisory Board Michael G. Featherstone (CNRS, Paris) Bojana Krsmanović (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade) † Bogdan Maleon (University of Iasi) Antonio Rigo (University of Venice) Horst Schneider (University of Munich) Juan Signes Codoñer (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Peter Van Deun (University of Leuven) Nino Zchomelidse (Johns Hopkins University)

EPIRUS REVISITED New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture From the Thematic Session “Epirus Revisited” of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016 Edited by Christos Stavrakos

H

F

Copy editing, formatting and layout: Lektorat Michael Stork, [email protected] http://independent.academia.edu/MichaelStork

© 2020, Brepols Publishers n.v./s.a., Turnhout, Belgium.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

D/2020/0095/288 ISBN 978-2-503-59261-9 e-ISBN 978-2-503-59262-6 ISSN 1371-7677 e-ISSN 1374-8401 DOI 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121856 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

Editor’s Prologue by Christos STAVRAKOS ........................................

7

List of Abbreviations .........................................................................

11

Brendan OSSWALD The State of Epirus as Political Laboratory ........................................

13

Christos STAVRAKOS The Albanian Family of Spata in Late Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Epirus: The Epigraphic Evidence .......................................................

37

Katerina CHAMILAKI The Excavation of a Late Antique Building Complex at Drymos, Aetoloakarnania ..............................................................

59

Ioannis P. CHOULIARAS Excavation of an Early Byzantine Basilica in Drymos of Vonitsa (Akarnania). The Halls “A” and “D” ..................................................

77

Björn FORSÉN – Brikena SHKODRA-RRUGIA The Early Christian Landscape of Dyrrachium: The First Miles Along the Via Egnatia ...............................................

93

Galina FINGAROVA The Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia: An Expression of Byzantine Imperial Claims .....................................

115

5

CONTENTS

Lorenzo RICCARDI Uniform, Incomplete and Partly Lost. On the Mosaic and Sculptural Decoration of the Paregoretissa Church in Arta ................................

139

Katerina KONTOPANAGOU The Christian Monuments of Epirus in the 17th and 18th Century: Creating the Artistic, Social and Economic Profile ............................

185

Efstratia SYGKELLOU Seeking Byzantium: A Tour around the Ambracian Gulf through the Eyes of the European Travelers (17th–19th Century) ...........................

203

Demetrios S. GEORGAKOPOULOS The Despots of Ioannina and Albanians According to the Author of the Chronicle of Ioannina (1367–1399) ..............................................

225

Index Nominum ................................................................................

241

6

EDITOR’S PROLOGUE

T

he opening of the borders of Albania in the 1990s stimulated an increased interest in its cultural heritage and led to extensive research and archaeological investigations. Many of the latter took place on the present-day Albanian territory and have lacked broader contextualization. Very recently, excavations in Greece for the construction of the new highway (Ionia Odos) unexpectedly brought to light fascinating material which changes our perception regarding the monumental topography and the settlements in Epirus. New studies concerning the connections between the early and later Ottoman period in Epirus provide a broader image of the region and its relations with the big economic centers of the West and the spiritual-religious and political centers of the Balkans. The articles of this volume are papers presented during the double thematic session “Epirus Revisited – New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture” (Conveners: Lioba Theis, Christos Stavrakos, Galina Fingarova and Fani Gargova) during the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, in Belgrade, held on 22–27 August 2016. The aim of this thematic session was to comprehend Epirus – today divided between Albania and Greece – as a homogenous historical and cultural landscape as a continuity during its Byzantine and Ottoman periods. The thematic session brought together different scholarly voices in order to facilitate an international and multidisciplinary discussion on the topic. The individual papers investigate the broader scope of the historical developments in Epirus from Late Antiquity to the post-Byzantine period and the specific characteristics of the Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 7–9  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121914

EDITOR’S PROLOGUE

material culture of this region. These investigations help to assess our knowledge of the idiosyncratic role of Epirus for Byzantium and its character as a bridge to the West. Brendan Osswald presents the development and the changes of the political ideology in the society and ruling classes of the state of Epirus. Christos Stavrakos presents and interprets the epigraphic evidence regarding the Albanian family of Spata, who played an important role in the Epirote society of the Byzantine period, and also publishes for first time an unknown donor inscription of the Spatas dated to the 17th century. Katerina Chamilaki presents the building complex found at the excavations of the Greek Ministry of Culture (2012–2014) during the construction works for the Ionia Odos. Ioannis Chouliaras provides the first description of halls A and D of the early Byzantine basilica of Drymos in Vonitsa. Björn Forsén and Brikena Shkodra offer a new and important image of the landscape of Dyrrachium during the early Christian period and discuss the importance of the Via Egnatia for the location of churches in the landscape. Galina Fingarova discusses the history of the erection of the church of Saint Mary at Apollonia and explains many of the building’s singular construction features in the context of the particular political, cultural and geographic situation in the region during the late Byzantine period. Lorenzo Riccardi attempts a new approach to the interpretation of the mosaic and sculptural decoration of the Paregoretissa church in Arta, while Katerina Kontopanagou describes the economic and social environment of Epirus (17th– 18th century) within which a rich artistic production and a plethora of donor activities developed. In this volume are included also two more articles related to Byzantine Epirus: (i) the paper by Efstratia Sygkellou regarding the descriptions of the Ambracian Gulf by travelers of the 17th–19th century; this paper was presented at the 10th Meeting of Greek Byzantinists (Ι΄ Συνάντηση Ελλήνων Βυζαντινολόγων), University of Ioannina, 27–30 November 2019, and (ii) the paper of Demetrios Georgakopoulos that offers new evidence about the presence of Serbs and Albanians in Epirus (second half of the 14th century) according to the author of the so-called Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων; this paper was presented at the 12th Congress of the Association Internationale d᾽études du 8

EDITOR’S PROLOGUE

Sud-est Européen: Political, Social and Religious Dynamics in South-East Europe, Bucharest, 2–7 September 2019. Ioannina, July 2020 Christos Stavrakos University of Ioannina

9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAA ABSA ActaByzFenn AD ArchEph ArchMed BAR-IS BCH BF BMGS Byz Byzas BZ CahArch CFHB CIG CSHB DChAE DIEE DOP

Ἀρχαιολογικὰ Ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν Annual of the British School of Athens Acta Byzantina Fennica Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς Archeologia Medievale British Archaeological Reports, International Series Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Byzantinische Forschungen Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Byzantion Byzas. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul Byzantinische Zeitschrift Cahiers Archéologiques Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. I–IV. Berlin 1828–1877 Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας τῆς Ἑλλάδος Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DOS EEBS EpChr Jahrb. RGZM JRA MEFRA MM NE ODB PG PLP PMFIA Prakt RbK REB RSBN TIB WZKM ZRVI

Dumbarton Oaks Studies Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν Ηπειρωτικά Χρονικά Jahrbuch d. Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Journal of Roman Archaeology Melanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Ecole Française de Rome F. MIKLOSCH – I. MÜLLER, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi I–VI. Wien 1860–1890 Νέος Ελληνομνήμων The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. I–III (ed. A.P. KAZHDAN [et al.]). New York – Oxford 1991 Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. 1–161 (ed. J.P. MIGNE). Paris 1857–1866 Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (E. TRAPP [et al.]). Vienna 1976–1996 Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst. I– . Stuttgart 1966– Revue des Études Byzantines Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Vienna 1976– Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta

12

BRENDAN OSSWALD THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

E

ven during the “classical” period, the Byzantine political system was never an immutable one and was never constrained by unmodifiable rules such as a Constitution or a Magna Carta. After 1204, this instability of the political frames and institutions increased even more because of the general turmoil, and the successor states of the Byzantine Empire had to adapt to the new situation. Probably more than the Empires of Trebizond and Nicaea/Constantinople, Epirus had to change even more its way of considering its own political organisation, because it had not achieved to become an empire itself and also because it had to confront the restored Byzantine Empire. This is why we can but observe a continuous adaptation from Epirus to the surrounding circumstances in different domains. The point of this paper is to show the various political innovations made by the State of Epirus during its existence and how it influenced the rest of Byzantium.

AN INDEPENDENT STATE WITH INDEFINITE STATUS (1204–1224) First of all, Epirus was a Byzantine state independent from the Byzantine Empire. Obviously, it was not a unique case. We could speak about the Slavic States of Bulgaria and Russia, which were part of the Orthodox Oikoumene without being submitted to the Empire. The Byzantines saw Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 13–36  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121915

BRENDAN OSSWALD

this situation, especially in the case of Bulgaria, as an anomaly, but at least it could be explained by the ethnic specificity of these peoples. This was not possible when dealing with Greek states. Once again, Epirus was obviously not the only Greek independent state: the movement of dislocation of the Byzantine Empire had begun in 1184, when Isaac Komnenos became an independent lord in Cyprus1. Isaac was the first Byzantine rebel who took the imperial title without trying to seize Constantinople and without being attacked by the legal emperor. Richard the Lionheart conquered his realm in 1191, but Alexis Komnenos followed his example when he founded in April 1204, before the fall of Constantinople to the crusaders, the Empire of Trebizond, which lasted until 14612. Some lords, lacking dynastic legitimacy, merely became independent without taking the imperial title, like Leo Sgouros in Peloponnese in 12013. But the phenomenon became massive after 1204, because, for the first time ever, Constantinople was in foreign hands and the Empire had fallen. Provinces suddenly found themselves without any central authority and power belonged to the local governors and archons4. Michael Komnenos Doukas was initially not really different from the other local rulers, when he achieved to succeed to Senacherim, the recently dead governor of Arta, whose daughter (or less probably widow) he had married5. However, he distinguished himself very soon, when, thanks to his dynastic prestige and his military abilities, he considerably extended his domination, from the Gulf of Corinth to the south, up to Th. VLACHOS, Ὁ τύραννος τῆς Κύπρου Ἰσαάκιος Κομνηνὸς (1184–1191). Byzantina 6 (1974) 169–177. 2 J. IRMSCHER, L’Empire de Trébizonde entre l’Orient et l’Occident. BF 25 (1999) 243–248. 3 F. VLACHOPOULOU, Λέων Σγουρός. Ο βίος και η πολιτεία του βυζαντινού άρχοντα της βορειοανατολικής Πελοποννήσου στις άρχες του 13 ου αιώνα. Thessaloniki 2002. 4 Cf. Gregoras I 2 (ed. L. SCHOPEN – I. BEKKER, Byzantina Historia [CSHB]. Bonn 1829–1855, I 13, lines 9–14): Τῆς γάρ τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὑπὸ τῶν Λατίνων ἁλούσης, συνέβη τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίαν, καθάπερ ὁλκάδα μεγάλην, ἀνέμοις ἀγρίοις καὶ κύμασι θαλαττίοις συνειλημμένην, κατὰ τεμάχια καὶ μέρη πλεῖστα διαιρεθῆναι, καὶ ἄλλον ἄλλοθι κατὰ μόρια, καὶ ὡς ἕκαστοι τύχοιεν, ταύτην διαλαχόντας κληρώσασθαι. 5 Villehardouin 301 (ed. Edm. FARAL, La Conquête de Constantinople [Les Classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Age]. Paris 1938–39, II 108–110); Job Monachus (ed. J.-P. MIGNE, PG CXXVII, 904 B–C). 1

14

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

Dyrrachium to the north6. Around 1215, the last small Greek state was the one of the Gabalas in Rhodes, which finally disappeared in 12487. In this way, Michael’s trajectory is parallel to the one of Theodore Laskaris in Asia Minor. But the latter, being the son-in-law of Alexis III and having received the title of despot, which was then a promise of imperial succession, was proclaimed and then crowned emperor8. So, the first originality of the State of Epirus is that, unlike his fellow local rulers, Michael I achieved to acquire quite a large territory, but unlike his fellow rulers of Trebizond and Nicaea, he did not take the imperial title. Neither did he recognise any emperor. Therefore, Epirus had no definite political status, which was altogether weird and prudent. As a consequence of this indefinite status, Michael and his brother Theodore Komnenos Doukas, ruled at first without any title, being called “son of the sebastokrator John Doukas”9. They were bearing this title already before 1204: it was only a nobility title, with no connection with the government of Epirus, but it was very convenient for them, since it stressed their high dynastic rank and did not have to be received from a higher authority, especially from the Emperor of Nicaea.

THE EMPIRE OF THESSALONIKI (1224–1241) The capture of Thessaloniki from the Latins in 1224 made Theodore’s State more powerful than Nicaea and allowed Theodore to take the imperial title10. 6

D. M. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros. Oxford 1957, 16–17. A. KAZHDAN, s. v. Gabalas. ODB II 811. 8 A. STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Το αξίωμα του “Δεσπότη” και τα δεσποτικά έγγραφα της Ηπείρου, in: Μεσαιωνική Ήπειρος, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικού Συμποσίου (Ιωάννινα 17–19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1999), ed. K. Konstantinides. Ioannina 2001, 81; I. GIARENES, Η συγκρότηση και η εδραίωση της αυτοκρατορίας της Νίκαιας. Athens 2008, 46–49. 9 G. TAFEL – G. THOMAS, Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante (Fontes rerum Austriacarum Abt. II: Diplomata, XII–XIV). Vienna 1856–57, II 119, n° CCXXIII; CIG 4, 344, n° 8750; L. STIERNON, Les origines du Despotat d’Épire. À propos d’un livre récent. REB 17 (1959) 120–126; STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Αξίωμα 84–85, with references. 10 STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Αξίωμα 85–86, n. 79, 80, 81 for bibliography. 7

15

BRENDAN OSSWALD

On the one hand, the situation simply went back to normal upon the imperial proclamation of Theodore, the Byzantine State being ruled by an emperor. On the other hand, it caused some trouble. Laskaris being proclaimed by a patriarch, the proclamation of another emperor could be seen as illegitimate. This is why the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Constantine Mesopotamites refused to run the coronation, which was finally done by the autocephalous Archbishop of Ohrid Demetrios Chomatenos11. Interestingly enough, this innovative solution, adopted for political reasons only, was justified by antique sources: the See of Ohrid was identified with the one of Justiniana Prima, which had received from Emperor Justinian equivalent rights to Rome and Constantinople. This was of course historically untrue, since there was no continuity between Ohrid and Justiniana Prima, located in nowadays Tsaritsin Grad in southern Serbia. It was also untrue from a canonical point of view, since the privileges granted to Justiniana Prima were not as extended as Chomatenos pretended, especially regarding the coronation of an emperor. But it was considered valid enough to solve the problem. From an ecclesiologic point of view, it was concretely making the Archbishop of Ohrid the head of the Church of the Western Empire12. All this brought about an ecclesiastical controversy between the Patriarch of Nicaea and the clergy of Theodore’s state. On this occasion, the latter justified the coronation and the separation of the two 11

A. KARPOZILOS, The Ecclesiastical Controversy between the Kingdom of Nicaea and the Principality of Epiros (1217–1233). Thessaloniki 1973, 40. 12 R. MACRIDES, Bad Historian or Good Lawyer? Demetrios Chomatenos and Novel 131. DOP 54 (1992) 187–194; G. PRINZING, Enstehung und Rezeption der Justiniana-Prima-Theorie im Mittelalter. Byzantinobulgarica 5 (1978) 269–287; IDEM, A Quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros: The Autocephalous Archbishop of “Boulgaria” (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos. ZRVI 41 (2004) 165–182, in particular 169–170 about Justiniana Prima; IDEM, Die autokephale byzantinische Kirchenprovinz Bulgarien/Ohrid. Wie unabhängig waren ihre Erzbischöfe?, Proceedings of the 22nd Intern. Congr. of Byz. Studies, Sofia, 22–27 August 2011 I: Plenary Papers. Sofia 2011, 389–413; IDEM, The Autocephalous Byzantine Ecclesiastical Province of Bulgaria/Ohrid: How Independent were its Archbishops? Bulgaria mediaevalis 3 (2012) 355–383; A. DELIKARI, Η αρχιεπισκοπή Αχριδών κατά τον Μεσαίωνα: ο ρόλος της ως ενωτικού παράγοντα στην πολιτική και εκκλησιαστική ιστορία των Σλάβων των Βαλκανίων και του Βυζαντίου. Thessaloniki 2014, 116–117, 126–133, 179–210.

16

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

clergies by the necessary adaptation of the state and the church to the exceptional historical circumstances: since there were, de facto, two independent Byzantine political powers, each of them should have its own emperor and its own clergy, until Byzantium were united again13. The principle of οἰκονομία (“economy”), that is the adaptation to circumstances, was not new in the Byzantine Church14. George Bardanes, Metropolit of Corfu, therefore logically invoked it in a letter to Patriarch Germanos, about the elevation of bishops to vacant sees, without consultation of the Patriarch15. He also justified in the same letter the existence of two separate empires by the exceptional historical circumstances16. Despite its brevity, the period of the Empire of Thessaloniki brought an innovation that lasted through the centuries and spread through all the Late Middle Ages Balkans. Indeed, after his imperial proclamation, Theodore gave his brothers Constantine and Manuel the title of despot and appointed them governors. Constantine was therefore somehow the first

13

KARPOZILOS, Ecclesiastical Controversy 46–86. KARPOZILOS, Ecclesiastical Controversy 51, n. 16. 15 KARPOZILOS, Ecclesiastical Controversy 80–81; R.-J. LOENERTZ, Lettre de Georges Bardanês, métropolite de Corcyre au patriarche œcuménique Germain II. EEBS 33 (1964) 99–100, 113: Πρᾶγμα τοῦτο καινότομον μέν – οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀγνοοῦμεν· μὴ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀποπληξίας καὶ ἔλθοιμεν – καιροῦ δὲ φορᾷ παλινβόλῳ καὶ παντάπασι περιστατικῆ συνυπαγόμενον καὶ τῆς ἀκριβείας διὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐκπῖπτον. Παραξέσαι καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ῥῆσιν, οὐχ ὃ θέλομεν ἀγαθὸν ἐξ ὑποτυπώσεως κανονικῆς κρατυνθὲν τοῦτο ποιοῦμεν, ἀλλ’ ὃ οὐ θέλομεν ἀντίξοον ἔθει ἀρχαίῳ τοῦτο πράσσομεν. Εὑρίσκεται γὰρ – ἵνα καὶ πάλιν φαίημεν ἀποστολικῶς – ἡ καιρικὴ περιπέτεια ὥσπερ τις ἔμφυτος νόμος ἀντιστρατευομένη τῷ νόμῳ τῆς διανοίας ἡμῶν, καὶ ὡς ἐν κημῷ τινι καὶ χαλινῷ κατάγχουσα καὶ τοῦ ὀρθοῦ μικρόν τι παρεκνεύειν συμπείθουσα. 16 LOENERTZ, Lettre de Georges Bardanês 102, 117: Συμφωνήσειε δ’ ἂν τούτοις, καὶ τὸ “Σπάρταν ἣν ἔλαχεν ἕκαστος ἀγαπάτω” μηδ’ ἀφρονέστερον ἐκπεμπέτω τὰς ὄψεις ἐπ’ ἄκρα γῆς ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀρκείσθω, τὸν Θεὸν φοβούμενος, τὸν ἁρμόδιον βασιλέα τιμῶν, τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπῶν, προσέχων ἑαυτῷ καὶ βλέπων λεῖα, τό τε εἰσέχον πρὸς τὸ ἐξέχον ἀντεμβιβάζων μηδὲ ταῖς δοκούσαις ἀνωμαλίαις τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην καὶ μεταφορητῶν περικραδαινόμενος τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ καιροὺς καὶ πράγματα διαστέλλων, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ τὸ τοῦ στερεώματος πρόσωπον ὁτὲ μὲν περὶ ὀψίαν δείλην εὐδιεινὰ τεκμήρια προσχόμενον ὁτὲ δὲ πρωΐας ἐπιλαβούσης ἐπιστυγνάζον καὶ χειμερίαν προσημαῖνον κατήφειαν. 14

17

BRENDAN OSSWALD

“Despot of Epirus”17. In a sense, when emphasising the dynastic character of his power, Theodore was only following the habits of the Komnenian dynasty. But this decision was nevertheless innovative from two points of view. Firstly, it was previously unusual for an emperor, even under the Komnenian dynasty, to have his close family members govern provinces, and this must be linked to the necessity, in these times of uncertainty, to ensure the presence of reliable persons at a local level. Secondly, the title of despot, created under Emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143–1180), was initially given only to imperial sons-in-law who were supposed to inherit the throne as husbands of the heir daughter18. Giving the title of despot to imperial brothers, in connection with a provincial government, was thus an important innovation, and this explains why Akropolites accused Theodore to act “like the Bulgarians”19. The Nicene part claimed to be shocked by these innovations, but it was also aware of the necessary adaptation to circumstances. Indeed, Emperor John Vatatzes tried to put an end to what he considered a usurpation by making an offer that was not less uncommon: he offered to Theodore, in exchange to his formal submission, to rule the territories he had acquired by himself and to occupy the “second rank in the Empire”, which possibly means the rank of despot20. In other words, Vatatzes’ proposal implied a deeply decentralised State organisation which looked very much like the 17

B. FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти у Византии и јужнословенским землјама (Византолошки институт, књига 8). Belgrade 1960, 61; STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Αξίωμα 85–86. 18 STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Αξίωμα 79–82. 19 Akropolites 21 (ed. A. HEISENBERG – P. WIRTH, Georgii Acropolitae opera. Leipzig 1903– 1978, 34, lines 5–12): Βασιλεὺς οὖν ἀναγορευθεὶς ὁ Θεόδωρος βασιλικῶς ἐχρῆτο τοῖς πράγμασι, δεσπότας τε προυβάλλετο καὶ σεβαστοκράτορας μεγάλους τε δομεστίκους, πρωτοβεστιαρίους καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν πᾶσαν τάξιν βασιλικήν. Ἀφυῶς δὲ ἔχων περὶ τοὺς τῆς βασιλείας θεσμοὺς Βουλγαρικώτερον ἢ μᾶλλον βαρβαρικώτερον ταῖς ὑποθέσεσι προσεφέρετο, οὐ τάξιν γινώσκων οὐδὲ κατάστασιν οὐδὲ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἀρχαῖα ἔθιμα καθεστήκασιν. 20 Akropolites 21 (34, lines 13–16 HEISENBERG – WIRTH): Οὗτος οὐ μικρῶς τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀντεφέρετο Ἰωάννῃ. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ βασιλεὺς ἠξίου αὐτὸν τῶν δευτερείων μετέχειν τῆς βασιλείας καὶ τῆς χώρας αὐτοῦ ἐγκρατῆ εἶναι καὶ κατ’ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ὑπείκειν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ ἀντέβαινε στερεώτερον. This excerpt of Akropolites immediately follows the previous one. See also STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Αξίωμα 87.

18

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

one adopted by Theodore in his own empire. This proposal had no practical incidence, since it was rejected by Theodore. But it was nevertheless the first case of the “official” Byzantine Empire having to develop political innovations in order to integrate a de facto autonomous Epirus in its de jure domination and during the following centuries, it revealed not to be the last. Even if the letter by Bardanes is the only Epirotic source explicitly expressing the necessary adaptation to exceptional historical circumstances, this principle was very often put in practice by both Epirus and the court of Nicaea/Constantinople, since the historical circumstances almost never ceased to be exceptional during the following centuries. In 1230, the defeat of Klokotnica led Theodore to captivity in Bulgaria. Unlike the previous captured Byzantine emperors, Theodore was not immediately deposed and nominally continued to reign. Indeed, his brother Manuel, who had escaped from the battlefield, lacked his military abilities and preferred to reign as a regent. During this period, Michael II, son of Michael I, took the power under unknown circumstances in Epirus and seems to have been an independent ruler, thus making Epirus an independent state with indefinite status again21. In 1234, Theodore was blinded by the Bulgarian tsar and Manuel became emperor, and was being called “basileus and despot”22. Once again, the Nicene historian Akropolites criticises this innovation, mentioning the fact that the envoys of Vatatzes were joking at Manuel because of this unusual designation23. But later the Palaiologoi emperors also used the title of despot joint to the one of basileus24. In 1237, Theodore was freed from his Bulgarian prison and he took the power back in 21

NICOL, Despotate 128–134, 141–150; J. HOECK – R.-J. LOENERTZ, Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto Abt von Casole (Studia Patristica et Byzantina 11). Ettal 1965, 168–171; F. BREDENKAMP, The Byzantine Empire of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki 1996, 249–251. 22 Chomatenos CVI, 4 (ed. G. PRINZING, Ponemata Diaphora [CFHB 38]. Berlin 2002, 346, lines 69–70): τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν κρατοῦντος κρατίστου δεσπότου καὶ βασιλέως κυροῦ Μανουὴλ τοῦ Δούκα; IDEM, CVI, 13 (350, lines 205–206 PRINZING): τοῦ κρατίστου δεσπότου καὶ βασιλέως τοῦ Δούκα κυροῦ Μανουὴλ; FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти 59–60; IDEM, Солунски Цар Манојло Анђео (1230–1237). Zbornik Filozofskog Fakulteta u Beogradu 14 (1979) 100. 23 Akropolites 26 (43–44 HEISENBERG – WIRTH). 24 R. GUILLAND, Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin. Le despote. REB 17 (1959) 52–54.

19

BRENDAN OSSWALD

Thessaloniki. Being blind, he decided to put his son John on the imperial throne. He also seems to have integrated Michael II in the dynastic system of government, since in 1238 the latter was bearing the despotic title, which implies recognition by the imperial power of Thessaloniki25. This means that he had to recognise the de facto rule of Michael in Epirus, which was based both on inheritance and on a fait accompli instead of an imperial decision.

EPIRUS CONFRONTING THE NICENE AND THEN RESTORED BYZANTINE EMPIRE (1241–1337) In 1241, John Vatatzes achieved to obtain the recognition of his power and the subsequent renunciation to the imperial title by then Emperor of Thessaloniki John Doukas26. From the Nicene point of view, an anomaly was corrected, but another one emerged, since Vatatzes could not at the time annex the western territories, and had therefore to recognise the domination of a usurper on a Byzantine land, to whom he also gave the despotic title. Of course, in Vatatzes’ mind, this situation was supposed to be provisional. Indeed, as early as 1246, Thessaloniki was incorporated to the Nicene Empire27. But Michael II still ruled Epirus and in 1252, Vatatzes confirmed his despotic title and thus recognised his power, probably hoping to seize Epirus like he had done with Thessaloniki28. A striking fact is that Vatatzes adopted the very solutions imagined by Theodore Komnenos. Just as the latter had used the despotic title to legalise the de facto and hereditary power of Michael II, Vatatzes himself used it to legalise the de facto and hereditary power of John Doukas and of the same Michael II. Another striking fact is that J. BURY, Inedita Nicephori Blemmydae. BZ 6 (1897) 526–531; STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Αξίωμα 90. 26 Akropolites 40 (65–67 HEISENBERG – WIRTH); NICOL, Despotate 138–139; BREDENKAMP, Byzantine Empire 253–257. For the date of 1241, see R. MACRIDES, George Akropolites: The History. Oxford 2007, 219 n. 24. 27 Akropolites 45 (79–83 HEISENBERG – WIRTH); NICOL, Despotate 146–147. 28 Akropolites 49 (91–92, lines 17–14 HEISENBERG – WIRTH); Gregoras II 8 (I 48–49, lines 21–27 SCHOPEN – BEKKER); NICOL, Despotate 152–153. 25

20

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

these innovative solutions, imagined and improvised during the short period of the Empire of Thessaloniki, and adopted as a provisional lesser evil by Vatatzes, revealed themselves enduring. Indeed, neither his defeat at Pelagonia in 1259 and the subsequent invasion of Epirus, nor the triumphal capture of Constantinople in 1261 convinced Michael II to give up his sovereignty29. A modus vivendi was found but each side had its own opinion about the institutional situation of the province. From an Epirotic point of view, legitimacy of the rulers of Epirus came from their belonging to the Komnenodoukas local dynasty and probably from the desire for autonomy. From the Constantinopolitan point of view, Epirus was a part of the Roman land and the local rulers governed it only thanks to its connections with the imperial court. In this context, the despotic title slowly acquired an increasing importance, which is a consequence of the imprecise status of Epirus. Its rulers could be called neither emperors nor governors; they therefore had to use another title. Despot was perfectly convenient for them, since it was the closest to the imperial one. For Byzantium, it was a way to keep Epirus in its sphere of influence, since only an emperor could assign it. It was also often connected to a marriage with an imperial princess, sometimes a daughter of the emperor, then making the Epirote ruler an imperial son-inlaw. As a consequence, the title had become polysemous and its attribution was deliberately as ambiguous as was the political status of Epirus. For the Nicene, it had the traditional meaning of imperial son-in-law, without any connection with a territorial government and therefore its holders ruled Epirus because they were members of the imperial family. For the Epirotes, it slowly acquired the meaning of the local territorial ruler and its attribution was only the imperial recognition of a hereditary indigenous power. Of course, the imperial point of view was fictional: giving Byzantine princesses and despotic titles was only a way to conciliate theoretical imperial power with a practical provincial independence. But this fiction was also important for the rulers of Epirus for intern political reasons, since in the province a pro-imperial as well as a pro-independence party could be found. 29

NICOL, Despotate 169–195; D. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros 1267–1479. Cambridge 1984, 7–8.

21

BRENDAN OSSWALD

INTEGRATION IN BYZANTINE AND SERBIAN EMPIRES In 1337–1340, Andronikos III achieved the submission of Epirus despite a revolt which showed the existence of a strong pro-independence party. Nevertheless, the annexation to the Empire quickly revealed anachronistic, as shows, as soon as 1342, a chrysobull by John VI Kantakouzenos. In fact, this chrysobull mostly deals with Thessaly, which belonged to the State of Epirus until the death of Michael II, before being a state of its own until 1333 and thus had a strong tradition of independence, in connection with Epirus. Because of this tradition, the local aristocracy had asked for a specific status within the Empire. John Angelos, former governor of Epirus, was nominated governor of Thessaly. He was supposed to rule without imperial intervention and his son was supposed to succeed him after his death. The chrysobull also mentions Epirus: it was supposed to be ruled again by Kantakouzenos’ son-in-law Nikephoros II, young heir of the local dynasty, when he would come of age, with the title of despot. This means that both Epirus and Thessaly, thanks to their specific history, were granted an autonomous status inside the Empire and were to be ruled by their own dynasties. This must of course be interpreted in the context of the Byzantine civil war: Kantakouzenos, in order to reinforce his control of Epirus and Thessaly, had to gain the support of the pro-independence party. But it also shows that, out of pragmatism, he was willing to tolerate such an innovation as autonomous provinces within the Empire30. Significantly, Epirus is designated in this document by the word Despotate (δεσποτᾶτον)31. This D. ZAKYTHINOS, Processus de féodalisation. L’Hellénisme contemporain, novembre–décembre 1948, 506–510 (reed. in Byzance: État, Société, Économie. London 1973, XIII 8–12); A. DUCELLIER, Les “principautés” byzantines sous les Paléologues: autonomismes réels ou nouveau système impérial?, in: Les Principautés au Moyen-Age. Paris 1979, 162–163; NICOL, Despotate 1267–1479 124–127; R. ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ, Byzance face aux Ottomans. Exercice du pouvoir et contrôle du territoire sous les derniers Paléologues, milieu XIV e– milieu XVe siècle. Paris 2014, 61. 31 Kantakouzenos III 53 (ed. L. SCHOPEN, Historiae. Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum Libri IV [CSHB]. Bonn 1828–1832, II 321–322, lines 14–17): Ἵνα, ἐὰν ἀποσταλῇ παρὰ τῆς βασιλείας μου εἰς τὸ δεσποτάτον ἢ ὁ περιπόθητος γαμβρὸς αὐτῆς κύριος Νικηφόρος ὁ Δούκας, ἢ ἕτερος, ἔχῃ φιλίαν μετ’ ἐκείνου καὶ χωρῆται ἑκάτερος εἰς τὰ δίκαια αὐτοῦ. 30

22

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

term had appeared at first in Latin sources, because, according to the feudal views, a land ruled by a despot ought to be a Despotate32. The transmission of the word from Latin to Greek, not only in Latin-occupied lands, but also in Epirotic and in Byzantine sources, shows how deep the association of the land to its specific political status was33. Significantly, the chrysobull uses the word Despotate as a geographical one, but it also confirms that Epirus was a Despotate in the political sense, since we can find the four distinctive criteria observed already before the annexation: autonomy, local dynasty, despotic title, marriage with an imperial princess. Yet, in the short term, John Angelos invaded Epirus and reunited it for a few years with Thessaly34. John VI did not limit the autonomy of provinces to former separatist ones. In 1349, he sent his second son, Despot Manuel, to rule Morea, while his first son, Matthew, had no such title. For the Byzantine court, the title of despot, even if still reserved to the imperial family, could henceforth be connected to a local government. Some years earlier, when asked by his Italian wife Yolande of Montferrat, Andronikos II had rejected the western practice of appanage as contrary to Byzantine traditions35. But John Kantakouzenos took the way of decentralisation and the government of Morea was linked to the despotic title until the Ottoman conquest in 146036. Thessaloniki was also intermittently governed by its own despot37. 32

S. ASONITIS, Το Νότιο Ιόνιο κατά τον Όψιμο Μεσαίωνα. Athens 2005, 146. The word δεσποτᾶτον appeared in Greek in the Greek version of the Chronicle of Morea (ed. J. SCHMITT. London 1904, lines 3097, 3500 etc.) that is in a Latin-occupied environment, probably in the early 14 th c. The chrysobull of 1342 is the next occurrence. 34 NICOL, Despotate 1267–1479 127. 35 Gregoras VII 5 (I 233–234, lines 14–16 SCHOPEN – BEKKER); D. ZAKYTHINOS, Le Despotat grec de Morée I. Paris 1932. II. Athens 1953, reed. London 1975, II 72–73; J. BARKER, The Problem of Appanages in Byzantium during the Palaiologian Period. Byzantina 3 (1971) 105–107; DUCELLIER, Principautés 165; ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ, Byzance 59. 36 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat I. 37 We will not discuss here all the Byzantine regions who received autonomy, focusing on the most important, which were governed by a despot like Epirus. About the other ones, we invite the reader to consult the already quoted articles of BARKER, Problem and DUCELLIER, Principautés. See also E. PATLAGEAN, Un Moyen Âge grec. Paris 2007, 326, 343 and ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ, Byzance 62–63, 146–149. 33

23

BRENDAN OSSWALD

The influence of the Epirotic model ought now to be discussed. According to my master Alain Ducellier, a distinction should be made between the State of Epirus, successor of the universal Empire after 1204 and candidate to its restoration, and the separatist “principalities” (principautés) created by the emperors in the 14th century38. This distinction is absolutely relevant from a theoretical point of view. But from a chronological one, the latter are obviously the continuation of the former. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the State of Epirus did not really have imperial pretentions during the reign of its founder Michael I. The imperial ideology had its acme during the reign of Theodore, but as soon as the early 1230s, after the latter’s defeat at Klokotnica, Michael II’s power in Epirus progressively grew up to become almost independent, already before the end of the Empire of Thessaloniki in 1241. Had he won the battle of Pelagonia, Michael II would probably express imperial pretentions. But he did not, and the State of Epirus, in its subsequent history, stubbornly tried to survive as a separate entity: therefore, it can reasonably be qualified as separatist, long before the creation of Byzantine principalities of the 14th century. The genealogy leading from the former to the latter can easily be done. The first Byzantine territory associated with the idea of autonomy was Thessaloniki. The project of giving the city to Michael VIII’s son Constantine, which was never achieved, may be a pure invention of this emperor’s detractors39. But from the reign of Andronikos II onwards, the city was often governed by various family members, most notably by Despot Demetrius, son of Andronikos II in 1322, the future Manuel II, son of John V, from 1369 to 1373 and from 1382 to 1387, and finally Andronikos, son of Manuel II, from 1408 to 1423. This can probably be linked to the past of this town under the Epirotic dynasty40. Then, as we saw, John Kantakouzenos created a principality in Thessaly and announced the creation of a second one in Epirus. 38

DUCELLIER, Principautés 161–162. DUCELLIER, Principautés 164–165. 40 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat II 73, 74: “La domination latine et l’occupation des Anges d’Épire avaient créé tradition”. BARKER, Problem 107–110; G. T. DENNIS, The reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonica (1382–1387) (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 150). Rome 1960; FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти 89–103. 39

24

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

Both provinces had constituted until 1267 one and then until the 1330s two separatist states. As Ducellier notes himself, the creation of the principality of Thessaly was not an imperial initiative, but fulfilled a request of the local aristocracy, whose tradition of autonomy originated in its shared history with Epirus41. Moreover, as we already mentioned, the chrysobull stipulates in 1342 that the last ruler of the original State of Epirus, namely Nikephoros II, was to become the first ruler of the principality of Epirus: could there be a better evidence of the continuity between the State of Epirus, originating in the events of 1204, and the principalities established by the Byzantine Empire? The loss of Thessaly and Epirus to Serbia in 1347/48 did not prevent Kantakouzenos to create a “principality” in Morea the next year. Of course, he does not mention Epirus and would never acknowledge that he followed the Epirotic model, but, having played a major role in the annexation of the province when Grand Domestic of Andronikos III and having given back its autonomy to the same province when being Emperor himself, he knew it so well that the way he reproduced it cannot be totally unconscious. His version is that Manuel had been made Despot two years earlier for other reasons and was supposed to rule for some years only a province in a situation of emergency, simply as a governor with extended authority42. But in the 16th century, Makarios Melissenos (the Pseudo-Sphrantzes) wrote that Kantakouzenos made his son despot for the occasion and wanted his authority in Morea to be hereditary that is almost a definition of the political regime of Epirus43. Maybe Kantakouzenos tells the truth about what he wanted to do. But, more than probably, Makarios tells the truth about what he really did44. In particular, the idea of Morea as a hereditary possession 41

DUCELLIER, Principautés 162–163, 166. ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat I 94–95, 98, II 71–72. 43 Pseudo-Sphrantzes IX 1 (ed. V. GRECU, Georgios Sphrantzes. Memorii 1401–1477 [Scriptores Byzantini 5]. Bucharest 1966, 182, 34–35): [ὁ Καντακουζηνὸς] τὸν δὲ ἕτερον [υἱὸν] δεσπότην ἐν τῇ Σπάρτῃ ἐποίησε, βουλόμενος δὲ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ ἀρχὴν ὑφ’ ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὑτοῦ κλῆρον ποιῆσαι. 44 As says M. DE CERTEAU, Pour une nouvelle culture: prendre la parole. Études 329 (1968) 39: “Un événement n’est pas ce qu’on peut voir ou savoir de lui, mais ce qu’il devient (et d’abord pour nous).” 42

25

BRENDAN OSSWALD

may have sounded more than acceptable to Kantakouzenos, whose father had been governor some decades ago45. Nevertheless, for ideological reasons, the Byzantines would never admit that Epirus was a model, and, as we will see, they never used the word Despotate about Morea. For instance, when Sphrantzes writes about his journey from the Despotate of Morea to the Despotate of Epirus, he says that he is en route to the Despotate, regardless to the fact that despots governed Morea for eighty years46. Actually, when calling “Despotates” every territory ruled by a despot, the modern historians actually follow the use of the Latin sources47. But in the Greek ones, only Epirus seems to have ever been called a Despotate48. Another important fact is that, according to Kantakouzenos, Morea was granted autonomy because of its difficult situation; so would be the case for Thessaloniki. This means that, although they were ruled by emperor’s sons and although this was a way to regulate dynastic problems, the raison d’être of the Byzantine Despotates was to ensure a better administration and defence of ill-controlled provinces: unlike the Western appanages, they officially resulted from the necessity of decentralisation49. In the opposite, even if they often constituted, notably in the late Middle Ages France, a way to progressively integrate new territories in the royal domain, the raison d’être 45

DUCELLIER, Principautés 166. Sphrantzes XXI 1 (ed. R. MAISANO, Giorgio Sfranze Chronica [CFHB 29]. Rome 1990, 68, 13). 47 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat II 75–78, considers that Morea was a Despotate and gives various references to the despotic title of its princes, but the only reference he gives about Morea as a “Despotate” is written in Latin: Sp. LAMPROS, Παλαιολόγεια καὶ Πελοποννησιακά IV. Athens 1930, 102–103. About Valona considered in Latin as a despotatum, see L. von THALLÓCZY – K. JIREČEK – M. SUFFLAY, Acta et Diplomata res Albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia II. Vienna 1918, 33, n° 127; G. VALENTINI, Acta Albaniae Veneta Saeculorum XIV et XV I/1. Palermo – Milano – Rome 1967, 151–152, n° 167–168. 48 An inquiry made in the TLG database showed that the words δεσποτᾶτο(ν) and δεσποτᾶτοι always refer, without any exception, to Epirus and its inhabitants. E. KRIARAS, Λεξικό της μεσαιωνικής Ελληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματείας 1100–1669. Thessaloniki 1977, V 25–26, also clearly associates the words δεσποτάτον and δεσποτάτος with Epirus. 49 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat II 72: “L’idée de l’apanage n’est pas celle qui a prévalu dans la fondation du Despotat de Morée. Elle ne serait venue qu’ultérieurement comme une pratique qui ménageait les susceptibilités et amortissait les chocs entre les membres de la dynastie”. See also DUCELLIER, Principautés 168–170. 46

26

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

of the Western appanages was to ensure an inheritance to the heirs who were excluded from the main succession50. We can but agree with John W. Barker’s opinion about the Byzantine so-called “appanages”: “we must constantly remind ourselves that Byzantine institutions developed sui generis, out of indigenous circumstances”51. Ducellier, on his side, also rejects Western influence and evokes a Serbian or even a Turkish one52. This cannot be totally dismissed, but we should not forget that Epirus and Serbia belonged to the same West Balkans area and probably developed, be it under Western influence or not, some common features earlier than the Byzantine Empire. Another remarkable similarity between Epirus and the Byzantine “Despotates” is the use of the imperial formula “ἡ βασιλεία μου” by the despots53. Of course, its signification was different in both cases. According to Raúl Estangüi Gómez, in the Byzantine territories ruled by a despot, “loin de sous-entendre une revendication au trône, cela témoigne d’un renforcement de l’autorité impériale, incarnée localement par un autre membre de la dynastie que le souverain en personne”.54 The same could not be said about the despots of Epirus, but the fact is, once again, that the Byzantines reproduced a procedure initiated in the western province. All of this leads to the conclusion that the opinion expressed on this topic by Alexander Kazhdan in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium should be reconsidered: Under the Palaiologoi, despotai were active both in Constantinople and at the head of the largest appanages – Thessalonike, Epiros, and Morea. Only Morea, however – and even it not without doubts – can properly be called a despotate; for Epiros the term was employed only in sources from the late 14th century onward, predominantly of Western origin.55 50

For a comparison between French appanages and Byzantine practices, see BARKER, Problem 116–122. See also ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ, Byzance 58–62. 51 BARKER, Problem 122. 52 DUCELLIER, Principautés 171. 53 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat II 76. 54 ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ, Byzance 60–61. 55 A. KAZHDAN, s. v. Despotes. ODB I 614.

27

BRENDAN OSSWALD

To begin with, Thessaloniki, Epirus, and Morea were never, as we already mentioned it, appanages. This was even less the case for Epirus, since it was ruled by its own dynasty and never given to an emperor’s son. As for the last part of the statement, it is actually based on a misreading of an article by Lucien Stiernon, which does not deal with the entire history of the State of Epirus, but only with the reign of Michael I56. In reality, as we said, Epirus was the first territory ever ruled by a despot and it was the only territory qualified as Despotate in Greek sources. As for Morea, Manuel ruled it almost independently until his death and was succeeded by members of his own dynasty. The last of the Kantakouzenoi despots, Demetrius, even tried to keep on ruling despite the imperial nomination of Theodore Palaiologos57. Had the Kantakouzenos dynasty succeeded in keeping Morea, it would have become as independent as Epirus. But they failed and Morea came back to a situation of dependency: the ruler was always a member of the imperial dynasty, he was chosen by the emperor and imperial interventions could take many forms, all of which has no equivalent in Epirus58. We can therefore say that the “Despotate” of Morea remained an imperfect copy of the only genuine Despotate that is Epirus. While Ducellier observes that “les provinces byzantines, travaillées par l’autonomisme, n’ont jamais eu de princes: elles n’ont rencontré que des fils de famille entraînés dans la quête dérisoire d’un trône fantôme”, Epirus stands as a strong counter-example. The later developments of the history of the province show that, even under various conditions, it could conserve its identity, traditions and dynasty. Serbian tsar Stephen Dušan, after conquering it, entitled himself “Emperor of the Serbs, of the Romans and of the Despotate of the Western lands”59, and entrusted its government to his half-brother Symeon, who L. STIERNON, Les origines du Despotat d’Épire. À propos d’un livre récent. REB 17 (1959) 124–126. 57 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat I 114–118, II 79–81; BARKER, Problem 113–114; DUCELLIER, Principautés 166. 58 ZAKYTHINOS, Despotat II 81–90; DUCELLIER, Principautés 166–168. See also FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти 104–140. 59 A. SOLOVJEV – Vl. MOŠIN, Грчке повеље српских владара. Belgrade 1936, reed. London 1974, n° XVI, 122, lines 68–70 (December 1347): Стефань вь Христа Бога бѣрни Царь 56

28

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

received the despotic title and married Thomaïs, sister of Nikephoros II and thus a member of the local dynasty. According to the Chronicle of Ioannina, Epirus was the heritage of Thomaïs and Symeon’s legitimacy explicitly resulted from his wedding60. Dušan also exported the Epirus model to other parts of his Empire, for example to southern Albania, where he entrusted Berat and Kanina to his brother-in-law, the Despot John Alexander61.

INDEPENDENCE AGAIN AND OTTOMAN CONQUEST After Dušan’s death, Symeon unsuccessfully tried to succeed him as emperor in Serbia. Nikephoros II ruled Thessaly and Epirus from 1356 until his death in 1359. Then Symeon came back to Greece and ruled Thessaly with the imperial title. Epirus was officially part of his Empire, but his control on the province was very loose. He created two Albanian Despots, Peter Liosha in Arta and John Spata in Angelokastron, in the beginning of the 1360s. For the first time, there were two Despots in Epirus and this decision was obviously inspired by the new situation of the province, occupied by Albanian leaders ruling according to a clannish organisation. Ioannina refused their authority and Symeon sent to the city a third Despot, his own son-in-law Thomas Preljubović, acknowledging the political fragmentation of the province62. After the death of Symeon and the resignation of his son John, the Empire of Trikkala ceased to exist and now the only imperial investiture could come Срблемь и Грькѡмь и деспотат западни земли. M. DINIĆ, Српска владарска титула за време Цартсва. ZRVI 5 (1958) 15, prefers to read деспотатю; P. LEMERLE et al., Actes de Lavra, III (Archives de l’Athos 10). Paris 1979, n° 128, 38, line 44, prefer to read DESPOTAJU; FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти 178. 60 Chron. Ioan. 2 (ed. L. VRANOUSSIS, Τὸ Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων κατ᾽ ἀνέκδοτον δημώδη ἐπιτομήν. Epeteris tou Mesaionikou Archeiou 12 (1962) 74, lines 1–9; 75, lines 27–33; FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти 167–168. 61 Chron. Ioan. 2 (75, lines 21–27 VRANOUSSIS); FERJANČIĆ, Деспоти 157–181, in particular 166–167 about Valona. See also G. OSTROGORSKY, Серска област после Душанове смрти. Belgrade 1965, about Serres. 62 Chron. Ioan. 8–9 (79–80 VRANOUSSIS).

29

BRENDAN OSSWALD

from the Byzantine Empire. But in the late 14th and in the early 15th century, it was obvious that the province was now isolated and totally independent from the Empire. This independence is underlined by the weakening family connections. In Ioannina, Despot Thomas Preljubović was confirmed in 1382 by Manuel Palaiologos, then in Thessaloniki, but, while he was the son-in-law of Emperor Symeon, he was now only the husband of a great great great granddaughter of Michael VIII63. His successor Esau Buondelmonti, who married his widow, had exactly the same position64. Next Despot of Ioannina Carlo I Tocco had absolutely no link with the imperial family and some evidence shows that Carlo Tocco was called a despot as soon as he took power in 1411, without any imperial investiture, which shows that the word “Despot” could be used in a local context65. For the author of the Chronicle of the Tocco, Epirus, even if divided between various lordships, is a “Despotate”, the latter word always referring to the whole Epirus and never to what we call the Despotate of Ioannina66. The meaning of the word is mainly geographical, but also, in minor part, political, since the reunification of the “Despotate” under a sole lord is an aim 67. But it is not at all, even formally or theoretically, submitted to the emperor, and its reunion with the Empire is not, in any case, an objective or even an unrealistic hope68. It is probably in order to stop this linguistic and political 63

Chron. Ioan. 26 (93, lines 5–12 VRANOUSSIS). Maria Angelina (PLP 21393) was the daughter of Symeon (PLP 21185), himself the son of Maria Palaiologina (PLP 21391), herself daughter of the panhypersebastos John Palaiologos (PLP 21479), himself son of Constantine Palaiologos (PLP 21492), third son of Michael VIII. 64 Chron. Ioan. 29–30 (94–95 VRANOUSSIS). 65 Chron. Tocco 1523 (ed. G. SCHIRÒ, Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia di anonimo. Roma 1975, 332); L. POLITIS, Ἡ κτιτορικὴ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς Μονῆς Ἁγίας Παρασκευῆς Βίτσας καὶ ἡ χρονολογία της. Ellinika 20 (1967) 423; L. VRANOUSSIS, Ἱστορικὰ καὶ τοπογραφικὰ τοῦ μεσαιωνικοῦ κάστρου τῶν Ἰωαννίνων, in: Χαριστήριον εἰς Ἀναστάσιον Κ. Ὀρλάνδον IV. Athens 1968, 512, n. 1. 66 Chron. Tocco 45, 352, 1366, 1372, 1390, 1392, 1841, 2114, 2170, 2851 (SCHIRÒ 222, 246, 322, 324, 356, 378, 382, 430). The following occurrences refer to the period consecutive to the reunification of Epirus. 67 Chron. Tocco 1392, 3030, 3040, 3046 (SCHIRÒ 324, 442, 444). 68 Chron. Tocco 1236, 3493sq. (SCHIRÒ, 310, 480sq.)

30

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

evolution that Manuel II sent the despotic regalia to Carlo in 141569. But once again, the Byzantines could only run after an evolution upon which they had no influence. In Arta, it seems that the relationships between the Albanian lords and the imperial court were rare, if not inexistent. After the death of Despot John Spata in 1399, none of his successors seem to have borne the despotic title. In reality, the Spata and the Tocco dynasties cared far more for their relationships with the Ottomans, whose vassals they had become and who ended up annexing progressively the province: Ioannina fell in 1430 and Arta in 144970. The conquerors firmly reattached Epirus to an Empire, for the first time in centuries, but in reality, they dealt not with a united province but with smaller entities, the most important of them being the two cities-states of Ioannina and Arta.

RISE OF THE CITIES This overview of the political history of Epirus would indeed be incomplete without mentioning the rise of the cities. This phenomenon could be noticed in many places in the Byzantine world, but it attained an uncommonly high level in Epirus71. Indeed, the elite of Ioannina slowly became strong enough to decide by itself upon its submission to one or another sovereign. Of course, their decisions were not totally free, since they often confronted powerful military threats, but a striking fact is that we often see the city negotiate by itself its passing from one sovereignty to another. We could mention here its defection to the Empire in 1318, its return to the Despotate during 69

NICOL, Despotate 1267–1479 183. B. OSSWALD, L’expansion territoriale ottomane en Épire et dans les îles Ioniennes (XIV– XVe siècles). EpChr 40 (2006) 341–364. 71 NICOL, Despotate 1267–1479 83–84; Lj. MAKSIMOVIĆ, The Byzantine Administration under the Palaiologoi. Amsterdam 1988, 248–267; N. SVORONOS, Η βυζαντινή επαρχία. Athens 2008, 85–87; A. KONTOGIANNOPOULOU, Τοπικά συμβούλια στις βυζαντινές πόλεις: παράδοση και εξέλιξη (13ος–15ος αι.). Athens 2015; B. OSSWALD, Arta et Iôannina: deux villes rivales au parcours parallèle, in: Πόλεις και εξουσία στο ύστερο Βυζάντιο, ed. A. Kontogiannopoulou. Athens 2019, 205–236. 70

31

BRENDAN OSSWALD

the first Byzantine civil war, its surrender to the Serbs during the late 1340s and to the Ottomans in 1430. Every change of sovereignty was of course an occasion to have some privileges confirmed or, maybe, increased72. This capacity of relative self-determination culminated, between at least 1359 and 1430, with a situation of quasi-independence and self-government, including foreign policy and war. After the death of Nikephoros II in 1359, the city was probably governed in a collective way by the archons, but the Albanian military threat led them to re-establish a monarchic government, supposed to be more efficient in a period of war, and to call Thomas Preljubović in 1367, Esau Buondelmonti in 1385 and Carlo Tocco in 141173. A striking fact is that every election brings a sovereign more “uncommon” than the previous one. Thomas was a Serbian, living in Thessaly. Esau and Carlo were Italians, living in Cephalonia; only the first converted to Orthodoxy, while the second remained Catholic74. This was of course an important innovation, if one thinks that the previous sovereigns of Epirus descended from the Komnenos dynasty and were all Orthodox. But these choices were led by pragmatism: foreign leaders were chosen with regard to their networks and the military help they could possibly bring from abroad. Apart from the despot, the archons and the people were also political actors. Mutatis mutandis, a parallel may of course be done with the Italian city-states, in which the power was split between the popolo, the aristocracy, and a kind of monarch. Italian history knows many examples of such monarchs being foreigners, in the case of the Podestà and of the Condottiere, whose recruitment was supposed to avoid intern rivalries, consolidate the diplomatic MM V 77–84, I 171–172; Chr. MATANOV, The phenomenon Thomas Preljubović, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta 1992, 65–66; A. RIGO, Lo Horismòs di Sinân Pascià, la presa di Ioannina (1430) e la “lettera” del sultano Murâd II. Thesaurismata 28 (1998) 62 = MM III 282–283; NICOL, Despotate 1267–1479 83–89, 92–93, 95–96, 202–203. 73 Chron. Ioan. 8 (79 VRANOUSSIS), 29 (94 VRANOUSSIS); Chron. Tocco IV 1325–1417 (SCHIRÒ 320–326). 74 See B. OSSWALD, S’assimiler pour régner? Le cas des souverains italiens de l’Épire (XIV e– XVe siècles), in: M.-A. CHEVALIER – I. ORTEGA, Élites chrétiennes et formes du pouvoir en Méditerranée centrale et orientale (XIII e–XVe siècle). Paris 2017, 331, 338-339. 72

32

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

network and facilitate the conduct of war75. The control exercised by the city on its hinterland (ἀφεντία) is similar to the one exercised in Italy on the contado76. The elite of Ioannina were at least partially conscious of these similarities, since they were in contact with a number of Italian cities, mainly Venice and Florence, while some Epirotic sources use the word κομμούνιον about them, thus showing minimal knowledge of their political system77. Of course, this similarity should not be overrated, since Ioannina never claimed to be a republic or a commune. The institutional function of the despot was unclear: he was at the same time a hereditary almighty monarch and an elected municipal officer. This ambiguity led to some political crises: in 1384, Despot Thomas was assassinated and in 1411 Esau’s young son George was chased away with his regent mother78. The case of Arta is less documented, but its political situation seemed to be similar: the city controlled its hinterland, the people and the archons are attested as political actors, and some succession crises in 1399–1401 and mostly in 1414–1415 show that the city could also choose its lords79. The latter crisis is the best documented, and opposed two candidates, both members of the Spata dynasty, who were not foreigners, but like in Ioannina, the capacity to mobilise military forces through an abroad network was a 75

F. FRANCESCHI – I. TADDEI, Les villes d’Italie du milieu du XII e siècle au milieu du XIVe siècle. Paris 2004, 51–60, 65–70, 72–78; P. GILLI, Villes et sociétés urbaines en Italie, milieu XIIe–milieu XIVe siècle. Paris 2005, 48–53, 56–66; F. MENANT, L’Italie des Communes (1100–1350). Paris 2005, 52–125; S. CASSAGNES-BROUQUET – B. DOUMERC, Les Condottieres. Capitaines, princes et mécènes en Italie (XIII e–XVIe siècle). Paris 2011, 143–238. 76 About Italy, see FRANCESCHI – TADDEI, Villes d’Italie 49–51, 70–72; F. MENANT, L’Italie des Communes 40–45, 86–87; B. DOUMERC, Les communes en Italie XII e–XIVe siècle. Toulouse 2004, 38–39. About Ioannina, see Chron. Tocco 1253, 1468, 1607, 1832 (SCHIRÒ 312, 330, 338, 354); B. OSSWALD, Iôannina et son arrière-pays (XIIIe–XVe siècles): un exemple des relations entre ville et campagne dans le monde byzantin tardif, in: La ville et le plat pays, ed. M.-C. Marandet. Perpignan 2016, 163–185. 77 Chron. Ioan. 40 (100, lines 1–6 VRANOUSSIS); Chron. Tocco 1206, 2500, 3334 (SCHIRÒ 308, 404, 468). See SCHIRÒ, Cronaca 190. 78 Chron. Ioan. 28 (94 VRANOUSSIS); Chron. Tocco IV 1161–1303 (SCHIRÒ 306–316). 79 ASONITIS, Νότιο Ιόνιο 154–155; IDEM, Η Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειρωτικά παράλια στα τέλη του Μεσαίωνα (1386–1462). Thessaloniki 2009, 175, 177–179; NICOL, Despotate 1267–1479 182, 185. The ἀφεντία of Arta is mentioned in Chron. Tocco 3103 (SCHIRÒ 448).

33

BRENDAN OSSWALD

determining element of the outcome of the crisis. The winner was Yaqub Spata, who had converted to Islam and was supported by the Ottomans. From a religious point of view, he was therefore even more “uncommon” than Carlo Tocco was in Ioannina. But, on the other hand, his victory was also the promise that Arta would receive a strong military support from the Ottomans. Nevertheless, Carlo Tocco, despot of Ioannina, took the city in 1416. As we saw, the Ottomans finally conquered all the region. But the historical circumstances as well as the characteristics and traditions of the province led them to tolerate various statuses of autonomy, for example in Ioannina until 1611 and in Zagori until the 19th century80. Arta was also probably granted some privileges by the Ottomans81.

CONCLUSIONS As I hope to have shown it in this paper, many innovations made in Epirus had an influence on Byzantium and on the rest of the Oikoumene. The most obvious one is the political model of the Despotate. For instance, despots ruling territories could be found later in Byzantium, in Serbia and in Bulgaria. Despite never achieving the same status, the case of Morea showed strong tendencies to imitate the Epirotic model: in 1453, a revolt recognised Manuel Kantakouzenos as its leader, thus seeing the Kantakouzenian dynasty as more “local” than the Palaiologian one, and gave him the despotic title, without any imperial investiture82. However, the association between Epirus and this type of regime was so strong that no other 80

About Ioannina: Epirotica. De rebus Epiri (ed. I. BEKKER, Historia politica et patriarchica Constantinopoleos. Bonn 1849, 247). About Zagori: P. ARAVANTINOS, Χρονογραφία της Ηπείρου. Athens 1856, II 33–34; I. LAMPRIDIS, Ζαγοριακὰ οἷς προσετέθησαν καὶ τινὰ περὶ Ἠπείρου. Athens 1870, 131–136; IDEM, Ἠπειρωτικὰ μελετήματα. Athens 1889, VIII 42–46; IX 5–37. 81 SERAPHEIM XENOPOULOS, Δοκίμιον ιστορικής τινος περιλήψεως τής ποτε αρχαίας και εγκρίτου Ηπειρωτικής πόλεως Άρτης και της ωσαύτως νεωτέρας πόλεως Πρεβέζης. Athens 1884, 194–195. 82 Sphrantzes XXXVII 1 (142 MAISANO); DUCELLIER, Principautés 171 and n. 55.

34

THE STATE OF EPIRUS AS POLITICAL LABORATORY

territory was ever called a Despotate in the Middle Ages. The word even became synonymous with Epirus and in the 16th century, Ottoman Epirus was still called Despotate83. Another political feature of the State of Epirus is the emphasis made since its first years upon dynastic legitimacy. This emphasis was typical of the Komnenos dynasty in the 12th century but had disappeared in the Laskaris and then Palaiologos state, where Theodore Laskaris, John Vatatzes, Michael Palaiologos and John Kantakouzenos were all, even if belonging to the high aristocracy, first in their families to access to the supreme dignity. After the resignation of Kantakouzenos in 1354, the last Palaiologoi nevertheless did their utmost to secure the principle of dynastic succession. Paradoxically, during the same period, this emphasis upon dynastic legitimacy weakened in Epirus; nevertheless, it never totally disappeared and even survived until the 16th century, when it was used by Ottoman beys, proudly talking of themselves as descendants of the Toccos84. The model of the Despotate was surely not the first example of strong political autonomy in the Balkans, but it was finally the model that became the most widespread and the more stable, as much as the political institutions could be stable in these times of turmoil. But this stability did not exclude evolution and the Epirotic state model never stopped to adapt to the new internal and external circumstances. This capacity allowed the model to survive through two centuries and a half and, by the way, it allowed Epirus to stay independent and to preserve its Byzantine culture during the same length despite its hostile environment. This constant adaptability shows clearly that Epirus was a part of the “world of changes” that was Byzantium. Unfortunately, we can only suppose, in some sense, how revolutionary these changes appeared to the contemporaries. The fact is that we often see political actors criticising their Sp. LAMPROS, Ενθυμήσεων ήτοι χρονικών σημειωμάτων συλλογή πρώτη. NE 7 (1910) 173: αὐθεντέβοντος τοῦ εὐγενεστάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου αὐθεντὸς Χουσεηνσάχμπεει υἱοῦ ὄντος Μεχεμέτπεει τοῦ ἕλκοντος τὸ γένος ἀπὸ Καρούλων μεγάλων ὄντων αὐθεντῶν ἡγεμονικῶς κραττῶν τὸν τόπον καὶ φλάμπουρον τοῦ Ἀγγελοκάστρου Ἁγίας Μαύρας Βονδίτζης καὶ παντὸς δεσποτ[άτ]ου. 84 Ibid. 83

35

BRENDAN OSSWALD

opponents for their scandalous innovations. But most of the time, the very same persons are found some years later doing the very same thing to which they were opposed. So, it is sometimes quite hard to decide if their first hostility was only tactically feigned, or if the circumstances led them to reluctantly do things they sincerely disapproved85.

85

One of the numerous instances of this phenomenon would be the Chronicle of Ioannina, which after criticising Thomas Preljubović for searching alliance with the Latins and the Ottomans (Chron. Ioan. 24, VRANOUSSIS 92, lines 6–8), praises Esau Buondelmonti, himself a Latin and an ally of the Ottomans (ibid. 33, VRANOUSSIS 96–97, lines 21–23).

36

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS: THE EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

T

he Spata (or Spataioi1) were one of the most prominent Albanian families, and ruled the region of the State of Epirus for at least seventy years2. However, they did not represent the entirety of the Albanians living in Byzantine Epirus. Malakasaioi, Mazarakaioi, Zenebisaioi, Zoulanaioi, and Alkadioi all lived in the region and participated in the local society in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods3. The members of these Albanian families were connected through bonds both of blood and genealogical4. The Spata family had been established in Epirus already from 1360. They became rulers of Arta and subsequently managed to extend their control See PLP 26518: This family name was borne by four brothers, two of which were known by their full names: Γκίνης Μπούϊας Σπάτα and Σγουρὸς Μπούας Σπάτας. 2 PLP 26521–26527. 3 B. PSIMOULI, Σούλι και Σουλιώτες (Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών Εθνικού Ιδρύματος Ερευνών 68). Athens 1998, 40–57 (henceforth: PSIMOULI, Σούλι); M. KORDOSES, Τα βυζαντινά Γιάννενα. Κάστρο (πόλη) – Ξώκαστρο – Κοινωνία – Διοίκηση – Οικονομία. Athens 2003, 46–49 (henceforth: KORDOSES, Γιάννενα); see also K. BIRES, Ἀρβανίτες, οἱ Δωριεῖς τοῦ Νεώτερου Ἑλληνισμοῦ. Ἱστορία τῶν Ἑλλήνων Ἀρβανιτῶν. Athens 1997, 13–40; A. DUCELLIER, Les Albanais dans l’empire byzantine: de la communauté à l’expansion, in: Οι Αλβανοί στο Μεσαίωνα, ed. Ch. Gaspares. Athens 1998, 17–45; K. FRASHERI, Les Albanais et Byzance aux VIe–XIe siècles, in: Οι Αλβανοί στο Μεσαίωνα, ed. Ch. Gaspares. Athens 1998, 47–57. 4 PSIMOULI, Σούλι 48. 1

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 37–58  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121916

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

over the entire despotate5. The Chronicle of the Tocco offers a clear image of their influence over the State of Epirus: Ἐν δὲ τοὺς χρόνους καὶ καιροὺς ἐκείνους ὅπου ἀκούεις οἱ Ἀλβανῖται ἀφέντευον τὸν τόπον Δεσποτάτου τὴν Ἄρταν καὶ τὸν Ἀχελῷν σὺν τὰ τῶν ἀκρομέρων, μετὰ τὸ Ἀγγελόκαστρον καὶ Ναύπακτον ὁμοίως. Ἦσαν γὰρ οἱ αὐτάδελφοι ἐκεῖνοι οἱ Σπαταῖοι τέσσερεις ἄνδρες θαυμαστοί, καλοί, ἀνδρειωμένοι.6 In the first years of their rule, their family name was accompanied by a second, Μπού(ι)ας. This was evidently abandoned in later years, as they were afterwards mentioned only as Spata. The Mpou(i)oi7 comprised an offshoot of the family, and eventually became hostile towards the Spataioi8 with frequently unfortunate results9. The two surviving chronicles of the period (Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων and Χρονικὸν τῶν Tocco) offer a wealth of material on the members of this family/clan, whose primarily negative depiction differs depending on the figure being described10. However, there is no testimony in the sources regarding them in the period of Ottoman rule, with the most prominent written sources on the Spataioi being the two aforementioned late Byzantine G. SCHIRÒ, La genealogia degli Spata tra il XIV e XV sec. E due Bua sconosciuti. RSBN 28–29 (1971/1972) 67–85; B. OSSWALD , L᾿Épire du treizème siècle: autonomie et héterogénéité d᾿une région balkanique (unpublished thesis). Toulouse 2011, 189–192 (henceforth: OSSWALD, Épire). 6 G. SCHIRÒ, Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia [CFHB Series Italica 10]. Rome 1975], 222–223, 44–49. 7 PLP 19765–19768. 8 See G. S. SOULIS, Περὶ τῶν μεσαιωνικῶν ἀλβανικῶν φύλων τῶν Μαλακασίων, Μπουίων καὶ Μεσαριτῶν. EEBS 23 (1953) 213–216; T. JOCHALAS, Über die Einwanderung der Albaner in Griechenland. Munich 1971, 93–95; M.-D. STRUDZA, Dictionnaire historique et généalogique des grandes familles de Gréce d’Albanie et de Constantinople. Paris 1983, 234. 9 PSIMOULI, Σούλι 48–49. 10 E. ZACHARIADOU, Marginalia on the History of Epirus and Albania (1380–1418). WZKM 78 (1988) 195–210. 5

38

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

chronicles. Due to this paucity, the epigraphic evidence which refers to the family is of crucial importance in order to understand its role in late Byzantine and Ottoman Epirus.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FROM THE BYZANTINE PERIOD The northwestern section of the north chapel of the Paregoretissa church11 in Arta is home to a severely damaged fresco12 (Fig. 1)13, comprised of five figures. In the center, the archangel Michael embraces a bearded man; the accompanying inscription has been placed above the latter’s head. On the other side, the archangel Michael places his left hand on the shoulder of another secular figure, a man bearing a crown and dressed in luxurious garments. The second male figure performs a gesture of deesis towards the Virgin, who is partly preserved in the northwest corner of the chapel. The Virgin embraces the second male figure and propels him toward Christ, who is depicted seated on a throne on the north wall of the chapel. The fresco itself, together with the corresponding inscriptions, has been the subject of extensive study14. The consensus among current scholarship is 11

12

13

14

A. ORLANDOS, Ἡ Παρηγορήτισσα τῆς Ἄρτης. Athens 1963; L. THEIS, Die Architektur der Kirche der Panagia Parēgorētissa in Arta/Epirus. Amsterdam 1991; ΕADEM, Die Architektur der Kirche der Panagia Parēgorētissa, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta – Athens 1992, 475–494; B. PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα και τα μνημεία της. Athens 2002, 131–163 (henceforth: PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα); B. PAPADOPOULOU – A. KARAMPERIDE, Τα βυζαντινά μνημεία της Ηπείρου. Ioannina 2008, 71–92. B. PAPADOPOULOU, Επιτύμβια παράσταση στο ναό της Παναγίας Παρηγορήτισσας στην Άρτα. DChAE 25 (2004) 141–154 (henceforth: PAPADOPOULOU, Επιτύμβια παράσταση); D. GIANNOULES, Οι τοιχογραφίες των βυζαντινών μνημείων της Άρτας κατά την περίοδο του Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου. Ioannina 2010, 340–352 (henceforth: GIANNOULES, Arta). The photograph of this donor portrait was kindly offered to me for publication by the Ephorate of Antiquities of Arta. I would therefore like to express my warmest thanks to the director of the Ephorate, Mrs. Dr. Barbara Papadopoulou. PAPADOPOULOU, Επιτύμβια παράσταση; GIANNOULES, Arta, 342–351; I. VITALIOTIS, Les Albanais et la dernière phase de Byzance: Quelques témoignages de la peinture murale, in: Βyzance et ses voisins, XIIIe–XVe siècles; art, identité, pouvoir, Colloque international,

39

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

that the figure on the left is Pavlos Spata15 (Fig. 2), archon of Angelokastron (1401/2–1406) and subsequently of Naupaktos (1406–1407/8). The inscription reads thus: Πα[ῦλος Μπούας Σπ]άτας. Undoubtedly, the depiction of Pavlos Spata in the chapel of the Paregoretissa both indicates his prominence and reflects his social and political power. Regarding the second figure, Papadopoulou suggests a reading of the inscription as [Σγουρὸς δεσπότ]ης ὁ [Σ]π[άτ]ας16 (Fig. 3). However, she does not preclude the possibility of this figure actually being Ioannes/ Gkines Mpoua Spata17. Based on this identification, she dates the frescoes to the early 15th century and supports that the depiction, and thus the chapel, is of a funerary nature. According to Papadopoulou, the archangel in the scene is a ψυχοπομπὸς (psychopomp)18. Giannoules believes the second figure is either Ioannes/Gkines Mpoua Spata or Mourikes Spata19, who was archon of Arta (1399–1414/5), though he does not take into account the title δεσπότης in the second inscription. In his recent paper Vitaliotes, after exhaustive research of the written sources, rejected the funerary nature of the chapel, and identified the second figure, in my view correctly, as Ioannes/Gkines Mpoua Spata20. He dates the fresco shortly before 1399, when Ioannes Spata died. I concur with Vitaliotes, and would like to add to the discussion on the topic that according to the well-documented study of Asonites, the heirs of Ioannes Spata did not bear the title δεσπότης21.

Paris-Sorbonne/Centre André Chastel, ed. E. Yota. Paris 2020 (in print) (henceforth: VITALIOTIS, Les Albanais). 15 PLP 26525. 16 PLP 26527. 17 PLP 26523. 18 PAPADOPOULOU, Επιτύμβια παράσταση 146, 149–150. 19 PLP 26524. 20 VITALIOTIS, Les Albanais. 21 S. ASONITES, Παρατηρήσεις στις πρακτικές πολιτικο-ιδεολογικής σύνδεσης Κωνσταντινούπολης και Ηπείρου κατά τον όψιμο Μεσαίωνα, in: Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου, Άρτα. 12–14.4.2002, ed. E. Sygkellou. Athens 2007, 152 (henceforth: ASONITES, Παρατηρήσεις).

40

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

However, the earliest epigraphical testimony regarding the Spata family in Epirus is from the Monastery of Pantanassa22 in Philippiada (13 km north of Arta)23. The katholikon of the monastery is a complex four-columned cross-in-square type with a narthex, and is dated to the mid-13th century24. According to the life of St. Theodora, the monastery was constructed by Michael II Komnenos Doukas (1230–1267) in the mid-13th century. The peristyle which envelops the west, north and south sides of the church was in all likelihood constructed by Michael II’s son, Nikephoros I25. There is a carved inscription 132 cm from the ground on the face of the southwest column of the south gallery of the katholikon26 (Fig. 4). It has been written in minuscule and is developed asymmetrically in two lines, the first of which contains the Christian name and office of the described person, while the second his family name, which has been hellenized and is clearly written in the nominative case. The inscription appears rather crude at first glance, but closer scrutiny reveals that it has been written carefully. Accents are visible above the words δεσπότης and Σπάτας, as are the signs which denote abbreviations: after the α in the word Ἰωάννης (= Ἰωά,) and above the τ in the word δεσπότης (= δεσπότ,). The inscription reads thus:

P. VOKOTOPOULOS, Παντάνασσα Φιλιππιάδος (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 251, Ἀρχαιολογικοὶ τόποι καὶ Μουσεῖα τῆς Ἑλλάδος 30). Athens 2007; IDEM, Τὸ καθολικὸ τῆς Μονῆς Παντανάσσης Φιλιππιάδος, in: Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου, Άρτα. 12–14.4.2002, ed. E. Sygkellou. Athens 2007, 269–302; P. SΟUSTAL – J. KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallēnia (TIB 3). Vienna 1981, 225 (henceforth: SΟUSTAL – KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallēnia). 23 See M. VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus. A Topography of Transformation. Settlements of the Seventh–Twelfth Centuries in Southern Epirus and Aetoloakarnania, Greece. Leiden – Boston 2012, 30–32. 24 P. VOKOTOPOULOS, Ἡ κτιτορικὴ τοιχογραφία στὸ περίστωο Παντανάσσης Φιλιππιάδος. DChAE 28 (2008) 73 (henceforth: VOKOTOPOULOS, Kτιτορικὴ τοιχογραφία); PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 114. 25 PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 114. 26 M. VEIKOU, Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions from Epiros (An Inventory, Comentary and Comparative Study) (MA thesis). Birmingham 1998, 136–138 (henceforth: VEIKOU, Inscriptions). 22

41

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

Ἰωάννης Δεσπότης | Σπάτας. This inscription faithfully adheres to the form of the inscriptions on works of miniature art, in particular seals from the Byzantine period, on which the sequence of information was strictly Christian name, noble title, office and finally family name. The referenced figure is without a doubt Ioannes/Gkines Mpoua Spata, despot of Arta from 1374 to 1399. The Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων speaks in glowing terms of both his abilities and his external appearance27. A number of issues arise, the first of which is connected with the reasons for the creation of this carved inscription. What was the ideological and socio-political context which led Ioannes Spata to immortalize his name with the title δεσπότης on a column of the Pantanassa monastery? In my view, this inscription is connected with Ioannes Spata’s visit to the monastery. This is supported by (i) the fact that no mention is made either in the inscription itself or in the written sources of a donation to the monastery and (ii) the geographical proximity of the monastery to Arta (a distance of only 13 km) and the fact that it is situated close to one of the possible routes connecting Arta with Ioannina28. This visit was in all likelihood connected with one of Ioannes Spata’s campaigns against Ioannina while he was δεσπότης of Arta, however it could not be dated with certainty up till now due to the lack of references in the written sources. No doubt Ioannes Spata wished to emphasize his prominent position as δεσπότης of Arta through this inscription, and to connect his political power with an important religious establishment of his period.

27

Τὸ Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων κατ’ ἀνέκδοτον δημώδη ἐπιτομὴν (ed. L. Branouses) (Epeteris tou Mesaionikou Archeiou 12, 1962). Athens 1965, 85, 6–12: Ἰωάννης δεσπότης ὁ Σπάτας, ἐκ τοῦ Ἀχελῴου παραγενόμενος, τὴν Ἄρταν παραλαμβάνει, ἀνὴρ δραστήριος καὶ τὰ πάντα λαμπρός, ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ κοσμούμενος καὶ τῷ κάλλει σεμνυνόμενος. 28 SΟUSTAL – KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallēnia, 91–92; E. SYGKELLOU, Η κατάληψη της Άρτας από τον Κάρολο Τόκκο (1416): προβλήματα τοπογραφικά και ιστορικά, in: Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου, Άρτα. 12–14.4.2002, ed. E. Sygkellou. Athens 2007, 200–209.

42

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

According to Vokotopoulos, the katholikon of the monastery is in all probability the largest late Byzantine church in Greece29. There is a donor portrait of the despot of Epirus, Nikephoros I, together with his second wife Anna Palaiologina (niece of Michael VIII Palaiologos) and their two youngest children, Thamar and Thomas, in the peristyle of the katholikon30 (Fig. 5). The individual figures are accompanied by inscriptions, while an eight-verse metrical inscription in the center (i) describes the image of the Theotokos and (ii) informs visitors of the attributes of the donors, the members of their family, and the monastery31. In my view, this is an artistic and inscriptional paean to the ruler and his household. The composition has been dated by Belenes to the summer of 1294. Already from the first years after the founding of the state of Epirus, both Michael I and his brother Theodoros considered themselves legitimate successors of the former Byzantine emperors, and believed they possessed the right to recover Constantinople32. It is worth noting at this point that according to the written sources of this period, the literati supported 29

VOKOTOPOULOS, Kτιτορικὴ τοιχογραφία 73. G. BELENES, Γραπτές επιγραφές από το περίστωο του ναού της Παντάνασσας στη Φιλιππιάδα. DChAE 28 (2008) 81–86 (henceforth: BELENES, Γραπτές επιγραφές). 31 BELENES, Γραπτές επιγραφές 84. See also L. FUNDIĆ, The Artistic Patronage of the Komnenos-Doukas Family (1204–1318) in the Byzantine State of Epeiros. Byz 86 (2016) 169 (henceforth: FUNDIĆ, Artistic Patronage); A. RHOBY, Ausgewählte byzantinische Epigramme in illuminierten Handschriften. Verse und ihre “inschriftliche” Verwendung in Codices des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts (nach Vorarbeiten von R. Steffec) (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 42). Vienna 2018, 530: + Ἡ παμβασιλὶς τοῦ Θεοῦ Μήτηρ λόγου | ὡς εκ νεφῶν ὕπερθεν οὐρανοδρόμο | π στρτηγῶων ἀρχηγέτης | κάτεισιν ἄνω τῷ [κοσμη]μέη | τεχνργικοῖς χρώμασιν/ ἱστορουμένόπος […] ε […] εὐλαβτου | τισελων εὐαρεστάτων τύπω | […] συντεταμέν | ἱλῶς κροταφίζουσι βε πέρι | ταῖς δεσποτικαῖς ἀξίαις ἐστεμμένοι || τρόμῳ παρ[ιστάμενοι]… | νηνοδουκόβλαστ ἡ συζυγία | σὺν οῖς νεθοῦσι εὐθαλεστάτο κλάδοις. | Ἄμφω κρατοῦντες δεσπό κλη [… | …] σοὶ τὸ κράτος. || Tαῷ σκέποις ἄνασσα ἐν θείᾳ δίκῃ/ | […] ς | Νικ νέμο πανσθένει σθένει | μ[…] | εἰς τὴν μόχοιο. 32 L. FUNDIĆ, Art and Political Ideology in the State of Epiros during the Reign of Theodore Doukas (r. 1215–1230). Byzantina Symmeikta 23 (2013) 217–250 (henceforth: FUNDIĆ, Art and Political Ideology). 30

43

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

the idea that the despots of Epirus were the leaders amongst the Byzantine successor states that were established after 120433. The despots of Epirus in the 13th and 14th centuries utilized artistic production as a means of expressing their political ideology. The most fundamental objectives of this ideology were to maintain the Byzantine identity of the State of Epirus and promote their political aspirations concerning Epirus as an independent state, the importance of the ruling dynasty in Epirus and their bond with the great imperial families of Constantinople34. A distinctive example is the pictorial decoration of Hagios Demetrios Katsouri (wall-paintings dated to the beginning of the 13th century)35. The decoration of the dome reflects the political ideology of the rulers and the intellectual elite of Epirus36. The Davidian provenance of the dynasty and their divine right to rule were emphasized within the context of this ideology, according to which following the loss of Constantinople (as the New Sion) in 1204, the Christian populations (as the New Israel), which were dispersed among the states of Nicaea and Epirus, awaited the Orthodox rulers to repatriate them in Constantinople37. Thus, Ioannes/Gkines Spata selected this section, in the south gallery of the katholikon, to inscribe his name with the title δεσπότης. According to

33

FUNDIĆ, Art and Political Ideology 220–221. FUNDIĆ, Artistic Patronage 151–162 (with further rich bibliography). 35 T. PAPAMASTORAKES, Άγιος Δημήτριος Κατσούρη: το εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα του τρούλλου, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta – Athens 1992, 419–454 (henceforth: PAPAMASTORAKES, Άγιος Δημήτριος Κατσούρη). 36 See K. KONSTANTINIDES, Η πνευματική ζωή στο κράτος της Ηπείρου (1204 – c. 1340), in: Ηπειρωτικά μελετήματα. Ζητήματα από την πνευματική ζωή στη Μεσαιωνική Ήπειρο, ed. K. Konstantinides. Ioannina 2018, 7–19 (with further extensive bibliography). 37 PAPAMASTORAKES, Άγιος Δημήτριος Κατσούρη 427–436; See also G. PRINZING, Das Kaisertum im Staat von Epeiros: Propagierung, Stabilisierung und Verfall, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta – Athens 1992, 17–30; ASONITES, Παρατηρήσεις 141–159; A. STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Ιστορία και πολιτική ιδεολογία του κράτους της Ηπείρου, in: Βυζάντιο 13 ος αιώνας. Από την κατάρρευση στην ανασυγκρότηση. Κράτος της Ηπείρου – Αυτοκρατορία της Θεσσαλονίκης, ed. A. Stavridou-Zafraka. Thessaloniki 2016, 14–26. 34

44

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

the studies of Zafraka38 and Asonites39, in the state of Epirus the title δεσπότης was bestowed by the emperor on only one ruler at a time, up to at least 1359. The basic policy pylons of Ioannes/Gkines Spata were: (i) the continuation, for the most part, of the pro-Western policies of Nikephoros I and (ii) the strategic objective of conquering Ioannina, Vonitsa and Lefkas, in order to consolidate his rule over all of Epirus. Ioannes/Gkines Spata was a scion of a family of Epirote Albanians and thus did not have the same legitimacy as the previous, Greek rulers of Epirus, who were connected by blood to the imperial house of Constantinople. A possible connection with the Greek rulers of Arta, primarily with Nikephoros I, would be the key to greater support among the population of Epirus while also justifying Ioannes Spata’s expansionist policies. He also pursued a similar policy of legitimization of his rule regarding the Westerners, by marrying members of his family with local Latin rulers40. The inscription under examination has thus not been written at random. It is directly connected with the idea of monocracy in the whole state of Epirus. As I mentioned previously, it is now widely accepted that the Greek rulers of Epirus utilized the various donor activities, such as the building and restoration of churches, as a propaganda tool for their policies. Nikephoros I in particular has been connected with the church of the Paregoretissa in Arta41 and the Monastery of Pantanassa in Philippiada42. It would thus be reasonable for Ioannes/ Gkines Spata to choose to carve his own inscription in the same crucial 38

A. STAVRIDOU-ZAFRAKA, Το αξίωμα του “Δεσπότη” και τα δεσποτικά έγγραφα της Ηπείρου, in: Βυζάντιο 13ος αιώνας. Από την κατάρρευση στην ανασυγκρότηση. Κράτος της Ηπείρου – Αυτοκρατορία της Θεσσαλονίκης, ed. A. Stavridou-Zafraka. Thessaloniki 2016, V (73–97) (= EADEM, Το αξίωμα του “Δεσπότη” και τα δεσποτικά έγγραφα της Ηπείρου, in: Μεσαιωνική Ήπειρος. Πρακτικά Επιστημονικού Συμποσίου, ed. K. N. Konstantinides. Ioannina 2001, 73–97). 39 ASONITES, Παρατηρήσεις 141–159. 40 See S. ASONITES, Το νότιο Ιόνιο κατά τον Όψιμο Μεσαίωνα. Κομητεία Κεφαλληνίας, Δουκάτο Λευκάδας, Αιτωλοακαρνανία. Athens 2005, 136–137 (henceforth: ASONITES, Το νότιο Ιόνιο). 41 PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 150; VEIKOU, Inscriptions 106–109; FUNDIĆ, Artistic Patronage 169. 42 FUNDIĆ, Artistic Patronage 168–169.

45

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

monument which preserved a depiction of Nikephoros I, in close proximity to said depiction. He did the same in the chapel of the Paregoretissa in Arta, which preserves an inscription of Nikephoros I. In carving the inscription in the katholikon of Pantanassa in the same space as the large composition which depicts Nikephoros I with his family, Spata correlated himself not only “spatially” but also in terms of political ideology with the corresponding depiction of the pair of previous donors. This inscription of Ioannes/Gkines Spata has heretofore been dated to the period when he was despot of Arta, i.e. between the years 1373/4 and 139943. In 1359, after the murder of the δεσπότης Nikephoros II Doukas, Symeon Ureš Palaiologos yielded control of the region of Acheloos and Angelokastron to Ioannes Spata and Arta to Petro Liosha. Liosha perished in 1373/4, a victim of the plague, and Ioannes assumed control over Arta until his own death, in 139944. Despite in all likelihood possessing the title of δεσπότης already from 1359 or shortly after, he undoubtedly carved his inscription after also assuming the lordship of Arta. Understandably, and primarily due to Petro Liosha’s rule over Arta, such an act would have been impossible before 1373/4. As I mentioned previously, Ioannes/Gkines Spata’s primary objective was the conquest of Ioannina and the total control of the state of Epirus. He plundered the region surrounding Ioannina on multiple occasions and repeatedly besieged the city itself, albeit unsuccessfully. The written sources mention that Gkines besieged Ioannina in 1374, 1378, 1379 (twice), 1385 and 138845. His objective was domination over the whole of Epirus, in order to become the one and only δεσπότης. This he never achieved. However, according to the written sources there was a period during which Ioannes/Gkines Spata felt he was powerful enough to approach this objective. The crucial point was his victory over the Order of the Knights of Saint John Hospitaller (ruled by Juan Fernández de Heredia) in the region 43

VEIKOU, Inscriptions 136–138 (with further bibliography). D. M. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros (1267–1479). A Contribution to the History of Greece in the Middle Ages. Cambridge 1984, 145–149 (henceforth: NICOL, Despotate); OSSWALD, Épire 189–192. 45 KORDOSES, Γιάννενα 47, n. 46. 44

46

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

of Arta in 1377/846. This victory further strengthened his position, and he immediately followed it up with a destructive raid against Lefkas, redoubled his efforts against Vonitsa47, which he unsuccessfully assaulted, and campaigned against Ioannina, once in 1378 and twice in 137948. Thus, according to the above analysis, in my view the inscription in Pantanassa must be dated to this period, when Ioannes/Gkines Spata was at his most confident and powerful, after his local victories. He could thus justify carving his inscription in the monument, whose donor was a prominent previous δεσπότης of Epirus, Nikephoros I Doukas, directly opposite to the latter’s donor portrait. This inscription must therefore be dated to between the years 1378 (Ioannes/Gkines Spata’s victory over Juan Fernández de Heredia) and his death in 1399. In fact, this dating brings us even closer to his portrait in the other prominent monument of Byzantine Epirus, the Paregoretissa in Arta, where his presence was correctly confirmed by Vitaliotes.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FROM THE POST-BYZANTINE PERIOD The third Spata inscription is from Hagios Athanasios at Basiliko, Pogoni49 (previously Tsaraplana) (Fig. 6). During my last visit to this monument, I was informed by the local residents that until recently the earthen embankments surrounding it had reached such a height that goats could graze on the roof!50 46

ASONITES, Το νότιο Ιόνιο 134–138; E. SYGKELLOU, Ο πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο κατά τον ύστερο Μεσαίωνα (13ος–15ος αι.) (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, Μονογραφίες 8). Athens 2008, 54–55, 204–205 (henceforth: SYGKELLOU, Πόλεμος). 47 SYGKELLOU, Πόλεμος 54–56, 153–154; see also EADEM, Εναλλακτικές μορφές πολιορκητικού πολέμου κατά τον όψιμο Μεσαίωνα: “η κλεψία.” Βυζαντιακά 30 (2012–2013) 345–363. 48 NICOL, Despotate 165–166. 49 K. E. OIKONOMOU, Ο άγιος Αθανάσιος στο Βασιλικό Πωγωνίου, in: Αρμός. Τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Ν. Κ. Μουτσόπουλο για τα 25 χρόνια πνευματικής του προσφοράς στο Πανεπιστήμιο. Thessaloniki 1991, II 1296–1349. 50 Ι would like to thank the archeologist Mag. Athina Zogaki (Ephorate of Antiquities of Ioannina), the conservator of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Ioannina Mary Moraiti and

47

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

The frescoes of this church, which remain unpublished, most likely date to the early 17th century51. The inscription in question is located in the main church, on an arched wall opening of the nave towards the prothesis, within a black frame shaped like an upturned trapezoid, and is developed in nine asymmetrical lines (Figs. 7–9): [+ Δέησις τοῦ δούλου] τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἀλεξί(ου) .....[άμ]α συ(μ)βύου κ(αὶ) τέκ[νων52... έδω]σε ἄσπραξ + δέησ[ις δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ]...ου.. τοῦ νικόλ[α] ..τ...[τέ]κνου53 κ(αὶ) ...τοῦ [Μι]χάλη54 κ(αὶ) Μιχάλη τοῦ Σπάτα ἅμα συ(μ)βύου κ(αὶ) τέκνοις ἀμὴν ἔδωσαν ἄσπρα...

1

5

The reading [τέ]κνου in the fifth line of the inscription is uncertain; the surviving κ could also be read as μ. In the latter case I would suggest a reading of the family name [Κο]μ(νη)νοῦ or [Κο]μ(νή)νου55. This inscription is the lecturer of the Department of Philology (University of Ioannina), Dr. Dimitrios Georgakopoulos, who accompanied and assisted me during my visit and field research at Hagios Athanasios in Basiliko (spring 2018). 51 I. CHOULIΑRAS, Η εντοίχια θρησκευτική ζωγραφική του 16ου και 17ου αιώνα στο Δυτικό Ζαγόρι. Athens 2009, 516 (henceforth: CHOULIΑRAS, Θρησκευτική ζωγραφική); Α. KARAMPERIDE, Η μονή Πατέρων και η ζωγραφική του 16ου και 17ου αιώνα στην περιοχή της Ζίτσας Ιωαννίνων. Ioannina 2009, 383 (henceforth: KARAMPERIDE, Mονή Πατέρων). 52 The transcription could also be τέκ[νου. 53 Due to the poor preservation of the text, I cannot exclude the reading […]ηνοῦ. In this case it could be the last section of a family name. 54 The name Michael is written in the version used in Modern Greek (Μιχάλης and not Μιχαήλ). 55 There is an inscription underneath the base of a silver cross in the Monastery of the Prophet Elijah in Giorgoutsates (Jorgucat), Dropoli, which mentions a Δημήτρης Κομνήνης (1682): M. SKAVARA, Το έργο των λινοτοπιτών ζωγράφων Μιχαήλ και Κωνσταντίνου στην επισκοπή Δρυϊνουπόλεως Βορείου Ηπείρου. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της μνημειακής ζωγραφικής του 17ου αιώνα. Ioannina 2011, 60 (henceforth: SKAVARA, Το έργο).

48

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

undoubtedly comprised of two sections. Both begin with the phrase δέησις δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ, and both mention donors. At least three or four individuals are likely mentioned in the first part: one donor (Alexios), together with his wife and their child or children. The second section references a Nikola(o)s together with other individuals, a Michales, Michales Spata with his wife and at least two children, i.e. seven individuals in total. This is evidently a case of a group donation of at least ten or eleven people. The inscription ends with references to the exact amounts they donated, most likely for the decoration of the church. This proves that (i) the referenced individuals were numerous and sufficiently affluent and (ii) they were undoubtedly Christians56. The only family name we can read with any degree of certainty in the inscription is that of the Spata. This is the only inscriptional evidence of their family in Ottoman Epirus. To begin with, it is worth noting that the member of the Spata family who is referenced here utilized the modern Greek version of his Christian name, Μιχάλης, instead of Μιχαήλ. The inscription informs us that Michales Spata (similarly to the other donor, Alexios) made the donation together with his wife and children. Among the roughly 450 Byzantine and post-Byzantine Christian monuments which preserve donor inscriptions (modern Epirus and Southern Albania) we gathered in a database within the framework of a European research project (Excellency II)57, examples which also reference wives and children next to the names of the donors are exceedingly rare. More specifically, only six monuments preserve donor inscriptions with direct references to the donor’s wife and children. They are, in chronological order: St. Georgios in Ano Lesinitsa (region of Hagioi Saranda, 1525)58, St. Nikolaos in Sarakinista/Liountze (Lunxhërisë), Argyrokastron (1625)59, the Monastery 56

Certain members of the Spata family documented in the Byzantine period were Muslims. The most prominent example is Γιακούμπης Σπάτα († 1414, PLP 26521). 57 See: http://epigrepirus.project.uoi.gr/index.php/en/links-en 58 Th. POPA, Mbishkrime të kishave në Shqipëri. Tirana 1998, 293, no. 803 (henceforth: POPA, Mbishkrime). 59 POPA, Mbishkrime 231, no. 551; SKAVARA, Το έργο 239 (fig. 204).

49

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

of St. Ioannes Prodromos in Moschopoli/Voskopojë (1659)60, St. Ioannes at Polylopho (1672)61 and St. Athanasios Gkoranxi in Dropoli (1732)62. Additionally, there is a similar reference in an inscription on the silver bookbinding of a Gospel in the Monastery of Tzora (1809)63. The case of St. Athanasios at Basiliko is that of an alpine community, the Greek and Albanian populations of which made a group donation. Both the Greek and Albanian donors are mentioned in the corresponding inscription, together with their wives and children. One of the donors is Michales Spata, and he references his immediate family. Even though we possess abundant knowledge regarding the structure and social functions

60

Th. TSAMPOURAS, Τα καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια από την περιοχή του Γράμμου κατά το 16 ο και 17ο αιώνα, Ζωγράφοι από το Λινοτόπι, τη Γράμμοστα, τη Ζέρμα και το Μπουρμπουτσικό (unpublished doctoral thesis). Thessaloniki 2013, 362 (henceforth: TSAMPOURAS, Τα καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια); S. MIHALCKA, Data on Church Art Works in our Country, in: 2000 Years Church Art and Culture in Albania. Papers of the International Symposium (Tirana, 16–18 November 2000). Tirana 2005, 269–273; K. GIAKOUMES, The Monasteries of Jorgucat and Vanishte in Dropull and of Spelaio in Lunxheri as Monuments and Institutions during the Ottoman Period in Albania (16 th–19th Centuries). Birmingham 2002, 250; POPA, Mbishkrime 158–159, no. 306; Μοναστήρια της Εγνατίας Οδού. Δρόμοι του Ορθόδοξου μοναχισμού, Πολιτιστικός-Τουριστικός οδηγός, 1: Ήπειρος – Δυτική Μακεδονία – Νότια Αλβανία (Hellenic Ministry of Culture). Athens 1999, 144; D. KAMAROULIAS, Τὰ Moναστήρια τῆς Ἠπείρου. Athens 1996, II 585; I. MARTIANOS, Συμβολαὶ είς την ἱστορίαν τῆς Μοσχοπόλεως. Α: Ἡ ἱερὰ μονή τοῦ Τιμίου Προδρόμου κατὰ τὸν αὐτῇ κώδικα 1630– 1875. Athens 1939, 38. 61 TSAMPOURAS, Τα καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια 270; P. VOKOTOPOULOS, Η θρησκευτική ζωγραφική στην Αλβανία από τον 10ο έως τον 19ο αιώνα, in: Εικόνες από τις ορθόδοξες κοινότητες της Αλβανίας, Συλλογή Εθνικού Μουσείου Τέχνης Κορυτσάς, ed. A. Tourta. Thessaloniki 2006, 18–25; A. KARAMPERIDE, Ζωγράφοι από το Γράμμο στην Ήπειρο του 17ου αιώνα. Στοιχεία από τις επιγραφές των έργων τους, in: Μίλτος Γαρίδης, Αφιέρωμα (1926–1996), ed. A. Paliouras – A. Stavropoulou. Ioannina 2003, I 302–303; M. MPETTES, Η Κοβίλιανη. Ἠπειρωτικὴ Ἑστία 1977 (26) 876–889; IDEM, Παλαιογραφικὰ περιοχῆς Γραμμενοχωρίων. Ἠπειρωτικὴ Ἑστία 1964 (13) 403–413; P. VOKOTOPOULOS, Βυζαντινά, μεσαιωνικὰ καὶ νεώτερα μνημεῖα Ἠπείρου. AD 31 (1976) 210–217. 62 POPA, Mbishkrime 239, no. 577. 63 N. PETTAS, Ο τοιχογραφικός διάκοσμος της Μονής Αγίου Νικολάου του Όρους (Τζιώρας) Ιωαννίνων (1663). Athens – Ioannina 2009, 27–37.

50

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

of the family in Byzantine Epirus64, our knowledge of the family in Ottoman Epirus is significantly lacking. However, we know that, starting in the 16th century, the Balkans and Asia Minor witnessed the development of long-distance trade and significant commercial activity at local merchant fairs. This led to the dissemination of currency among the rural populations65. A hand-written book dated to the mid-19th century relates the previous history of Tsaraplana (former name of Basiliko)66. This demotic text begins the historical narrative of the village in 1352, the year in which it was conquered by the Ottomans, and describes events up to the late 18 th century. After the Ottoman conquest, the region was administered up to 1700 by the lords of Premeti. In 1700 it came under the lordship of the Albanian Karamoutaraioi family67 and from then on, according to the text, the village was largely abandoned. The text also relates that the inhabitants of Tsaraplana requested to become a chiflik of the Bey of Delvinaki. References to the property of the inhabitants of the village describe only cattle and sheep 68. We must therefore conclude that this village was inhabited by stockbreeders. However, two centuries later, the Monastery of the Taxiarchs in Gkoura counted among its possessions expanses of farmland around Tsaraplana69. As I mentioned previously, contemporary scholarship has dated the fragmentary frescoes of the monument to the early 17th century. The inscription refers to ἄσπρα as the currency in which the donation was offered. 64

Α. KIOUSOPOULOU, Ο θεσμός της οικογένειας στην Ήπειρο κατά τον 13ο αιώνα. Athens 1990, 107–143. 65 S. FAROQHI, Sixteenth Century Periodic Markets in Various Anatolian Sancaks: İçel, Hami̇d, Karahi̇sar-i Sahi̇b, Kütahya, Aydin, and Menteşe. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 22 (1979) 30–82; S. FAROQHI – B. MCGOWAN – D. QUATAERT – Ş. PAMUK, Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία της Οθωμανικής αυτοκρατορίας, eds. H. İnalcik – D. Quataert. Athens 2011, II 93–97. 66 S. KONTONASIOS, Ἀπὸ τὴν παλαιότερη ἱστορία τοῦ Βασιλικοῦ (Τσαραπλανῶν). Ἠπειρωτικὴ Ἑστία 1 (1952) 800–803 (henceforth: KONTONASIOS, Ἱστορία τοῦ Βασιλικοῦ). 67 KONTONASIOS, Ἱστορία τοῦ Βασιλικοῦ 800; B. DEMOU, Ἡ ἱερὰ μονὴ τῶν Ταξιαρχῶν Γκούρας καὶ τὰ εἰς Βλαχίαν μετόχια αὐτῆς Βαλιᾶς και Σταυρουπόλεως. Athens 1983, 17, 87, 99 (henceforth: DEMOU, Ἱερὰ μονὴ τῶν Ταξιαρχῶν). 68 KONTONASIOS, Ἱστορία τοῦ Βασιλικοῦ 801. 69 DEMOU, Ἱερὰ μονὴ τῶν Ταξιαρχῶν 87, 99–100.

51

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

This was the Ottoman akçe, a silver coin which was replaced by the kuruş in the monetary reforms of 1687. There is only one other inscriptional reference to this type of currency in Epirus. In the katholikon of the Monastery of St. Athanasios and Kyrillos (Muzinë, Hagioi Saranda)70 there is an inscription at the end of which it is documented that the donor offered 2,000 ἄσπρα for the decoration of the church. This monument can be safely dated to 1623. An inscription from the same period in the church of the Virgin in the suburb of Hagioi Anargyroi in Kastoria (1634) refers to the (female) donor Komno (Κόμνω), who donated 1,000 ἄσπρα for the wall paintings71. Pamuk asserts that this currency was gradually replaced by foreign currencies and disappeared from circulation between the years 1585 and 1690. It continued to be used as a unit of account in later documents, however 72. Liata believes that the akçe continued to circulate throughout the Balkans for a brief period before disappearing completely by 1700 and in the 18th century akçe was used only as an accounting unit73. Therefore, the period between the monetary reforms of 1687 and at the latest 1700, by which the ἄσπρα had completely ceased to circulate in the markets, must be considered the terminus ante quem for the dating of the frescoes and the presence of the Spata family in St. Athanasios. On Corfu, the family name Spada74 (or Σπάτα75 or Σπάθα), in addition to Spatafora, has been documented from the late 15th century. 70

POPA, Mbishkrime 295–296, 808. See also CHOULIARAS, Θρησκευτική ζωγραφική 512; KARAMPERIDE, Mονή Πατέρων 389. 71 M. PAISIDOU, Οι τοιχογραφίες του 17ου αιώνα στους ναούς της Καστοριάς. Athens 2002, 45–47; EADEM, Όψεις της κοινωνίας της Καστοριάς του 17 ου αιώνα. Πληροφορίες από τις επιγραφές ναών. DChAE 41 (2020) (in print). I would like to thank my colleague Mrs. Prof. Dr. Melina Paisidou for the information. 72 S. PAMUK, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge 2000, 142–148, especially 147. 73 E. LIATA, Φλωρία δεκατέσσερα στένουν γρόσια σαράντα. Η κυκλοφορία των νομισμάτων στον ελληνικό χώρο, 15ος–19ος αι. Athens 1996, 83–84, 99–100. 74 K. KARANATSES – F. BAROUTSOS, Η Κέρκυρα από τον βενετικό κόσμο στο εθνικό κράτος (19ος αιώνας). Το αποτύπωμα της οικογένειας Σπάδα. Athens 2018 (henceforth: KARANATSES – BAROUTSOS, Σπάδα).

52

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

CONCLUSION In conclusion, I discovered that the Byzantine sources offer a wealth of information on the Spata family, their activities and relations with both the Epirotes and the Latins. Based on these, we are able to form an image of the professions, occupations, customs and way of life of the Albanians. However, despite our knowledge on the continued existence of Albanians in Epirus, admittedly drawn from various accounts of dubious historical accuracy which date to after the Ottoman conquest of the region, the Spata family name is conspicuously absent from the sources. According to the inscriptional evidence, the Spatas of the late Byzantine period appear to have adopted the policies of the Greek rulers of Epirus, and their ultimate objective was the total domination of the State of Epirus in addition to their legitimization as rulers of the despotate through their correlation with its first rulers. The 17th-century inscriptional testimony of the Spata, described together with other local inhabitants in a mountainous region of Epirus, suggests that they lost their prominent societal position, while branches of the family endured and dispersed throughout the region. They remained Christians and in the tradition of their lordly ancestors continued to provide donations to churches, albeit at a lesser scale. In fact, it appears that they were successful in their social and economic environment, and were able to actively and effectively participate in the local economy.



75

KARANATSES – BAROUTSOS, Σπάδα 86: A certain Filippo Spata was a member of the consilio civitatis of Corfu in 1477.

53

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: The portrait of Pavlos and Ioannes Spata in the chapel of Paregoretissa at Arta (Photographic Archive of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Arta) 54

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

FIGURE 2: Detail of the inscription of Pavlos Spata

FIGURE 3: Detail of the inscription of Ioannes/Gkines Spata 55

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

FIGURE 4: The inscription of Ioannes/Gkines Spata in the Monastery of Pantanassa at Philippiada

FIGURE 5: The donor portrait and the metrical inscription in the katholikon of the Monastery of Pantanassa at Philippiada (Photographic Archive of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Arta) 56

THE ALBANIAN FAMILY OF SPATA IN LATE BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE EPIRUS

FIGURE 6: St. Athanasios at Basiliko from the East

FIGURE 7: The inscription of St. Athanasios at Basiliko of Pogoni (Epirus) 57

CHRISTOS STAVRAKOS

FIGURE 8: Detail of the inscription of St. Athanasios at Basiliko of Pogoni (Epirus)

FIGURE 9: Detail of the inscription of St. Athanasios at Basiliko of Pogoni (Epirus) 58

KATERINA CHAMILAKI THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS, AETOLOAKARNANIA. THE 2012–2014 PERIOD OVERVIEW AND INTERPRETATIO N

A

major excavation project was undertaken by the 22nd Byzantine Ephorate of Antiquities in Aetoloakarnania and Lefkas in 2012, at the modern village Drymos, in north Akarnania, on the south coast of the Ambracian Gulf. The excavation revealed an important Late Antique site that flourished on the possible site of an ancient port. The research was conducted in two sectors, the North and the South, each spreading on either side of the national road connecting modern Amfilochia to Vonitsa1. The excavation on the South Sector2 revealed a three-aisled early Christian basilica with narthex, a baptistery, and other related constructions

1

The rescue excavations began at the end of 2012 by the 22nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities (Aetoloakarnania and Lefkas), during the construction of the Ambracian Motorway connecting Aktion with the Ionian Motorway, and were completed in April 2016 by the Ephorate of Antiquities of Aetoloakarnania and Lefkas. 2 Conducted until 2014 by Ioannis Chouliaras, director of the 22nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities. Based on inscriptions and archeological data Chouliaras identified the basilica as a bishopric church. I. P. CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου σε ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής στον Δρυμό Βόνιτσας, in: Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο της Εφορείας Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία και την Λευκάδα, Πρακτικά Hμερίδας, Ναύπακτος 2 Νοεμβρίου 2013, ed. I. P. Chouliaras. Nafpaktos 2014, 197–212; IDEM, Ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής στον Δρυμό Βόνιτσας. Οι μαρτυρίες των χορηγικών επιγραφών, in: Ζείδωρος Υετός, Τιμητικός τόμος στον Καθηγητή Δημήτριο Τριανταφυλλόπουλο επί τη εβδομηκονταπενταετηρίδι του, ed. Ch. Chotzakoglou. Kypriakai Spoudai 78–79 (2016–2017) 983–1004.

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 59–75  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121917

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

around it. The excavation of the North Sector3 revealed a large building complex arranged in wings around an open space-courtyard. This paper will present an overall report on the first two years of excavation, from November 2012 to October 2014, when the investigation was run by the 22nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities4. This two-year excavation season revealed the upper layers of two wings of the building complex as well as additional structures around it, associated to manufacturing activities.

THE SITE The site at Drymos was known during the last decades as a Late Antique center of the Ambracian Gulf5. The only previous excavations at the site had been carried out by Eythymios Mastrokostas in the late 1960s6, when in a relatively short time, he revealed parts of two basilicas and an unidentified building at the village of Drymos, and one cemetery basilica at the site of Palaioklessi, 3

Supervised from 2012 until 2016 by the directors of the Ephorates I. Chouliaras and O. Vikatou, and Ekaterini Chamilaki as archeologist in charge. Preliminary reports of the 2013 excavation in: I. P. CHOULIARAS – K. CHAMILAKI – K. KATSIKA – G. GEORGIOU, Οι σωστικές ανασκαφές της 22ης ΕΒΑ το 2013 στο πλαίσιο των Μεγάλων Δημόσιων Έργων, in: Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο της Εφορείας Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία και την Λευκάδα, Πρακτικά ημερίδας, Ναύπακτος 2 Νοεμβρίου 2013, ed. I. P. Chouliaras. Nafpaktos 2014, 190–194; K. CHAMILΑKI – I. P. CHOULIARAS, Rescue Excavations at the Ionian Motorway in Aetoloacarnania: Revealing New Aspects of the Byzantine Past of a Region, in: 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thematic Session of Free Communication: Epirus Revisited – New Perceptions of Its History and Material Culture – Part 1, Belgrade 22–27 August 2016, announcement. 4 For their contribution to this paper I would like to thank the archeologist Konstantina Karaindrou for the pottery drawings, the engineer Konstantina Patoulia and designer Dora Baile for the ground plan of the complex, Aphrodite Tiligadas and Maria Paxinou for the conservation of the finds and the archeologists of the project Panagiotes Delavinias, Ioanna Goublia, Athena Konstantake, Emmanouel Kalkanes for their cooperation in the excavation and the recording of the finds. 5 P. SOUSTAL – J. KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallēnia (TΙB 3). Wien 1981, 148; M. VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus: A Topography of Transformation (The Medieval Mediterranean 95). Leiden – Boston 2012, 420–421. 6 E. MASTROKOSTAS, Παλαιοχριστιανικαί βασιλικαί Δρυμού Βονίτσης. AAA 4 (1971) 185–193.

60

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

1.5 km to the southwest of the village, towards ancient Thyrreion. Remains of the cemetery basilica at “Palaioklissi” are still visible, while the first basilica in the Drymos settlement was destroyed during the construction of the modern village church and the paved courtyard surrounding it. The exact location of the second basilica excavated by Mastrokostas in the village today is uncertain and does not identify with the new basilica discovered during this project. From the archeological evidence Drymos appears to have been a substantial settlement in Late Antiquity with at least three early basilicas, surrounded by buildings and residences. The 2012–2014 excavations have revealed part of the settlement’s administrative and religious center. The Drymos site lies on the coastal plain underneath the north slopes of the Akarnanian Mountains. It is located approximately 1,300 meters to the south of the present coast. Near the site is the natural bay of Palaiomylos, and at the east side the small river Xeropotamos. Located near the sea and on an important Roman road, the site proved to be an important religious settlement with close connection to the capital of Epirus Vetus, Nicopolis. Drymos was located on the Roman route connecting Nicopolis with north-east Akarnania, Aetolia, Patras and the West Peloponnese7. This is testified by a miliarium dating in 235–238 A.D., found in the area “Kelefi” at the east entrance of the village8. Drymos laid at a close distance, circa 4 km, from Thyrreion, an important Classical and Hellenistic city that was abandoned after the foundation of Nicopolis in the 1st century A.D. The site, together with the ancient site of “Ruga,” could have functioned as Thyrreion’s port. After the foundation of Nicopolis, Drymos and the whole area of the Ambracian Gulf became part of its territory9.

7

M. PETROPOULOS, Νικόπολις – Πάτρα μέσω Αιτωλοακαρνανίας, in: Νικόπολις Β΄. Πρακτικά 2ου Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη, 11-15 Σεπτεμβρίου 2002, ed. K. L. Zachos. Preveza 2007, I 175–211, II 97–115. 8 K. AXIOTE, Ρωμαϊκοί δρόμοι της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας. AD 35 (1980) 186–205; PETROPOULOS, Νικόπολις-Πάτρα 199, 202. 9 W. BOWDEN, Epirus Vetus. The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province. London 2003, 73–74; CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 211.

61

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

THE BUILDING COMPLEX OF THE NORTH SECTOR The two year research in the North Sector at Drymos was carried out in an area of 3,621 sq.m. A cannabus was designed where the surface evidence of walls and destruction layers was most evident. The excavation revealed parts – 1,335 sq.m. – of an extended building complex from now on referred to as the “North Building Complex.” The complex is situated about 140 meters to the north of the Early Christian basilica, excavated during this project, closer to the sea, in an area known by the local name “Kelefi,” today covered with cultivated fields and a few houses. The part of the building excavated during 2012–2014 consists of an east-west oriented wing (Wing 1) joining at the east end, almost at right angle with a northsouth oriented wing (Wing 2) around an open space (Fig. 1). Wing 1 was partly excavated during the 2012–2014 season (it has a length of 24 meters and a width of 17.34 meters), revealing the upper layers of two major rooms. The wing’s outer walls are made of masonry consisting on the outer side of roughly worked limestone half covered with mortar with the occasional use of bricks, and are filled with rubble stones and mortar. The inner walls are made of bricks and mortar. The eastern area (Room 1) is rectangular divided into two main areas (east and west) by wall 38. The entrance to the room was made by two openings on the same axis, on the north and south wall. The north entrance connected the room with the other areas of the building complex. The room must have provided heating facilities with the help of an hypocaust system, as is testified by the arches of at least one praefurnium in Wall 1. Another feature suggesting the existence of bathing facilities, at least at the eastern part of Room 1, is the presence of clay water pipes leading to the room from a south-east direction. The end of the pipe is built into the wall at the south-east corner of the room. A small rectangular construction lined with stone slabs, directly above the praefurnium, is built as a niche within the south wall of Room 1, possibly for the heating of water for the baths. The northern entrance of Room 1 leads to an elongated area, possibly a stoa, connecting Wing 1 to the stoas of Wing 2. The excavated part of Wing 2 has a length of 44.7 meters and a width of 17.4 to 22.7 meters and has a more complex plan. On the west front the 62

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

entire wing is run by a façade with at least 12 piers. Some of them have been built into walls during a later construction phase. The pier façade leads to a broad and long stoa (5.4 meters wide to 26.1 meters long) that seems to run through the entire west side of the wing facilitating access from and towards the open-space courtyard to the west. Vertical Wall 20 seems to have been constructed at the north part of the stoa during a reconstruction at a later phase. A long corridor runs on the east side of Wing 2, featuring at least two entrances for those coming from the east. The east corridor leads to Room 5 and to the North Bath Complex and related rooms. Wing 2 is divided into two main parts: The southern part consists of three rectangular rooms all of similar dimensions (4.1 to 4.25 meters wide, 6.85 meters long), with their entrance opening to the west stoa, surrounded also by two corridors on the south and east side. Beyond the three rooms (3, 4A and 4B), the western stoa and the east corridor lead to the second part of the Wing where excavations of the 2012–2014 season fully revealed a bath of the Early Christian period10. Access to the bath from Wing 2 was made through a corridor passing along three parallel long rooms featuring thin brick walls with niches and traces of mural paintings. The upper layers of the walls, to the north and west of the bath, point out that Wing 2 continues further to the north and west. The North Bath Complex (Fig. 2) has the characteristic features of the Early Christian period11. The entrance into Room 9, lined with green-grey schist stone slabs, was made through a doorway with a threshold. The room has a bench lined with white limestone on the north wall, and a semicircular cold pool dressed with colored marble. The pool had a narrow step and would be filled with water through a pipe built into the center of the arched wall. Water would drain through a small hole at the bottom of the apsidal pool. Room 9, functioning as a frigidarium, led to the warm rooms heated with the hypocaust system. First is Room 8 with a semicircular pool, heated 10

For a more detailed description of the bath complex see: A. CHAMILAKI – P. DELAVINIAS – I. GOUBLIA, Λουτρικές εγκαταστάσεις σε κοσμικό συγκρότημα της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας στον Δρυμό Βόνιτσας, in: Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Βορειοδυτική Ελλάδα και τα Νησιά του Ιονίου, Ιωάννινα 10–13 Δεκεμβρίου 2014. Athens 2018, 649–660. 11 M. NIELSEN, Thermae et Balnea. Copenhagen 1993, 98–100, 114–118.

63

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

by a praefurnium. The possible tepidarium communicated through an opening with Room 7 including a semicircular pool to the south and another pool to the east. The eastern pool (referred to as Room 6), would have been square with two semicircular niches on the north and east side. The heating of the caldarium was reinforced by at least two praefurnia, located under the floor of each heated pool. The heavy floor of Rooms 8 and 7–6, constructed with successive layers of stucco and tiles, was supported by clay pipes with openings and less frequently by circular and square tile pillars (Fig. 3). Parts of the floor have been preserved in Room 7. Additional openings into the wall connecting Rooms 8 and 7, an arched opening at the center of the wall and two rectangular openings on either side allowed the circulation of hot air in the supensura area. Rectangular tiles found in situ on the openings helped to regulate the airflow through. A rectangular cistern heated by a praefurnium under its floor is attached to the two pools of Room 7. All features of the wall’s heating system survive. Walls were dressed with tegulae mammatae tiles and fixed with terracotta spacers12. Many fragments of tiles with tegulae mammatae and fragments of spacers, with traces of iron clamps in their hollow tube have been discovered in the tepidarium (Room 8) and caldarium (Room 6–7) (Fig. 4). The excessive use of spacers to create a cavity in the bath’s walls is more typical of baths dating in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods13. The baths belong to the angular row type and have many parallels to Late Roman baths in the area of Epirus14 and Mainland Greece15. The narrow (2.17 to 3.1 meters wide) rectangular rooms, southeast of the baths, although partly excavated, feature an upper part of walls made of brick with 12

O. KOÇYIĞIT, The Role of Terracotta Spacers in the Heating System of the Amorium Bathhouse, in: Byzas 7, Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts, ed. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan – A. O. Uysal – J. Witte-Orr. Istanbul 2007, 309–318. 13 KOÇYIGIT, Terracotta spacers 313. 14 Th. KYRKOU, Η Έπαυλη του Μάνιου Αντωνίνου: Μια Πολυτελής Ιδιωτική Κατοικία στη Ρωμαϊκή Νικόπολη. Athens 2006. The baths are similar to the North Bath Complex, and may belong to a later addition into the mansion. 15 G. SOTERIOU, Ανασκαφή Νέας Αγχιάλου. Prakt (1955) 134–135.

64

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

rectangular niches, three in each room, covered with stucco and decorated with mural paintings. The niches could be used as shelves by visitors to store their personal items during bathing16. The presence of niches in the walls, the proximity to the baths and their small size indicate their possible function as changing rooms or cloakrooms. South of the baths, attached to Room 5, is Room 10, featuring a semicircular wall with no entrance. The relative small yet substantial size of the baths, their relation to a series of rooms, such as apodyteria, and their connection to the stoas, and their location within the complex, indicate their public function. The building appears to have an elaborate sewage and watering system serving mainly its two baths. Connected to the building is a drain, joining Room 1 from southeast. It is a trench built with walls on the sides and covered with irregular slabs. Next to the drain runs a clay pipe providing water to Room 1, where a bath also existed. A series of pipes has also been traced outside the east side of the building probably bringing water to the northeastern baths. The building complex of the North Sector is a strong construction with carefully-made masonry, making use of limestone and marble architectural members. Its construction is distinguished from Late Antique farmhouses excavated in Aetoloakarnania17. At least three types of masonry have been identified from the 2012–2014 excavation season, used for the construction of walls during different construction phases of the building. The outer walls of Wing 1, the walls of Rooms 3, 4A, 4B and 5 and the eastern wall of the east corridor in Wing 2 have strong walls with faces of roughly worked limestone stones of various sizes and mortar and little use of bricks. The walls were filled with mortar and rubble stones. The inner walls of Wing 1, the pillars of the western stoa, the upper part of the walls in the changing rooms, the inner walls and the apses of the baths in Wing 2 are made of bricks with mortar. Walls that seem to belong to a later construction phase 16 17

NIELSEN, Thermae, 153. M. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI – F. SARANTI, Εγκαταστάσεις στην Ύπαιθρο της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας κατά τη Ρωμαϊκή Περίοδο, in: Villae Rusticae, Family and Market-Oriented Farms in Greece under Roman Rule, ed. A. D. Rizakis – I. P. Touratsoglou. Athens 2013, 656–681.

65

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

are constructed in an opus mixtum technic, rows of bricks alternating with broad zones of rubble stone with mortar. A white limestone threshold has been used in Room 5. Room 5 must have been connected to the entrance to the baths. Outside Room 5 a large mullion broken in two pieces and an undecorated impost for a capital has been discovered (Fig. 5). West of Room 9, in a dense destruction layer of an area lined by Wall 82, an impost with relief decoration on its two short sides has been discovered. The impost is decorated with reed leaves and stems projecting between them (Fig. 6). The two motifs differ since one side is more carefully executed with a rib around the edge of the leaves, while on the other side the leaves are plain. The motif is common in 5th-century imposts18. Another undecorated impost has been found at the north entrance of Room 2, in Wing 1, leading to the north corridor.

THE FINDS Pottery discovered in stratified layers can specify the chronology of this Late Antique building complex. The study of the pottery is in progress and will be presented by the end of the excavation, by the author. A first evaluation of the pottery sherds gives a frame for the main and later phases of the building, between the 5th and the beginning/first half of the 7th century A.D. The pottery found in the first four layers excavated from the above mentioned Wings of the complex consists mainly of storage vessels and secondarily of kitchen ware. Transport amphorae include various types of Late Roman Amphora 1 and Late Roman Amphora 2. At the southeast corner of Room 1, a large group of sherds from the Gaza Amphora Type LR4, used for the transportation of the Gaza wine, has been discovered (Fig. 7). The variation of LR4 dates from the end 5th to 6th century A.D. The kitchen ware is mostly made of red-brown coarse and hard fabric with many limestone inclusions. 18

V. VEMI, Les Chapiteaux Ioniques à imposte de Grèce à l’époque Paléochrétienne. BCH Supplement XVII (1989) 37–38, pl. 1.1, 2.

66

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

Small finds are few yet important for the understanding of the function of the building. From the area of the west stoa comes a bronze incense burner (Fig. 8). This bronze censer is very similar to bronze censers manufactured in Sardis19 dating in the 6th–7th centuries, while an example has also been found in Kos20. The incense burner is hexagonal, has three feet curved outwards, a band of three moldings below the rim and three moldings above the base, three loops for chains, and a small part of one of them surviving. Glass finds consist mainly of goblets, glass lamps and lamps for polycandela. Coins found in the North Building Complex are mostly unidentified small bronze denominations (nummi minimi) of bronze coins, except from a few bronze folles. A few identifiable coins date from the 4th to the 5th century (Konstantine I, Theodosius II), while a small number of coins date from the Roman Republican Period, coming from the earlier occupation layers of the site.

SURROUNDING CONSTRUCTIONS South to the North Building Complex, the excavation revealed the remains of a possible farmhouse and also an area of manufacturing activity with a kiln (Fig. 9). The construction of the main building is much more humble. Walls survive into small height of up to 1 meter, and are constructed with rubble stones and mortar, without bricks, while in some parts walls are constructed with rubble stones and mud. There are no paved floors, except from occasional traces of pebbles and mortar. The house has a southeast to northwest orientation and is 19.5 meters long and 13.8 meters wide. The walls do not survive to their full length, however, it is clear that the building had four rooms (11, 12, 13, 22) and a related half preserved room to the southwest. The entrance was made through Room 11, from the southeast 19 20

J. C. WALDBAUM, Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds through 1974. Harvard 1983, 99. E. MILITSI, Small Finds from the Early Christian Settlement of Kefalos in Cos, Dodecanese, in: Byzas 15, Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, ed. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan – A. Ricci. Istanbul 2012, 272, fig. 14.

67

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

narrow side. Room 12 lies north of Room 11, with a parallel direction to the first one, and communicates with Room 13, which is rectangular and has a north-south orientation. Room 22 is parallel to Room 12 to the north, has the same length but is less wide (11 to 3.2 meters). The building, which can be identified as a residence with manufacturing activities, can be dated in the second half of the 6th–7th century by a series of finds. Pottery consists of amphorae and other storage vessels, cooking ware, a few plates and two imitations of North African lamps (Fig. 10). There are also some sherds of handmade vessels that can be dated in the 7th–8th centuries (Fig. 11). Small finds such as a stone mortar, metal tools, steelyard, a bronze lamp, a bronze lock plate with punched circle designs, possibly from a box, indicate that some manufacturing activity took place there and also that some imported luxury items found their way in this household. East of the farmhouse the area is enclosed by an irregular wall built entirely of rubble stones, with some clay pipes incorporated into it. The use of this wall is uncertain. East of the farmhouse, a small kiln has also been discovered. On the south margin of the North Sector remains of two rooms have been traced, which have not been further investigated due to presence of the national road crossing above them. The farmhouse and related structures appear to have functioned during the last phases of the north building complex (6th–7th centuries) and may have even continued to be used after the complex had been abandoned.

POSSIBLE FUNCTION OF THE NORTH BUILDING COMPLEX The complex was clearly in use for a long period of time, as proved by coinage and by the different construction phases and masonry used in parts of the building. Although partly discovered, during the 2012–2014 season, yet to an extent that makes the large scale of the construction evident, the complex exhibits some interesting features that could lead to the interpretation of its function. The first part of Wing 2 features three parallel rooms, of exactly the same dimensions, with a large stoa in front of them leading to an open-space courtyard. The rest of the areas identified are the Early 68

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

Christian bath with apodyteria and the baths of Wing 1. Both wings are approximately 17.4 meters wide. All areas are easily accessible from the courtyard and from the outside. The plan of the building suggests that it was most probably used not as a luxurious residence, a villa, but as a building associated with commerce and the accommodation of visitors. The large stoas and corridors around a courtyard and the presence of baths are similar to Late Antique guest houses and post stations21. The marble and limestone architectural members dating in the 5th century A.D. point out that the complex had been an important building. It could be identified with a Mansio, an official post station on the road leading to Nicopolis. The distance between the site and Nicopolis is approximately 40 km, a reasonable distance for a one day trip with a carriage. The building was in full use during the 5th–6th century A.D., at the time when Drymos became an important religious center, when it developed its most elaborate form, with traces of use leading into the 7th century. The baths of the complex, especially the North Bath Complex, could also serve the visitors of the churches in Drymos, since baths are frequently placed in a close connection to them. The area around the complex continued to be used at the same period or after the complex had been abandoned, as traces of farmhouses, the pottery kiln and other constructions related to farming and manufacture indicate. The rescue excavations at Drymos clearly offer a unique opportunity for a detailed study of an important Late Antique settlement of Epirus Vetus, proving the prosperity of the area and its connection to the important centers of the empire. 

21

P. ADAM-VELENE, Ασπροβάλτα. Συγκρότημα αυτοκρατορικών χρόνων. Αγροικία, σταθμός, πανδοχείο, in: Αρχαίες αγροικίες σε σύγχρονους δρόμους, ed. P. Adam-Velene – E. Poulake – K. Tzanavare. Athens 2003, 109–114; R. CHEVALLIER, Les Voies Romaines. Paris 1997, 281–291; S. SDROLIA, Ανασκαφή βυζαντινού ναού με νεκροταφείο στα Τέμπη, 4o ΑΕΘΣΕ Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3.–18.3.2012, Τόμος Ι: Θεσσαλία. Volos 2015, 419–424; X. BAKIRTZES, Σύναξη Μαρώνειας: ο ξενώνας των προσκυνητών. Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Μακεδονίας Θράκης 10B (1996) 873–879.

69

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: The North Sector Ground Plan 2014 70

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

6 7

9

8

FIGURE 2: The North Bath Complex. Aerial Photo by Kostas Xenikakis

FIGURE 3: Surviving floor and hypocaust system in Room 7, North Bath Complex 71

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

FIGURE 4: Terracota spacers with traces of iron clamps, Room 7–6

FIGURE 5: The mullion found in situ, at the entrance of Room 5 72

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

FIGURE 6: Marble impost with a reed leaves decoration. Area of the North Bath Complex, 5 th century

FIGURE 7: Necks of Late Roman 4 type amphorae from Gaza, found in Room 1 (drawing K. Karaindrou) 73

KATERINA CHAMILAKI

FIGURE 8: Bronze incense burner, found in the Western Stoa. 6 th century

22 13 12 11

FIGURE 9: The farmhouse and manufacturing activity area 74

THE EXCAVATION OF A LATE ANTIQUE BUILDING COMPLEX AT DRYMOS

FIGURE 10: Imitation of a North African lamp. Farmhouse

FIGURE 11: Part of a handmade small vessel. 7th–8th century (drawing K. Karaindrou) 75

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS OF VONITSA (AKARNANIA) THE HALLS “A” AND “D” 

I

n the village of Drymos, on the south coast of the Ambracian Gulf, at the Kelefi site, the excavations that have been taking place since December 2012 as part of the construction of the connective axis of the Ionian Motorway with Aktion, revealed the remains of an important Early Christian site in north Akarnania (Fig. 1)1. The site proved to be an important 

1

I wish to express my thanks to George Fousteris and Maria Pantou for their valuable contribution to the elaboration of the plans and photographs of this study. For the excavations at Drymos see Ε. Ι. MASTROKOSTAS, Παλαιοχριστιανικαί βασιλικαί Δρυμού Βονίτσης, AAA 4 (1971) 185–193; I. P. CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου σε ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής στον Δρυμό Βόνιτσας, in: Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο της Εφορείας Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία και την Λευκάδα, Πρακτικά ημερίδας, ed. I. P. Chouliarás, Ναύπακτος 2 Νοεμβρίου 2013. Nafpaktos 2014, 197–212; I. CHOULIARAS – Κ. CHAMILAKI – K. KATSIKA – G. GEORGIOU, Οι σωστικές ανασκαφές της 22ης ΕΒΑ το 2013 στο πλαίσιο των Μεγάλων Δημόσιων Έργων, in: Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο της Εφορείας Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία και την Λευκάδα, Πρακτικά ημερίδας, ed. I. P. Chouliarás, Ναύπακτος 2 Νοεμβρίου 2013. Nafpaktos 2014, 190–194, figs. 14, 15, sh. 3; K. CHAMILAKI – I. P. CHOULIARAS, Rescue Excavations at the Ionian Motorway in Aetoloacarnania: Revealing New Aspects of the Byzantine Past of a Region, in: 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Thematic Session of Free Communication: Epirus Revisited – New Perceptions of Its History and Material Culture – Part 1, Belgrade 22–27 August 2016, 3; I. P. CHOULIARAS, Ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής στον Δρυμό Βόνιτσας. Οι μαρτυρίες των χορηγικών επιγραφών, in: Ζείδωρος Υετός. Τιμητικός τόμος στον Καθηγητή Δημήτριο Τριανταφυλλόπουλο επί τη εβδομηκονταπενταετηρίδι του, ed. Ch. Chotzakoglou. Kypriakai Spoudai 78–79 (2016–2017) 983– 1004.

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 77–91  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121918

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

seaside settlement with close connection to the capital of Epirus Vetus, Nicopolis2. Many historians are in accordance that Drymos was a bishopric during the Late Antiquity, possibly of Christian Thyrreion3, and an important centre of the roman road that linked Nicopolis with Nafpaktos4. We simply mention that the ancient Thyrreion is located in a straight line of about 3 km from Drymos that must have been near the coast during ancient 2

Ch. PIETRI, La géographie de l’Illyricum ecclésiastique et ses relations avec l’Église de Rome (Ve–VΙe siècles), in: Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Actes du colloque organize par l’Ecole française de Rome. Rome 1984, 21–62; W. BOWDEN, Epirus Vetus: The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province. London 2003; D. P. DRAKOULIS, Η περιφερειακή οργάνωση των οικισμών της Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας κατά την πρώιμη βυζαντινή περίοδο, vol. Α΄ (Θρακική – Ιλλυρικόν – Ασιανή). Thessalonike 2009, 146–151; M. VEIKOU, Byzantine Histories, Settlement Stories: Kastra, “Isles of Refuge”, and “Unspecified Settlements” as In-between or Third Spaces. Preliminary Remarks on Aspects of Byzantine Settlement in Greece (6 th–10th c.), in: Οι βυζαντινές πόλεις 8ος– 15ος αιώνας. Προοπτικές της έρευνας και νέες ερμηνευτικές προσεγγίσεις, ed. Τ. Kioussopoulou. Rethymno 2012, 188–189; EADEM, Byzantine Epirus. A Topography of Transformation. Settlements of the Seventh-Twelfth Centuries in Southern Epirus and Aetoloacarnania, Greece. Leiden – Boston 2012, 291–292, 333, 420–421. See also W. M. MURRAY, Map 54 Epirus – Acarnania, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, vol. II, part 4. Princeton University Press, New Jersey 2000, 803–805, for a detailed map. 3 Κ. AXIOTE, Ρωμαϊκοί δρόμοι της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας. AD 35 (1980), Α΄, 196; P. SOUSTAL – J. KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallēnia (TΙB 3). Vienna 1981, 148; E. KIRSTEN, The Origins of the First Inhabitants of Nikopolis, in: Νικόπολις Α΄, Πρακτικά του Πρώτου Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη (23–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 1984), ed. Ε. Chryssos. Preveza 1987, 96–97 (15); P. L. VOCOTOPOULOS, Η εκκλησιαστική αρχιτεκτονική εις την Δυτικήν Στερεάν Ελλάδα και την Ήπειρον από του τέλους του 7 ου μέχρι του τέλους του 10ου αιώνος (Βυζαντινά Μνημεία 2). Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Thessalonike 21992, 8 (4); D. K. SAMSARIS, Η Άκτια Νικόπολη και η “χώρα” της (Νότια Ήπειρος – Ακαρνανία). Ιστορικογεωγραφική και επιγραφική συμβολή. Thessalonike 1994, 131–133; D. P. DRAKOULIS, Το δίκτυο των οικισμών της επαρχίας Παλαιάς Ηπείρου στην πρώιμη βυζαντινή περίοδο. Byzantina 29 (2009) 223; CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 210–211. See also MASTROKOSTAS, Παλαιοχριστιανικαί βασιλικαί Δρυμού 190–191, who refers to the name “κώμη Φεινάκων”. 4 Roman coins were found in the wider area of Drymos (in the site of Gorgovli), see M. THOMPSON – O. MORKHOLM – C. M. KRAAY, An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York 1973, 48, no. 312. It is also known that a Roman miliarion was found in Drymos, see AXIOTE, Ρωμαϊκοί δρόμοι 188–189, sh. 1; SAMSARIS, Η Άκτια Νικόπολη 132, no. 171.

78

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

times, which means that the people of ancient Thyrreion had no reason to search for another distant place for their harbour5. The rich finds of the excavation confirm all historical testimonies. The rescue excavations were carried out in two sections on both sides of the National Road connecting Amfilochia to Vonitsa. On the south section we revealed the remains of a three-aisled basilica with narthex and baptistery dating to the Early Christian period (Fig. 2)6. The narthex is attached on the west side of the basilica and it connects to the nave with a tribelon. A baptistery is attached on the south side of the basilica; it consists of three halls, the main baptistery (photesterion) to the east, a vestibule which communicates with the southern aisle of the basilica (hall C), probably the chrismarion7 and the hall “D” which lies before the vestibule of the baptistery8. This hall communicates both with the chrismarion of the baptistery and with the narthex through gates, but also with another hall in the south (Z). An unspecified number of annexes expand around the basilica. Among these a portico supported on a row of piers is visible to the west. At a later building phase this had been blocked, but it may have constituted the south peristyle of an atrium9 which lied to the west of the basilica as in several Early Christian basilicas10 and especially in basilicas A, B and D of

5

About the placement of the port of Thyrreion at Drymos, see AXIOTE, Ρωμαϊκοί δρόμοι 196; KIRSTEN, The Origins 96–97; W. K. PRITCHETT, Essays in Greek History. Amsterdam 1994, 195–196; SAMSARIS, Η Άκτια Νικόπολη 131–133; CHOULIARAS, Ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής. According the written sources the largest city of ancient Akarnania had two ports and neither of them is yet fully identified. See W. K. PRITCHETT, Studies in ancient Greek topography, vol. 8. Amsterdam 1992, 80, 93, 97, and passim; IDEM, Essays 181, and passim; SAMSARIS, Η Άκτια Νικόπολη 133–137; G. S. KATOPODIS, Αρχαία Ακαρνανία. Athens 22000, 46–47. 6 CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 208–211, fig. 2. 7 About the use of the chrismarion, see A. H. S. MEGAW, Kourion. Excavations in the Episcopal Precinct (DOS XXXVIII). Washington, DC 2007, 109–110. 8 The overall study of the baptistery and its adjacent structures will follow soon. 9 By the end of October 2014 the eastern part of this peristyle had been revealed with the entrance to hall “A”. 10 See for example A. K. ORLANDOS, Η ξυλόστεγος παλαιοχριστιανική βασιλική της Μεσογειακής λεκάνης. Μελέτη περί της γενέσεως, της καταγωγής, της αρχιτεκτονικής μορφής

79

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

Nicopolis11. Rooms are present along the southern side of the peristyle, and the existence of a bishop’s palace in the south of the basilica is more than likely12. An elongated narrow hall (A), having a corridor configuration, with a length of 10.60 metres and width 2.75 metres, is located southwest of the basilica (Fig. 3). This hall communicates with the basilica through a door, which opens to the south end of the western wall of the narthex. Hall “A” also communicates both with the southern portico and with another small annex of equal width in the south. It is possible that in later construction phases the doors that allowed the communication of the corridor with other spaces, which lied south of the basilica (e. g., hall “Z”), were closed. The entrance door from annex “A” to the narthex is also the only door on its western wall. The narthex has two other entrances on its narrow sides. The first one communicates with hall “D” on the southern wall and the second is on the northern wall and communicates with a small space with paved floor. Hall “A” is arranged in a processional way and must have constituted one of the two main entrances of the basilica, through the peristyle of the atrium, in order to protect the congregation from adverse weather conditions, as the third door of the narthex had an internal function and communicated with room “D”. A characteristic detail in annex “A” is the existence of a “seat” (length: 3.70, width: 0.84 metres) just before the entrance to the narthex. Moreover, the decoration of the corridor “A” with a mosaic floor almost in its entire length and its communication with the southern annexes of the basilica, the baptistery and the atrium are strong indications that it had a particular use and significance, as it is possible that ceremonial και της διακοσμήσεως των χριστιανικών οίκων λατρείας από των αποστολικών χρόνων μέχρις Ιουστινιανού. Athens 1952, I 94–110, figs. 54–62, pl. A and B. 11 D. PALLAS, Οι χαρακτήρες και η ακτινοβολία της εκκλησιαστικής αρχιτεκτονικής της Νικόπολης, in: Νικόπολις Α΄, Πρακτικά του πρώτου Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη, 23–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 1984, ed. Ε. Chryssos. Preveza 1987, 225–239, sh. 3, 4; E. CHALKIA, Basilica D of Nicopolis (Monuments of Nicopolis 9). Athens 2015, 20–21, 28–31, 46; B. N. PAPADOPOULOU, Basilica B of Nicopolis (Monuments of Nicopolis 8). Athens 2015, 16–17, 21, 28–29, 54–55. 12 CHOULIARAS, Ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής.

80

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

entrances of the clergy and the bishop occurred through here13. As a result, the second main entrance of the narthex, on the northern wall, appears to have been used as an entrance from the outside, possibly not through the atrium, since the harbour of the Christian Thyrreion must have lied on that side and we know that large public buildings had developed there14. Access to the galleries of the basilica, if galleries existed, may have taken place either from the adjoining bays on the northern side of the basilica or from the adjacent structures on the northwest side of the narthex or from the eastern end of the southern portico; since so far no spaces have been found that appear to have functioned as staircases. Hall “D” with a length of 8.04 metres and width 3.50 metres connects to the baptistery, as it communicates both with the narthex and with the chrismarion (Fig. 3), although its mosaic floor is not directly related to the mosaic floor of the baptistery. The connection between halls “D” and “Z”, where some utensils of everyday use were found, leads to the hypothesis that these two spaces were directly related, were important for the operation of the baptistery and anything required for baptisms, went through these two spaces into the vestibule (chrismarion) to end in the baptistery. Another use of hall “D” could be that of the apodyterion15, since some coins were found inside the hall, but the study of the other adjacent structures to the baptistery should be completed to come to this conclusion. After all, it is not uncommon to have adjacent structures around the baptisteries that are related to them16. 13

For the important liturgical purpose that served the atrium and the narthex in Early Christian basilicas, see ORLANDOS, Η ξυλόστεγος παλαιοχριστιανική βασιλική I 94–110; W. R. CARAHER, Church, Society and the Sacred in Early Christian Greece, Dissertation. The Ohio State University 2003, 94–104, especially p. 100. 14 CHOULIARAS – CHAMILAKI – KATSIKA – GEORGIOU, Οι σωστικές ανασκαφές 190–194, sh. 3, figs. 14–16; CHAMILAKI – CHOULIARAS, Rescue Excavations 3. 15 About the apodyterion, see MEGAW, Kourion 109. 16 For the typology of baptisteries and adjacent structures see A. K. ORLANDOS, Les baptistères du Dodécanèse, Actes Ve CIAC Aix-en-Provence, 13–19 septembre 1954. Vatican City – Paris 1957, 199–211; A. KATCHATRIAN, Les baptistères paléochrétiens, plans, notices et bibliographie. Paris 1962; Ι. VOLANAKIS, Τα παλαιοχριστιανικά βαπτιστήρια της Ελλάδος. Athens 1976; D. PALLAS, Die Baptisterien und die Kirchengebäude im altchristlichen

81

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

In an earlier study, we had presented the mosaic pavements of the basilica and the baptistery, which covered, in their original form, an area of approximately 270 square metres (Fig. 4)17. It was found that the main decoration of the mosaic floors consisted of repeating geometric motifs, rotae sericae, intersecting circles, key-shaped meanders of gammadion crosses (swastikas), Solomon’s knots, whirls, etc., while in the narthex and the baptistery both geometric motifs and animal and floral decoration with birds and vine leafs has been identified (Fig. 4)18. In addition, the three dedicatory inscriptions that were revealed in the mosaic floor are analysed in a recent study19. The continuation of the excavations during September and October 2014 brought to light the mosaic pavements of halls “A” and “D”. A brief presentation of the decorative details of the mosaic floor of these rooms will be provided in the current paper. The mosaic pavement in hall “D” has been damaged, mainly in the centre and the eastern side, but originally was covering an area of 28.13 square metres (Figs. 4, 5). The central part of the mosaic floor is surrounded by a narrow band with a two strand guilloche. In the western part there is a decorative zone with ivy leaves. In the centre there are continuous rotae sericae, seven along its length and three in width, which are connected with knots. Exteriorly, there is a band, adorned alternately with an arc of iris in shades of white and pink and zigzag ornamentation in shades of white, maroon, and pink, respectively (Fig. 6). The centre of the rotae sericae is adorned alternately with (a) squares with curved corners from the sides of which a wavy band passes, (b) smaller rotae sericae (chained rosettes) and (c) two strand guilloche that forms a circle in the centre which encloses a quadrilateral with convex sides. Between the rotae sericae, irregular eight-sided motifs adorned with

Griechenland, in: Festschrift für K. Wessel, ed. M. Restle. München 1988, 215–230; S. RISTOW, Frühchristliche Baptisterien. Münster 1988; A. POZIOPOULOS, Το παλαιοχριστιανικό βαπτιστήριο “Επτά Βήματα” του Αγίου Ιωάννη στην Κω. Τυπολογικά ζητήματα. DChAE 30 (2009) 25–36. 17 CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 197–212, figs. 2–11. 18 Ibid., 205–207, figs. 2, 12–16. 19 CHOULIARAS, Ανασκαφή παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής.

82

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

four peltae arranged in opposing pairs are formed and the gap between them is adorned with squares, which enclose a square black tessera in the centre. The mosaic pavement of hall “A” has undergone extensive damage (Figs. 4, 7), mainly perimetrically, but we can distinguish its basic thematic units and that it is divided into at least two large sections, defined possibly by an unadorned band, followed by a simple two strand guilloche and an additional thin unadorned band. Its area was approximately 25 square metres, if we do not include the “seat” and the thresholds. At the north part, just before the entrance door to the narthex, the central part, in front of the “seat”, consists of continuous fish scales, which are bicolour, arranged diagonally within the surrounding parallelogram frame in groups of three rows and they are distinguished by the alternation of shades of white-pink, white-ochre and white-blue (Fig. 8)20. The central part of the southern side is decorated with intersecting circles, which form quatrefoils and the latter are adorned in the centre either with smaller irregular quadrilaterals or with squares that enclose a cross in the centre (Fig. 9). Unfortunately, the extensive destruction does not allow us to ascertain whether the mosaic covered the entire hall “A” or only particular sections, but we believe that the entire corridor had mosaic pavement, except for the small space in front of the entrance door to the narthex, which possibly had a marble threshold. The geometric motifs of the mosaic pavement of hall “D” are similar to those of the western part of the north and south aisle of the basilica (Fig. 4) and they have some characteristics in common with the vestibule of the baptistery as well21. The mosaic decoration repeats essentially the same designing attitude or it probably belongs to the same workshop of mosaicists as that of the north and south aisle of the basilica22. This is further supported by the colour shades. The tesserae are coloured pink, maroon, red, white, blue, and

20

Similar scales are found along the southern side of the nave. Peltae are also seen in certain sections of the church, such as the aisles. See CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 198–201, 203, figs. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11. 21 Ibid., 203, figs. 2, 9, 11, 15. 22 CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 208–210.

83

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

black, their dimensions are about 1 x 1 cm, while they are made of natural limestone23. The fish scales of hall “A” are a common decorative motif in the mosaic floors of the Early Christian period24. In Aetoloakarnania the same motif occurs in the basilica of Krioneri near Messolonghi (5th c. A.D.)25, where a similar way of shaping the scales into three parallel rows of different colour is witnessed. Moreover, continuous scales are found on the floor of the basilica A on the island Kefalos of the Ambracian Gulf (early 6th c. A.D.)26. Intersecting circles are another common theme27, but we see them in a similar way in the neighbouring Evrytania in the basilica of St Leonides at Klapsi (2nd quarter of 6th c. A.D.)28. Many themes are associated to the mosaic floors of Nicopolis and especially basilica D (late 5th or early 6th c. A.D.)29. 23

We may observe the same colours in the nave. CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 205. 24 For example, see St. PELEKANIDIS – P. ATZACA, Σύνταγμα των παλαιοχριστιανικών ψηφιδωτών δαπέδων της Ελλάδος, Ι Νησιωτική Ελλάς (Βυζαντινά Μνημεία 1). Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Thessalonike 21988, pl. 52a, 83a; P. ASSIMAKOPOULOU-ATZACA – E. PELEKANIDOU, Σύνταγμα των παλαιοχριστιανικών ψηφιδωτών δαπέδων της Ελλάδος, II Πελοπόννησος – Στερεά Ελλάδα (Βυζαντινά Μνημεία 7). Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Thessalonike 1987, pl. 69b, 71, 169d, 176a, 180, 181a, 187b, 188a–b, 196b, 199d, 218a, 223, 224, 247b, 333, 353c; P. ASSIMAKOPOULOU-ATZACA, Σύνταγμα των παλαιοχριστιανικών ψηφιδωτών δαπέδων της Ελλάδος, ΙΙΙ Μακεδονία – Θράκη, 1. Τα ψηφιδωτά δάπεδα της Θεσσαλονίκης (Βυζαντινά Μνημεία 9). Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Thessalonike 1998, pl. 122–124, XXXIVb. 25 Fr. KEFALLONITOU, Μια νέα παλαιοχριστιανική θέση στο Κρυονέρι Μεσολογγίου, in: Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Ιστορικού και Αρχαιολογικού Συνεδρίου Αιτωλοακαρνανίας, Αγρίνιο, 29–31 Μαρτίου 2002. Agrinio 2004, II 489–491, sh. 2, fig. 13. 26 Ch. N. BARLA, Ανασκαφή Κεφάλου Αμβρακικού, Prakt (1965) 80, pl. 98, 99a; IDEM, Κέφαλος Αμβρακικού, Το Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας (1965) 49–52, figs. 58, 59; PELEKANIDES – ATZAKA, Ι Νησιωτική Ελλάς pl. 76a–b. 27 For example, see PELEKANIDES – ATZAKA, Ι Νησιωτική Ελλάς pl. 26β; ASSIMAKOPOULOUATZACA – PELEKANIDOU, II Πελοπόννησος – Στερεά Ελλάδα pl. 163a, 172, 216a, 288b, 294b, 299a, 332b, 360α; ASSIMAKOPOULOU-ATZACA, Τα ψηφιδωτά δάπεδα της Θεσσαλονίκης pl. 75a, 90c–e. 28 M. SPIRO, Critical Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements on the Greek Mainland, Fourth/Sixth Centuries with Architectural Surveys, I, II, New York – London 1978, pl. 349; ASSIMAKOPOULOU-ATZACA – PELEKANIDOU, II Πελοπόννησος – Στερεά Ελλάδα 164, pl. 271, 272. 29 SPIRO, Critical Corpus 494, pl. 572; CHALKIA, Basilica D 46–47.

84

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

The mosaic floors of halls “A” and “D” can be dated at the same period as those of the north and south aisle of the basilica, which have been dated, as well as all the mosaic decoration of the nave and the narthex, at the last quarter of the 5th century or the latest at the first quarter of the 6th century A.D.30. This dating is based on the similarities of the decoration with the basilicas of Nicopolis as well and especially of the basilicas B and D.



ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: Map of north Akarnania 30

See about the dating of the mosaic pavement of the nave and the narthex, CHOULIARAS, Αποκάλυψη ψηφιδωτού δαπέδου 210.

85

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

FIGURE 2: Ground plan of the basilica 86

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

A

Narthex

D

South aisle

C

FIGURE 3: Halls A and D (aerial view) 87

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

FIGURE 4: Plan of the mosaic pavements of the basilica 88

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

FIGURE 5: Plan of the mosaic pavement of hall D 89

IOANNIS P. CHOULIARAS

FIGURE 6: Hall D. Rotae sericae and peltae

FIGURE 7: Plan of the mosaic pavement of hall A 90

EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY BYZANTINE BASILICA IN DRYMOS

FIGURE 8: Hall A. Scales and intersecting circles

FIGURE 9: Hall A. Intersecting circles 91

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM: THE FIRST MILES ALONG THE VIA EGNATIA

T

he city of Dyrrachium (Durrës in modern Albania) was located on a promontory which was separated from the mainland by a marshy and impregnable lagoon1. Due to its good and thriving port and strong fortifications Dyrrachium had during the Byzantine period developed into the main point of departure of the Via Egnatia in the west, the famous road which in conjunction with the Via Appia formed the main land route between Rome and Constantinople2. In this article we give an overview of the Early Christian landscape to the southeast of Dyrrachium, along the first 20–25 km of the Via Egnatia. We will focus on how churches and settlements are located in relation to the road, or in order to turn it the 1

2

We are grateful to Ioannis Chouliaras, Jack Davis, Florin Curta, Rovena Kurti, Kathleen Lynch, Etleva Nallbani, Martina Pauli, Georgia Pliakou, Paul Reynolds, Eduard Shehi, and Sabina Veseli for very useful comments and suggestions on different parts of this article. We also want to thank Esko Tikkala for helping with the production of the illustrations and maps. For the road in general, see M. FASOLO, La Via Egnatia I. Da Apollonia e Dyrrachium ad Herakleia Lynkestidos (Viae Publicae Romanae 1). Rome 2003; G. A. LOLOS, Via Egnatia/Εγνατία Οδός. Athens 2008; E. ZACHARIADOU (ed.), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule (1380–1699) (Halcyon Days in Crete II). Rethymnon 1996. For recent Albanian fieldwork concerning the road, see M. G. AMORE – L. BEJKO – Y. CEROVA – I. GJIPALI, The Via Egnatia (Albania) Project and the Bridge at Topçias. JRA 14 (2001) 381–389; M. G. AMORE – L. BEJKO – Y. CEROVA – I. GJIPLAI, Via Egnatia, in: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Albania, ed. I. Gjipali – L. Përzhita – B. Muka. Tirana 2013, 189–193.

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 93–114  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121919

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

other way around, what kind of influence an arterial road like the Via Egnatia had on the development of the surrounding landscape. Recent archaeological work has increased our knowledge of urban life in Dyrrachium during late antiquity3, but we still know rather little about its hinterland. An intensive survey of the promontory to the north of the city was conducted by the University of Cincinnati and the Albanian Institute of Archaeology in 2001, producing mostly finds from the Archaic to Early Hellenistic periods, but only sparse testimonia from the Late Hellenistic to Medieval periods4. The hinterland to the southeast of the city, i. e., opposite of the promontory and along the Via Egnatia, was from 1959 until the 1980s the target of several Albanian extensive surveys and small excavations5. Since 2013, as part of our Dyrrachium Hinterland Project we are try3

K. BOWES – J. MITCHELL, The Main Chapel of the Durrës Amphitheatre. Decoration and Chronology. MEFRA 121–122 (2009) 569–595; A. GUTTERIDGE, Cultural Geographies and “the Ambition of Latin Europe”: The City of Durrës and its Fortifications, c. 400–c. 1501. ArchMed 30 (2003) 19–65; A. GUTTERIDGE – A. HOTI, The Walled Town of Dyrrachium (Durres): Settlement and Dynamics. JRA 16 (2003) 367–379; A. GUTTERIDGE – A. HOTI – H. R. HURST, The Walled Town of Dyrrachium (Durrës): Settlement and Dynamics. JRA 14 (2001) 390–410; A. Hoti – E. METALLA – B. SHKODRA – J. WILKES, The Early Byzantine Circular Forum in Dyrrachium (Durrës, Albania) in 2002 and 2004–2005: Recent Recording and Excavation. ABSA 103 (2008) 367–397; E. SHEHI – B. SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Le front nord des fortifications de Dyrrhachium. Données nouvelles et hypothèses, in: L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité V, ed. J.-L. Lamboley – M. P. Castiglione. Paris 2011, 325–336; B. SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Kulla trekëndore në Dyrrachium – 2012. Iliria 37 (2013) 427–430; B. SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Dyrrachium në Antikitetin e vonë: kërkime arkeologjike në sistemin e fortifikimit. Candavia 6 (2016) 349–366. 4 J. L. DAVIS – A. HOTI – I. POJANI – S. R. STOKER – A. D. WOLPERT – P. E. ACHESON – J. W. HAYES, The Durrës Regional Archaeology Project. Archaeological Survey in the Territory of Epidamnus/Dyrrachium, Albania. Hesperia 72 (2003) 41–119. 5 H. MYRTO, Mbi disa qendra arkeologjike ndërmjet Kavajës dhe Durrësit. Monumentet 7–8 (1974) 247–258; H. MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve dhe gjurmëve antike e mesjetare të rrethit të Durrësit. Monumentet 22/2 (1981) 55–79; H. MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve dhe gjurmëve antike e mesjetare të rrethit të Durrësit (vazhdim). Monumentet 23/1 (1982) 11–40; H. MYRTO, Një sanktuar antik në periferi të Durrësit. Iliria 19/1 (1989) 87–108; A. HOTI, Kërkime arkeologjike në zonën e Kryemdhejit në rrethin e Durrësit. Iliria 7–8 (1977–1978) 325– 330; A. HOTI, Ndihmesë për hartën arkeologjike të rrethit të Durrësit. Iliria 17/1 (1987) 247–276; F. TARTARI, Përmbledhje artikujsh e studimesh. Durrës 2008, 635–641.

94

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

ing to bring the results of these earlier projects together and supplement them with detailed intensive field survey at points of special interest6.

ALONG THE COAST TO PETRA The road from Dyrrachium towards the southeast crossed from the promontory over a bridge to the mainland. Our first testimony of this bridge is by Anna Komnena (Alexiad 4.6.1) and William of Apulia (Gesta Roberti Wiscardi 4.379) in their description of the battle between Alexios Komnenos and Robert Guiscard at the outskirts of Dyrrachium in 1081. A bridge existed at this same spot until the early twentieth century when the marshy lagoon between the promontory and the mainland slowly began to dry out and was turned into fields7. Directly on the other side of the bridge followed a plain that, further towards the southeast, was delimited by a series of hills. The Via Egnatia crossed the plain and continued towards the southeast, following a route along the coast with the hills on the left side all the time getting closer, until they finally create a narrow passage next to the seafront through which the road had to pass before reaching the Kavaja plain. The narrowest point of the passage was controlled at a strategically located hill with a flat summit called Petra (Shkëmbi i Kavajës), which was also chosen as a camp by both Pompey in connection with his battle with Caesar in 48 B.C. and by Alexios Komnenos before the battle of 10818. 6

See e. g. B. FORSÉN – B. SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Projekti i prapatokës së Dyrrachiumit. Raporti i sezonit të vitit 2013. Iliria 38 (2014) 451–459; B. FORSÉN – M. HAKKARAINEN – B. SHKODRARRUGIA, Blood and Salt: Some Thoughts Evolving from the Topography of the Battle at Dyrrachium in 1081. ActaByzFenn 4 (n.s.) (2015) 63–84; B. FORSÉN – B. SHKODRA-RRUGIA – K. KORHONEN – E. SHEHI – R. RUKA – E. TIKKALA, Dyrrachium Hinterland Project. First Preliminary Report, in: L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité VI, ed. J.-L. Lamboley – L. Përzhita – A. Skenderaj. Paris 2018, 301–317. 7 The bridge still occurs on the maps L. HEUZEY – H. DAUMET, Mission archéologique de Macédonie. Paris 1876, plan IV; and C. PRASCHNIKER – A. SCHOBER, Archäologische Forschungen in Albanien und Montenegro (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt. 8). Vienna 1919, Abb. 43. 8 For the topography of the battle of 48 B.C., see G. VEITH, Der Feldzug von Dyrrhachium

95

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

In her description of the battle of Dyrrachium in 1081 (Alexiad 4.1–8) Anna Komnena mentions a total of three churches located between the city and Petra. When the battle began Robert Guiscard had his troops on the promontory where he was besieging the city. Alexios Komnenos, who arrived from the southeast along the Via Egnatia, collected his troops at the church of St Nicholas, located at the mainland on another promontory sloping gently towards the plain in front of the lagoon (Alexiad 4.5.2), according to William of Apulia close to the place called Petra (Gesta Roberti Wiscardi 4.460–461). Alexios Komnenos was planning to attack the Norman camp from two sides, sending some of his troops through the salt works in the lagoon to surprise the Normans in the rear. However, Guiscard moved first, crossed the bridge from the promontory to the mainland and arranged his lines for battle next to the church of St Theodore (Alexiad 4.6.1). The battle took place on the plain next to the lagoon. Towards the end of the battle, Alexios’ Varangian troops retreated to a third church, St Michael, where they were trapped and burnt (Alexiad 4.6.3–6). Anna Komnena does not tell when the three churches were built and thus we can only on the basis of their remains tell whether they existed already during late antiquity. The church of St Theodor, which on the basis of the descriptions of Anna Komnena and William of Apulia was located on the coast just to the east of the bridge leading from the promontory to the mainland, has unfortunately never been found. However, it most likely is identical with the monastery of St Theodore of Ilycetos that is mentioned during the thirteenth century as located just outside Dyrrachium9. Concerning the churches of St Michael and St Nicholas we are much better informed. The church of St Michael was already during the nine-

9

zwischen Caesar und Pompejus, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der historischen Geographie des albanischen Kriegsschauplatzes. Vienna 1920; for the one of the battle of 1081, see FORSÉN – HAKKARAINEN – SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Blood and Salt, with further references. For the monastery of St Theodore, see M. ŠUFFLAY, Die Kirchenzustände im vortürkischen Albanien. Die orthodoxe Durchbruchzone im katholischen Damme, in: Illyrisch-Albanische Forschungen I (ed. L. v. Thallóczy). Munich – Leipzig 1916, 188–281, here 237; A. DUCELLIER, La façade maritime de l’Albanie au moyen âge. Durazzo et Valona du XI e au XVe siècle (Institute for Balkan Studies 177). Thessaloniki 1981, 196.

96

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

teenth century localised at the small village of Shimmihl on the southern Arapaj slopes ca. 6 km to the southeast of Dyrrachium (Fig. 1)10. Here Albanian archaeologists in the 1970s and 1980s excavated a large, early or, perhaps rather, mid-sixth century basilica11, which clearly had suffered extensive fire damage during the Middle Byzantine period, although it survived until the fourteenth century12. The available evidence seems to indicate an uninterrupted use of the basilica even during the Early Medieval period. The Dark Age is represented by a handful of bronze objects published by Sali Hidri13. The most conspicuous of these is a buckle with animal heads projecting out from both sides of the central plate that, on the basis of good parallels, can be dated to the first half of the seventh century14. There are also two small bronze pendants which consist of a hollow circle 10

HEUZEY – DAUMET, Mission 368. The name of the church was thus apparently preserved in the toponym of the village still during the nineteenth century. 11 S. HIDRI, Rezultate gërmimesh në bazilikën e Arapajt, 1980–1982. Iliria 13/1 (1983) 233– 239; S. HIDRI, Bazilika paleokristiane në Arapaj dhe zbulimet e reja në të. Iliria 16/1 (1986) 329–335; A. MEKSI, Aspekte të arkitekturës paleokristiane në Shqipëri. Iliria 16/1 (1986) 293–297. The fine ware pottery from the church, including an ARS Hayes 99A bowl and a Phocaean Red Slip bowl Hayes 3G/10, point towards a mid-sixth century date for its construction. Cf. B. SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Enë prej balte të antikitetit të vonë në Durrës (shek. IV–VII): Të dhëna të detajuara nga qendra urbane dhe prapatoka. Unpubl. PhD thesis, University of Tirana 2011. For Hayes 3G/10, see P. REYNOLDS, The Roman Pottery from the Triconch Palace, in: Byzantine Butrint. Excavations and Surveys 1994–99, ed. R. Hodges – W. Bowden – K. Lako. Oxford 2004, 237, fig. 13.144. 12 HIDRI, Rezultate gërmimesh 237. 13 S. HIDRI, Materiale arkeologjike nga bazilika e Arapajt. Iliria 21/1–2 (1991) 216, tab. XI.6–7, 12. 14 HIDRI, Materiale arkeologjike Arapajt 216, tab. XI, 12. For parallels from Albania, see S. ANAMALI, Një varrezë e mesjetës së hershme në Bukël te Mirditës. Iliria 1 (1971) 217, 222–223, tab. VII.2–3 (with pairs of animals heads on both sides); or F. TARTARI, Një varrezë e mesjetës së hershme në Durrës. Iliria 14/1 (1984) 232–233, tab. II, grave 21.2. For the typology and date of this type of buckle, see M. SCHULTZE-DÖRRLAMM, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum I. Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts (Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 30.1). Mainz 2002, 227–228, Type D37; and N. TSIVIKIS, Considerations on Some Bronze Buckles from Byzantine Messene, in Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts (Byzas 15), ed. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan – A. Ricci. Istanbul 2012, 63–68.

97

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

flanked by a smaller circle on one side and a rectangle on the other15, which can be dated to the seventh century16. The basilica of St Michael had the shape of a triconch with a nave and two aisles and a narthex and an atrium at the west end. In a grave chapel attached to the south side a spectacular mosaic, recently published by Sali Hidri and Hava Hidri, was uncovered17. The basilica measures ca. 42 x 28 m without narthex and atrium and ca. 65 x 28 m including narthex and atrium, which makes it the largest so far excavated Early Christian basilica in modern Albania18. Another large religious building with capitals decorated with Chi Rho monograms and other architectural elements similar to those of the basilica has been identified some 300 m further to the north, but still remains unexcavated19. How these two buildings relate to each other is unclear, perhaps there was a monastery next to the church of St Michael? Remains of the church of St Nicholas were in the 1970s localised by Halil Myrto on a terrace opening towards the sea close to the summit of the Petra hill ca. 8 km to the southeast of Dyrrachium (Fig. 1)20. Myrto records 15

HIDRI, Materiale arkeologjike Arapajt 216, tab XI.6–7. For roughly similar-looking pendants found in Albania, see H. SPAHIU, Gjetje të vjetra nga varreza mesjetare e kalasë së Dalmaces. Iliria 1 (1971) 251, tab. VIII. 5; F. PRENDI, Një varrezë e kulturës arbërore në Lezhë. Iliria 9–10 (1979–1980) 138, tab. XXII.1–2; H. SPAHIU, Varreza arbërore e Kalasë së Dalmaces. Iliria 9–10 (1979–1980) 37, tab. V.16; S. ANAMALI – H. SPAHIU, Varreza e hershme mesjetare e Krujës. BUSHT SSHSH 2 (1963) 52–53, fig. 17; S. ANAMALI, Një varrezë e mesjetës së hershme në Bukël të Mirditës. Iliria 1 (1971) 222, tab. XIV. Close parallels for the Arapaj pendants have been found in Corinth (G. R. DAVIDSON, Corinth XII. The Minor Objects. Princeton, NJ 1952, 268, 2197–2201) and from Castel Trosino in Central Italy (L. PAROLI – M. RICCI, La necropoli altomedievale di Castel Trosino [Ricerche di Archeologia Altomedievale e Medievale 32–33]. Borgo S. Lorenzo 2005, 60, Tomba 65.4, tav. 56.4). The Castel Trosino example offers a secure date in the seventh century (L. JØRGENSEN, Castel Trosino and Nocera Umbra: A Chronological and Social Analysis of Family Burial Practices in Lombard Italy [6th–8th Cent. AD]. Acta Archaeologica 62 [1991] 36–38). 17 HIDRI, Rezultate gërmimesh 234–236; H. HIDRI – S. HIDRI, Die frühchristliche Basilika in Arapaj/Durrës (Albanien). Vienna 2012. 18 HIDRI, Rezultate gërmimesh 234. 19 HIDRI, Materiale arkeologjike Arapajt 217. 20 MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve (vazhdim) 12. 16

98

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

part of a wall and a scatter of 4 cm thick bricks bounded together with thick courses of mortar in a construction technique resembling that of the triangular tower of Dyrrachium which dates either to the second half of the fifth century or to the reign of Anastasius21. Furthermore, he found a column made of white marble with grey lines, i. e., of Proconnesian marble which was widely used for Early Byzantine constructions in Dyrrachium, and a capital decorated with acanthus leafs. Nearby he excavated six medieval graves, which on the basis of two bronze coins could be dated to the thirteenth century22. These finds indicate that the church of St Nicholas was constructed during the Early Christian era and stayed in use for long, something which also is verified by historical sources: it is mentioned by Barleti in his biography of Scanderbeg in 1508 and even marked on a map produced by Camocio as late as 1571 (Fig. 2)23. The church of St Nicholas was connected to an important settlement, probably a village, on the north slopes of the hill, which according to Fatos Tartari, who excavated it during the 1980s, dates from the Hellenistic period through to the fourteenth/fifteenth century24. This village may be identical with S. Nicolò di Guri, a small village mentioned by Bolizza in 1614 as belonging under the jurisdiction of Durrës25.

21

SHEHI – SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Le front nord des fortifications 332. H. MYRTO, Gërmimet arkeologjike të vitit 1988: Gjuricaj, Shkëmbi i Kavajës (Durrës). Iliria 18/2 (1988) 267. 23 M. BARLETI, Historia de vita et gestis Scanderbegi Epirotarum Principis. Rome 1508, fol. 19r; G. F. CAMOCIO, Isole famose, porti, fortezze, e terre maritime sottoposte alla Serenissima Signoria di Venetia, ad altri Principi Christiani, et al Signor Turco. Venice 1571, fol. 25, map entitled “Provincia di Albania”. 24 F. TARTARI, Gërmime arkeologjike në Petra. Iliria 6 (1976) 350, tab. XVIII, XIX; TARTARI, Përmbledhje artikujsh e studimesh 269–282. 25 M. BOLIZZA, Relazione et descrittione del sangiacato di Scuttari, dove si ha piena contezza delle città et siti, loro villagi, case et habitatori, rito, costumi, havere et armi di quei popoli, et quanto di considerabile minutamente si contenga in quel’ ducato (1614), publ. translated to English by R. Elsie, Early Albania. A Reader of Historical Texts, 11th–17th Centuries (Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen, Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin 39). Wiesbaden 2003, 164. 22

99

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

QERRET AND THE GOLEM HILL A couple of kilometres after the narrow passage at Petra, the Via Egnatia reaches the plain of Kavaja, which has been created by the Darçi and Leshniqe rivers. The Via Egnatia here leaves the coast and turns inland towards Kavaja and Peqin. When the modern highway from Kavaja to Durrës was constructed at the turn of the twentieth century the French scholar Leon Rey made some notable finds in the village of Qerret, ca. 14 km to the southeast of Dyrrachium. Qerret is located in the northwesternmost corner of the Kavaja plain, close to the sea and to the former route of the Via Egnatia (Fig. 1). Here Rey unearthed the remains of a marble chest, inside of which there was a smaller box containing a silver episcopal ring, a silver coin minted by Alexios I (1081–1118) and another 20 coins dating to the fourteenth century (4 minted by Stephen Uroš V, 1355–1367, and 16 by Stephen Uroš IV Dušan, 1331–1355)26. Further work undertaken by Halil Myrto here in the early 1970s revealed pottery dating from the fourth to the sixth century, as well as a 40 m long wall and remnants of columns27. He also uncovered a sextagonal structure, which he first interpreted as the baptisterion of an Early Christian basilica (although those usually are of octagonal shape), but later considered to be the apse of the church28. Nearby and at other spots for a distance of at least 4–5 km towards Kavaja, Myrto identified stretches of the Via Egnatia, sometimes preserved to a width of 4–5 m29. Myrto maintains also having slight evidence for a settlement during the first centuries A.D., “mainly represented by fragments of bricks and tiles”, but supplies no credible evidence for this30. During the Dyrrachium Hinterland Project we succeeded in relocating the church of Qerret and even found one of Myrto’s Proconnesian marble L. REY, Répertoire topo-bibliographique des antiquités de l’Albanie. Albania, revue d’archéologie, d’histoire, d’arts et des sciences appliquées en Albanie et dans les Balkans 4 (1932) 111. 27 MYRTO, Mbi disa qendra arkeologjike 250–251. 28 MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve (vazhdim) 16, note 24. 29 MYRTO, Mbi disa qendra arkeologjike 252; MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve (vazhdim) 17. 30 MYRTO, Mbi disa qendra arkeologjike 251; MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve (vazhdim) 16. 26

100

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

columns. The pottery we collected at Qerret (S2) includes a total of 30 Late Roman diagnostic sherds (3 pieces of fine ware, 6 imported amphorae sherds as well as 21 sherds of domestic wares) (Fig. 3), and some fragments of high quality glass beakers (Fig. 3.2). The pottery corresponds to that described by Myrto, although today it can be dated slightly more specifically (Fig. 3). The fine ware – such as an African Red Slip D1 jug of type ElMahrine 62 (Fig. 3.1)31, an African Red Slip D1 lamp of type Atlante X, D3 (Fig. 3.12)32, and a Phocaean Red Slip bowl of type Hayes 3G (Fig. 3.4)33 – suggests a time span between the late fifth and the third quarter of the sixth century34. Modern air photographs reveal even more. On these one can vaguely see an Early Christian basilica with a nave and two aisles with the narthex on the western side. The church had its apsis towards the east and measured ca. 30 x 18 m (including apsis and narthex). Only some 20 m further east there is a line passing by in a roughly south to northerly direction, which can be followed for some 120 m and could perhaps indicate a preserved stretch of the Via Egnatia (Fig. 4). We have been able to identify this clearly important basilica as the St Maria in Zela mentioned in a letter from the Venetian Senate to Niketa Thopia in 141035. The site of Qerret is much more than just an Early Christian basilica. Late Roman pottery and tile fragments cover several fields around the basilica, however not continuing all the way to the modern Kavaja to Durrës highway. Judging by the spread of surface finds the total area of the site is ca. 200 x 200 m or about 3 hectares. We are thus dealing with a substantial site, probably a village, which was intersected by the Via Egnatia. This village is probably connected to a cemetery on the slopes of the Golem hill 31

M. MACKENSEN, Die spätantiken Sigillata- und Lampentöpfereien von El Mahrine (Nordtunesien). Studien zur nordafrikanischen Feinkeramik des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts (Münchener Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 50). Munich 1993, 365, 625, Taf. 79. 32 M. BONIFAY, Etudes sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique (BAR-IS 1301). Oxford 2004, 408. 33 REYNOLDS, Roman Pottery fig. 13.144. 34 This conforms in broad lines with the well-definable urban pottery sequences from Dyrrachium, studied by SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Enë prej balte të antikitetit të vonë në Durrës 221–240. 35 For more detail, see FORSÉN – HAKKARAINEN – SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Blood and Salt 69–74.

101

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

(Mali i Robit), which is located only a couple of hundred metres to the northeast, on the other side of the modern highway (Fig. 4). Here Albanian archaeologists during the 1950s collected an assemblage of archaeological material that had been found during agricultural work36. The finds are said to originate from a cemetery dating either from the third to the fourth, or then from the fourth to the sixth century37. The finds from the Golem hill remain unpublished with the exception of a bronze fibula of the Komani culture38, which in the 1960s by Anamali and Prendi was considered to belong to an earlier third to fourth-century version of the typical Komani type fibula39. This early typological development of the Komani type fibula has later correctly been questioned by Hëna Spahiu40. The preserved typological elements of the Golem hill fibula do indeed rather relate to those of the fibulae of the Early Medieval Komani culture (Fig. 5)41. It has a flat bow which is clearly wider than the stem. The bow is marked with a longitudinal rib in the middle and decorated with fine dots on either side of the rib, somewhat resembling the common circleand-dot decoration of fibulae from Komani. The circle-and-dot ornaments originated from the decoration repertoire of the sixth century fibula prototypes42, but we know of no sixth century specimen bearing the particular

36

Cf. the description of the find circumstances in the recording book of the Institute of Archaeology of Tirana. No excavation report has been found – the finds may thus as well have been made by farmers and only later collected by the archaeologists. The exact location of the cemetery is unknown. 37 S. ANAMALI – F. PRENDI, Vazhdimësia e kulturës ilire në kulturën e hershme mesjetare shqiptare, in: Konferenca e parë e studimeve Albanonogjike (15–21 nëntor 1962). Tirana 1965, 471; MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve (vazhdim) 12. 38 Inv. no. 1469, today displayed in the National Museum of Tirana. 39 ANAMALI – PRENDI, Vazhdimësia e kulturës 471, tab. I.7; S. ANAMALI – H. SPAHIU, Varreza arbërore e Krujës. Iliria 9–10 (1979–1980) 61, tab. VII.7. 40 H. SPAHIU, Elementë të traditës antike në kulturën e varrezave të mesjetës së hershme shqiptare. Iliria 16/1 (1986) 265, tab. II.3. 41 We owe special thanks to Etleva Nallbani and Florin Curta for clarifying this uncertainty. 42 F. CURTA, Seventh-century Fibulae with Bent Stem in the Balkans. Archaeologia Bulgarica XVII/1 (2013) 50–51.

102

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

decoration of our example43. The closest parallel to the decoration on the Golem fibula is to be found in a seventh century example from the Komani necropolis44. The Golem fibula also has a prominent bow knob, very much like the seventh century bent stem specimens45, with which it must be contemporary. The unpublished assemblage from Mali i Robit comprises another three bronze fibulae, a terracotta lamp, three bronze buckles and seven pieces of bronze rings/chains and 10 iron tools (dolabras, knifes and sickles). The date range of the assemblage is remarkably wide as shown by the three most characteristic pieces. The first is a typical bronze cross-bow fibula (Fig. 6)46. It is completely preserved with the exception of one of the knobs on the arms that has broken off. The bow of the fibula is clearly longer than the foot which is decorated by incised lines. It thereby corresponds to Keller-Pröttel’s type 2A which dates to the first half of the fourth century47. The terracotta lamp (Fig. 7), with fine clay matrix, fired pink (7.5YR–7/4) with moderate fine mica visible on the surface dates somewhat earlier48. The lamp, the disc of which is decorated by a rather uncommon star motif, belongs to Broneer’s Type XXVII.2 and is signed ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΟΥ on the base. It dates between the mid-second and mid-third century and is probably an import from Corinth, although similar lamps also have been found in Patras49. 43

For the sixth century prototypes, see F. CURTA – A. GÂNDILÃ, Sixth-century Fibulae with Bent Stem. Peuce s.n. XI (2013) 101–176. 44 H. SPAHIU, Gjetje të vjetra nga varreza mesjetare e Kalasë së Dalmaces. Iliria 1 (1971) 240, tab. III.5. 45 CURTA, Seventh-century fibulae, figs. 1–13. 46 Durrës Archaeological Museum, Inv. no. 1051. 47 Ph. M. PRÖTTEL, Zur Chronologie der Zwiebelknopffibeln. Jahrb. RGZM 35 (1988) 353–357. 48 Museum of the Institute of Archaeology in Tirana, Inv. no. 1048. 49 The same disc motif occurs on two lamps from Patras (M. PETROPOULOS, Τα εργαστήρια των ρωμαϊκών λυχναριών της Πάτρας και το Λυχνομαντείο [Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτιού 70]. Athens 1999, 170, M 127–M 128, pls. 37 and 39) and on one from Corinth (O. BRONEER, Corinth IV/2. Terracotta Lamps. Princeton, NJ 1930, 204, no. 691) – however, these are signed by ΕΠΙΤΥΝΧΑΝΟΣ and not by ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΟΣ. Kallistos is generally considered a Corinthian lampmaker (e. g. H. WILLIAMS, Kenchreai V. The Lamps. Leiden 1981, 6). The whole story is made more complicated by the fact that many of the so-called “Corinthian” lamps in reality may have been produced in Patras

103

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

Lamps signed ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΟΥ (although not with the same decoration) have been found before in the Roman cemeteries of Apollonia and Dyrrachium50. The cemetery on the Golem hill may thus on the basis of the preserved finds have been in use from the mid-second until the seventh century. This could imply that the origin of the site of Qerret also went back to the second century, although this remains to be proven. Alternatively there may exist another so far not identified earlier site somewhere in the close neighbourhood.

THE KAVAJA PLAIN The vast majority of the finds collected by the Dyrrachium Hinterland Project along the Via Egnatia date to the Hellenistic, Early and Mid Roman periods with a clear peak during the second century and the first half of the third century A.D. when the landscape was filled by flourishing villages, villas and small farmsteads. Beginning from the Late Roman period, i. e. from the fourth to sixth century, the settlement of this part of the Dyrrachian hinterland clearly contracted. Qerret here stands out as the only major newly founded site. Of all the previous Early to Mid Roman sites there are only two with a limited Late Roman presence: the small villages at Spanjo Qenze (S3) and Çetë (S4) both of which are located on low hills just to the north of the Via Egnatia in the agriculturally rich Kavaja plain (Fig. 1). In Çetë some fragments of LRA 1 and LRA 2 pottery were documented, whereas Spanjo Qenze produced, apart from some Late Roman sherds, a

50

(PETROPOULOS, Λυχνομαντείο). This does not exclude the possibility that real Corinthian lamps also were imitated elsewhere, sometimes even including the Corinthian lampmaker’s signatures. Recently a lamp of Cyrenaican production signed ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΟΥ has e. g. been found in Berenike/Benghazi (J. REYNOLDS – P. KENRICK, The Epigraphy of Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi [Berenice]: An Update. Libyan Studies 46 [2015] 95, C1108). A. MANO, Apollonia e Ilirisë. Kërkime dhe studime arkeologjike. Tirana 2006, 298, 339, tab. XIV; 157, tab. XVIII; 183, tab. XXII; 306, tab. XXVI; 235, tab. XXXIV (Apollonia); and F. TARTARI, Varreza e shekujve I–IV të erës sonë në Dyrrah. Durrës 2004, tab. XI, grave 35; tab. XXII, graves 83, 31 and 37 (Dyrrachium).

104

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

bronze coin minted by Arcadius between 388 and 392, as well as a small amount of Late Medieval and Early Modern pottery (twelfth, and fourteenth to sixteenth centuries)51. On the hill of Çetë there stands still today the church of St Veneranda, with well-preserved wall paintings dating to the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries52. The church itself may, at the most, be a couple of centuries older (late thirteenth century) as indicated by the rectangular apsis with pointed vault, the shape of the window and the vertical shafts used in the masonry53. The surrounding of the church is today covered by a thick vegetation, but we still found remains of a possible discarded marble iconostasis as well as graves. Back in the 1980s Afrim Hoti excavated one of the graves next to the church, which contained three bowls dated by him to the twelfth century54, although such slipped-painted bowls nowadays generally are dated to the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries55. Hoti also collected pottery from the surface around the church dating to between the eighth and the fourteenth century56. Despite the uncertainties of the pottery dates, this may indicate that the present church had a predecessor, although we cannot tell if it was constructed already during the Early Christian period. The Kavaja plain is on its northeastern side delimited by a row of low hills. The old village of Kanapare is located ca. 2 km to the northeast from Spanjo Qenze on one of these hills, which used to be called Kodra e Qishës, i. e., Hill of the Church. Halil Myrto documented here early in the 1980s during his extensive survey still standing remains of a funerary church, 51

Cf. also FORSÉN – SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Projekti i prapatokës së Dyrrachiumit; FORSÉN – SHKODRA-RRUGIA – KORHONEN – SHEHI – RUKA – TIKKALA, Dyrrachium Hinterland Project. 52 Th. POPA, Disa konsiderata të përgjithshme rreth pikturës postbizantine në Shqipëri. Studime Historike 1967/2, 95–104; E. SHEHI, Piktura murale e kishës së Shën’e Premtes në Çetë (Kavajë). Candavia 3 (2011) 356–359. 53 A. MEKSI, Kishat e Shqipërisë së Mesme e të Veriut (Vijim). Monumentet 27/1 (1984) 107. 54 A. HOTI, Gërmimet arkeologjike të vitit 1984: Lagja 11–Durrës. Iliria 14/2 (1984) 274–275; HOTI, Ndihmesë për hartën arkeologjike 258, tab. IX.21, 23, 37. 55 J. VROOM, Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean: An Introduction and Field Guide. Utrecht 2005, 124–125. 56 HOTI, Ndihmesë për hartën arkeologjike 257–258, tab. VIII. 16, 24, tab. VIII. 19.

105

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

which, on the basis of a bronze earring, he dated to the tenth to twelfth century57. Some years later Afrim Hoti reported having found pottery dating to the Late Roman period (fifth to sixth century) as well as finds ranging in date from the eighth to the fifteenth century58. The hill is today unfortunately totally overgrown and, while visiting it in 2013, we could thus not find anything other than large amounts of tile fragments and some pottery dating to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Close by, the overgrown remains of an Ottoman cemetery were also documented59.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Our study of the landscape along the beginning of the Via Egnatia during the Late Roman or Early Byzantine period has revealed the following patterns. 1. There is a string of large and important Early Christian basilicas along the beginning of the Via Egnatia, at roughly 4–6 km from each other (St Theodore, St Michael at Arapaj, St Nicholas at Petra, St Maria in Zela at Qerret, St Veranda at Çetë). Such a pattern, which has been recorded elsewhere in Epirus – with the best parallel next to Photike in Thesprotia60 – 57

MYRTO, Hartë e monumenteve (vazhdim) 12–13, fig. 1. HOTI, Ndihmesë për hartën arkeologjike 257, tab VI.10, tab. VII.31, 33–34. 59 Tracts A 53–A 59 were walked on the overgrown slopes of the hill. The remains of the Ottoman cemetery (graves and tomb stones) were documented as S 12. 60 B. FORSÉN, The Emerging Settlement Patterns of the Kokytos Valley, in: Thesprotia Expedition II. Environment and Settlement Patterns (PMFIA XVI), ed. B. Forsén – E. Tikkala). Helsinki 2011, 23, with the basilicas of Krystallopigi located ca. 4 km to the northwest of Photike, whereas the basilicas of Chrysaugi and Zervochori are ca. 6 and 10 km to the south of Photike. The bishopric of Euroia was probably located at Glyki, another 11 km to the south of Zervochori, see e. g. D. I. PALLAS, Les monuments paléochrétiens de Grèce découverts de 1959 à 1973. Vatican City 1977, 139–140; P. SOUSTAL – J. KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallēnia (TIB 3). Vienna 1981, 158. For doubts on the suggested location, see W. BOWDEN, Epirus Vetus: The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province. London 2003, 108. No Early Christian church has so far been found between Zervochori and Glyki, but there is a thirteenth-century church roughly mid-way in Gardiki (D. EVANGGELIDES, Βυζαντινή 58

106

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

underlines the role of the church also for administration and trade. As a much later example of this one could mention is the fact that the Ottomans during the early fifteenth century collected customs from everybody travelling between Kruja and Durrës at the church of St Laurentius which was located to the northeast of Durrës61. 2. Larger settlements, usually villages, were often located next to the basilicas. This also follows a pattern recorded elsewhere in Epirus62. 3. There is a clear contraction of settlement along the Via Egnatia beginning from the fourth to fifth century. Above all, villas and isolated farmsteads disappear, and the inhabitants may have moved to the city itself or to the villages next to the basilicas. The contraction of recorded settlement dates earlier here than elsewhere, where it usually does not occur until the sixth century, at the earliest63. 4. Finally, there is a considerable stability of settlement patterns from the Early Christian era until the Late Medieval period. The finds from Çetë and the Mali i Robit cemetery as well as from St Michael may even indicate εκκλησία της Αγίας Κυριακής του Γαρδικίου, in: Αφιέρωμα εις την Ήπειρον. Εις μνήμην Χρ. Σούλη. Athens 1956, 129–136). 61 The church has never been located. AAV 3736, 27.10.1423, according to which the customs were collected at “ad sanctum Laurentium extra ciuitatem nostrum Durachj”. Cf. also FORSÉN – HAKKARAINEN – SHKODRA-RRUGIA, Blood and Salt 78. 62 FORSÉN, Emerging Settlement Patterns 22–23. 63 This it at least the picture at Nicopolis and Butrint (BOWDEN, Epirus Vetus 79–81). In the Kokytos Valley of Thesprotia the settlement peaks during the fifth century, with the sixth century showing a slight drop in the number of recorded sites, whereas the seventh century is characterised by full collapse (FORSÉN, Emerging Settlement Patterns 23–25). However, in Mallakastra, close to Apollonia, there is significant decline in number of sites already from the Hellenistic to the Early Roman period, with little pottery at all dating after the second century A.D. (Jack Davis and Kathleen Lynch, personal communication). According to Sharon Stocker the total Roman sherd number only amounts to ca. 4% of the Hellenistic one, due to the urban residency gaining in favour at the expense of rural occupation. Contrary to Davis and Lynch, Stocker sees a very small revival in number of small farmsteads during the Late Roman period (S. R. STOCKER, Illyrian Apollonia: Toward a New Ktisis and Developmental History of the Colony. Unpubl. PhD diss., University of Cincinnati 2009, 669–671, 696–700, 710–713, 739–744, 748–749, 761–764, 777– 778, 780–781, 783–784, 789, 803–806, 810 and 878–888.

107

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

a continuation of settlement during the Dark Age of the seventh and eighth centuries. Of the Early Christian churches mentioned here, St Michael may have existed as late as the fourteenth century and St Maria di Zela definitely did so until the early fifteenth century. St Nicholas again is still mentioned and even marked on a map produced during the sixteenth century. The churches may partly have been destroyed in combination with the increasing number of conversions to Islam probably beginning in the sixteenth century64. This fits well together with the fact that the memory of the churches still occurred in toponyms during the nineteenth century.



64

Large-scale conversions to Islam are known to have taken place in the Balkans, especially during the seventeenth century (see e. g. A. MINKOV, Conversions to Islam in the Balkans. Kisve Bahası Petitions and Ottoman Social Life, 1670–1730. Leiden 2004; or P. BARTL, Zur Topographie und Geschichte der Landschaft Himara in Südalbanien. Münchener Zeitschrift für Balkankunde 7–8 [1991] 323–326). However, this process must have began already during the late sixteenth century, as shown e.g. by E. BALTA – M. OĞUZ – F. YAŞAR, The Ethnic and Religious Composition of Ottoman Thesprotia in the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries, in: Thesprotia Expedition II. Environment and Settlement Patterns (PMFIA XVI), ed. B. Forsén – E. Tikkala. Helsinki 2011, 347–389 for Thesprotia, where Muslim inhabitants already were recorded in nearly a third of the villages.

108

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: General map showing the location of Early Christian sites between Durrës and Kavaja 109

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

FIGURE 2: Part of the map “Provincia di Albania” where St Nicholas is marked. First published in 1571 by CAMOCIO, Isole famose, fol. 25

110

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

FIGURE 3: Late Roman pottery and a glass beaker (no. 2) from site S2 (Qerret) 111

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

FIGURE 4: Aerial photograph showing the outlines of the Early Christian basilica at Qerret next to the Via Egnatia as well as the rough extent of the site of Qerret and the location of the cemetery on the Golem hill

FIGURE 5: Komani-type bronze fibula from the Golem cemetery 112

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LANDSCAPE OF DYRRACHIUM

FIGURE 6: Cross-bow fibula from the Golem cemetery

113

BJÖRN FORSÉN – BRIKENA SHKODRA-RRUGIA

FIGURE 7: Terracotta lamp from the Golem cemetery

114

GALINA FINGAROVA THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA: AN EXPRESSION OF BYZANTINE IMPERIAL CLAIMS

T

he church dedicated to the Panagia or to the Koimesis of the Theotokos – which functioned as the katholikon of a monastery located in central Albania near the Adriatic coast, and is known variously as the monastery of Saint Mary of Pojani after the nearby modern village or as Saint Mary of Apollonia after the adjacent famous ancient city – is one of the few churches in Albania that is well known to a Western audience, largely thanks to the monograph of Heide and Helmut Buschhausen which was published in German in 19761. Nevertheless, many questions still remain 1

H. BUSCHHAUSEN – H. BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche von Apollonia in Albanien. Byzantiner, Normannen und Serben im Kampf um die Via Egnatia. Vienna 1976. See also the reviews of the book: Ch. WALTER, REB 35 (1977) 313–314; M. TADIĆ-DJURIĆ, Zograf 9 (1978) 77–78; S. ĆURČIĆ, Speculum 54/2 (Apr. 1979) 353–358; A. DUCELLIER, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 22/1 (janvier – mars 1979) 375–376. Further publications on the church: V. PUZANOVA, Manastiri “Shën-Mëria e Apollonisë” në Pojan. Buletin i Universitetit Shtetëror të Tiranës, seria Shkencat Shoqërore 3 (1961) 147–154; Th. POPA, Saktësime rreth datimit të kishës së manastirit të Apolonisë. Studime Historike 1 (1967) 137–144; A. MEKSI, Arkitektura dhe datimi i kishës së manastirit të Apollonisë. Monumentet 1 (1971) 103–117; A. MEKSI, Mbi disa probleme të kishës së manastirit të Apolonisë. Monumentet 12 (1976) 233–236; R. GEGA – A. MEKSI, Punimet restauruese në manastirin e Apolonisë. Monumentet 38/2 (1989) 5–33; G. KOCH, Albanien. Kunst und Kultur im Land der Skipetaren. DuMont KunstReiseführer. Cologne 1989, 226–229; A. MEKSI, Arkitektura e kishave të Shqipërisë (Shekujt VII–XV). Tirana 2004, 222–227; V. DIMO – Ph. LENHARDT – F. QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie et ses environs, in: Apollonia d’Illyrie. 1, Atlas archéologique et historique, ed. V. Dimo – Ph. Lenhardt – F. Quantin. Athens – Rome 2007, 275–290; S. ĆURČIĆ, Architecture

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 115–137  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121920

GALINA FINGAROVA

unresolved, for example, its dating, which ranges from the second half of the 11th to the first half of the 13th century, or its interpretation and significance. Based on a critical reassessment of older archeological reports and descriptions of the building and a thorough evaluation of the existing structure and related visual and written sources, this article discusses the history of the erection of the church and attempts to explain many of the building’s singular construction features in the context of the particular political, cultural and geographic situation in the region during the Byzantine period.

LOCATION The topographic location of the monastery is very important for the understanding and interpretation of the structure. It was erected at the edge of the ancient city of Apollonia, which had been founded by Greek colonists from Corinth and Korkyra at the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th century B.C. and flourished in the subsequent centuries thanks to its strategic position on the coast. The hill on which it stands overlooks the extensive Myzeqe plain and was originally situated on the right bank of the Aoos river, the modern Vjosë. In Antiquity the river was navigable up to the city where a large harbor was formed, thereby connecting Apollonia to the Adriatic Sea, the coastline of which ran closer to the hill than it does today2. This harbor was one of the western starting points of the Via Egnatia; in Claudiana, modern Pequin, it met the artery coming from Dyrrhachium, modern Durrës, and continued east to Thessalonike and Byzantium3. An earthquake in the 4th century and the subsequent change of the river course, however, caused the harbor to silt up and the inland area to become in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent. New Haven – London 2010, 428–429. 2 É. FOUACHE, Contexte physique de la plaine de la Myseqë et du site d’Apollonia, in: Apollonia d’Illyrie. 1, Atlas archéologique et historique, ed. V. Dimo – Ph. Lenhardt – F. Quantin. Athens – Rome 2007, 3–13. 3 On the Via Egnatia, M. FASOLO, La via Egnatia 1: Da Apollonia e Dyrrachium ad Herakleia Lynkestidos. Rome 2003.

116

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

a continuously expanding swamp. These natural events are regarded as a reason for the gradual decline of the city, which became increasingly depopulated and by the 6th century hosted only a small Christian community4. Apollonia’s role as an important Adriatic port was transferred in the th 4 century to the nearby settlement of Avlon, modern Vlorë, which marks the shortest point of crossing, connecting the Balkan to the Italian peninsula. As a result, the Via Egnatia was extended to Avlon, but still passed by Apollonia5.

THE MONASTIC COMPLEX The advantage of this strategic position was one reason effecting the erection of a monastery at this place during medieval times. Located underneath the acropolis of the ancient city on a small terrace that overlooks the valley down to the sea, the monastery appears as an enclosed complex (Fig. 1). As is usual, the katholikon stands in the center surrounded by buildings and walls belonging to different building periods. The western flank includes the entrance gate and the medieval refectory with a partially preserved medieval fresco cycle; on the south side stands a tower erected after World War I in lieu of a similar medieval structure which had been preserved until the end of the 19th century; the buildings stretching along the north side which initially housed the living quarters of the monks were rebuilt in modern times and now accommodate the Museum of Apollonia; a further modern construction is the L-shaped portico in the southeast that leans on the ancient city wall which had been used as part of the initial enclosure of the monastery6. 4

On the discussion of these reasons with literature and on the decline of the city, S. MUҪAJ, Quelques données archéologiques sur le déclin de la ville antique d’Apollonia et sa transformation en évêche au Moyen age. Iliria 31/1–2 (2003–2004) 293–303. 5 On the Via Egnatia in medieval times, N. OIKONOMIDES, The Medieval Via Egnatia, in: The Via Egnatia Under Ottoman Rule (1380–1699), ed. E. Zachariadou. Rethymnon 1996, 9–16. For a summarized history of the area, BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 21–41. 6 On the extensive restorations of the monastic complex during the 1980s: R. GEGA, Restaurimi i

117

GALINA FINGAROVA

DESCRIPTION OF THE CHURCH The katholikon is quite a large structure with an overall length of 24.50 m and a width, excluding the annexes to the north, of 10.50 m7 (Figs. 2, 3). It was built on a cross-in-square plan that was expanded by an extra bay to the east. The structure terminates in this direction with an apse that is horseshoe-shaped on the interior and five-sided on the exterior. To the west there is an inner narthex and a large porticoed exonarthex. Two annexes are situated toward the east end of the northern wall. It is quite noticeable that the plan is considerably distorted and has the shape of a parallelogram, presenting no right angles throughout the entire building. The positioning of the columns supporting the dome as well as both internal piers to the east reflect this distortion which is also evident in the oval shape of the dome8 (Fig. 4). Only archeological investigations conducted in the area of the monastery in 2003–2004 have confirmed former suppositions that the irregularities of the plan stem from earlier structures that were taken into account during the building process9 (Fig. 2). Another characteristic feature of the structure is its building material, which consists exclusively of spolia from the nearby ancient city (Figs. 5–7). The church is constructed primarily of large, finely dressed ashlars, mostly

manastirit të Apollonisë dhe vizitueshmëria e tij. Monumentet 32 (1986) 161–163; R. GEGA – A. MEKSI, Punimet restauruese në manastirin e Apolonisë. Monumentet 38/2 (1989) 5–33. On the monastic buildings see further: BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 45–56; DIMO – LENHARDT – QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie 275–280. 7 These measurements are given by KOCH, Albanien 227. By and large they coincide with the measurements specified by ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans 428, 11 x 20 m, excluding the narthex and the annexes, and can be verified on the plan (Fig. 3). 8 Heide and Helmut Buschhausen did not consider these irregularities either in the description or on the plan and longitudinal section that they published, BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche figs. 9, 10, despite the fact that already in 1971 Aleksandër Meksi had discussed the irregularities and published several architectural drawings of the church indicating the distorted plan and associated deformations, MEKSI, Arkitektura dhe datimi fig. 1, pls. I–V. 9 DIMO – LENHARDT – QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie 282–283.

118

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

of marble, stemming from the theater of Apollonia10, whereas bricks are used only in the upper parts, including partially the vaulting and the dome. At least one example from a Byzantine Christian context – a relief panel representing a cross and an eagle – is immured prominently into the upper western part of the south wall (Fig. 7). Also the four columns supporting the dome and their bases are reused material from an ancient context11; their capitals are, however, related to the Romanesque architectural sculpture of southern Italy (Fig. 8). These columns are placed markedly close to the exterior walls. As a result the dimensions of the cross arms and of the corner bays became proportionally slim, while the central space was considerably enlarged, allowing the construction of a large dome. In this respect the absence of both internal and external engaged pilasters is even more striking12. The wide cornice at impost level which protrudes ca. 30 cm is also unusual and clearly differentiates between the lower and upper parts of the building. Two square piers support the barrel vault of the additional bay in the east, which accommodates the sanctuary. In this space, the seating bench surrounding the apse as well as the altar table and the column bases of the original ciborium in front of it are still preserved. Both side rooms, which function as pastophoria, have similar dimensions as the corner bays. The room to the north is connected to a rectangular annex that is contemporary with the main building. Adjacent to its west wall is a second rectangular annex with an apse inset into the eastern wall, which served as a chapel dedicated to St. Demetrios (Figs. 2, 3, 5, 6). It was a later addition, as is indicated by the different masonry and by the fact that its entrance on the south wall is connected to the north entrance of the naos through the original porch. Similar porches consisting of a barrel vault supported on two columns and covered by a pitched roof are still preserved on the opposite, south side and in front of both entrances to the south and 10

MEKSI, Mbi disa probleme 233; MEKSI, Arkitektura e kishave 224; DIMO – LENHARDT – QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie 280. 11 MEKSI, Arkitektura dhe datimi 104. 12 This peculiarity has been emphasized by Slobodan Ćurčić, see ĆURČIĆ, Review 355; ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans 428.

119

GALINA FINGAROVA

north leading into the inner narthex13 (Figs. 6, 7). The two adjacent entrances to the porticoed exonarthex are not supplied with such porches; the shape of their doorframes, which are furnished with an architrave, also differs from the remaining entrances, which are arched. The visual emphasis of the porticoed exonarthex is on the west side where it opens up in an arcade elevated on a 0.80 m high wall (Figs. 6, 9). The center is accentuated by a solid pier, and on both sides are two octagonal columns and a pier arranged alternately. The distinctly Romanesque sculptural decoration of the capitals that consist of symmetrically placed animals, monsters, or composite beings of various kinds is significant. It has been proposed that the exonarthex belongs to a later building phase, as a vertical joint between it and the main building is visible on each side14 (Figs. 6, 7). However, since the building material and technique of both architectural units are absolutely identical I am convinced that both parts belong to the initial building phase15. As Robert Ousterhout has shown, vertical joints between the main church and its exonarthex or porch are fairly common in Byzantine church architecture, as exemplified by the exonarthices of Fatih Camii in Enez and of Panepoptes Church in Istanbul16. Clear evidence of later restorations can be seen on the upper part of the exonarthex. It initially had a barrel vault as is indicated by the springing line clearly discernible on the east wall of the exonarthex. After the collapse 13

The porch in front of the south entrance of the narthex was re-erected during restorations in the 1980s, GEGA – MEKSI, Punimet restauruese 7. 14 MEKSI, Arkitektura dhe datimi 107; MEKSI, Arkitektura e kishave 223–224; BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 101; ĆURČIĆ, Review 355–356; ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans 428. 15 KOCH, Albanien 227–228, came to the same conclusion. 16 R. OUSTERHOUT, Master Builders of Byzantium. Princeton 1999, 162–163. The Late Byzantine donor fresco located on the east wall of the exonarthex (see below) does not belong to the first decoration phase at this location as the remains of an older fresco layer beneath it are still discernible. This suggests that an architectural unit stood at this place before the donor image was painted. Furthermore, the Romanesque character of the sculptural decoration of the capitals of the arcade and of those in the naos implies the contemporaneity of both architectural units.

120

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

of the barrel vault, the east wall was raised in height and a single-pitch roof that also covers the inner narthex was constructed. Gaps between the initial masonry and the new roof were filled with bricks. A bell tower was erected above in 1778 according to an inscription on it17 (Figs. 6, 9). The whole building complex is dominated, also from the exterior, by the large dome. Its drum is articulated by twelve blind arches, and four small double windows are arranged diagonally. Similar windows pierce the upper parts of the cross arms while one decorated with a human bust opens into the apse. As indicated by the description above, the discussed church can be characterized as a hybrid building with some peculiarities. These include the distorted plan and the unusual layout of the cross-in-square unit, which stemmed from the desire for a large central dome, as well as the building material consisting of spolia from the ancient city nearby and the architectural sculpture with south Italian Romanesque characteristics.

DATING PROPOSALS The curiosity of this building, which does not have any known parallels18, makes it extremely difficult to date. The only evidence that was considered in all discussions of the church as a confident terminus ante quem for its construction is an epitaph on the exterior of the apse beneath the window. It was unambiguously carved after the erection of the edifice19 and states that the monk Theodoulos was buried here in 125020. Beyond this consensus, the various dating proposals and their arguments diverge to a certain extent from each other. Heide and Helmut Buschhausen assign the initial construction of the church to the 1080s based on historical events and on the

17

MEKSI, Arkitektura e kishave 224. This fact has been already emphasized by ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans 428. 19 MEKSI, Arkitektura dhe datimi 108–109. 20 (1) ΕΙΣ ΤΟΔΕ ΤΟΠΟΝ [… …] ΘΕΟΔΟΥΛΟΣ (2) Αχ ΕΤους ˏςΨΝΗ΄ [6758 = 1250] ………….., BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 74. 18

121

GALINA FINGAROVA

presumption that it was erected by western stone masons and sculptors21. According to Guntram Koch, the unusual proportions of the building with its large dome and atrophied corner bays are characteristic features for structures of the Late Byzantine period. Hence, he ascribes the erection of the church to the second quarter of the 13th century and excludes any earlier dating22. In contrast, Slobodan Ćurčić designates the “basic building concept” as Middle Byzantine, but for him a later date seems more reasonable than the Buschhausens’ proposed dating to the 1080s23. In his opinion, the church was built by local builders who were in fact competent, but unfamiliar with the cross-in-square plan they had been commissioned to execute. Thus, “they produced an idiosyncratic local variation on the theme, one that is easily distinguished from other local variations, such as the churches on the Mane peninsula and the church at Geroumana”24. Ćurčić emphasizes the structural similarity of the church in Apollonia to the narthex of the Porta Panagia near Trikala, which he dates to the 12th century25. Aleksandër Meksi comes to a similar conclusion concerning the dating of the initial construction in his book on church architecture in Albania from 2004; in contrast to Ćurčić he argues for the Constantinopolitan origin of its builders. Like in his publication on the church from 197126, he supposes that they came to this part of the Empire after the conquest of Constantinople 21

BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 16–17, 73–85. This proposal met with much deserved criticism best formulated by Ć URČIĆ, Review 354–355: “Although an effort was made to present a detailed picture of the complex political history of the period, the ultimate argumentation for the probable date of the building appears surprisingly weak. It hinges on the stylistic similarity of the four naos capitals of the Katholikon with pilaster capitals of the gate to the Sanctuary of St. Michael at Monte Sant’Angelo, whose Byzantine bronze door is dated 1076. As much as one is easily convinced that the Apollonia church was executed by masons versed in Romanesque building practice, one is not nearly as ready to accept it as a work of some South Italian masons who found themselves in Apollonia in the aftermath of Robert Guiscard’s invasion.” 22 KOCH, Albanien 228. 23 ĆURČIĆ, Review 355. 24 ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans 428; see also ĆURČIĆ, Review 355. 25 ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans 428; on Porta Panagia 417–418. 26 MEKSI, Arkitektura dhe datimi 109–110; the church is dated here to the first half of the 13th century.

122

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

in 1204 and based on this assumption he dates the erection to the beginning of the 13th century. However, taking into account the inscription of the donor representation located on the east wall of the exonarthex that mentions the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (see below), he does not exclude the possibility that the church was erected during his reign. According to him, the additional bay to the east of the naos, and especially the 5sided apse and the 12-sided drum, link this building to a series of churches erected by the Komnenoi during the 12th century27. Thus far, Meksi is the only researcher to have considered the inscription of the donor image for the dating of the initial construction of the church in Apollonia. It is worth taking a closer look at this representation as it provides important information about the architectural history of the building and its significance.

DONOR REPRESENTATION As already mentioned, the donor panel is located on the east wall of the exonarthex to the north of the entrance to the church (Figs. 10–12). It does not belong to the first decoration phase at this location as the remains of an older fresco layer beneath it are still discernible28. Although the state of preservation of the fresco is very poor, six individuals divided into two groups are visible. On the left side stands an imperial couple with their son between them, who is identified by the adjacent inscription as Andronikos II Palaiologos29. Thus, although the inscriptions naming the couple are fragmentary or not preserved, they can be identified

27

MEKSI, Arkitektura e kishave 226. The remains can be seen in the northern part. They extend upwards to the springing line of the initial barrel vault and downwards almost to the floor level. 29 (1) Ἀνδρόνικος ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ πιστὸς (2) βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων Κομνηνὸς Δούκας Ἄγγελος (3) ὁ Παλαιολόγος, transcription Erich Trapp, in: BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 146. 28

123

GALINA FINGAROVA

as his parents – the Emperor Michael VIII designated as a “New Constantine” and Theodora30. The members of the imperial family are turned slightly to the viewer’s right in order to face the three figures on the other side. Opposite the emperor stands the Virgin Mary holding a model of the church in her right hand. She is followed by a bearded man of equal size. Mary rests her left hand on the shoulder of a smaller figure standing in front of her and enfolded by her maphorion. This male figure differs from the other depicted persons through his modest size and the absence of a nimbus. He wears a cloak and a cowl that identifies him as a monk. Exactly at the center of the composition his right hand encounters the left hand of the emperor31 and both together hold a scroll. The monk points with his other hand to this action, thereby emphasizing its importance. On both sides of the Mother of God unfolds a long, but unfortunately fragmentarily preserved inscription, which states: (4) their idols and gods … (5) shattered and … the present … divine [temple, scil. ναὸν] … (6) its abbot and archimandrite … (7) abbot Ioannes as a pious, Christ loving … (8) who loves the monks … our abbot … (9) … (10) that since time immemorial [was] protected by its abbot … (11) the pious emperors, who ruled before … (12) the holy founder the founder’s deed and 30

While the inscription adjacent to the woman is not preserved, the one to the right of the nimbus of the emperor reads as follows: (1) [Μιχαὴλ ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ πιστὸς (2) βασιλεὺς] καὶ α[ὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων] (3) νέος Κωνσταντῖνος Κομνηνὸς Δούκας Ἄγγελος (4) ὁ Παλαιολόγος ὁ ὡς ἀλη- (5) θῶς φιλόχριστος καὶ φι- (6) λομόναχος, transcription Erich Trapp, in: BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 146–147. 31 In the present state of preservation both hands are not exactly in the center of the composition, but the panel was initially extended to the south and this spot marked the center, G. FINGAROVA, Die Stifterin par excellence: Zur Deutung des Stifterbildes in der Marienkirche von Apollonia, Albanien, in: Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. L. Theis – M. Mullett – M. Grünbart. Vienna 2014, 283–298, n. 10, 22.

124

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

(13) its confirmation by the divine chrysoboullos (14) logos from the late Emperor Lord Manuel, who also … (15) had re-erected … from your … (16) … her logos to their liking … (17) … (18) … (19) … all rights …32 The inscription obviously copies a charter issued by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, which confirms an earlier charter of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos guaranteeing the privileges given to the monastery and the fulfillment of the wills of previous donors. There is no doubt that this representation further commemorates renovation and restoration works undertaken thanks to the imperial support by the abbot and archimandrite of the monastery, Ioannes, who is mentioned in the inscription. By virtue of his role as a donor, Ioannes assumes an appropriate place in the representation. Humbly dressed as a monk, without nimbus and considerably smaller in size than the other figures, he stands under the special protection of the Mother of God, which is visualized by the gesture of her left hand resting on his shoulder and by the protecting maphorion. In addition, Ioannes

32

Translation Johannes Koder. I am very grateful to Prof. Koder for the translation of the inscription. (1) …………………………………………………………… (2) ……………… ……………………………………… (3) .α………………………ο…………………………….. (4) τῶν εἰδόλων και θεῶν αὐτῶν παρα… [συν-] (5) τρίψασα καὶ τὸν παρόντα υ… [θ]εῖον πατ … α εισ… (6) αὐτὸν τὸν τούτου ἀφηγούμενον καὶ ἀρχιμ[αν]δρίτ[ην] … (7) α ἀββᾶν Ἰωάννην ὡς εἰς εὐσεβῆ φιλοχρι[στο .] ( .. ) (8) φιλομονάχου …. [ἀβ]βᾶν ἡμῶν …. (9) κων ἀποδιδου …… δε β . σ (10) περιφρουρει .. ( . ) παρὰ τοῦ ἀβᾶ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀνέκα[θεν] (11) προβεβασιλευκότων εὐσεβῶν βασιλέω[ν] (12) τῶν ἁγίων κτητόρων τυπικὴν διατύπωσιν καὶ [ἀ] (13) ποκύ[ρ]ωσιν ταύτης τοῦ θείου χρυσοβ[ούλλου] (14) λόγου τοῦ ἀειμν[ήστου] βασιλέως κῦρ Μανουὴλ τοῦ καὶ ἀ (15) ναδ[ομησαμένου] … νόμου .. οστας .. μ . ἐξ ὑμετ[έρων] … (16) … τοῦ λόγου αὐτῆς εἰς [ἀ]ρές[κε]ι[αν] … τούτων … χρυ. (17) δικων βουλο … γουμε ………. τῶν τῶν .. (18) … λῶν τῶν χ .. υ . π( . )αυρ . ( . ) νο ( . ) καὶ εἰς π … (19) .. μα αὐτῆς .. [ὅ]λων τῶν δικαιο[μάτων], transcription Erich Trapp, in: BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 147, with some alterations by Johannes Koder.

125

GALINA FINGAROVA

receives from the emperor the charter confirming privileges for his monastery33. Unfortunately, the donor representation provides no clue as to the extent of the renovation works undertaken by Ioannes34, but indicates the time frame for their execution – between 1272 and 127535. Moreover, it records a clear statement about the claims of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. First of all, he is represented in the middle of the composition as a counterpart of the Mother of God. The fact that she is not receiving but holding the model of the church is very unusual and evokes the impression of a subverted donor composition. As a result, the viewer sees the Virgin Mary offering the model of the church to the emperor. Thus the representation portrays the genuine possessor and heavenly protector of the church, the Virgin Mary, next to and equal in size with its rightful possessor and protector on earth, the Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. Even more, it emphasizes his divine favor. This interpretation in conjunction with the designation “New Constantine”36 on the identifying inscription next to the nimbus of the emperor bolsters the conclusion that the panel forms a bold and proud statement of the fact that this corner of the Byzantine world was

On the identification of the donor, FINGAROVA, Die Stifterin par excellence 291. Based on the material evidence I suppose that, besides the donor representation, they mostly concerned the upper parts of the building. The chapel of St. Demetrios was probably added at this time, as an inscription on the west wall of the older annex gives us as terminus ante quem for its erection – the year 1292. It informs us that a sebastokratorissa named Kale was buried in the small space between the naos and the chapel in 1292, BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 72, pl. VIII.20. I further suppose that the trapeza was restored during this time and received the painting decoration still preserved there. 35 This dating was proposed for the donor representation by P. MILJKOVIĆ-PEPEK, Le portrait de l’empereur byzantine Michael VIII à l’église rupestre de Saint-Érasme près d’Ohrid. CahArch 45 (1997) 169–177, esp. 171–173. Discussion of the dating to 1281– 1282 proposed by BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 157, in FINGAROVA, Die Stifterin par excellence 292. 36 On the designation “New Constantine,” BUSCHHAUSEN – BUSCHHAUSEN, Die Marienkirche 153–154; R. MACRIDES, The New Constantine and the New Constantinople – 1261?. BMGS 6 (1980) 13–41. 33 34

126

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

now again under the rule of the emperor thanks to a divine gift37. At the same time, the reference to the charter of Manuel I Komnenos associates Michael VIII with the previous patron and benefactor of the monastery, which emphasizes continuation and legitimates his rule. A similar interpretation was proposed for the poorly preserved portraits on the south façade of the Panagia Mauriotissa near Kastoria, which shows two imperial figures, last identified as a certain Komnenian emperor, probably the supposed founder of the monastery Alexios I Komnenos, and Michael VIII

37

In both typica issued by Michael in favor of the monasteries of saints Demetrios and Michael as well as in the chrysobull for Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the emperor repeatedly refers to himself as the instrument employed by God to restore Constantinople, Typikon of Michael VIII Palaiologos for the Monastery of the Archangel Michael on Mount Auxentios near Chalkedon (tr. G. Dennis), in: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, ed. J. Thomas – A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC 2000, III 1215– 1236; Typikon of Michael VIII Palaiologos for the Monastery of St. Demetrios of the Palaiologoi-Kellibara in Constantinople (tr. G. Dennis), in: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, III 1241–1253; D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, The Byzantine Recovery of Constantinople from the Latins in 1262: A Chrysobull of Michael VIII Palaiologus in Favor of Hagia Sophia, in: D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, Constantinople and the West. Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches. Madison, WI 1989, 173–188. Michael indirectly disclaims any responsibility for the events of 1261, in order to stress more strongly God’s freely bestowed gift to him. This same idea is expressed by his entrance into Constantinople, which he made not as an imperial triumph but as an act of thanksgiving to God. He chose as his day of entry the feast day of the Dormition of the Virgin, the protector of Constantinople, and traversed the city on foot with the holy icon of the Virgin Hodegetria at the head of the procession, see D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258–1282: A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations. Cambridge, MA 1959, 119–122; MACRIDES, The New Constantine 13–14; R. MACRIDES, From the Komnenoi to the Palaiologoi: Imperial Models in Decline and Exile, in: New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992, ed. P. Magdalino. Aldershot 1994, 269–282. In my opinion, the panel connects Apollonia to that event in Constantinople, even more so because the church was dedicated to the Virgin or to the Dormition and it was recorded by Alexoudes that an icon of the Mother of God with child was depicted on the east wall of the exonarthex. On the interpretation of the donor image more extensively, FINGAROVA, Die Stifterin par excellence 292–298.

127

GALINA FINGAROVA

Palaiologos38. While the Komnenian emperor holds in his left hand a chrysobull alluding to his role as a founder or donor of the monastery, Michael is represented with the imperial insignia – akakia and scepter – which points to the honorific nature of his portrait. As in Apollonia, Michael probably confirmed imperial privileges and donations for the monastery and facilitated the reconstruction and restauration works carried out by the hegoumenos of the monastery who is depicted in the apse in monkish attire kneeling in front of the Mother of God. The representation may be viewed as imperial propaganda alluding to the consolidation of Michael VIII’s rule in the region of Kastoria and legitimating it through association to the Komnenian founder or donor39. The chrysobull inscribed on the donor panel in Apollonia refers to earlier founders of the monastery whose donor charter was confirmed by Emperor Manuel I Komnenos “who also … had re-erected …” Archeological excavations conducted in the area of the monastery in 2003–2004 have confirmed that the present church was not the first Christian building onsite40 (Fig. 2). It seems likely that Manuel I Komnenos extensively rebuilt the monastery including its katholikon. This activity is closely related to the 38

A. WHARTON EPSTEIN, Middle Byzantine Churches of Kastoria: Dates and Implications. The Art Bulletin 62/2 (1980) 190–207, here 204; A. WHARTON EPSTEIN, Frescoes of Mavriotissa Monastery near Kastoria: Evidence of Millenarianism and Anti-Semitism in the Wake of the First Crusade. Gesta 21/1 (1982) 21–29, here 22; T. PAPAMASTORAKIS, Ένα εικαστικό εγκώμιο του Μιχαήλ Η΄ Παλαιολόγου: οι εξωτερικές τοιχογραφίες στο καθολικό της Μονής της Μαυριώτισσας στην Καστοριά. DChAE 15 (1989–1990) 221–240, here 233–235; S. KALOPISSI-VERTI, Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in Thirteenth-Century Churches of Greece. Vienna 1992, 28–29. 39 PAPAMASTORAKIS, Ένα εικαστικό εγκώμιο 233–235; KALOPISSI-VERTI, Dedicatory Inscriptions 29. 40 Unfortunately, the results of the excavations have not been sufficiently published. MUҪAJ, Quelques données archéologiques, n. 15 indicates to an article in press by S. Muçaj and E. Hobdari which did not appear as quoted in Candavia 2 (2005). In a paper given by S. XHYHERI – S. MUҪAJ – I. RISTANI – E. BUSHI XHAFERAJ (The Churches of the 10th–12th Centuries in South Albania, Archaeological Evidence after the 2000) at the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016, was mentioned that the findings suggest a dating of earlier structures to the late 10th–early 11th century. See also DIMO – LENHARDT – QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie 282–284.

128

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

claims of this emperor who was eager to restore his empire to its past glory as the superpower of the Mediterranean world. In this context he directed his efforts more intensively than his predecessors to western Europe, aiming especially the re-conquest of southern Italy and Sicily. As base for his military operations he used Avlona which, as emphasized above, lies close to Apollonia and both were connected by the Via Egnatia41. Even more, “Manuel was the first Byzantine emperor since Theophilos (829–42) to attract comment for his obvious penchant for a foreign culture; he was the first ever to gain a reputation as a friend and admirer of the Latin West.”42 In my opinion the architectural peculiarities of the church express in an exemplary way Manuel’s ideology and attitude. First of all, the typical Byzantine cross-in-square plan that is dominated by a large dome can be regarded as a link to Byzantine territories and especially to Constantinople. Second, beside the practical explanation for the building material – as an easily available, but qualitative material from the nearby ancient city – spolia can be interpreted as a way to create a link to the past and to establish lines of continuity to the present, as has been proposed for other churches erected with reused material43. Last but not least, the southern Italian Romanesque architectural sculpture establishes a connection to the territories in Italy which Manuel appreciated and aimed to restore to his empire. In sum, using the cultural diversity of this region where East and West meet, the emperor created a unique hybrid building which in an exemplary way reveals the multiplicity of its inhabitants, reflects its history and manifests Byzantine imperial claims. 

41

On the claims and policy of Manuel I Komnenos, P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge 1993. 42 MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos 2. 43 See, for example, B. KIILERICH, Making Sense of the Spolia in the Little Metropolis in Athens. Arte Medievale 4/2 (2005) 95–114; G. D. R. SANDERS, William of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka: The Use of Ancient Spolia to Make Personal and Political Statements. Hesperia 84/3 (2015) 583–626.

129

GALINA FINGAROVA

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: Monastery of Saint Mary in Apollonia, ground plan after V. Dimo – Ph. Lenhardt – F. Quantin (DIMO – LENHARDT – QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie, fig. 179) 130

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

FIGURE 2: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia and trapeza, ground plan after V. Dimo – Ph. Lenhardt – F. Quantin (DIMO – LENHARDT – QUANTIN, Le monastère Sainte-Marie, fig. 180) 131

GALINA FINGAROVA

FIGURE 3: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, ground plan after R. Gega – A. Meksi (GEGA – MEKSI, Punimet restauruese, pl. XIII) 132

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

FIGURE 4: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, view into the dome

FIGURE 5: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, view from northeast 133

GALINA FINGAROVA

FIGURE 6: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, view from northwest

FIGURE 7: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, view from south 134

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

FIGURE 8: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, naos, view to northeast

FIGURE 9: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, view from west 135

GALINA FINGAROVA

FIGURE 10: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, donor representation

FIGURE 11: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, donor representation (Drawing S. Teetor) 136

THE CHURCH OF SAINT MARY IN APOLLONIA

FIGURE 12: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, donor representation, detail: Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos

FIGURE 13: Church of Saint Mary in Apollonia, donor representation, detail: Virgin Mary and Ioannes 137

LORENZO RICCARDI UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST ON THE MOSAIC AND SCULPTURAL DECORATION OF THE PAREGORET ISSA CHURCH IN ARTA

A

mong the best-known monuments of the Late Byzantine period, the Paregoretissa in Arta has been the focus of numerous studies (Fig. 1). However, after the volume by Anastasios K. Orlandos, published in 19631, researches has tended to focus only on its architecture, leaving aside the rich mosaic and sculptural decoration (Figs. 2, 3). While we have a sufficiently clear idea of the building and its architectural phases, despite some issues that are still unsolved2, strangely, our knowledge of the decoration has become more uncertain. This is mainly due to the types of research undertaken, which have studied the mosaics and sculptures in order 1

A. K. ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα της Άρτης. Athens 1963. This book, published after the restoration works undertaken between 1949 and 1958, is based on a previous paper by the same author: A. K. ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα της Άρτης. AD 5 (1919) 1–82. 2 This is due to the lack of the publication of the excavations (like the ones undertaken around 1997 under the naos floor, according to which the Paregoretissa I seems to have been a cross-in-square church) or to several critical issues that are relatively difficult to solve (like the role of the gallery and the baldachin over it). The excavations are only mentioned by V. PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα και τα μνημεία της. Athens 2002, 137 (Eng. transl., Byzantine Arta and its Monuments. Athens 2007, 137–138) and, few years earlier, by P. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Church Architecture in the Despotate of Epirus: The Problem of Influences. Zograf 27 (1998/99) 79–92 (81 n. 33). On the galleries, Tantses’ interesting remarks in his unpublished PhD thesis (Το υπερώο στη βυζαντινή ναοδομία. Aristotle University of Thessalonike 2008, 341–343) will need to be discussed in detail. I worked on these and other issues in my PhD thesis: L’Epiro tra Bisanzio e l’Occidente: ideologia e committenza artistica nel primo secolo del Despotato. 1204–1318. Sapienza Università di Roma 2016.

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 139–184  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121921

LORENZO RICCARDI

to include them in more general debates on Late Byzantine sculpture and painting or artistic links between Epirus and Italy. In these works, ground breaking remarks have been made, which have led to a profound revision of Orlandos’ “uniform” interpretation. Nowadays, focussing on the Paregoretissa implies a particular effort to avoid digression. As this paper mainly examines the inner decoration of the church, I will not touch upon other complex issues that certainly would deserve a more detailed discussion3. Similarly, I will not suggest a new interpretation of the decoration’s meaning, since that would require a separate discussion, whose starting point is the argument that I propose in this paper. Instead, I will consider the critical issues that have emerged from the new studies on its architecture, which also concern the relationship between the building and its decoration and, thus, the dynamics of the construction site. For this reason, I will focus on those sculptures that, since the time of their publication, are commonly called “Western” or “Latin”4. So, in this case, I will gloss over the marble revetment of the counter-façade (Fig. 4), the fragments of the lost templon identified by Orlandos, as well as the set of ancient columns and their capitals (some of them reworked in the 13th century5). I will also deal with the few fragments of the mosaics, which 3

I refer to the structural system supporting the dome and the architectural sculptures in the upper part of the naos as a complex and coherent plan to conceive the sacred space. I intend to return to this issue on a later occasion: see, for now, R ICCARDI, L’Epiro 342–349. 4 G. LAMPAKES, Περιηγήσεις ημών ανά την Ελλάδα του 1898. DChAE 3 (1904) 64–111 (“Franks influence”, 78); G. MILLET, L’art chrétien d’Orient du milieu du XII e au milieu du XVIe siècle, in: Histoire de l’Art depuis les premiers temps chrétiens jusqu’à nos jours III/2, ed. A. MICHEL. Paris 1908, 925–962 (“par des marbriers italiens”, 932); Ch. DIEHL, Manuel d’art byzantin. Paris 1910, 726 (“marbriers italiens”); G. MILLET, L’École grecque dans l’architecture byzantine. Paris 1916, 9–10 n. 2 (“sculptures gothiques”); ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1919) 57 (“by foreign, maybe Italian, artists”); A. XYNGOPOULOS, Φραγκοβυζαντινά γλυπτά εν Αθήναις. ArchEph (1931) 69–102 (“by Italian artists”, 102). See also A. GRABAR, Sculptures byzantines du Moyen Age II (XI e–XIVe siècle). Paris 1976, 146 no. 152B (“le style de ces reliefs est nettement latinisant”), and D. PALLAS, Ευρώπη και Βυζάντιο, in: Αˊ Διεθνής Βυζαντινολογική Συνάντηση (Delphi, 20–24 July 1985). Athens 1987, 30–61 (“evident western style”, 27). 5 Pending further review, see V. PAPADOPOULOU, Τα κιονόκρανα του ναού της Αγίας Θεοδώρας στην Άρτα. ΒΕΛΛΑ 7 (2013–2015) 655–678 (663).

140

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

have been neglected by previous studies, in order to consider their original layout in the upper part of the naos. The latter will be the object of the last part of my paper that focuses on the general arrangement of the decoration of the Paregoretissa church, in which different artistic media coexist. Nevertheless, with the exception of a hypothesis on the iconography of some lost sculptures, my analysis will be confined to a close examination of presence and absence: I will discuss what has survived, what has disappeared and what has never been made. Whoever enters into the Paregoretissa is struck by the structural system supporting the dome, in which vertical and horizontal reused columns are alternated up to the beginning of the pendentives (Fig. 5)6. Thanks to this system inside the naos, there is a shift from a plan with eight points of support at the ground-floor level (Fig. 6) to a cross-in-square plan in the upper level (Fig. 7). This is a peculiar building solution that prevents us from ascribing the church to a specific typology of the Byzantine architecture7. Only at a second glance is it possible to notice that traces of an heterogeneous decoration survive in the naos: in particular the extensive mosaics of the dome, although fragmentary, appears representing the Pantokrator in association with cherubim, seraphim, wheels, and prophets (Fig. 3)8. Descending downwards with the observation, the dull surfaces of the bricks become prominent, suffocating the few mosaic fragments on the pendentives and the “Western” sculptures underneath. 6

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 55–65; L. THEIS, Die Architektur der Kirche der Panagia Parēgorētissa in Arta/Epirus. Amsterdam 1991, 56–62, 129–130, 133–134. 7 THEIS, Die Architektur 132–133. According to Orlandos, its prototype could be sought in the western architecture: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 64–65. See also C. MANGO, Byzantine Architecture. New York 1976, 266; R. K RAUTHEIMER, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. New Haven 1986, 417–418; VOKOTOPOULOS, Church Architecture 83; BOURAS, Byzantine & Post-Byzantine Architecture in Greece. Athens 2006, 175, 181; S. ČURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent. New Haven – London 2010, 567–569. 8 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 108–123; T. PAPAMASTORAKIS, Ο διάκοσμος του τρούλλου των ναών της Παλαιολόγειας περίοδου στη Βαλκανική Χερσόνησο και την Κύπρο. Athens 2001, 6, 40–41; PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 150–154.

141

LORENZO RICCARDI

Above the two rows of reused columns, there is a third row of colonettes without a structural function (Fig. 8), two of which support a pointed trefoil arch (Fig. 9). Each pair of colonettes, of which twelve out of sixteen survive, lies on a corbel, with six out of eight remaining (Figs. 8, 14–16). Inside two of the vault intrados of the four cross arms on the North and the West there are two arches of eleven sculpted voussoirs (Figs. 3, 17–20). Even more surprising is the choice of the subjects represented on the arches and the corbels. On the latter, there are real animals, such as lions, eagles, horses, and imaginary animals, often not easily identifiable (Figs. 8, 14–16)9. On the arches there are characters from the Old and New Testaments, narrowly linked with two Christological themes. The pendant keystone of the North arch contains a Nativity scene (Figs. 19, 20), and that of the West arch the Agnus Dei (Figs. 17, 18), a common representation in Latin sculpture, but expressly forbidden by Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council held in 69210. Finally, on the ground floor, there are post-Byzantine frescoes and some traces of the original marble revetment, which is better preserved on the counter-façade (Fig. 4)11. Currently, the decoration does not distinguish itself strongly, partly overcome by the volume of the structural system supporting the dome and partly by the dull surfaces of the bricks (Fig. 3). Certainly, this was not the effect that the church’s patrons and the builders wanted to achieve. We can imagine that they planned it in the smallest details, at least in principle. However, we must remember that a final project could be disregarded or 9

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 70–73; A. LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts in Arta. Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des “Despotats” von Epiros. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universität Wien 1986, 111–113, 181–183 no. 55–60. 10 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 78–93; K. WESSEL, Byzantinische Plastik der Palaiologischen Periode. Byz 36 (1966) 217–259 (221–225); GRABAR, Sculptures byzantines 146 no. 152B; LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken 179–181 no. 52–53; PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 145–148. Regarding the Agnus Dei, see J. L. OPIE, Agnus Dei, in: Ecclesiae urbis. Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi sulle chiese di Roma. IV–X secolo (Roma, 4–10 settembre 2000) III, ed. F. Guidobaldi – A. Guiglia. Rome 2002, 1813–1840; F. POMARICI, L’Agnello e il Liber Creaturarum: il programma iconografico delle lunette, in: W. ANGELLELLI – M. GIANADREA – F. GANDOLFO – F. POMARICI, Medioevo in Molise: il cantiere della Chiesa di San Giorgio Martire a Petrella Tiferinina. Rome 2012, 87–104. 11 See below notes 82–84.

142

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

only partially accomplished. This often occurred in the sequence of events during which such complex constructions were built, as they were always linked with contemporary historical and political events, particularly with the stability of the government that guaranteed the continuity of the funds. Moreover, it is also possible that, in its lifetime, a monument is literally stripped of its components, either intentionally or carelessly.

A FIRST CRITICAL ISSUE: THE “WESTERN” SCULPTURES AND THEIR CHRONOLOGY It is necessary to acknowledge that knowing which elements of the decorations were actually realised, and what has been lost consequently is the oldest critical issue in the research on the Paregoretissa: Orlandos dealt with this issue when discussing the “Western” sculptures and the mosaics, without any further discussion raised among the subsequent scholars12. We will go back to this theme in the conclusions, because it is necessary first to discuss another critical issue that has arisen more recently: the chronology of the “Western” sculptures and their possible reuse in the present building. The issue was raised by Linda Safran in a valuable work on the relationship between Epirus and Apulia, which was inspired by the studies of Lioba Theis and Georgios Velenis on the architecture of the church. In fact, they identified two different chronological phases: one around 1250 and another dating around 1294–1296. The present building (so-called Paregoretissa II) was rebuilt after the partial collapse of the previous church (so-called Paregoretissa I)13. Before this hypothesis, although Orlandos had already highlighted 12

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 108, VIII. See E. G. STIKAS, L’église byzantine de la Panagia Paregoretissa (Consοlatrice) d’Arta en Épire et l’influence italienne. Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 22 (1975) 357–372; THEIS, Die Architektur 58 n. 296; PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 147, 152. 13 G. VELENIS, Ερμηνεία του εξωτερικού διακόσμου στην βυζαντινή αρχιτεκτονική. PhD thesis, University of Thessalonike 1984, 97, 126, 188; G. VELENIS, Thirteenth-Century Architecture in the Despotate of Epirus: the Origins of the School, in: Studenica et l’art byzantin autour de l’année 1200, ed. V. Korać. Belgrade 1988, 279–287 (280); THEIS, Die Architektur

143

LORENZO RICCARDI

some anomalies in the building process14, it was believed that the church was coherent and also that the Western sculptures were dated to the end of the 13th century. Nevertheless, Orlandos and Liveri offered a range of comparanda with an older chronology both for the iconography and the style15. Orlandos referred to 12th-century works from northern and central Italy and France16, while Angeliki Liveri increased them with countless comparisons from southern Italy that span between the end of the 11 th and the 12th century17. Furthermore, Liveri identified two models, one Romanesque and one Gothic, each corresponding to the activity of one workshop18. It is undeniable that, aside from some lexical peculiarities, such as the pointed trefoil arch (Fig. 9), the artistic language of the craftsmen of Arta shows, on a formal level, a better adherence to what we define as “Romanesque art” rather than to “Gothic art”. To explain this stylistic and chronological idiosyncrasy, Wessel hypothesised the existence of local artists that saw and were inspired by western 142–144. In my opinion, the first building (Paregoretissa I) was never finished. I intend to return to this issue on a later occasion: see, for now, RICCARDI, L’Epiro 224–232. 14 Orlandos, followed by Pallas, considered them as changes during the construction: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 164–167, figs. 156–157; D. PALLAS, Epiros, in: RbK II (1968) 257–304 (270). 15 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 74, 76–80, 85, 92–93; LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken passim. See also, without further chronological issues, A. LIVERI, Die byzantinischen Steinreliefs des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts im griechischen Raum. Athens 1996, 34. 16 The west portal of Cremona Cathedral (first half of the 12 th century), the porch of the abbey of San Clemente in Casauria (end of the 12 th century) and the south portal of Saint-Sernin at Tolouse (beginning of the 12 th century): ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 79 and n. 2, 92–93 n. 1. 17 LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken 111–113, 181–183. These comparisons are essentially based on the PhD thesis of T. GARTON, Early Romanesque Sculpture in Apulia. New York – London 1984. 18 According to Liveri, the corbel no. 7, the “dragon” marble fragment (see below), the capitals of the gallery’s bilobed windows and several capitals of the colonettes would be related to the Apulia proto- and Romanesque art, whereas the sculpted arches, the other corbels (no. 1, 4–6, 8), the pointed trefoil arch, the baldachin’s capitals and several capitals of the colonettes to the Gothic style: L IVERI, Die Bauplastiken 129–131.

144

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

works19, while Safran, in 1991, proposed – referring only to the sculpted arches – that they were employed elsewhere only on facades – around doorways or, exceptionally, around windows – […] and only later reused in its current location. Thus the now-distant arches in Nikephoros’s Paregoretissa may originally have been used as portal decoration in the church now known to have been constructed on the same site by Michael II in the midthirteenth century, but rebuilt a half-century later after a partial collapse. This scenario helps explain both the presence of only two carved arches (perhaps corresponding to two doorways) and the discrepancy in dating between the surviving sculpture and the stylistic comparanda in Apulia, all of which are from the early thirteenth century.20 On the one hand, the scholar referred to its iconographic similarities with the portals of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Cerrate and of the Cathedral of Ruvo di Puglia, on the other to the “striking similarities with a thirteenth-century relief from the Old Cathedral at Molfetta”, that is the Majestas Domini slab, now relocated in the present altar of the church21. When it has not been ignored in favour of the traditional chronology suggested by Orlandos, Safran’s hypothesis has received occasional praises and it has been shared recently by Nicholas Melvani22. 19

WESSEL, Byzantinische Plastik 223–225. See also M. CHATZIDAKIS, 109. Platte mit figürlicher Darstellung, in: Byzanz und der Christliche Osten (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte III), ed. F. W. Volbach – J. Lafontaine-Dosogne. Berlin 1968, 204–209 (207). 20 L. SAFRAN, Exploring Artistic Links Between Epiros and Apulia in the Thirteenth Century: The Problem of Sculpture and Wall Painting, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Arta, 27–31 May 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta 1992, 455–474 (459). 21 SAFRAN, Exploring 458. 22 In favour of the traditional chronology, ignoring Safran’s hypothesis, see – inter alia – P. L. Vokotopoulos, Art in the Period of the “Despotate” of Epirus, in: Epiros: 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, ed. M. B. Sakellariou. Athens 1997, 224–237 (237); PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 148; N. K. MOUTSOPOULOS, Οι βυζαντινές εκκλησίες της Άρτας. Thessalonike 2002, 122, 123, 128; P. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Η τέχνη στην Ήπειρο τον 13ο αιώνα, in: Η βυζαντινή τέχνη μετά την Τέταρτη Σταυροφορία. Η Τέταρτη Σταυροφο-

145

LORENZO RICCARDI

“WESTERN” SCULPTURES: THEIR STYLE IS NOT ENOUGH While Safran has provided rather accurate stylistic evidence to backdate the two arches, Melvani has expanded their context. He has made references to the two aforementioned examples (Santa Maria delle Cerrate and Ruvo di Puglia), although noticing that “the heavy and irregular proportions of the squat bodies are more similar to monuments in northern Italy”. Even then, Melvani further stated, “the volute-shaped drapery folds of the Arta figures are not like the ones in the Italian monuments, but rather resemble the figures on three arches from 13th-century Frankish Athens, which are in turn reflexions of the decorative drapery on sculptures of the 12 th century in Nazareth”. Thus, Melvani concluded that: Arta served as a crossroads of two distinct channels through which Romanesque sculpture reached south-eastern Europe: that of the Adriatic, which connected Italy with the western Balkans and that between the Holy Land and the Frankish territories of Greece, which extended to western Greece to encompass Arta.23

ρία και οι επιπτώσεις της, ed. P. L. Vokotopoulos, Athens 2007, 47–62 (55). On the contrary, according to Kalopissi-Verti, it is “reasonable”: S. KALOPISSI-VERTI, Relations between East and West in the Lordship of Athens and Thebes after 1204: Archaeological and Artistic Evidence, in: Archaeology and the Crusades. Proceedings of the Round Table (Nicosia, 1 February 2005), ed. P. Edbury – S. Kalopissi-Verti. Athens 2007, 1–33 (27). See also S. KALOPISSI-VERTI, Monumental Art in the Lordship of Athens and Thebes under Frankish and Catalan Rule (1212–1388): Latin and Greek Patronage, in: A Companion to Latin Greece, ed. N. I. Tsougarakis – P. Lock. Leiden – Boston 2014, 369–417 (403). Furthermore, it is entirely shared by N. MELVANI, Late Byzantine Sculpture. Turnhout 2013, 58, 65, 76–77, 83– 84, 103–105, 128, 136, 141, 148, 198 no. 32. For a mild critical view of Safran’s hypothesis, see P. L. Vokotopoulos, La peinture dans le Despotat d’Épire, in: Orient et Occident méditerranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’École française d’Athènes (2–4 avril 2009), ed. J.-P. Caillet – F. Joubert. Paris 2012, 123–134 (132–133 and n. 29). 23 MELVANI, Late Byzantine Sculpture 104.

146

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

Melvani’s observations show the difficulties in framing the sculptures within a well-defined historical and artistic context and, most of all, in identifying in Italy or somewhere else the creations of the same workshop or artist working at Arta. Leaving aside, for the moment, a detailed discussion of each comparison, it is necessary to highlight that solid information is missing for many of them: I am not convinced that the arches of the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens are dated to the first half of the 13th century, considering that this chronology is based on the backdating of the sculptures of the Paregoretissa church24. Also in Apulia, the situation is open-ended: some stylistic comparanda provided by Melvani, such as the reliefs in the Bitonto Cathedral, belong to the 12th century25, while the Majestas Domini slab of Old Cathedral at Molfetta, which according to Safran is more recent, has been hypothetically backdated to the beginning of the 13th century and emerges as an isolated work in the regional context26. Similarly, the chronology of Ruvo di Puglia is contested: once the church was dated to the end of the 12th century–beginning of the 13th century, and now its chronology has been shifted to the second half of the 13th century27.

24

KALOPISSI-VERTI, Relations 27; KALOPISSI-VERTI, Monumental Art 403. Melvani does not specify which reliefs are dated to 1179: MELVANI, Late Byzantine Sculpture 104. However, most of the sculptures in the Bitonto Cathedral dated to the end of the 12th century – beginning of the 13th century, excluding the famous Swabian pulpit dated to 1229: P. BELLI D’ELIA, Puglia Romanica. Milan 2003, 151–171. 26 According to Quintavalle, the Majestas Domini slab is related to several reliefs from the destroyed chancel screen of the Old Cathedral at Molfetta, although they are crafted by different artists of the same workshop. The reliefs would be actually attributed to the “Maestro dell’arca di Abdon e Sennen”, coming from Parma in Northern Italy, at the beginning of the 13th century: A. C. QUINTAVALLE, Ritualità e strutture dell’arredo fra XI e XIII secolo: novità sull’officina di Niccolò a Fano ed Ancona e su quella antelamica in Puglia, in: Medioevo: i modelli. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Parma, 27 settembre – 1 ottobre 1999), ed. A. C. Quintavalle. Milan 2002, 108–136 (130–134). 27 A. PEPE, Per una rilettura della cattedrale di Ruvo di Puglia: nota preliminare, in: Medioevo: arte lombarda. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Parma, 26–29 settembre 2001), ed. A. C. Quintavalle. Milan 2004, 557–564 (562). See also BELLI D’ELIA, Puglia Romanica 277–278. 25

147

LORENZO RICCARDI

These few chronological considerations show the continuity of the Romanesque “manner” in southern Italy well beyond the mid-13th century, even when Gothic art appeared in southern Italy with the Angevins28. For example, we may think of the figurative capitals of Matera Cathedral, dated around 1260s, which were based on models belonging to the Swabian period29 and were crafted as they were made in the 12th century30. Still, in the 14th century, there were sculptors who continued to manufacture their stonework in this old-fashioned manner, as in the case of the portal of the Bitetto Cathedral dated to 1335, particularly the series of Apostles in its lunette31. This oldfashioned production has not received enough critical attention because it is considered very delayed in comparison with the large Angevin constructions. However, it is rather widespread throughout southern Italy. Even in the Balkans, there are some difficulties in ascribing clearly “Romanesque” sculptures to a precise context beyond the Adriatic, such as the portals and the windows of the church of the Mother of God at Studenica monastery from the end of the 12th century32, the katholikon of Dečani 28

I refer to the reasonable remarks of C. BRUZELIUS, Il “Gran Rifiuto”: French Gothic in Southern Italy in the Late Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, in: Architecture and Language: Constructing Identity in European Architecture c. 1000 – c. 1650, ed. P. Crossley – G. Clarke). Cambridge 2000, 36–45, and C. BRUZELIUS, The Stones of Naples. Church Building in Angevin Italy, 1266–1243. New Haven 2004, 1–9. 29 M. S. CALÒ MARIANI – C. GUGLIELMI FALDI – C. STRINATI, La Cattedrale di Matera nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento. Cinisello Balsamo 1978, 38, 42–43; M. S. CALÒ MARIANI, L’arte del Duecento in Puglia. Turin 1984, 181, 184, figs. 250–251. 30 G. MÖRSCH, Die Kapitelle der Kathedrale von Matera. Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 13 (1971) 7–28 (24–26). See, for similar sculptures in Matera, L. DE ROSA, Storia di un edificio della Puglia storica: la chiesa di Santa Maria la Nova a Matera, in: Da Accon a Matera. Santa Maria la Nova, un monastero femminile tra dimensione mediterranea e identità urbana (XIII–XVI secolo), ed. F. Panarelli. Berlin 2002, 207–254 (240–249). 31 P. BELLI D’ELIA, La cattedrale di Bitetto: gli antefatti medievali, in: La cattedrale di Bitetto. Le addizioni settecentesche, ed. C. Gelao. Bari 1998, 7–22 (19–22). See also P. BELLI D’ELIA, Presenze pugliesi nel cantiere della cattedrale di Trogir, in: Majstor Radovan i njegovo doba. Njegova ikonografija i stil u okviru razvoja skulpture u Splitu i Trogiru 13. Stoljeća, ed. I. Babić. Trogir 1994, 34–57 (44, 46–47). 32 J. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Skulptura (= Les sculptures de Studenica), in: Manastir Studenica (= Le Monastère de Studenica), ed. M. Kašanin – M. Čanak-Medić – J. Maksimović – B. Todić – M. Šakota. Belgrade 1986, 95–134, 254–255.

148

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

from 1327–1335, and the Holy Archangels near Prizren from 1343–134733. Maksimović, attempting to explain the success of this essentially delayed sculptural production, talks of “roman tardif aux caractères particuliers […] analogue à la maniera greca en peinture”34. After all, the adoption of “Gothic” architectural forms did not always correspond to an automatic stylistic update of sculptures, in Italy or in the Balkans, especially those with architectural functions35. The “Balkan trail” for the sculptures of the Paregoretissa has not been followed yet, even if it offers interesting research ideas, both from iconographic36 and compositional37 perspectives. 33

J. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Srpska srednjovekovna skulptura (= La sculpture médiévale Serbe). Novi Sad 1971, 95–114, 162–163; J. MAGLOVSKI, Dečanska skulptura – programi smisao (= The Sculpture of Dečani – Programme and Meaning), in: Dečani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka (= Dečani et l’art byzantin au milieu du XIV e siècle), ed. V. Đjurić. Belgrade 1989, 193–223. See also B. PANTELIĆ, The Architecture of Dečani and the Role of Archbishop Danilo II. Wiesbaden 2002, 36–42. 34 MAKSIMOVIĆ, Srpska srednjovekovna skulptura 163. See also M. Šuput, Vizantijska skulptura iz sredine. XIV veka (= La sculpture byzantine du milieu du XIV e siècle), in: Dečani i vizantijska umetnost 69–74. 35 Capitals with small heavily heads and “metallic” acanthus decorate a Gothic building, erected in the second half of the 13 th century, as the church of St Dominick at Dubrovnik: I. FISKOVIĆ, Prilozi poznavanju gotičkoga graditeljstva u Dubrovniku (= Contributi alla conoscenza dell’architettura gotica a Dubrovnik). Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 35 (2011) 19–40 (fig. 10). 36 For example, the Agnus Dei in the architectural sculptures of Studenica and Dečani monasteries, although with different meanings: J. MAGLOVSKI, Znamenje Judino na studeničkoj trifori (= Signum Judae sur la fenêtre trilobée de Studenica). Zograf 15 (1984) 51–58 (58, fig. 2); MAGLOVSKI, Dečanska skulptura 222, figs. 34–35. See also I. Babić, Agnus Dei na crkvi Sv. Ivana Krstitelja u Trogiru prijedlog za Radovana (= Agnus Dei sur l’église de St. Jean Trogir. Prepositione pour le maître Radovan). Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 27 (1988) 57–75. 37 I refer to several erratic sculptures of St Mary at Mljet, nearby Kotor, similar to voussoirs of the arches of the Paregoretissa in their shape and dimension: M. ČANAK-MEDIĆ, L’architecture de l’époque de Nemanja, II, Les églises de la vallée du Lim et du littoral adriatique. Belgrade 1989, 161–162, figs. 38, 40, 42; J. STOŠIĆ, Benediktinski samostan Sv. Marije na otoku Mljetu (= The Benedictine Monastery of St Mary on the Island of Mljet). Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 22 (1998) 7–21 (8); I. TOMAS, Crkva sv. Marije na otoku Mljetu i njezina povezanost s romanièkim spomenicima Apulije (= St Mary’s

149

LORENZO RICCARDI

Thus, using only style to date the sculptures of Arta is of little use, and it produces some contradictions, as in the comparison with the arches of the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens. Nevertheless, while this perspective should not be completely discarded, it is necessary, first of all, to consider the sculptures of the Paregoretissa church not as an isolated work, but in relationship with the building that contains them.

COHERENCE AND VARIETY OF THE “WESTERN” SCULPTURES The hypothesis of an earlier date for the sculptures, based on the style of the sculpted arches, does not seem supported by the analysis of the sculptures as a whole and, most of all, by the analysis of the architectural and archaeological data provided by the church. Safran and Melvani have focused only on the original location of the arches, neglecting the other sculptures, corbels (Figs. 8, 14–16), pointed trefoil arch (Fig. 9), capital of the bilobed window of the west and south gallery (Figs. 10, 11), and capitals of the baldachin over the west gallery (Figs. 12, 13), which, nevertheless, emerge as consistent, not only from a stylistic point of view, but also from technical and executive point of views. Just to mention few examples, this is the case of the human face in the corbel no. 4 (Fig. 14) that parallels that of David in the Nativity arch (Fig. 20). There is also a similar way of shaping some common features: the vine leafs (Figs. 9, 10, 12)38, the basket weave ornament (Figs. 8, 9, 11, 14)39, the string-course (Figs. 10, 12)40 as

Church in the Island of Mljet and its Links with Apulian Romanesque Monuments). Prostor 19 (2001) 296–309 (297, 302, 303–304, 306–307). 38 On the pointed trefoil arch (Fig. 9), the capital of the bilobed window in the west gallery (Fig. 10) and the west-southwest capital of the baldachin (Fig. 12). 39 On the pointed trefoil arch (Fig. 9), the knotted colonettes (Fig. 8), the corbel no. 4 (Fig. 14) and the capital of the bilobed window in the south gallery (Fig. 11). See also LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken 185 no. 62b. 40 On the capital of the bilobed window in the west gallery (Fig. 10), the western capital of the baldachin (Fig. 12) as well as on the edge of the eagle’s wings (see ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 65).

150

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

well as the eyes41 (Figs. 8, 9, 15, 17) and hair42 of the animals. In those cases in which the motifs are different, the methods of execution are the same, as in the case of the thick edges of the palmettes on the west gallery’s bilobed window (Fig. 10) and the lotus leafs on the baldachin’s capitals (Fig. 12). However, in this basic coherence, it is possible to distinguish – even inside the sculpted arches – several drapery-treatments43, which cannot be explained only by the use of different models. It is possible that – without getting to the strict distinction suggested by Liveri44 – in the Paregoretissa there was the work of a workshop that included different artists with a common stylistic background.

A COHERENT RELATIONSHIP OF THE “WESTERN” SCULPTURES WITH THE PAREGORETISSA II’S BUILDING If we wanted to look for a previous use of the corbel in another building with a similar structure, we would face substantial difficulties, based on their size specific features 45. Each corbel is carved from a single marble piece and there are the jutting figures, the bases of the small columns and the parts, of different sizes, which are designed to be clamped in the masonry 41

The eyes of the ox, the ass and the sheep of the north arch (see ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] figs. 79, 85), of the Agnus Dei of the west arch (Fig. 17), of the animals of the corbels no. 5, 6 (Figs. 8, 15) and the pointed trefoil arch (Fig. 9). 42 The feathers of the eagle of the corbel no. 1 (see ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 65) and the hairs of the lions of the corbel no. 8 (see ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 61) and the dress of the shepherds on the north arch (see ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 85). 43 There are at least four different drapery-treatments: a) garments laid out almost flat and smooth upon the background and incised with single and slightly asymmetrical lines (e. g. the Magi in the north arch: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 85); b) more plastic clothing with V-shaped folds (e. g. David in the north arch) (Fig. 20); c) flabby and baggy garments with massive and irregular folds (e. g. Isaiah in the west arch: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 98); d) a middle way between model B and C (e. g. Joseph in the north arch: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 82). 44 See above n. 18. 45 As L. Theis noticed regarding the colonettes: T HEIS, Die Architektur 58 n. 295.

151

LORENZO RICCARDI

(Figs. 8, 14–16). They are clearly thought: a) to be seen from below, especially in the case of the rosettes on the corbel no. 7 (Fig. 16); b) to be partially clamped into the wall, leaving out only the sculpted part; c) to have, inevitably, an angular arrangement; d) to “support” two small columns which form an angle of 180°. This is particularly evident observing the corbel no. 6 (Fig. 15), in which the apex of the triangle is a monster that bites two four-legged animals, which, escaping from its mouth, serve as bases for the colonettes46. As the lower side of the corbels is sculpted, it is unlikely that they could be used as socles of a splayed portal, and it is implausible that they were used for splayed windows, because they would be, even in the western Mediterranean, an apax. It is necessary to highlight that Safran and Melvani have suggested only a possible reuse of the arches, because their current location makes it impossible to read their inscriptions. Nevertheless, it is really difficult to imagine that they were not crafted ad hoc. There is not an element that would allow one to hypothesise a “forced” reuse or adaptation: a) all the voussoirs are fitted without binding materials following the slightly pointed profile of the barrel vault over the cross arms (Figs. 18, 19); b) the edge of the sculpted arch, with the inscriptions that identify the characters, is continuous (Fig. 17); c) there are no fillings made with mortar nor evidence that the single components were reworked. A possible variation of the span and the rise of the arch would have undoubtedly produced a different “joint”. Thus, we can imagine that if there were a reuse, this would have meant the relocation of the whole arch. Safran and Melvani have imagined that in the Paregoretissa I these sculptures decorated a portal or a window47, but this does not hold in consideration the real dimensions of the arches. The span of the barrel vaults measures around 3.80 metres and the rise approximately 2.20 metres: these dimensions are appropriate only for a splayed portal of significant importance48. Consequently, we have to go back to Paregoretissa I, assuming 46

The same triangular layout, with the overhanging vertex, can be found on the corbels no. 1 and 4 (Fig. 14). The other two (no. 5 and 8) have a more basic arrangement formed by two animals that meet in the centre (Fig. 8). 47 SAFRAN, Exploring 459; MELVANI, Late Byzantine Sculpture 58, 65, 76–77, 83–84, 149. 48 In the Raska monuments only the inner and exterior W portals of the Studenica and

152

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

that it was finished49. In the two hypothesised reconstructions provided by Theis50, the first building, as well as the present naos, must have been 9.25 metres wide, with three openings on the façade and one each on the North and South sides. Indeed, the widest entrance did not exceed 2 metres51. It is entirely unlikely that these sculptures decorated one of these openings, considering that there is no evidence of a splayed portal. If the arches came from another building, although not identifiable among those that have been preserved and documented archaeologically, we should hypothesise the existence of a structure similar to the Pantanassa of Philippiada. However, this structure was not similar to the church belonging to the phase of Michael II of the mid-13th century, but to the later one of Nikephoros I, when the despot – in those years close to the reconstruction of the Paregoretissa in Arta – promoted a “westernised” restyling of the façades, introducing splayed portals of substantial size52. Regarding the impossibility of reading from below the inscriptions on the voussoirs (Figs. 17–20), to be precise, it is necessary to notice that none of the scrolls of the prophets in the mosaics of the dome can be read from the ground floor (Figs. 2, 3). Moreover, reversing the perspective, we should ask why those who placed the sculpted arches here forwent their readability, considering that they are not functional spolia like the shafts and the capitals of the first two rows of columns. Finally, the problem of visibility has been progressively reduced from a historiographical point of Dečani monasteries have a splay around 4 metres wide: S. NENADOVIĆ, Neka pitanja iz oblasti tehnike građenja i stila portala u srpskoj srednjovekovnoj arhitekturi (= Certains problèmes au sujet de la technique de construction et le style des portails dans l’architecture médiévale). Raška baština 2 (1980) 43–70 (64–65, fig. 34). 49 See above n. 13. 50 THEIS, Die Architektur 72–124, pl. 9–10. 51 THEIS, Die Architektur, 68–70 and n. 350. 52 In the Nikephoros’ Pantanassa, the best preserved south and north portals of the naos, originally around 2 metres wide, have been subsequently enlarged through the insertion of exterior jambs with a splay around 5 metres wide. See P. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Παντάνασσα Φιλιππιάδος. Athens 2007, 10, figs. 3, 54; L. RICCARDI, Con lo sguardo a Occidente: il restyling della Pantanassa di Philippiada (Epiro) al tempo del despota Niceforo (1267/8– 1294/6). Bizantinistica (in press).

153

LORENZO RICCARDI

view, starting from the heated debate on the frieze of the Trajan’s Column53, and it does not seem to be a conclusive argument even in our case. This is not the place to discuss the topic in more detail, but in the Paregoretissa of the despots of Epirus, as it occurs in many monuments commissioned by prominent patrons, it seems that “it was of less importance to provide public enjoyment through visibility than it was to engender public awe through magnificence”54. Instead, the combination of diverse artistic media, which decorated a structure characterised by unusual and magnificent architectural forms, thus thought to amaze the viewers, can be considered a typical exemplum of what Beat Brenk calls “the imperial rethoric of abundantia”55. For this reason, it seems to me that it is not possible to argue that the “Western” sculptures came from an earlier building and that they were reused. Considering their number and their features, it seems to me that they were specific creations, which reveal a contextual correspondence between the building and the architectural sculptures, following a “new” project, which was not borrowed or inspired by models beyond the Adriatic sea. Consequently, they are an integral part of the impressive building process of Paregoretissa II, and they do not emerge as an isolated cultural phenomenon56, even considering that we are – as we have already briefly stated – 53

See B. BRENK, Visibility and (Partial) Invisibility of Early Christian Images, in: Seeing the Invisible in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. G. de Nie – K. F. Morrison – M. Mostert. Turnhout 2006, 139–183 (140–143). 54 BRENK, Visibility 144. See also V. DEBIAIS, Messages de pierre. La lecture des inscriptions dans la communication médiévale (XIIIe–XIVe siècle). Turnhout 2016, 205–221. 55 BRENK, Visibility 147. 56 About the western elements in the Arta sculpture, L. Fundić has recently proposed to identify the palmettes in the champlevé arch of the counter-façade (Fig. 4, see below n. 83) with the Angevin fleurs de lis: L. F UNDIĆ, The Artistic Patronage of the KomnenosDoukas Family (1204–1318) in the Byzantine State of Epirus. Byz 86 (2016) 139–169 (154). It is actually a distortion of the meaning of a common Byzantine pattern, flattened and simplified for technical reasons: see, for example, the Lion champlevé relief in the same church (ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα [1963] fig. 112) or, outside Epirus, several erratic sculptures in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, from the Virgin church of the Lips monastery, end of 13th century (GRABAR, Sculptures pl. CV, b). Her hypothesis could be better supported by two capitals of the Paregoretissa baldachin embellished with

154

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

close to those years in which the restyling of the peristoon of the Pantanassa took place, showing “Latin” forms. In both cases, the despot Nikephoros I (1267–1268, 1294–1296) was the promoter of this opening towards the West, importing western solutions to show the opening of Epirus towards the powerful Angevin allies also in the artistic sphere57.

MOSAICS AND “WESTERN” SCULPTURES IN SITU As noted above, if we look toward the dome, we can notice many “absences” in the decorations (Figs. 2, 3): with regard to the expected number of sculptures, there are two archivolts rather than four; one pointed trefoil arch rather than four, and six corbels rather than eight. Regarding the mosaics, and particularly those of the seated Evangelists that decorated the pendentives, only some fragments of the northwest mosaic, depicting Saint Mark (Figs. 21–23), and of the southwest mosaic, which is unidentifiable58, survive (Figs. 24, 25). Around three of them, there are large portions of the two preparative layers of the mosaics (Fig. 26), which could help us to understand what was actually made. Unfortunately, Orlandos does not provide any useful information on those, and, given that a report of the restoration is lacking, we must be cautious, as they are hypotheses that would need to be verified de visu from the scaffolding. However, in the Paregoretissa, as it commonly occurs in other Constantinopolitan buildings, the mosaics seems to be composed of three layers, with the mosaic tesserae being inserted into the surface of the third. As Paul A. Underwood notes about the decoration of the Kariye Camii, a kind of fleur de lis (Fig. 12). However, they do not resemble the Angevin heraldic emblem, as we can distinctly see, for example, in the well-known epistyle of the Peribleptos monastery in Mistra: G. MARINOU, Δυτικά στοίχεια στο Μυστρά, in: Γλυπτική και Λιθοξοϊκή στη Λατινική Ανατολή, ed. O. Gratziou. Heraklion 2007, 48–59 (52–54, fig. 9β–δ, draw. 1). 57 RICCARDI, Con lo sguardo. 58 According to Orlandos, he may be identified with St Luke: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 120.

155

LORENZO RICCARDI

although the first two renderings of plaster were alike in composition, each of the two received a distinctive surface treatment. While the plaster of the first coat was soft its surface was keyed to receive the second layer by being impressed with an all-over pattern of rather deep gouges, or indentation.59 Differently from the second, that, while it was soft, “was keyed to receive the setting bed by means of a series of rather narrow indentions […] lass deep than those of the first”60. In Arta, at the Paregoretissa, from a historical photograph dated to 1910 (Figs. 21, 22, 24), it is possible to see the two preparative layers on the pendentives and the third final layer in the area corresponding to the body of the Evangelists, since the mosaic tesserae have been pried loose from their setting. Narrow indentions are still visible where the restorers do not cover them with new mortar (Fig. 26). This situation is equally visible on Christ’s mouth in an exceptional photograph of the dome taken during the restoration work done in the 1950s (Figs. 27, 28)61. On the other pendentives, on the contrary, there is no trace of the preparative layers, except for a small fragment on that of the southeast pendentive (Figs. 29, 30). Also, the barrel vault and the tympanum of the bema were decorated with mosaics; traces of a deeply impressed preparative layer are still visible in the barrel vault (Fig. 32), while on the surface of the tympanum, a band of gold tesserae remains in which it is possible to recognise clearly two haloes and, within these, some hairs (Figs. 32, 33)62. The haloes probably belonged to two figures placed symmetrically on the sides of a central axis, where the mosaic stops. It may be part of a Transfiguration, with Christ in the middle enclosed within an mandorla, now lost, flanked by Moses and Elijah, for example, as it occurs in the Hagioi Apostoloi in 59

P.A. UNDERWOOD, The Kariye Djami, I. Historical Introduction and Description of the Mosaics and Frescoes. New York 1966, 173. 60 Ibid. 61 See below n. 79–80. 62 On the gold background other unidentifiable patterns stand out. Orlandos noticed only a halo and the hairs of a figure, as shown by the only photograph kept in his archive that reproduces these mosaics (Fig. 33): ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 108.

156

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

Thessalonike (Fig. 34)63. The location of this scene on the tympanum of the apse is unusual (in Thessalonike this is on the southern half of the barrel vault of the west cross arm), but not an unicum: as in the case of the frescoes of 1259 of the Bulgarian church of Bojana, which have been attributed to craftsmen of Constantinopolitan culture, maybe coming from Nicaea64. This depends on the multi-stepped peculiar structure of the Paregoretissa, since, normally, the barrel vault of the east cross arm is connected to the conch of the apse through an arch65. Probably, the concepteur of the iconographic scheme had to rethink the canonical position of the Dodekaorton scenes in the upper part of the naos. Concerning the barrel vaults, Orlandos has hypothesised that the vault of the south cross arm was decorated with a mosaic, because it lacks the sculpted arch (Fig. 25)66. However, traces of plaster compatible with those of the preparative layers do not survive in either of barrel vault: there is, on the contrary, some binder laid in a rough way, maybe to prevent the falling of materials, as in the case of some of the gallery’s coverings, for example, the middle calotte of the south side. While waiting for a test undertaken on the scaffoldings, it is not possible to argue that originally there were mosaics that are now lost or that their execution was planned but never finished. 63

C. BAKIRTZIS – E. KOURKOUTIDOU-NIKOLAIDOU – C. MAVROPOULOU-TSIOUMI, Mosaics of Thessaloniki. 4th–14th century. Athens 2012, 335–336, fig. 55. For the iconography see L. HADERMANN-MISGUICH, Kurbinovo: les fresques de Saint-Georges et la peinture byzantine du XIIe siècle. Bruxelles 1975, 142–147; D. MOURIKI, The mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios. Athens 1985, 126–129. 64 M. PANAYOTIDI, Some Observations on Thirteenth Century Sinai Icons and Bojana Frescoes (1259), in: Bojanskata tsărkva meždu Iztoka i Zapada v izkustvoto na khristijanska Evropa (= The Bojana Church between the East and the West in the Art of the Christian Europe), ed. B. Penkova. Sofia 2011, 238–247. For a different view about the origin of the painters: B. PENKOVA, Kŭm iztochnitsite na stila na stenopisite ot 1259 g. v Bojanskata tsărkva (= On the Sources of the Fresco Style in Boyana Church [1259]), in: Bojanskata 248–261. 65 It may be possible to hypothesise that in the east barrel vault an Ascension was painted, as in the last phase of the frescoes of Hagios Demetrios tou Katsoure, near Arta (end of 13 th century): D. GIANNOULES, Οι τοιχογραφίες των βυζαντινών μνημείων της Άρτας κατά την περίοδο του Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου. Ioannina 2010, 160–162, figs. 111–114. 66 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 108.

157

LORENZO RICCARDI

THE ERRATIC SCULPTURES AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE LOST ONES Some of the “absences” are, without doubt, losses. In the storage of the Paregoretissa, there are other two “Western” sculptures, already briefly published by Orlandos and Liveri67. The first sculpture (inv. 94/338) (Fig. 35a–d) is undoubtedly the fragment of a corbel, because the dowel hole to set the colonette remains on one of the sides (Fig. 35a)68. Like the corbel no. 8, the decorated surface must have been visible from below thus hiding the moulded base (Fig. 35b). The iconography is not clear (Fig. 35d): Orlandos recognised a bird and, underneath, a coil, maybe belonging to a snake69. On the basis of its state of preservation, we can suppose that it fell to the ground (Fig. 35b). More complex is the second sculpture (inv. 93/311), which is shaped as a T (Fig. 36a–d), whose horizontal section was characterised by a decorated surface (24 x 25 centimetres, thick around 3–4 centimetres) and its vertical section by a deep wedge of 16 centimetres. This is not, however, the original form, because the piece was reworked to be fitted into the wall. Observing carefully one of the Schultz and Barnsley’s photographs dated to 1890 (Fig. 37)70, it is possible to see this fragment above the archivolt of the main gate leading into the monastery courtyard. Before being destroyed at the beginning of the 20th century71, the gate had been transformed in a bell 67

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 73; LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken 186, no. 64a–b. I would like to thank Dr Varvara N. Papadopoulou, director of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Arta, for granting me permission to study these sculptures and for assisting me during my stay in Epiros. 68 In its thickness (around 20.5 centimetres) are carved the scotia (5.5 centimetres) and the torus (2 centimetres) of the base of the colonette (16 centimetres in diameter). 69 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 73; LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken 186 no. 64b. 70 British School at Athens, Archive: Byzantine Research Fund 01/01/09/003. I am most grateful to Amalia Kakissis, archivist of the British School at Athens, for assisting me during my research. 71 Since it does not appear in the photographs taken by the German company Messbildanstalt of Berlin in 1910 for the National Exposition of Rome (1911) (Fig. 1): M. KAZANAKILAPPA – F. MALLAOCHOU-TUFANO, Τα βυζαντινά μνημεία της Ελλάδος στη Διεθνή Έκθεση

158

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

tower gate, as seen from Lampakes’ photographs dated to 1898 (Fig. 38)72. On the sculpture a dragon was probably represented (Fig. 36d), rolled up on itself, with open jaws and ready to devour two new-borns, according to Orlandos73; Liveri thinks, instead, that two exapteryga are represented74. The extensive reworking creates doubts on the original function of the piece, even if we cannot exclude that it was used, as the other, as a corbel. If we observe the photographs of the naos before Orlandos’ restoration, we can notice that, in particular, the southern wall was damaged (Fig. 24). The colonettes of the two rows, in correspondence with the west pilaster, are lacking. These colonettes – according to a local tradition belonging at least to the beginning of the 17th century – were removed shortly after 1448, together with the marble revetment, to decorate an Ottoman building outside Arta75. This folklore must have been sufficiently known at a local level, so much that it was reported by Hobhouse in 180976 and the metropolitan bishop of Arta Serapheim in 1884. The latter relates that the despoiling was providentially stopped by the collapse of one of the columns, which caused the death of the wicked person responsible. Without the miraculous intervention of the Virgin, the church would have undoubtedly collapsed77.

της Ρώμης του 1911. Οι φωτογραφίες του Φωτομετρικού Ινστιτούτου του Βερολίνου στο Εθνικό Ιστορικό Μουσείο. Athens 2009, fig. 48. 72 Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum (BXM), Historic and Photographic Archives, no. XAE 2432 73 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 73. 74 LIVERI, Die Bauplastiken 186 no. 64a. 75 This folk tale has been written for the first time in a document dated to 1701, but published only in 1929. According to the same source, the Paregoretissa was turned into a shelter for oxes and other animals as consequence of its despoiling: K. KAIROPHYLAS, Ιστορικά σημειώματα περί Άρτης. EpChr 4 (1929) 79–86 (80). See also ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 8, 162, and THEIS, Die Architektur 21. 76 J. C. Hobhouse, A Journey through Albania and other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia to Constantinople, during the years 1809 and 1810. London 1813, Ι 38: among the columns “the remainder having been carried away by the Turks, to adorn a mosck”. 77 SERAPHEIM XENOPOULOS TOU BYZANTIOU, Δοκίμιον ιοτορικόν περί Άρτης και Πρεβέζης. Athens 1884 (Arta 32003) 147.

159

LORENZO RICCARDI

The columns were reinstated by Orlandos in 1950 (Fig. 25)78, the oil paintings executed around 1864–1865 on the mosaics of the dome were removed79 (Fig. 2, 3), and the restoration of the mosaics – which lasted for four years – marked the end of the work in the naos in 195880. In the meantime, the gaps in the brick masonry were filled, covering the traces of accidental or intentional alterations and modifying some working features. Going back to the historical photograph, it is possible to notice – on the south side – alterations of the brickwork by the original corbels. While to A. K. ORLANDOS, Εργασίαι αναστηλώσεως καί στερεώσεως Βυζαντινών μνημείων. EEBS 20 (1950) 382–383 (382). The works in the Paregoretissa began the year before, in 1949, with the strengthening of the existing marble columns: A. K. ORLANDOS, Εργασίαι αναστηλώσεως καί στερεώσεως Βυζαντινών μνημείων. EEBS 19 (1949) 381–382 (381). In 1950, according to official records (Athens, Historic Archive of Antiquities and Restorations, box 593β, folder 6/1: no. 82726/2533 dated September 18, 1950; no. 109489 dated November 25, 1950), the Archaeological Committee proceeded after the suggestion of Orlandos in the removal of two Roman capitals prior belonging to Nicopolis site as well as a shaft of a column located at the Imaret mosque at Arta and their use for the restoration of the system supporting the dome of the church. These architectural members had been chosen by Orlandos himself in his previous visits at these historical sites for the purpose of the afore-mentioned restoration works. However, they have been scheduled since the 1910s, but never carried out: A. K. ORLANDOS, Αγγελίαι. Ηπείρου: Άρτης. ArchEph [1917] 239, and, in particular, S. MASOURIDE – K. XANTHOPOULOU – A. PAPOULAKOU, “Περιήγηση” σε αναφορές για βυζαντινές και μεταβυζαντινές αρχαιότητες της Ηπείρου, μέσα από των αρχών του 20ού αιώνα στο Ιστορικό Αρχείο, in: Πρακτικά ημερίδας “Ήπειρος Μελετών. 1881–1945. Αρχεία και Αρχαιότητες” (Ioannina, 18 February 2015) (in press). Then, in 1937 Orlandos asked to reroof the building and remake the columns that should have been made of marble as the existing ones (Athens, Historic Archive of Antiquities and Restorations, box 592β, folder 6/2: no. 1074 dated June 18, 1937). Actually, only the reroofing was done in 1939 (A. K. ORLANDOS, Εργασίαι αναστηλώσεως καί στερεώσεως Βυζαντινών μνημείων. EEBS 15 [1939] 512–513 [513]) and repaired ten years later, in 1949 (ORLANDOS, Εργασίαι [1949] 381). I would like to thank Vasiliki Papageorgiou, Athina D. Chatzidimitriou and Archontoula Papoulakou for assisting me during my research in the Historic Archive of Antiquities and Restorations in Athens. 79 ORLANDOS, Εργασίαι (1950) 382. See also ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 108–109. About the oil paintings executed in 1864–1865: SERAPHEIM XENOPOULOS, Δοκίμιον 146. 80 A. K. ORLANDOS, Εργασίαι αναστηλώσεως καί στερεώσεως Βυζαντινών μνημείων. EEBS 28 (1958) 598–600 (599), and A. K. ORLANDOS, Αναστηλώσεις. Prakt (1958) 252–255 (254). Finally, the stone flooring of the church was made in 1960: A. K. ORLANDOS, Αναστηλώσεις. Prakt (1960) 341–351 (349). 78

160

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

the west the columns of the first two rows are missing (Fig. 24), and to the east the capital and its impost (Figs. 29, 30), on which the corbel is laid, are broken, the damage seems to be voluntary rather than accidental. Even the wooden reinforcement is broken (a fragment remains in the west hole). Moving our attention to the vault-head arches of the south and east barrel vaults, those in which the sculptures are missing, the voussoirs of the sculpted arches were fitted in two ways: a) the two springers were wedged into the brickwork, thanks also to their peculiar wedge shapes and they were laid directly on the wooden reinforcement (Figs. 9, 19); b) the other nine voussoirs were fitted without binding and fixed to the vault intrados by iron nails, used also for the capitals of the colonettes81. In the west arch, indeed, the left springer is missing (Fig. 18), and in that point, the brick masonry appears to be damaged in the historical photographs (Fig. 24). In the northern arch, the voussoirs did not adhere through the mortar to the vault intrados (Figs. 21, 22), rather the closer they get to the keystone, the more separated they became. Looking at the vault-head arch of the south barrel vault in the historical photographs (Figs. 24, 29, 30) it is possible to notice two alterations of the brick masonry, above the hole for setting the wooden reinforcement, by the two possible springers. Today, the gaps appear to be filled by other bricks (Fig. 25), as in the case of the left springer of the west sculpted arch, which is also lacking (Fig. 18). Thus, it is not possible to exclude that there was a third arch, even if, to be sure, it would be necessary to check the presence of holes for the iron nails on the vault intrados. Even in this case, as for the corbels underneath and the columns, it is possible to think of an intentional demolition, showing that this demolition concerned mainly the south side. The situation of the vault-head arch of the east barrel vault is different, because, both the historical photographs (Figs. 29, 30) and the on-site analysis (Fig. 31) lead us to exclude every sign of alteration to the brick-wall; thus we are sure that, at least here, a sculpted arch was never located.

81

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 78–79.

161

LORENZO RICCARDI

HYPOTHESIS ON THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE DECORATION OF THE PAREGORETISSA’S NAOS The current look of the naos of the Paregoretissa is thus different from that of the late 13th century. However, we should ask what was really built and than lost, and what was planned and never completed. This observation mainly concerns the bema and the upper portion of the church, especially that above the stringcourse of the galleries, because in the lower part of the naos, traces of the marble revetment are still in situ82, primarily the wellknown cloisonné archivolt bearing the encomiastic inscription (Fig. 4)83. Only in the second stage, maybe already in the 16th century, the walls of the naos, by that time stripped down, began to be frescoed84. On the contrary, there is nothing left of decoration in the areas between the stringcourse of the galleries and the coverings (Figs. 4, 23, 25, 31). In fact, in the upper part – now we are able to advance this argument with more confidence – there were three arches belonging to the north, south and west, all the corbels and probably four pointed trefoil arches, while the barrel vault and the tympanum of the west cross arm were decorated with mosaics (Fig. 32). More complex is the situation in the bema, in which there are no traces of the marble revetment in situ and only the frescoes of the apse, painted by the monk Anania in 155885, still remain (Figs. 29–31). They do not occupy the entire available surface, but they end around 9.70 metres from the ground floor, well below the conch. The painter reproduced “une conque en dessinant la bande demi-circulaire qui l’entoure sur la surface verticale du demi-cylindre”, 82

It is made of marble slabs (2.5 to 3 centimetres thick), fixed to the wall by iron nails (13 centimetres long), marble molded listels for framing the slabs (25 centimetres long, 7.6 centimetres thick) and orthostats (11.4 centimetres height, 5.2 to 12 centimetres width): ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 93–94, figs. 99–102. See THEIS, Die Architektur 58 n. 290. 83 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 96–103, 153–260. See also PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 149–150, and A. RHOBY, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein nebst Addenda zu den Bänden 1 und 2. Vienna 2014, 140–143 no. GR4. 84 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 128–152. See also PAPADOPOULOU, Η βυζαντινή Άρτα 154–158. 85 ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 128–133.

162

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

representing the Virgin Blachernitissa in the middle and the concelebrating bishops below86. This is an established iconographic programme, as the church was lacking that in that period. The fact that the apse conch was not frescoed is, though, surprising, because there are no other traces of decoration. This is what survives today or what was made and has been lost. However, we can imagine that a complete decoration scheme must have been thought for the entire building, but that its realisation was, at one point, suspended. This is not the case of the “Western” elements, which seem to have been made during the building’s construction, as we should expect for the architectural sculptures, even if they had an ornamental function. The case of the mosaics is different. The frescoes that were painted in 1558 to decorate the bema, without reaching the apse conch, and their absence in the cross arm vaults suggest that the mosaics were never finished. The work to realise the mosaics was, after all, more expensive and time consuming, since the surface to cover was very wide. In fact, when the building was decorated in the post-Byzantine period, it became clear that the ambitious project of the despots could not be finished, even with the least expensive fresco technique, although a uniform work was undertaken in the bema, the templon, and maybe the naos. The interruption of the execution of the mosaics seems contemporaneous to the conclusion of the galleries, which were never finished, probably due to the worsening of the political situation after Nikephoros’ death, between 1296 and 129887. Thus, regarding the decorations, it emerges as a grand and ambitious project, similar – for its innovation and significance – to the architectural one, despite the “absences” both ab origine and subsequent. Its concepteur must have faced the challenge of decorating wide surfaces and of combining different 86 87

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 128–152, XXVIII. D. M. NICOL, The Date of the Death of Nikephoros I of Epiros. RSBN 1 (1981) 251–257; D. M. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros, 1267–1479. A Contribution to the History of Greece in the Middle Ages. Cambridge 1984, 35–62; D. M. NICOL, Thomas, Despot of Epiros and the Foundation Date of the Paregoritissa at Arta. Byzantina 13/2 (1985) 751–758; S. ASONITES, Το Νότιο Ιόνιο κατά τον Όψιμο Μεσαίωνα. Athens 2005, 71–83; N. LAPPAS, Πολιτική ιστορία του κράτους της Ηπείρου κατά τον 13° αι. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Thessalonike 2007, 316–350.

163

LORENZO RICCARDI

artistic media, including mosaics, sculptures, and marble covers, developing a complex “programme” that can be reconstructed today only partially. In this perspective, a new complex reading is necessary, which, on the one hand, solves some interpretative questions, such as the subjects of the corbels, which cannot be considered the symbols of the Apostles, as Orlandos thinks88, and on the other focuses on those elements, such as the sculpted arches, that show a clever and unusual artistic design. The analysis of the iconographic themes, of the inscription and the mise en page will be the subject of another paper. Here it is worth highlighting that the possible presence of a third arch opens further critical issues, primarily the theme that was represented. However, it is possible to advance a hypothesis, postponing a more detailed discussion to another place. On the first two arches there were the Nativity on the north arch and the Crucifixion on the west; the third arch on the south might have been devoted to the Anastasis. This is suggested not only by the customary scene arrangement in the Byzantine churches89, but also by a more detailed reading of their meaning combining other sources, especially an analysis of the texts of the inscriptions in relationship with the liturgical and patristic sources90. After all, this scene is also split on two arches of the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens91, showing that it fits this shape better than that of Arta. If this hypothesis were plausible, it would be possible to strengthen the link between these two groups of sculptures. As is normal, the attempt to solve critical issues always opens new research avenues and, in the case of the Paregoretissa, this is really inevitable. 88

ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 73. D. VOJVODIĆ, The Nativity of Christ and the Descent Hades as Programme Counterparts in Byzantine Wall Painting, in: Symmeikta: zbornik radova povodom četrdeset godina Instituta za Istoriju Umetnosti Filozofskog Fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu (= Collection of papers dedicated to the 40 th anniversary of the Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade), ed. I. Stevović. Belgrade 2011, 127–142. 90 This issue has not been addressed by previous studies, except for random remarks made by Orlandos regarding the epigraphic texts: ORLANDOS, Η Παρηγορήτισσα (1963) 84, 87–89. I am currently preparing a paper about it, based on my PhD thesis: see, for now, RICCARDI, L’Epiro 333–349. 91 XYNGOPOULOS, Φραγκοβυζαντινά γλυπτά 72–74; M. SKLAVOU-MAVROEIDE, Γλυπτά του Βυζαντινού Μουσείου Αθηνών. Athens 1999, 190–191 no. 264–265. 89

164

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES 1, 2: Arta, Paregoretissa: view from north-west and of the interior. Photographs taken by the Messbildanstalt in 1910 (Athens, National Historical Museum, nos. SF_ITH_19 and 13)

165

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 3: Arta, Paregoretissa: view of the interior (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2015)

FIGURE 4: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: the cloisonné archivolt on the naos counter-façade (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2015)

166

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 5: Arta, Paregoretissa: transverse section of the north system supporting the dome (ORLANDOS 1963, fig. 53)

FIGURE 6: Arta, Paregoretissa: ground plan (ORLANDOS 1963, fig. 18)

167

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 7: Arta, Paregoretissa: plan of the naos at the level of the colonettes. The bold numbers refer to the existing corbels, the italic ones to the missing corbels (Reworked from ORLANDOS 1963, fig. 57)

FIGURE 8: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: the knotted colonette above the southwest pendentive and the corbel no. 5 (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

168

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURES 9, 10: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior, above: the pointed trefoil arch above the north-east pendentive and the right springer of the north sculpted arch; below: capital of the bilobed window of the west gallery (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

169

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 11: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: capital of the bilobed window of the south gallery (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

FIGURE 12: Arta, Paregoretissa: western capital of the baldachin (The Archaeological Society at Athens, Archive A. K. Orlandos)

170

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 13: Arta, Paregoretissa: eastern capitals of the baldachin (The Archaeological Society at Athens, Archive A. K. Orlandos)

FIGURE 14: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: corbel no. 4 (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

171

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURES 15, 16: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: corbel no 6 and no. 7 (below) (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

172

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 17: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior, sculpted west arch: the Agnus Dei (PAPADOPOULOU 2002, fig. 173)

FIGURE 18: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior, west sculpted arch (The Archaeological Society at Athens, Archive A. K. Orlandos)

173

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 19: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior, north sculpted arch baldachin (The Archaeological Society at Athens, Archive A. K. Orlandos)

FIGURE 20: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior, sculpted north arch: the prophet David (ORLANDOS 1963, fig. 83)

174

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 21: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking northwest. Photograph taken by Schultz and Barnsley in 1890 (British School at Athens, Archive, BRF 02.01.09.014)

175

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 22: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking northwest. Photograph taken by the Messbildanstalt in 1910 (Athens, National Historical Museum, no. ΙΘ, 131)

FIGURE 23: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking north (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

176

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 24: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking southwest. Photograph taken by the Messbildanstalt in 1910 (Athens, National Historical Museum, no. SF_ITH_13)

FIGURE 25: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking south (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

177

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 26: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the mosaics on the south-west pendentive (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2015)

FIGURES 27, 28: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior, dome: the mosaics under restoration, before (left) and after the consolidation (right) (The Archaeological Society at Athens, Archive A. K. Orlandos)

178

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 29: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking east. Photograph taken by Schultz and Barnsley in 1890 (British School at Athens, Archive, BRF 02.01.09.015)

FIGURE 30: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking east. Photograph taken by the Messbildanstalt in 1910 (Athens, National Historical Museum, no. ΙΘ, 132)

179

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 31: Arta, Paregoretissa, view of the interior looking east (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2013)

FIGURE 32: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: fragments of mosaics in the tympanum of the east cross arm’s barrel vault (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2015)

180

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

FIGURE 33: Arta, Paregoretissa, interior: fragments of mosaics in the tympanum of the east cross arm’s barrel vault (The Archaeological Society at Athens, Archive A. K. Orlandos)

FIGURE 34: Thessalonike, Hagioi Apostoloi, interior, mosaics: the Transfiguration (Mosaics of Thessaloniki, 4th–14th century. Athens 2012, fig. 55)

181

LORENZO RICCARDI

35a

35b

35c

35d FIGURE 35a–d: Arta, Paregoretissa, storage: fragmentary sculpture inv. no. 94/338 (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2015)

182

UNIFORM, INCOMPLETE AND PARTLY LOST

36a

36b

36c

36d FIGURE 36a–d: Arta, Paregoretissa, storage: fragmentary sculpture inv. no. 93/311 (Lorenzo Riccardi, 2015)

183

LORENZO RICCARDI

FIGURE 37: Arta, Paregoretissa, view from north-east. Photograph taken by Schultz and Barnsley in 1890 (British School at Athens, Archive, BRF 02.01.09.002)

FIGURE 38: Arta, Paregoretissa, view from north-east. Photograph taken by Lampakes in 1898 (Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum [BXM], Historic and Photographic Archives, no. XAE 2432)

184

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY: CREATING THE ARTISTIC, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

T

he artistic activity in the region of Epirus in the final two centuries of the Post-Byzantine period is significant1. The number of regional and provincial monuments witnesses an impressive increase after the second half of the 17th century and especially during the last decade of the 18th century2. The gradual increase in the number of painters in the 17th century, which reached its apex in the 18th century, is an element common to regions outside Greece. It correlates with the social and economic conditions prevalent in the final two centuries of Ottoman suzerainty over the Balkans. However, regions such as Epirus3 witnessed a staggeringly larger 1

2

3

Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Christos Stavrakos for the invitation to participate in the thematic session “Epirus Revisited – New Perceptions of Its History and Material Culture” at the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Belgrade (22–27 August 2016). The appearance of painters in monuments outside the geographical boundaries of Greece and their cataloging in charts by Ms. E. Drakopoulou gives us a clear image of their gradual increase in number in the 17th century, the explosion in their numbers in the 18 th century, and their places of origin. See regarding: E. D RAKOPOULOU, Αναλυτικοί πίνακες των Ελλήνων ζωγράφων και των έργων τους (1450–1850). Athens 2008, 10–12, 30–80. It is worth mentioning the works of Μrs. Argiro Karamperidi, Μr. Ioannis Chouliaras and the late D. Kostantios, all of whom studied the monuments and painters of Epirus and published aggregate information on the artistic production of the 17 th and 18th centuries: A. KARAMPERIDE, Η μονή Πατέρων και η ζωγραφική του 17ου αιώνα στην περιοχή της Ζίτσας Ιωαννίνων. Ioannina 2009 (hencerforth: KARAMPERIDE, Μονή Πατέρων); I. P. CHOULIARAS, Η εντοίχια θρησκευτική ζωγραφική του 16ου και 17ου αιώνα στο Δυτικό Ζαγόρι. Athens 2009 (henceforth: CHOULIARAS, Δυτικό Ζαγόρι); D. KONSTANTIOS, Προσέγγιση στο έργο των ζωγράφων από το Καπέσοβο της Ηπείρου. Athens 2001, 20–25 (henceforth: KONSTANTIOS,

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 185–202  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121922

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

increase in the number of artists compared to other regions of the Balkans, especially in the 18th century4. The present study serves to outline the financial and social profile of Epirus in the 17th and 18th centuries by comparatively examining the production of monumental art and in particular the systems that created it. The production of religious frescoes in Epirus5 (prefectures of Ioannina, Arta, Preveza, Thesprotia and South Albania) during the final two centuries of Ottoman rule is presented through the geographical division of the monuments, the painters’ places of origin, the frequency of appearance of named painters, donors’ preferences etc.6 The present study does not include the production of mobile works and religious artifacts, as these works are subject to alternate donation and funding mechanisms.

4

5

6

Καπεσοβίτες). Also, Mr. Chouliaras’s article, which was published after the presentation of the present study at the International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Sofia (August 2016), contributes noteworthy elements regarding the artistic production in Epirus through the study of the social and professional profiles of the painters in Epirus in the 16th and 17th centuries: I. P. CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Cultural and Professional Status as Revealed by the Monumental Inscriptions of Epirus (16th–17th c.), in: Inscriptions in the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art Proceedings of the International Symposium “Inscriptions: Their Contribution to the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art,” Ioannina, June 26–27, 2015, ed. Chr. Stavrakos. Wiesbaden 2016, 79–94 (henceforth: CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status). KONSTANTIOS, Καπεσοβίτες; K. KONTOPANAGOU, Ο ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου στην Ήπειρο (1795) και το έργο των Καπεσοβιτών ζωγράφων Ιωάννου και Αναστασίου Αναγνώστη. Ioannina 2010 (unpubl. thesis), 10–13 (henceforth: KONTOPANAGOU, Καπεσοβίτες). It is worth noting that the restoration of monuments in Epirus is an ongoing process and we cannot exclude new findings which could change the dating of the monuments, though if that should occur it will most likely be on a very small scale. The study was based on information (datings, names of painters and donors) gleaned from readings of donor inscriptions. The inscriptions in the monuments of Epirus have been studied and compiled in their entirety within the framework of Professor Christos Stavrakos’s research program: “The history supports the research and economic growth in under developed regions: the donor and dedicatory inscriptions in the Christian monuments of Epirus (4th–18th c.).” Excellence II, 2.2014–7.2015). The quantitative analysis of the examples in the article was based on the compilation of donor inscriptions and on the research project’s database.

186

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

THE 17 TH CENTURY The indisputable gradual increase in the number of provincial monuments after the end of the 16th century7 directly correlates with the economic development of these regions and the significant transformations in the residential network of Epirus which took place beginning in the late 16th century and especially after the 17th century8. Many earlier, minor settlements were dissolved and incorporated into newer, larger ones during this period, with residents moving and creating new settlements, within which there was a need for construction of new religious monuments or for renovation of older existing ones9. By examining monuments which were either partially or completely decorated in the 17th century, we observe that the artistic production in the regions of Zagori, Pogoni, Grammenochoria and South Albania is exceptionally plentiful, in contrast with the regions south of Ioannina (Arta, Preveza, Thesprotia). The disproportionate development of monumental art in the various regions reflects their differing social and financial situations10. 7

Regarding the 16th c. in Epirus see: M. KORDOSES, Συνοικίες και εκκλησίες στα Γιάννινα του 16ου αιώνα από τα τουρκικά κατάστιχα και τον Κουβαρά. Historikogeographika 10 (2004) 185–192; Ch. STAVRAKOS, The Sixteenth Century Donor Inscriptions in the Monastery of the Dormition of the Virgin (Theotokos Molybdoskepastos). The Legend of the Emperor Constantine IV as Founder of Monasteries in Epirus. Wiesbaden 2013, 82–93. 8 Ch. STAVRAKOS, The Profile of Donors in Christian Monuments of Epirus, in: Inscriptions in the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Inscriptions: Their Contribution to the Byzantine and PostByzantine History and History of Art”, Ioannina, June 26–27, 2015, ed. Chr. Stavrakos. Wiesbaden 2016, 46–52 (henceforth: STAVRAKOS, Profile Donors); H. INALCIK – D. QUATAERT, Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία της Οθωμανικής αυτοκρατορίας. Athens, I 290–300. 9 These movements and property rearrangements are prevalent mainly in mountainous and semi-mountainous regions. A notable example is the region of Zagori where in the 18 th century the Zagori Confederation consisted of 46 villages in total, split into three regions: Central, East and West Zagori, G. PAPAGEORGIOU, Οικονομικοί και Κοινωνικοί Μηχανισμοί στον ορεινό χώρο. Ζαγόρι (μέσα 18ου–αρχές 20ού αι.). Ioannina 1995, 15–16 and 21–22 (henceforth: PAPAGEORGIOU, Ζαγόρι). 10 The ratio of donors corresponds to this, as seen in the donor inscriptions of this period in Epirus. Of a total of 91 donors, 9 are from Arta while none are from Preveza. Regarding donors and their geographical distribution across Epirus, see STAVRAKOS, Profile Donors 48–52.

187

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

West11 and Central Zagori are two notable examples of financial growth and therefore growth of Post-Byzantine art in the 17th century. This growth is in large part due to the complete administrative autonomy enjoyed by the region of Zagori, with the formation of the “Koino” or “Vilaete” of Zagori12. Also noteworthy is the artistic production of South Albania in the 17th century, where pre-existing monuments where either renovated or decorated13. Located southwest of Ioannina, Katsanochoria is a group of villages which, in fact, constitutes the southernmost extent of artistic development in the region of Epirus in the 17th century14. The abundance of monuments in this geographically limited area shows the financial affluence and growth of the region. It is therefore apparent that the special privileges conferred upon the mountainous and semi-mountainous regions of Epirus by the Ottoman

11

12

13

14

Western Zagori was rendered a separate semi-autonomous administrative entity. From the 16th century onwards, the region witnesses significant intellectual, economic and residential development, also evident in the large number of churches built and decorated in the same period. A total of ten 16 th- and 17th-century wall-paintings can be found in Western Zagori, covering a time frame between 1576 and 1672/73. Regarding Western Zagrori see: CHOULIARAS, Δυτικό Ζαγόρι 503–508. Following the Ottoman conquest, the residents of Central and West Zagori signed a treaty and organized into a self-administered region, with Papingo as its capital. However, after the 17th-century founding of the “Koino,” the Zagori Confederation in other words, the region witnessed an increase in administrative authority. A. TOURTA, Οι ναοί του Αγίου Μηνά και του Αγίου Νικολάου στη Βίτσα Ζαγορίου. Athens 1991, 229 (henceforth: TOURTA, Οι ναοί); CHOULIARAS, Δυτικό Ζαγόρι 16–17, with further bibliography. K. GIAKOUMIS, The monasteries of Jorgucat and Vanishte in Dropull and of Spelaio in Lunxheri as monuments and institutions during the Ottoman period in Albania (16th–19th centuries) (unpubl. thesis). University of Birmingham 2002; M. SKAVARA, Το έργο των Λινοτοπιτών ζωγράφων Μιχαήλ και Κωνσταντίνου στη νότια Αλβανία: Συμβολή στη μελέτη της μνημειακής ζωγραφικής του 17 ου αιώνα (unpubl. thesis). Ioannina 2003, 522– 552 (henceforth: SKAVARA, Λινοτοπίτες). I. CHOULIARAS, Οι τοιχογραφίες του ναού της Γέννησης της Θεοτόκου στην Κορύτιανη. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της μνημειακής ζωγραφικής του α΄ μισού του 17 ου αι. στα Κατσανοχώρια. Ioannina 2015, 11–12 (henceforth: CHOULIARAS, Κορίτιανη). These are the villages of Aetorachi (Kotorsi), Elliniko (Lozetsi), Koritiani, Kostitsi, Lazaina, Nistora, Patero, Pigadia (Valtsora), Plaisio and Fortosi.

188

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

Porte, in order to effectively secure their control by the Ottomans, played a decisive role in the financial prosperity of these regions. In contrast with the plethora of churches in the mountainous and semimountainous regions of Epirus, production is on a smaller scale in the basin of Ioannina, while still being noteworthy, with nine churches with 17th-century frescoes extant in the basin and on the foothills of the mountains around the city. These churches all exhibit 17th-century frescoes or layers of decoration from both the 16th and 17th centuries15. The financial robustness of the Ioannina basin is readily observable from the late 16 th century onwards, reaching its apex in the 17th century, a fact for which the mass construction and renovation of monuments within the span of approximately a century bears witness. Economic growth appears to taper off in this region during the 18th century, however, as only three of the pre-existing monuments from the 16th and 17th centuries exhibit 18th-century wall decoration16. Limited church-building and decorating of older monuments is observable in and around the city of Arta during this period17. The small-scale artistic production of the 17th century comes into stark contrast with the region’s financial robustness in this period due to it being an important hub in the trade network of the Balkans18. The smaller number of monuments is likely correlated with the social and political upheavals in the region, within 15

16

17

18

These are the churches in the Ioannina basin and its borders: I. CHOULIARAS, Η μεταβυζαντινή μνημειακή ζωγραφική στο λεκανοπέδιο των Ιωαννίνων (16ος–17ος αι.), in: Proceedings of the first Pan-Epirotic Congress “Ιστορία – Λογιοσύνη: Η Ήπειρος και τα Ιωάννινα από το 1430 έως το 1913,” ed. G. Papageorgiou – K. Petsios). Ioannina 2015, II 1176 (henceforth: CHOULIARAS, Λεκανοπέδιο Ιωαννίνων). Eighteenth-century frescoes are extant in the following monuments: Church of St. Georgios in Lampsista, Monastery of St. Ioannes in Lykotrichi and church of St. Charalampos in Perama, CHOULIARAS, Λεκανοπέδιο Ιωαννίνων 1137–1138, 1166, 1169 respectively. Regarding the founding and renovation of monuments in the region in the 17 th century see: M. TSIAPALE, Η εντοίχια ζωγραφική του 17ου αιώνα στους ναούς της Άρτας (unpubl. thesis). Ioannina 2003 (henceforth: TSIAPALE, Άρτα). Arta was situated on the axis of one of the most vital highways in Epirus: that of Ioannina-Arta-Salaora, which was of paramount military and commercial importance, G. MAKRES – St. PAPAGEORGIOU, Το χερσαίο δίκτυο επικοινωνίας στο κράτος του Αλή Πασά Τεπελενλή. Athens 1990, 131–138.

189

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

the context of the Ottoman-Venetian war. The monuments of the 17th century south of Arta19, in and around Preveza20 and in Thesprotia are even fewer in number. Local revolts fostered political and social unrest in the region: In 1603–1606 the Knights of Malta roused the Epirotes against the Ottomans, while the failed revolt of Dionysius followed shortly after, in 1611. Prominent Greek residents of Arta and Thesprotia were connected with this revolt, and Ottoman reprisals were harsh. These events resulted in the abandonment of villages, population purges and overwhelming tax burdens in the regions south of Ioannina, elements which directly affected the artistic production and the construction or decoration of churches in the regions connected with the failed revolt21. It is also worth noting that there are no 16th- and 17th-century churches in the city of Preveza22. Roughly 120 monuments from the 17th century have been recorded in the region of Epirus23. In the course of studying the inscriptions of the aforementioned monuments, two interesting facts regarding the painters emerge: Only about ¼ of the inscriptions include the name of a painter, as 19

20

21

22 23

In the course of the Ottoman-Venetian War (1684–1696) Arta was sacked numerous times. In fact, in 1696 Liverios Gerakares, the Bey of Mani, raided Arta in cooperation with the Venetians, causing widespread destruction. Regarding the Ottoman-Venetian war, see: A. ARCHONTIDES, Η Βενετοκρατία στην δυτική Ελλάδα (1684–1699). Συμβολή στην ιστορία της περιοχής του Αμβρακικού κόλπου και της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας. Thessalonike 1983, 160–193; TSIAPALE, Άρτα 5–8. Most of the churches in the region of Preveza were constructed in the 18 th century: I. CHOULIARAS, Εντοίχια ζωγραφική του 16ου και 17ου αιώνα στην πόλη και την ευρύτερη περιοχή της Πρέβεζας, in: Preveza B. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for the History and Culture of Preveza (16–20 September 2009), ed. M. Vrelli-Zachou – Ch. Stavrakos. Preveza 2010, I 315–334 (henceforth: CHOULIARAS, Πρέβεζα). The Metropolitans of Ioannina, Chariton of Dyrrachium and Gabriel III of Arta and Zotos Tsirpos, the proestos of Paramythia were all accused of colluding with Dionysios. Regarding Dionysios the Philosopher’s failed revolution, see: K. D. MERTZIOS, Η επανάσταση του Διονυσίου του Φιλοσόβου, EpChr 13 (1938) 81–90. CHOULIARAS, Πρέβεζα 317. The study includes works with a precise known dating, i. e. those with an extant chronology and those with a dating discovered by researchers. Regarding the first half of the 17 th century, see CHOULIARAS, Κορίτιανη 154–159; regarding the monuments of the entire 17 th century, see CHOULIARAS, Δυτικό Ζαγόρι 509–517; KARAMPERIDE, Μονή Πατέρων 375–391.

190

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

there are only 29 named painters24. This percentage of signed frescoes in Epirus is generally in accord with the statistical evidence for the entirety of the Post-Byzantine Greek painters, as up to and including the 17th century they were not in the habit of signing their works25. Despite the relatively minor number of signed works, Epirus and Western Macedonia are Greekspeaking regions within which we encounter a satisfactory number of signatures of wall decorations. In contrast, the number of signed works in other areas, such as Veroia and Kastoria, is far smaller26. A second observable element is that during this period, the decoration of monuments is carried out by painters’ workshops, which consist of members of the same family27. In this case, it is common to see the signatures of all the artists who worked on the decoration in the donor inscriptions of these monuments. The number of commissions of more than one artist is frequent and common compared to the previous century28. Another interesting element pertains to the painters’ places of origin, with the vast majority of them being of 24

25

26

27

28

Regarding the matter of the signature of the Post-Byzantine artist, see M. VASILAKE, Από τον “ανώνυμο” Βυζαντινό καλλιτέχνη στον “επώνυμο” ζωγράφο του 15 ου αιώνα, in: Το πορτραίτο του καλλιτέχνη στο Βυζάντιο, ed. M. Vasilake. Herakleio 2000, 161–209. Regarding the number of named painters, see CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 90–92, which includes a comprehensive and informative chart. E. DRAKOPOULOU, Όψεις δραστηριότητας των ζωγράφων. Έλληνες ζωγράφοι μετά την Άλωση (1450–1850). Athens 2010, III 121–122 (henceforth: DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι). Regarding painters’ signatures, see: E. DRAKOPOULOU, Υπογραφές μεταβυζαντινών ζωγράφων. Ανίχνευση προσωπικών και καλλιτεχνικών μαρτυριών. DChAE 22 (2001) 129–134 (henceforth: DRAKOPOULOU, Υπογραφές ζωγράφων). CHOULIARAS, Painter’s Status 82, which contains detailed accounts of the names of the painters and the degrees of relationship between members of corresponding workshops. Apprenticeships appear to have begun at a young age, thereby leading to a multitude of workshops. Regarding the period of apprenticeship of painters, the age and the stages of their profession see S. KALOPISE-VERTE, Οι ζωγράφοι στην ύστερη βυζαντινή κοινωνία. Η μαρτυρία των επιγραφών, in: To πορτραίτο του καλλιτέχνη στο Βυζάντιο, ed. M. Basilake. Herakleio 1997, 151–153; E. DELIGIANNE-DORE, Γύρω από το εργαστήριο των Κονταρήδων. Συμβολή στην έρευνα για την μαθητεία στην τοιχογραφία και τη συγκρότηση των εργαστηρίων των ζωγράφων κατά τη μεταβυζαντινή περίοδο, in: Μοναστήρια Νήσου Ιωαννίνων. Proceedings of Symposium for 700 years 1292–1992, 29–31 March 1992. Ioannina 1999, 103–139.

191

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

non-Epirote origin. These artists are mostly from Western Macedonia, Linotopi and Grammosta in particular (neighboring villages of the Grammos mountain range, in the Kastoria regional unit29) (Fig. 1). The origin of such a large number of painters from the mountainous regions of Kastoria correlates directly with the economic reordering in the 17th-century Ottoman Empire30. Within the ranks of the non-Epirote painters, two from the Greek islands are a category in and of themselves, as is evidenced by the donor inscriptions31, i.e. Alivizios Fokas from Cephalonia32 and Onoufrios from

29

30

31 32

Artists with common places of origin would organize into workshops. The 17 th century was dominated by the painters from Linotopi and Grammosta (Grammos), who decorated a large number of monuments in Epirus: TOURTA, Οι ναοί 225–231; A. KAPAMPERIDE, Ζωγράφοι από τον Γράμμο στην Ήπειρο του 17 ου αιώνα, στοιχεία από τις επιγραφές των έργων τους, in: Μίλτος Γαρίδης, Αφιέρωμα, ed. A. Stavropoulou. Ioannina 2003, I 291–309; SKAVARA, Λινοτοπίτες 522–552; KARAMPERIDE, Μονή Πατέρων 316–325; K. GIAKOUMIS, The activity of the painters from Linotopi in the regions of the orthodox church of Albania, in: 2000 Years Church Art and Culture in Albania, ed. P. Thomo – G. Bushaka. Tirana 2005, 229–257; Th. TSAMPOURAS, Τα καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια του Γράμμου: από την τοπική κλίμακα στο βαλκανικό ορίζοντα, in: 30th Symposium of Byzantine Art and Archaeology (14–16 May 2010). Athens 2010, 99–100; Th. TSAMPOURAS, Τα καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια από την περιοχή του Γράμμου κατά τον 16ο και 17ο αιώνα. Ζωγράφοι από το Λινοτόπι, την Γράμμοστα, τη Ζέρμα και το Μπουρμπουτσικό (unpubl. thesis). Thessalonike 2013, 12–15, 387–392 (henceforth: TSAMPOURAS, Καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια); I. CHOULIARAS, The work of the painter Ioannis Skoutaris from Grammosta, Kastoria in Epirus and Southern Albania (1645–1672/2). Matica Srpska. Proceedings for Fine Arts 40 (2012) 42–60; CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 82–84. The mountainous and semi-mountainous regions benefited from the rearrangements of trade and the economy. The local economic institutions sponsored the funding of religious monuments, leading to an increased demand for painters. TSAMPOURAS, Καλλιτεχνικά εργαστήρια 33–35; T. STOIANOVICH, Between East and West. The Balkan Mediterranean Worlds. Economies and Societies, Land, Lords, States and Middlemen. New York 1992, I 16–30; R. GRADEVA, The Ottoman Balkans: a Zone of Fractures or a Zone of Contacts?, in: Zones of Fracture in Modern Europe: the Baltic Countries, the Balkans and Northern Italy. Wiesbaden 2005, 61–75. KARAMPERIDE, Μονή Πατέρων 357–358; CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 82. The works of this painter are dated, according to donor inscriptions, between 1613 and 1622. DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι 450.

192

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

Cyprus33. The unquestioned dominance of the artists from Linotopi and the Grammostians in the religious fresco production of the 17 th century in Epirus quite likely caused the almost complete absence of Epirote painters34. Thus, among the named painters, very few can be safely confirmed to have Epirote origins35: Michael from Tenisko (1620) (probably a village near Konitsa)36, Athanasios from Greveniti (1680)37 and Nikolaos from Arta (1697)38. With the exception of Michael, the other two Epirote painters were active at the end of the century. A common trait of both the two aforementioned painters from the Greek islands39 and of the Epirotes is the local nature of their work, as they decorated monuments in a specific area – including some in their places of origin – and they do not seem to have been popular among a wider circle of donors. The monopoly of the Linotopites and the Grammostians over the artistic production of the 17th century was directly responsible for the limited number of Epirote painters. Furthermore, the failed revolts against the Ottomans of the 17th century 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Onoufrios is active around the same time as Phokas (1594–1622). M. CHATZIDAKES – E. DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι μετά την Άλωση (1450–1830). Athens 1997, 258 (henceforth: CHATZIDAKES – DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι). The Linotopite, and subsequently the Grammostian painters’ workshops, working with professionalism and organization, did not “allow” the activity of other artists in Epirus. They were also perceived as the best painters, which resulted in the donors themselves asking for them. The subject has been studied by I. Chouliaras, therefore we shall not devote further examination to it in the present study: CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 84–85. The painter Demetrios and his workshop are likely of Epirote origin, according to I. Chouliaras: CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 86. Regarding the artist’s works and his art, see CHOULIARAS, Δυτικό Ζαγόρι 240–241; CHOULIARAS, Κορίτιανη 89–90. A donor inscription mentions a collaboration with a certain Demetrios, CHATZIDAKES – DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι 193. He decorated churches around his place of origin, such as those of Greveniti and the monastery of Voutsa, DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι 144. The donor inscription of the monastery of Seltso in Arta mentions that the priest Nikolaos worked on the frescoes of the catholicon with his children, though their names are not mentioned, CHATZIDAKES – DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι 239. For the names of other painters without a clear place of origin which were active in Epirus, see CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 82–83, 85. Regarding the activity of Alivizios Fokas and Onoufrios in Northern Epirus, see CHOULIARAS, Painters’ Status 85–86.

193

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

disrupted the peace and the balance of populations in the region, directly influencing its social and religious life40. For this reason, artistic production witnessed a gradual increase after 1630, and especially in the final quarter of the century (Fig. 2).

THE 18 TH CENTURY There are many examples of settlements which were reorganized and exhibit population growth in the late 17th century or in the 18th century. Social and political conditions are the causes of these demographic and property changes, which fostered favorable conditions for growth throughout the region41. The union, or rather the alliance, between the inhabitants of Ioannina and Zagori and the formation of a community in 1774, an event which served to decisively impact the economic development of Epirus, is also noteworthy42. Another decisive factor in the financial and cultural prosperity of many regions in the 18th century is the immigration of a large number of inhabitants throughout the Balkans and their occupation with trade43. The number of monuments in Epirus increased in the 18th century, 40

41

42

43

This failed revolution had an impact on the economic and social life mainly of the urban areas of Epirus. Churches were re-built in the mountainous regions, though this reconstruction activity was only minor in the first half of the century. A notable example is the construction of the church of St. Nikolaos in Vitsa, Zagori (1612), TOURTA, Οι ναοί 228–229. For the self-administration and autonomy of Zagori in the late 18 th and early 19th centuries, see PAPAGEORGIOU, Ζαγόρι 189–226. The Proestos of Zagori was Ioannoutsos Karamesines, who wielded influence at the Ottoman Porte and achieved the limitation of taxes imposed on the region. Regarding, see K. VARZOKAS, Αλέξης Νούτσος ο μεγάλος Ηπειρώτης. Η προσφορά της Ηπείρου στον Αγώνα του 21. Ioannina 1971, 29. Throughout this period the concessions which benefited Zagori were significant and were kept in place until 1868, when the informal confederation was broken up. S. PAPPAS, Η ομοσπονδία των κοινοτήτων του Ζαγορίου στα χρόνια της Οθωμανικής Κυριαρχίας. Epirotika Grammata. Ioannina 2003, 249–251. V. LAMPRIDES, Ηπειρωτικά Αγαθοεργήματα 1870–1888, Β΄: Ζαγοριακά. Ioannina 1971, 58. For the roads in Epirus, see: P. SOUSTAL – J. KODER, Nikopolis und Kephallenia (TIB 3). Vienna 1981, 90–93. According to Soustal and Koder, there is no mention of a road leading to or through the region of Zagori in the Byzantine period.

194

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

as older churches were renovated, incomplete iconographical programs in churches of the previous two centuries were completed and new monuments were erected (Fig. 3). The number of monuments refers to those dated with certainty from inscriptional evidence. This numeration does not include works of the 18thcentury artistic production with no inscriptional evidence. For the most part, monuments with (external or internal) donor and dedicatory inscriptions which preserve the dating or other information which allow the monument’s dating to the 18th century have been included. Regarding the monuments’ geographical division, we arrive at similar conclusions as with the 17th century: the artistic production in the regions of Zagori, Grammenochoria, Katsanochoria, Ioannina and South Albania is exceptionally abundant compared to the regions south of Ioannina (Arta, Preveza, Thesprotia). The total number of monuments almost doubles from the 17th to the 18th century44 (Fig. 4). The painters of non-Epirote origin are clearly fewer and mainly paint icons. The duration of their professional activity is noted in the slide. This period is noteworthy due to the increase in painters of Epirote origin: five painters’ workshops from the region of Epirus from 1717–1809: Kalarytians, Kapesovites, Katsanians, Soudeniotes, and Chionadites45. It is worth men44

45

It must be noted that regarding the 18th century, the only monuments mentioned are those monuments which have inscriptional information allowing their exact dating, while the numeration of the 17th-century monuments earlier in the paper included those which are attributed to the 17th c. without such evidence. Also, since many of the monuments in the regions of Thesprotia and Preveza have suffered extensive damage, in addition to numerous re-paintings, the initial number is certainly higher. Regarding the Kalarytian painters, see D. KALOUSIOS, Καλαριτινοί Αγιογράφοι. Επιγραφές εικόνων και ναών. EpChr 35 (2001) 387–409; I. KOSTE, Η ζωγραφική του παρεκκλησίου του Αγίου Ιωάννη του Προδρόμου (1737). Συμβολή στο έργο των ζωγράφων Γεωργίου και Στεργίου, in: Η ιερά μονή Βύλιζας στον τόπο και στον χρόνο. Proceedings of Symposium, ed. K. N. Konstantinides – H. Ch. Nesseres. Ioannina 2014, 63–83; V. N. PAPADOPOULOU – A. L. TSIARA, Εικόνες της Άρτας. Η εκκλησιαστική ζωγραφική στην περιοχή της Άρτας κατά τους βυζαντινούς και μεταβυζαντινούς χρόνους. Arta 2008, 239–240. Regarding the names and the work of the Kapesovite painters, see: KONSTANTIOS, Καπεσοβίτες 47–51;

195

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

tioning that they are organized groups of painters with levels of apprenticeship and division of labor. They are mainly groups which consist of members of the same family. It is worth noting that, as we can observe in the donor inscriptions, the painters themselves acquire an artist’s conscience: they sign the majority of their works46. The painters begin signing their works, recording important information: their places of origin and their collaborators. Inscriptions on collections of frescoes are now an integral part of their work. The cases of collaboration between painters in the same monument are also interesting: Two painters’ workshops in the donor inscription of the church of Phaneromeni in Fortosi village meticulously detail which sections each of the workshops worked on47. Regarding the number of named painters in Epirus in the 18th century, we see an almost threefold increase in number compared to the previous century. Furthermore, this increase dwarfs the corresponding percentage of increase in named artists

46

47

KONTOPANAGOU, Καπεσοβίτες 374–378; G. MANOPOULOS, Επανεξέταση Καπεσοβιτών ζωγράφων. EpChr 37 (2003) 299–317. Regarding the Katsanians painters G. MANOPOULOS, Ζωγράφοι από τα Κατσανοχώρια. Οι επιγραφές των γνωστών έργων τους (1730–1865) (unpubl. MA thesis); IDEM, Η δραστηριότητα των ζωγράφων από τα Κατσανοχώρια στη Λάκκα Σουλίου και την ευρύτερη περιοχή, in: Λάκκα Σουλίου. Νέες ιστορικές και αρχαιολογικές καταγραφές. Proceedings of Symposium, Thesprotiko, 28–29 July 2012, ed. St. Mamaloukos – G. Riginos – M. Stork. Thesprotiko – Athens 2013, 221-261; IDEM, Η δραστηριότητα των Κατσάνων στα Τζουμέρκα. Tzoumerkiotika Chronika 14 (2013) 182–201. Regarding the Soudeniotes and Chionadites painters, see D. KONSTANTIOS, Ομάδες ζωγράφων στην Ήπειρο την όψιμη Τουρκοκρατία, in: Ήπειρος. Κοινωνία – Οικονομία 15ος–20ός αι., Proceedings of International History Congress, Ioannina, 4–7 September 1985. Ioannina 1987, 241–270; KONSTANTIOS, Καπεσοβίτες 141–145; K. KONTOPANAGOU, Οι τοιχογραφίες της μονής Βύλιζας: Παράλληλες και Αποκλίνουσες τάσεις στην ζωγραφική του 18ου αιώνα, in: Η Iερά Mονή Βύλιζας στον τόπο και στον χρόνο, Proceedings of Symposium, ed. K. N. Konstantinides – H. Ch. Nesseres. Ioannina 2014, 15–32 (henceforth: KONTOPANAGOU, Μονή Βύλιζας). The signatures of painters, for the most part members of workshops, began to appear in the 17th century, as mentioned above. However, the signed works witnessed a dramatic increase in the 18th century. Regarding painters’ signatures, see: DRAKOPOULOU, Υπογραφές ζωγράφων. The church was decorated by two teams of painters from the Katsanochoria. Apart from their signatures, the inscription contains a detailed account of which sections of the church each workshop decorated. DRAKOPOULOU, Υπογραφές ζωγράφων 131.

196

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

within the wider region of the Balkans48. The painters of the monuments of the 18th century in Epirus sign the vast majority of their works, in a demonstration of self-assurance and professional recognition. However, divergent stylistic trends in the artistic style of the Epirote painters of the 18th century49 are also present in the style of the inscriptions. The more “erudite” inscriptional testimony is invariably a product of the Kapesovite painters, due to the presence among their clientele of notable donors: Ioannoutzos Karamesines50, a close friend of Ali Pasha, the donor of St. Nikolaos of Kapesovo (Fig. 5), or Chatzimanthos Ginou51, a well-travelled merchant who lived in Wallachia, the donor of St. Georgios of Negades52 (Fig. 6). The Epirote painters gradually during the course of the 18th century develop artistic maturity and display eclecticism in their choices of iconographical types, style and in the expressions they use in the inscriptions of the monuments, an element which ultimately becomes the identifying element of their work and ensures their fame for posterity. What is the main reason for this noteworthy increase in Epirote painters in the 18th century? Obviously, the increase in the number of painters in Epirus can be explained in the context of the general development of PostByzantine painting in the Balkans during this period, and the spread of the Enlightenment. However, in Epirus the number of painters comparative to the general population is larger than other regions and is due to the growth of trade and the political power of Epirus within the Ottoman Empire in 48

49 50 51 52

The number of Greek-speaking named painters in the 18th century is almost twice as many than of the 17th century: DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι 121–123. KONTOPANAGOU, Μονή Βύλιζας 18–20. KONSTANTIOS, Καπεσοβίτες 41–42. KONTOPANAGOU, Καπεσοβίτες 15. The painter Ioannis in St. Georgios of Negades uses the word “ἀπηρτίσθη,” which is the most erudite phrase encountered in the entirety of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine inscriptions. See: K. KONTOPANAGOU , Κατὰ πάντα ἀπηρτίσθη: Some Comments on the ἀπάρτισις in Donor Inscriptions, in: Inscriptions in the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Inscriptions: Their Contribution to the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art,” Ioannina, June 26–27, 2015, ed. Chr. Stavrakos. Wiesbaden 2016, 177–192. For all the donor inscriptions of the Kapesovite painters, see: KONSTANTIOS, Καπεσοβίτες 26–46.

197

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

the 18th century. After all, painters from Epirus only account for 25% of all named Post-Byzantine painters with known places of origins within the geographical boundaries of Greece53. The financially powerful donors of the Epirote monuments, mainly merchants in the Danube states, became agents of the renewing spirit of the West and were the main clientele of the numerous Epirote painters.  In summary, we arrive at the following conclusions: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the majority of decorated monuments are located in the northern regions of Epirus. In the 17th century the number of non-Epirote painters is overwhelmingly larger than that of the Epirotes. In the 17th century most of the painters do not sign their works and remain anonymous as they do not belong to large, established workshops. In the 18th century the number of monuments increases by 45%, while the number of Epirote painters also increases. In the 18th century the Epirote painters, who create works with rich and varied programs, commonly sign their works and in many cases display a superior intellectual level, indirectly distinguishing their social position. They seem to consider themselves artists. These changes reveal the gradual financial and intellectual growth of Epirus, obviously achieved through trade and the circulation of intellectual ideas and artistic trends, which peaked in the 18 th century with the restorative momentum of the Enlightenment and the dominance of prominent and notably wealthy merchants-donors. After the mid-17th century and mainly in the 18th century the aesthetic preferences of the Orthodox Christian painters inside the borders of the Ottoman Empire depend upon the 53

In the 18th century roughly two thirds of Greek-speaking and Greek-educated painters with prior activities in Epirus and Macedonia move to the Balkan regions. DRAKOPOULOU, Έλληνες ζωγράφοι 122; EADEM, The Itineraries of the Orthodox Painters in the Eighteenth Century. The Common Aesthetics in South-East Europe. The Historical Review/La Revue Historique V (2008) 21–32.

198

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

preferences of the donors but gradually attain a professional sense of self, by following the social changes in South-East Europe during the 18th century, just before the formation of nation-states.



ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1: The ratio of 17th-century painters in proportion to their places of origin 199

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

FIGURE 2: Increase in artistic production at the end of 17 th century in Epirus

FIGURE 3: Artistic production in the 17th and 18th centuries in Epirus 200

THE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS OF EPIRUS IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY

FIGURE 4: Distribution of painters in the 17th and the 18th centuries

FIGURE 5: Ioannoutzos Karamesines. Donor portrait. Church of St. Nikolaos, village of Kapesovo, Zagori, 1793 (detail) 201

KATERINA KONTOPANAGOU

FIGURE 6: Chatzimanthos Ginou. Donor portrait. Church of St. Georgios, village of Negades, Zagori. 1795 (detail)

202

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF THROUGH THE EYES OF THE EUROPEAN TRAVELERS (17TH–19TH CENTURY)

T

he reception of Byzantium in early modern literature remains a fertile field of research, and belongs to the wider discussion regarding the endurance of Byzantium “after Byzantium,” as coined by N. Iorga1. However, Epirus is conspicuously absent from this discussion. More precisely the engagement of the learned men and scholars of the early modern era with Byzantine Epirus is an unexamined scholarly subject2. The 1

N. IORGA, Byzance après Byzance. Bucharest 1935. See also P. KITROMILIDES, Byzance après Byzance revisited: Changing perspectives on Europe’s Byzantine heritage, Δελτίο Κέντρου Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών 11 (1995), 9–11 (https://doi.org/10.12681/deltiokms.45). For the reception of Byzantium in (early) modern scholarship see: The Reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500, ed. P. Marciniak – D. C. Smythe. London – New York 2016; Héritage de Byzance en Europe du Sud-Est à l’époque modern et contemporaine, ed. O. Deslouis – A. Couderc – P. Guran (Mondes Méditerranéens et Balkaniques 4). Athens 2013; Hellenisms. Culture, Identity and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, ed. K. Zacharia. Aldershot 2008; Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity, ed. D. Ricks – P. Magdalino. Aldershot 1998; The “past” in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture, ed. Sp. Vryonis (Βυζαντινά και Μεταβυζαντινά Ι). Malibu 1978. See also E. ARWEILER, Προβλήματα ελληνικής συνέχειας. Athens 1998; P. GOUNARIDES, Γένος Ρωμαίων. Βυζαντινές και νεοελληνικές ερμηνείες. Athens 1996. 2 The reception of Epirus in (early) modern scholarship is discussed in my forthcoming monograph on the so-called Despotate of Epirus. See also E. SYGKELLOU, The Reception of the “Despotate” of Epirus in Modern Greek Historiography (19th–early 20th Centuries), in: Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of South-East European Studies, Bucharest 2–6 September 2019, ed. P. Odorico (Études Byzantine and Post-Byzantines, nouvelle série 2). Bucharest 2020 (in press).

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 203–224  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121923

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

present article thus represents an effort in this scholarly direction as it is an overview of the writings of the European travelers who visited the region between the 17th and the 19th century3. This period of tectonic intellectual shifts – during which Epirus was under Ottoman suzerainty4 – also influenced travel literature. It must be noted that the travelers’ accounts became popular educational and practical material for western audiences and were a crucial source for numerous scholarly fields, such as philology, history, archeology, folklore, ethnography etc. Following the historical and geographical scholarly works of the medieval period, travel in the 17th century began to assume a more systematic character through the in-depth examination of the historical and material evidence of the ancient Greek world and the utilization of visual means (sketches, maps). Interest in the world of Antiquity in combination with the development of cartography (V. M. Coronelli) resulted in the production of texts which combined autobiography and personal insights on the region with philological narrations, historical evidence and mythology, in addition to contemporary geographical, political and demographic information. Travel became even more systematized in the age of Enlightenment and rationalism (18th century), during which Antiquity itself became a lofty cultural ideal and the ancient world was correlated with contemporary Hellenism (Ρ. Α. Guys). Simultaneously anthropological interest in the travelers’ writings increased a trend that promoted numerous contemporary studies on society, economy or natural history5. 3

The travelers have already attracted the scholarly interest of Greek researchers of the Institute for Historical Research (NHRF), who have worked on relevant projects; see e. g. I. VINGOPOULOU – R. POLYKANDRIOTI, Περιηγητικά κείμενα για τη Νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη και την Ανατολική Μεσόγειο, 15ος–19ος αιώνας. Κατάλογος συντομευμένων τίτλων, in: Περιηγητικά Θέματα. Υποδομή και προσεγγίσεις, ed. L. Droulia (Τετράδια Εργασίας 17). Athens 1993, 17–155. See also the website of the Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation titled “Travelogues. Travellers’ views. Places – Monuments – People, 15th–20th c.,” which presents the graphics that accompany most of the travelers’ accounts (http://eng.travelogues.gr/). 4 For an overall historical presentation of Epirus under Ottoman rule see the relevant studies in the collective volume titled: Epirus: 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, ed. M. B. Sakellariou. Athens 1997. 5 I. VINGOPOULOU, Εισαγωγή, in: Ο ελληνικός κόσμος μέσα από το βλέμμα των περιηγητών

204

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

This was followed by the turbulent 19th century, which witnessed the rise of romanticism and philhellenism, the events of the Hellenic Revolution, the newly established Greek state, the inclusion of Greece in the Grand Tour itinerary (the mandatory trip made by young men of the English middle and upper class in the East in order to come into contact with the classical Hellenic ideal)6, in addition to a multitude of political and cultural upheavals. The scholarly field of Byzantine studies including history and archeology also appeared at exactly the point at which Byzantium was “discovered” after the Enlightenment view of the Empire as a decadent continuation of Rome was reconsidered7. Travel assumed various different forms during this period; the resultant accounts thus displayed differences in both style and genre (narratives, poems, novels, visual works, archeological documentations, letters, reports etc.) and comprised either treatises of a (15ος–20ός αιώνας): Ανθολόγιο από τη συλλογή του Δημητρίου Κοντομηνά: Κατάλογος έκθεσης, Μουσείο Μπενάκη, 8 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 – 6 Μαρτίου 2005. Athens 2005, 13–27, here 16–21; I. HATZIPANAGIOTI, Για μία τυπολογία της ταξιδιωτικής φιλολογίας του 18 ου αιώνα, in: Υποδομή και προσεγγίσεις, ed. L. Droulia (Τετράδια Εργασίας 17). Athens 1993, 453–503. For the relation between travel literature and the scientific field of geography see N. BROC, La géographie des Philosophes. Géographes et voyageurs Français au XVIIe siècle. Paris 1975, 231–271. 6 For the pursuit of the classical ideals in the framework of the Grand Tour see D. DIMITROPOULOS, Μαρτυρίες για τον πληθυσμό των νησιών του Αιγαίου, 15ος – αρχές 19ου αι. (Τετράδια Εργασίας 27). Athens 2004, 20–21, n. 20 with relevant bibliography. 7 On the evolution of Byzantine Studies from the 19th c. onwards see E. JEFFREYS – J. HALDON – R. CORMACK, Byzantine Studies as an Academic Discipline, in: The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. E. Jeffreys et al. Oxford – New York 2008, 3–20; M. NYSTAZOPOULOUPELEKIDOU, Οι Βυζαντινές ιστορικές σπουδές στην Ελλάδα. Από τον Σπυρίδωνα Ζαμπέλιο στον Διονύσιο Ζακυθηνό, in: Σύμμεικτα 9, Μνήμη Δ. Α. Ζακυθηνού, ed. N. G. Moschonas. Athens 1994, ΙΙ 153–176. For the fields of Byzantine history and archeology see T. KIOUSOPOULOU, Η πρώτη έδρα Βυζαντινής ιστορίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών. Μνήμων 15 (1993) 257–276; O. GRATZIOU, Από την ιστορία του Βυζαντινού μουσείου. Τα πρώτα χρόνια. Μνήμων 11 (1987) 54–73. For the contribution of the travelers to the development of archeology in general see St. DYSON, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts. A History of Classical Archaeology in the 19th and 20th Centuries. New Haven – London 2006, 65–73. For the influence of the field of Byzantine civilization on the travelers’ works see M. MAZOWER, Travellers and the Oriental City, c. 1840–1920. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 12 (2002) 59–111, here 90–91.

205

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

humanistic-historical-geographic nature, or economic and ethnographic records, or archeological explorations with descriptions of the man-made environment and the current political situation8. The travelers’ accounts were undoubtedly products of their period and reflected the dominant intellectual, political and cultural trends. Through exploration the travelers documented in texts, maps and images the knowledge of the region and its inhabitants and the natural and historical environment. Their studies were carried out by observing everyday life, the religious and orthodox backgrounds and the diplomatic situation with an admiration of Antiquity that would often turn into ruthless hunt for ancient treasures9. On the other hand, the travelers were people of varying personalities, who espoused different values, ideas or interests. They consisted of pilgrims, humanists, scholars, authors, scientists, geographers, cartographers, diplomats, soldiers and sailors, painters, architects and engineers, doctors, priests, archeologists, topographers, merchants to spies, antiquity smugglers and opportunists. They also came from different countries of Western Europe; Englishmen, Frenchmen, Italians, Spaniards, Dutchmen, Germans, Swedes etc., all passed through Epirus between 1650 and 1850. The majority of them, primarily English- and Frenchmen, traveled throughout the region in the years between 1795 and 1815, which coincided with the rule of Ali Pasha10. The extent of his territory in Epirus 8

VINGOPOULOU, Εισαγωγή 21–24; I. VINGOPOULOU, Το περιηγητικό ρεύμα στον 19ο αιώνα. Ένας πολιτισμικός διάλογος ή ένας διάλογος πολιτισμών. Comparaison 15 (2004) 175–185. 9 On the significance of the travelers’ texts as historical sources see E. BOURAZELI, Ο βίος του ελληνικού λαού κατά την Τουρκοκρατίαν επί τη βάσει των ξένων περιηγητών. Athens 1939, I 105–139; H. ANGELOMATIS-TSOUGARAKIS, The Eve of the Greek Revival. British Traveler’s Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-Century Greece. London – New York 1990, 56–58, 71–76; L. DROULIA, Les relations de voyages, source historique pour les pays du Levant (XVe au XIXe s.), in: Proceedings of the Congress “Relations et influences réciproques entre Grecs et Bulgares (XVIIIe–XXe siècle).” Thessaloniki 1991, 181–186. On the phenomenon of plundering the ancient treasures see M. GREENHALGH, Plundered Empire. Acquiring Antiquities from Ottoman Lands (Heritage and Identity 6). Leiden – Boston 2019. 10 For the historical conditions during this period see G. SMYRIS, Το δίκτυο των οχυρώσεων στο Πασαλίκι των Ιωαννίνων (1788–1822). Ιστορική, πολιτική οικονομική και χωροταξική

206

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

and Albania in combination with the vague picture of the geographical boundaries of these areas recorded in the literature of this period seem to have influenced certain travelers, who identified Epirus as Albania11. Late 17th-century travelers in Epirus included, among others, the French doctor and writer Jacques Spon, together with the Englishman George Wheler (in 1675–1676)12. A century later the region was visited by the French naval officer Jacques-Nicolas Bellin13, the architect Jacques Foucherot and the painter and scholar Louis François Sebastian Fauvel, all θεώρηση (PhD thesis). Ioannina – Athens 2000, I 34–39, with many references to the literature on Ali Pasha. 11 The definition of Epirus’ boundaries by the scholars of the 18 th and 19th c. follows the interpretation of the geographical works of Meletios and Psalidas, and is based on the effort to give lasting significance to a temporary administrative boundary that had characterized a political formation of the past. See M. KOKOLAKIS, Το ύστερο Γιαννιώτικο πασαλίκι. Χώρος, διοίκηση και πληθυσμός στην τουρκοκρατούμενη Ήπειρο (1820–1913). Athens 2003, 27–34. However, geographical concepts are usually interpreted with administrative terms on the basis of geopolitics; for Epirus see also V. PLATIS, Ιστορική γεωγραφία και εθνικές διεκδικήσεις των Ελλήνων τον 19ο αι. (PhD thesis). Thessaloniki 2008, 310–320. Among the travelers who identified Epirus with Albania are the following: H. Holland, J. Hobhouse, and T. Hughes; they all visited Epirus and Ali Pasha. See T. S. HUGHES, Travels in Sicily, Greece and Albania. London 1820, II 94–95; H. HOLLAND, Travels in the Ionian Isles, Albania, Thessaly, Macedonia, &c. during the years 1812 and 1813. London 1815, 99; J. HOBHOUSE, A Journey through Albania, and other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constantinople, during the Years 1809 and 1810. London 1813, I 117. See also E. ANGELOMATI-TSOUGKARAKI, Γεωγράφοι και περιηγητές του ευρύτερου χώρου της Ν. Αλβανίας και της Ηπείρου, in: Η κοινή αρχιτεκτονική κληρονομιά των αρχοντικών σπιτιών της Ηπείρου και της νοτίου Αλβανίας. Ioannina 2008, 9–30, here 12–15. 12 J. SPON – G. WHELER, Voyage d’ Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant, fait aux années 1675 & 1676, par Iacob Spon, Docteur Medecin Aggregé à Lyon, & George Vvheler, Gentilhomme Anglois, I. Lyon MDCLXXVIII (1678). See also E. MITSI, Travel, Memory and Authorship. George Wheler’s A Journey into Greece (1682). Restoration 30/1 (2006) 1–15; D. KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην Άρτα. Σκουφάς 86–87 (1996–1997) 180–213, here 195–198 (translation in Greek with many references to the relevant bibliography). 13 J.-N. BELLIN, Description Géographique du Golf de Venise et de la Morée. Avec des remarques pour la Navigation et des Cartes et Plans des Côtes, Villes, Ports et Mouillages, Paris M.DCC.LXXI (1771). For Bellin see K. SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην Ελλάδα, 1700–1800. Athens 41984, II 342–344.

207

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

envoys of the traveler Choiseul-Gouffier (in 1780)14, the French consul to Corfu Αndré Grasset Saint-Sauveur (between 1781 and 1798)15, and the Sicilian historian and economist Saverio Scrofani (in 1794 and 1795)16. Early 19th-century visitors to Epirus were the English archeologist Edward Dodwell together with the Italian painter Simone Pomardi (in 1801 and 1805– 1806)17, the Prussian diplomat Jakob Ludwig Salomo Bartholdy (in 1803– 1804)18, the English military officer and diplomat William Martin Leake (between 1804 and 1810)19 and between 1806 and 1815 the French consul to Epirus François-Charles-Hughes-Laurent Pouqueville20. The works of 14

SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες II 356–387, 439–446; KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 189–195, especially 191, nn. 1, 2. Fauvel’s travel account is published in: C. G. LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip through Greece. Hesperia 5/2. Vienna 1936, 206–224. For Choiseul-Gouffier see Aik. KOUMARIANOU, Το ταξίδι του Choiseul-Gouffier (IH΄ αιώνας), in: Περιηγήσεις στον ελληνικό χώρο, ed. L. Droulia et al. Athens 1968, 28–48. 15 A. GRASSET DE SAINT-SAUVEUR, Voyage historique, littéraire et pittoresque dans les isles et possessions ci-devant vénitiennes du Levant… Paris 1800. 16 S. SCROFANI, Viaggio in Grecia fatto nell’ anno 1794, 1795. I–II. London 1799 (and in French translation by J. F. C. Blanvillain, Paris – Strasbourg 1810); KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 199–209. For Scrofani see R. BUFALINI, Saverio Scrofani’s Viaggio in Grecia and Late Eighteenth-Century Travel Writing. Italica 74/1 (1997) 43–51; SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες II 629–657. 17 S. POMARDI, Viaggio nella Grecia fatto negli anni 1804, 1805 e 1806… I–II. Rome 1820; E. DODWELL, A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece, during the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806. Ι. London 1819. For these travelers see K. SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην Ελλάδα, 1800–1810. Athens 21985, ΙΙΙ 1 144–179, 233–244. 18 See J. L. S. BARTHOLDY, Voyage en Grèce fait dans les années 1803 et 1804… I–II. Paris 1807. For Bartholdy see P. KITROMILIDES, Από το Διαφωτισμό στο Ρομαντισμό: Η μαρτυρία του J. L. S. Bartholdy και η ιδεολογική της σημασία, in: Τόπος και εικόνα: χαρακτικά ξένων περιηγητών για την Ελλάδα. I–VII. Athens 1982, IV 105–130. SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες III 1 180–225. 19 W. M. LEAKE Travels in Northern Greece. I–IV. London 1835 (repr. Amsterdam 1967). For Leake see SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες III 1 317–505; N. D. KARABELAS, Ο Άγγλος λοχαγός William Leake στην Πρέβεζα, τη Νικόπολη και το Άκτιο. Πρεβεζάνικα Χρονικά 43–44 (2007) 164–263; IDEM, Ο Άγγλος λοχαγός William Leake στο νομό Πρέβεζας. Ηπειρωτών Κοινόν 2 (2008) 45–127 (translation in Greek with many references to the relevant bibliography). 20 F. C. H. L. POUQUEVILLE, Voyage dans la Grece, comprenant la description ancienne et moderne de l’Epire, de l’Illyrie Grecque, de la Macedoine Cisaxienne. I–V. Paris 1820.

208

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

the latter two became valuable sources and guides for almost the entirety of subsequent travelers21. These were followed by the English aristocrat John Cam Hobhouse, accompanied by Lord Byron (in 1809)22, baron Frederick Sylvester North Douglas (in 1811)23, the doctor Henry Holland (in 1812–1813)24, the painter Joseph Mallord William Turner (in 1813)25, the theologian Thomas Smart Hughes (in 1813–1814)26 and the architect Charles Robert Cockerell (in 1813–1814)27, in addition to the French painter Louis Dupré (in 1819– 1820)28, the Irish military doctor William Goodisson (in 1817–1818)29, the This work was translated in English (London 1820) and republished (Paris 1826–1827). For Pouqueville see Κ. SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην Ελλάδα, 1810–1821. Athens 1975, III 2 325–349. 21 VINGOPOULOU, Εισαγωγή 21; L. Droulia, Στροφή του ευρωπαϊκού ενδιαφέροντος προς τον ελληνισμό, in: Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους 11. Athens 1974, 360–442. 22 See Lord Byron Selected Letters and Journals, ed. M. Leslie. Harvard 1982; Sp. PAPAKOSTAS, Ο Λόρδος Βύρωνας στην Ήπειρο. Σκουφάς 58–59 (1981) 26–31. For Hobhouse see SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες III 2 13–83; N. D. KARABELAS, Ο Άγγλος αριστοκράτης John C. Hobhouse στην Πρέβεζα. Πρεβεζάνικα Χρονικά 39–40 (2003) 65–111 (translation in Greek). 23 F. S. N. DOUGLAS, An Essay on Certain Points of Resemblance between the Ancient and Modern Greeks. London 1813. 24 For Holland and his journey see A. POLITIS, Γνωσιολογικός εμπειρισμός και πολιτικός φιλελληνισμός: το ταξίδι του Henry Holland στην Ελλάδα. DIEE 23 (1980) 341–364; SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες III 2 169–215; N. D. KARABELAS, Ο Άγγλος γιατρός Henry Holland στην περιοχή της Πρέβεζας. Πρεβεζάνικα Χρονικά 45–46 (2009) 143–215 (translation in Greek with references to the relevant bibliography). 25 W. TURNER, Journal of a Tour in the Levant. I–III. London 1820; A. STAVROPOULOS, Η περιήγηση του Άγγλου William Turner στην Άρτα και την περιοχή της το 1813. Σκουφάς 60–61 (1981) 98–107. 26 For Hughes see SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες III 2 221–288; N. D. KARABELAS, Ο Άγγλος θεολόγος Thomas S. Hughes στην Πρέβεζα και τη Νικόπολη. Πρεβεζάνικα Χρονικά 41– 42 (2005) 52–144 (translation in Greek with references to the relevant bibliography). 27 C. R. COCKERELL, Travels in Southern Europe and Levant, 1810–1817. The Journal of C. R. Cockerell, ed. S. P. Cockerell. London 1910; SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες III 2 132–147; KARABELAS, O Άγγλος θεολόγος Hughes 53, n. 3. 28 L. DUPRÉ, Voyage à Athènes et à Constantinople, ou Collection de portraits, de vues et de costumes grecs et ottomans, peints sur les lieux. Paris 1825. 29 W. GOODISSON, A Historical and Topographical Essay upon the Islands of Corfù, Leucadia, Cephalonia, Ithaca, and Zante. London 1822. For Goodisson see N. D. KARABELAS,

209

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

English diplomat David Urquhart (in 1830–1831)30, the theologian and writer Christopher Wordsworth (in 1832–1833)31, the diplomat and baron Robert Curzon (in 1834)32 and the theologian Richard Burgess (in 1834)33. Finally, Epirus was visited by the English painter Edward Lear (in 1848– 1849)34, the Irish army officer George de la Poer Beresford35, and the Italian count Francesco Guicciardini (in 1900)36. The works of the aforementioned travelers cover largely similar subjects: ancient monuments, castles and churches, the local natural environment and conditions, population, everyday life, and economic assets comprise the core of the various different narratives, reports and documentations. Some included comprehensive descriptions of the ports and the road network, a testament to the interest for the development of trade in the region. There are also detailed references to locations of historical significance (cities or rivers, such as Arta, Ambracia, Arachthos) and efforts to interpret or identify ancient positions with contemporary toponyms, in addition to exWilliam Goodison και Richard Burgess. Δύο λιγότερο γνωστοί περιηγητές στην Πρέβεζα και τη Νικόπολη. Πρεβεζάνικα Χρονικά 47–48 (2011) 139–198, here 141–156 (translation in Greek with references to the relevant bibliography). 30 D. URQUHART, The Spirit of the East. I–II. London 1838 (London 21839). See also A. STAVROPOULOS, Η περιήγηση του Άγγλου David Urquhart στην Άρτα του 1830. Σκουφάς 62–63 (1982) 210–221 (translation in Greek). 31 Ch. WORDSWORTH, Greece: Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical. London 1839. 32 R. CURZON, Visits to Monasteries in the Levant. London 1897. 33 R. BURGESS, Greece and the Levant; or, a Diary of a Summer’s Excursion in 1834. I–II. London 1835; KARABELAS, William Goodison και Richard Burgess 157–175. 34 E. LEAR, Journals of a landscape painter in Albania, London 1851. See also N. D. KARABELAS, Ο Edward Lear στη Λάκκα Σουλίου. Αδημοσίευτα σχέδιά του, in: Λάκκα Σουλίου ΙΙ. Πρακτικά του Επιστημονικού Συμποσίου “Λάκκα Σουλίου. Νέες ιστορικές και αρχαιολογικές καταγραφές,” Θεσπρωτικό, 28 & 29 Ιουλίου 2012, ed. St. Mamaloukos – G. Riginos – Μ. Stork, Thesprotiko – Athens 2013, 263–302 (translation in Greek with references to the relevant bibliography). 35 G. BERESFORD, Twelve Sketches in Double Tinted Lithography of Scenes in Southern Albania. London 1855. For Beresford see KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 210–213. 36 F. GUICCIARDINI, Imprezioni d’ Albania, in: Nuova Antologia 16 giugno et 1 luglio 1901. See also N. D. KARABELAS, Ο Ιταλός πολιτικός Francesco Guicciardini στην Πρέβεζα και την γύρω περιοχή. Ηπειρωτών Κοινόν 1 (2005) 59–92 (translation in Greek with references to the relevant bibliography).

210

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

haustive explorations of archeological sites (such as Nicopolis) and pursuits of material evidence. There are also references to the social structure and customs of the local population. Travelers used a multitude of methods in order to describe the political situation, historical context and natural environment of the region. They combined their personal education, readings of the ancient geographers and contemporary cartographers and scholars with in situ observations, oral traditions and the testimony of the local inhabitants, always informed by their admiration for Hellenic Antiquity37. The Byzantine past was also a part of their descriptions, but to what extent is it observable? We will focus on the case of the crucial, during both the (late) Byzantine and early modern periods, region of the Ambracian Gulf and its surroundings, the starting point for any exploration into the hinterlands. Travel texts which reference the gulf connect it with historical ports (e.g. Gulf of Actium according to Fauvel & Foucherot), or cities (e.g. Gulf of Ambracia or Ambracian Gulf), as mentioned by Scrofani, Fauvel & Foucherot, Spon & Wheler, Urquhart, Hobhouse, Hughes, Lear, Burgess or Wordsworth). However, their references always correlate it with Arta and Preveza, the most prominent urban centers of the region in the 18th and 19th centuries (e.g. Gulf of Arta as mentioned by Spon & Wheler, Scrofani, Lear, Urquhart, Hobhouse, Holland, Wordsworth, Goodison and Burgess, and Gulf of Preveza according to Scrofani)38. 37

It is worth mentioning that Coronelli, who mapped the region, has exerted substantial influence. See L. NAVARI, Coronelli’s Maps of Preveza, in: Preveza B. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for the History and Culture of Preveza (16–20 September 2009), ed. M. Vrelli-Zachou – Ch. Stavrakos. Preveza 2010, I 169–193. 38 See LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 212, 213; SPON – WHELER, Voyage 105; SCROFANI, Viaggio II 136, 221–222; WORDSWORTH, Greece 6, 13, 56, 209, 226, 236, 290; LEAR, Journals 344, 348, 356, 365; URQUHART, Spirit I 113, 116, 145, 279; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 25, 28, 32; HOLLAND, Travels 65, 66, 72, 78, 85, 88; GOODISSON, Historical Essay 51, 79, 85, 93, 99, 100; BURGESS, Greece I 98–99; HUGHES, Travels I 425–427, 432. The entry point to the bay was a matter of controversy among the travelers; see the comments of N. D. Karabelas in his translations of the works of Hughes, Leake, Hobhouse, and Goodisson: KARABELAS, Ο Άγγλος θεολόγος Thomas S. Hughes 99–102; IDEM, Ο Άγγλος λοχαγός William Leake στην Πρέβεζα 244–247; IDEM, Ο Άγγλος αριστοκράτης John C. Hobhouse 82–84; IDEM,

211

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

The Byzantine sources also correlated Arta with the Ambracian Gulf, describing it as the cove (κόρφος or κορφός) of Arta39. Similarly, the river Arachthos had already been recognized as the “river of Arta” from the medieval period and is mentioned as such by the travelers (e.g. Fauvel & Foucherot, Hobhouse, Urquhart)40. Undoubtedly it had always being seen as the source of the region’s fertility41. The geographical and economic limits of the region were delineated by various scales and ports which developed in parallel to its commercial center, Arta. Salaora, the primary port of Arta (Fauvel & Foucherot, Lear, Hobhouse, Holland), played an active role from the Byzantine to the early modern period42. Transportation between regions seems to have been undertaken along almost indistinguishable routes through a natural environment described largely identically (swamps, lagoons and islets), in spite of the technical improvements to the road network carried out by the Ottoman administrators43. William Goodison και Richard Burgess 172, n. 91. For the cartographic correlation between Arta and Preveza, which was often confused see NAVARI, Coronelli’s Maps 169; N. D. KARABELAS, Επί χάρτου. Χαρακτικά της Πρέβεζας. Preveza 2006, prints nos. 5–7, 11, 24. 39 Chronicle of Morea (ed. P. KALONAROS, Χρονικόν του Μορέως. Athens 1940), v. 9107. See also A. DELLATE, Les portulans Grecs. Paris 1947, 205. 40 Chronicle of the Toccos (ed. G. SCHIRÒ, Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia; prolegomeni, testo critico e traduzione, by Giuseppe Schirò [CFHB 10]. Rome 1975, v. 2878. See also LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 213; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 46; URQUHART, Spirit I 193, 225, 277. Certain travelers, such as Lear, Holland or Hughes recognize the river of Arta as the Arachtos; see LEAR, Journals 334, 387; HOLLAND, Travels 77; HUGHES, Travels I 432. 41 See LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 213, n. 2; LEAR, Journals 352; HOLLAND, Travels 81, 84–85; HUGHES, Travels I 431–432; URQUHART, Spirit I 155, 156; POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 95; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 49. For the commerce in Arta according to Scrofani see KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 201–206. For the medieval period see Sp. ASONITIS – E. SYGKELLOU, Ο Αμβρακικός κόλπος κατά τον όψιμο Μεσαίωνα: Χώρος – Οικονομία, in: Preveza B. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for the History and Culture of Preveza (16–20 September 2009), ed. M. Vrelli-Zachou – Ch. Stavrakos. Preveza 2010, I 69–85. 42 See indicatively LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 213; LEAR, Journals 337; HOLLAND, Travels 78; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 38, 39; HUGHES, Travels I 428; LEAKE, Travels I 200. For Salagora in medieval times see ASONITIS – SYGKELLOU, Ο Αμβρακικός κόλπος 71–72. 43 For the natural environment of this area see LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 213, n. 2;

212

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

The Ambracian Gulf was home to two significant urban centers of Antiquity, both of which drew the interest of travelers: The Roman city of Nicopolis, and the ancient Corinthian colony and seat of King Pyrrhus, Ambracia44. Travel texts feature no shortage of references to the latter, with speculations regarding the exact geographical location of the city and its identification with contemporary Arta45. Certain travelers even attempted to connect the name of the city with the river Arachthos and the fertility of the region46. Arta, which is often referenced with its vernacular appellation “Larta” in the narrations and cartographic depictions of the 17th and 18th centuries (e.g. d’Anville) enjoyed numerous, primarily economic, benefits alHOBHOUSE, Journey I 45. For a geographical and geomorphological outline of Byzantine Epirus see M. VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus. A Topography of Transformation. Leiden – Boston 2012, 21–41. For the road from Salagora to Arta in the 19th c. see TURNER, Journal I 112; URQUHART, Spirit I 154–155; HOLLAND, Travels 81; HUGHES, Travels I 429. See also K. PANAGOU, Συμβολή στην ιστορία της Άρτας (τέλη 18ου – αρχές 19ου αι.). Δωδώνη 26/1 (1997) 177–220, here 217–218. For the roads in Epirus during the medieval and modern periods see E. SYGKELLOU, Η κατάληψη της Άρτας από τον Κάρολο Α΄ Τόκκο (1416): Προβλήματα τοπογραφικά και ιστορικά, in: Η Βυζαντινή Άρτα και η περιοχή της. Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου, Άρτα, 12–14 Απριλίου 2002, ed. E. Sygkellou. Arta – Athens 2007, 197–212; G. MAKRIS – St. PAPAGEORGIOU, Το χερσαίο δίκτυο επικοινωνίας στο κράτος του Αλή πασά Τεπελενλή. Athens 1990. 44 On Ambracia see Ch. TZOUVARA-SOULI, Αρχαία Αμβρακία. Arta 1992. On Nicopolis see P. CHRYSOSTOMOU – F. KEFFALONITOU, Νικόπολις. Athens 2001. See also: Νικόπολις Α΄. Πρακτικά του Α΄ Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη (23–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 1984), ed. E. Chrysos. Preveza 1987; Nicopolis B. Proceedings of the Second International Nicopolis Symposium (11–15 September 2002), ed. K. L. Zachos. I–II. Preveza 2007. 45 The identification of Arta with Ambracia has been debated by several travelers such as Fauvel & Foucherot, Spon & Wheler or Pouqueville. The resultant confusion is found in the works of local scholars such as the geographer and bishop of Arta, Meletios in the 18th c. or the bishop of Arta, Serapheim Xenopoulos, a century later. The cartographer d’Anville positioned Arta on the location of Ambracia, while Leake and other travelers adopted this opinion, which has been accepted by the relevant scholarly research. See KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 194, nn. 19, 20 (for Fauvel & Foucherot), 195 (for Spon & Wheler). See also LEAKE, Travels I 208; HUGHES, Travels I 432. See also VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 400; N. KAPONIS, Η αραβική πολιορκία της Αμβρακίας – Άρτας, in: Η Βυζαντινή Άρτα και η περιοχή της. Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου, Άρτα, 12–14 Απριλίου 2002, ed. E. Sygkellou. Arta – Athens 2007, 43–50, here 44. 46 See WORDSWORTH, Greece 234, 239; LEAKE, Travels I 217.

213

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

ready from the 12th century, as is testified by the Spanish Jew Benjamin of Tudela, who traveled in the Helladic region and documented a local Jewish community, a common fixture of economically vibrant urban centers47. Pouqueville dated the founding of the city to the 11th century and its zenith to the Komnenean and Palaiologan periods. Leake, by contrast, believed that the city was founded in the 7th or 8th century, after the decline of Nicopolis, which Arta succeeded as the eminent urban center of the Ambracian Gulf48. The city assumed further significance in the 14th century, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos subdued the rebellion of the lords of Arta according to the narrations of Holland and Hughes, who studied the historical memoirs of John Kantakouzenos49. It must be noted that after 1204 the wider region fell under the control of lords who pursued independence in one way or another, aided by the distance of the region to Constantinople and the lack of a firm central political authority, according to Leake50. In addition to the rich natural surroundings, Arta possesses remarkable monuments, such as the church of the Paregoretissa, the fortress and the stone bridge. The latter, located at the western entrance to the city, was or-

47

See Benjamin of Tudela (ed. Ch. MEGALOMATIS – A. SAVVIDES, Βενιαμίν εκ Τουδέλης: Το Βιβλίο των Ταξιδιών στην Ευρώπη, την Ασία και την Αφρική, 1159–1173, trans. F. Vlachopoulou). Athens 1994, 34–35. The city is referred to as Larta in the maps of B. Randolf (1689) and d’Anville (1757); see G. KARATSIOLIS, Ακαρνάνας τους νυν λεγομένους Αρτινούς. Η ομοιοσημία των όρων “Αρτινός” και “Ακαρνάν” από το άδοξο τέλος της Νικόπολης έως και τον δέκατο ένατο αιώνα. Σκουφάς 96 (2004) 381–391, here 381–382. See also SPON – WHELER, Voyage 105; KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 189, 194, n. 20 (for Fauvel & Foucherot). 48 LEAKE, Travels IV 202; POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 94–95. 49 HOLLAND, Travels 83; HUGHES, Travels I 433. See also POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 95. For the rebellion of the lords of Arta during the reign of Andronikos III Palaiologos see D. M. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros 1267–1479. A contribution to the history of Greece in the Middle Ages. Cambridge 1984, 114–122. For an overall study of medieval Arta see M. KORDOSES, Για μια ιστορικογεωγραφική μελέτη της μεσαιωνικής πόλης της Άρτας, in: Η Βυζαντινή Άρτα και η περιοχή της. Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου, Άρτα, 12–14 Απριλίου 2002, ed. E. Sygkellou. Arta – Athens 2007, 53–137. 50 LEAKE, Travels IV 202.

214

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

nate, sturdy and imposing51, and built with “gothic vaults” according to Hughes52. Its construction was attributed to the Romans (Pouqueville) or the Palaiologans (Leake) or even to the Venetians (Beresford)53. Modern archeological research has documented numerous repairs and additions to the original monument54. As for the fortress, the travelers recognized that its foundations were ancient Greek and comprised the base for the Byzantine castle55. Urquhart, describing the architecture of the fortress (towers, battlements and crenellations) paints a picture of an “oriental”-style structure, which, according to Holland, was reminiscent of a Venetian or Catalan fort56. However, it was clearly a “fortress of the Greek Empire,” according to Wordsworth57. Undoubtedly, the building that most impressed all of the travelers was the Byzantine-period church of the Paregoretissa (Parioritsa). This monument was connected with the so-called Despotate of Epirus and its first ruler, Michael Doukas (Angelos) Komnenos58. The frescoes of the church were

51

LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 213; WORDSWORTH, Greece 239; LEAKE, Travels I 202; TURNER, Journal I 113; HOLLAND, Travels 82; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 46; HUGHES, Travels I 431; LEAR, Journals 334. 52 HUGHES, Travels I 431. 53 POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 93; LEAKE, Travels I 202; KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 210 (for Beresford). It is worth mentioning that Turner relates a local story about the funding of the bridge by a Greek citizen in the mid-16th c.; see TURNER, Journal I 113–114. 54 For the bridge as a historical monument see http://efaart.gr/portfolio/gefiri-tis-artas/ 55 POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 94; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 48; HOLLAND, Travels 83; HUGHES, Travels I 434; WORDSWORTH, Greece 235; LEAR, Journals 335, 352; URQUHART, Spirit I 194. 56 URQUHART, Spirit I 193; HOLLAND, Travels 83. 57 WORDSWORTH, Greece 235. For the castle of Arta see VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 146–147, 287–288, 399–402; KORDOSES, Για μια ιστορικογεωγραφική μελέτη 58–77. See also Το κάστρο της Άρτας, ed. B. Papadopoulou. Arta 2015; B. PAPADOPOULOU – A. KARAMPERIDI, Τα βυζαντινά μνημεία της Ηπείρου. Athens 2008, 29–34. 58 LEAKE, Travels I 204–205; Leake was the first to read the inscription that mentioned the founder of the church. However, many travelers have a confused view of the exact date of the foundation of the church as well as of its founder; see indicatively POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 95; LOWE, Fauvel’s First Trip 213; HOLLAND, Travels 82; KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 196, 198, nn. 8, 9 (for Spon & Wheler). The bibliography for the church of the Paregoretissa is rich; see B. PAPADOPOULOU, Επιτύμβια παράσταση στο ναό της Παναγίας Παρηγορήτισσας

215

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

recognized as Byzantine (Wordsworth), though certain travelers also identified elements of Gothic or Lombard art (Urquhart), or discerned a conglomeration of models such as Hughes and especially Pouqueville, who disparaged the church as “incoherent” and “a barbaric admixture of the sacred and the profane.”59 The Paregoritissa is referred to as a “Greek church” – an “old/ancient Greek church” or a “large Greek church.”60 According to Turner and Hughes it was a Greek church which belonged to the “Low/Lower [i.e. newer] empire.”61 It is worth noting that the travelers used a multitude of different terms to describe the Byzantine Empire, which were obviously connected with their reception of it. More precisely, terms such as “Greek empire” or “empire of the Greeks” (Wordsworth, Leake, Burgess, Curzon), “Low empire” (Turner, Dodwell, Pouqueville) or “Lower empire” (Hughes, Leake, Cockerell, Dodwell), “Eastern empire” (Hughes, Curzon, Dodwell), “Roman empire” (Pouqueville, Burgess), “[Roman] empire of the East” (Burgess), “Byzantine empire” (Leake, Burgess) or “Byzantium” (Burgess, Pouqueville) seem to reflect the wider historiographic and literary trends and perceptions regarding Byzantium in the early modern period62. στην Άρτα. DChAE 25 (2004) 141–154, here 141, n. 1. PAPADOPOULOU – KARAMPERIDI, Τα βυζαντινά μνημεία 71–92. 59 POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 96; HUGHES, Travels I 431; URQUHART, Spirit I 194; WORDSWORTH, Greece 238. 60 HOLLAND, Travels 82; LEAR, Journals 336; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 46; TURNER, Journal I 114; HUGHES, Travels I 431; KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 210 (for Beresford). 61 TURNER, Journal I 114; HUGHES, Travels I 431; ΙΙ 95. It should be noted that the translators of some travelers who tried to provide certain comments on these texts have misinterpreted the term “Low” empire as signifying the period either of the “Despotate” of Epirus or of the last years of the Roman empire. See M. KAZATZIS, Ο περιηγητής Th. Sm. Hughes στην Άρτα (1820). Σκουφάς 38–39 (1975) 333–337, here 334, n. 5. F. C. H. L. POUQUEVILLE, Ταξίδι στην Ελλάδα. Τα Ηπειρωτικά. III. Translated by K. Vlachos, ed. N. D. Karabelas. Preveza 2010, 213. 62 TURNER, Journal I 114; HUGHES, Travels I 431, 434; LEAKE, Travels I 198–199, 200, n. 2, 259; IV 255, 266, 288, 317; WORDSWORTH, Greece 235; BURGESS, Greece II 10, 105, 157–158, 169, 270–271, 285, 295; CURZON, Visits xxx, 24; DODWELL, A Classical and Topographical Tour I 147–148, 230, 528; II 12; COCKERELL, Travels 165–166, 168; POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 14, 20, 94.

216

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

Many of the 18th- and early 19th-century travelers drew their historical information from contemporary works, such as The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, a work, published 1776–1789, which disparaged Byzantium. This monograph was a product of the Enlightenment, which promoted rationalism and anti-religious spirit resulting in contempt for the medieval period. Concurrently, the travelers described the Byzantine Empire utilizing contemporary terms coined by European scholars, such as Charles Lebeau in his Histoire du Bas Empire. Lebeau established the term Bas Empire as a derogatory term for Byzantium63. Within this intellectual environment, the travelers often repeated stereotypical positions connected to either the nature of the Ottomans (barbarians) or the contemporary Greeks and their “Byzantine” past. This is succinctly demonstrated by Wordsworth, who describes the ruins of Nicopolis as representing a decadent art through the conglomeration of Greek stone and Roman brick, combined with “barbarian and oriental elements,” not in the slightest reminiscent of the classical past64. As was mentioned previously, Nicopolis was a popular destination for travelers and occupies a central position in travel accounts thanks to the size and significance of its archeological site65. It was connected with Actium and the famous homonymous naval battle, and represented the conflict between two prominent Roman figures in Lord Byron’s view, while also being representative of the reign of Augustus66. However, it was also connected with the Ambracian Gulf and the port of Ali Pasha, Preveza, the founding of which Holland correlates with the city’s position at the entrance to the

63

See NYSTAZOPOULOU-PELEKIDOU, Οι Βυζαντινές ιστορικές σπουδές 157; P. MARCINIAK – D. C. SMYTHE, Introduction, in: The reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500, ed. P. Marciniak – D. C. Smythe. London – New York 2016, 2–8, here 2–5; V. VASILIEV, Ιστορία της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας. Athens 1955, 16–24. 64 WORDSWORTH, Greece 232. 65 See J. Irmscher, Nikopolis in der Reiseliteratur der Türkenzeit, in: Νικόπολις Α΄. Πρακτικά του Α΄ Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη (23–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 1984), ed. E. Chrysos. Preveza 1987, 369–394. 66 See PAPAKOSTAS, Ο Λόρδος Βύρωνας 30; HUGHES, Travels I 412–413; HOLLAND, Travels 72; KARABELAS, Ο Ιταλός πολιτικός Francesco Guicciardini 65; POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 11.

217

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

gulf67. The geostrategic significance of both cities, Preveza and Nicopolis, was also noted by Leake68. According to modern scholarship, the geographical factor seems to have played a crucial role in the founding of the city of Preveza, as is evidenced by the identification of the toponym with a crossing point69. Nicopolis, which is also referred to as “Palaia Preveza” and “Palaioprévyza” by Burgess and Leake, or “Palaiokastro” by Lear70, was not only subject to examination by travelers, but also to looting, a fact for which the Epirote scholar Athanasios Psalidas expressed his displeasure according to Hughes71. At any rate, apart from the Roman material and written evi67

See supra n. 38 (Gulf of Actium / Fauvel & Foucherot and Gulf of Preveza / Scrofani); HOLLAND, Travels 66–67. See also BURGESS, Greece I 96. 68 LEAKE, Travels I 178–179. 69 Certain travelers such as Leake or Guicciardini recognize Italian/Venetian origins in Preveza, see LEAKE, Travels I 175; KARABELAS, Ο Ιταλός πολιτικός Francesco Guicciardini 65. Hobhouse locates its founding in 1572, see HOBHOUSE, Journey I 29. Recent scholarship attributes Slavic or Albanian origins to Preveza, see A. KONSTANTAKI, Η πόλη της Πρέβεζας και η Νικόπολη από τα τέλη του 11ου έως τις αρχές του 20ού αι., in: Preveza B. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for the History and Culture of Preveza (16–20 September 2009), ed. M. Vrelli-Zachou – Ch. Stavrakos. Preveza 2010, I 3–21, here 5; N. D. KARABELAS, Η κατάκτηση της Πρέβεζας από τον Μωάμεθ Β΄, in: Ιστορία – Λογιοσύνη: Η Ήπειρος και τα Ιωάννινα από το 1430 έως το 1913. Πρακτικά Α΄ Πανηπειρωτικού Συνεδρίου, 28 Φεβρουαρίου – 3 Mαρτίου 2013. Ioannina 2015, I 103–130, here 104–106. A. Savvides attributes also Italian origins to the toponym; see A. SAVVIDES, “Preveze,” entry in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman et al. (2nd ed.). (available online: referenceworks.brillonline.com/search?s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-ofislam-2&search-go=&s.q=prevese). For Preveza see also A. SAVVIDES, Η τουρκική κατάληψη της Πρέβεζας από τα Βραχέα Χρονικά. Τετράμηνα 46–47 (1991) 3053–3068; IDEM, Παλαιά και Νέα Μεσαιωνική Πρέβεζα, in: Αφιέρωμα στον N. G. L. Hammond (Παράρτημα Μακεδονικών 7). Thessaloniki 1997, 389–392. For this town through the travelers’ texts in the (early) modern period see K. ZIDROU-TSOLA, Αναφορές των περιηγητικών κειμένων στην πόλη της Πρέβεζας (15ος–20ός αι.), in: Preveza B. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for the History and Culture of Preveza (16–20 September 2009), ed. M. Vrelli-Zachou – Ch. Stavrakos. Preveza 2010, I 461–473. 70 The above-mentioned names mean “Old Preveza” or “Old castle”; see BURGESS, Greece I 95; LEAKE, Travels I 186–187, 190; LEAR, Journals 343. 71 HUGHES, Travels I 442. For the theft of antiquities in Greece see SIMOPOULOS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες ΙΙ 458–468; ΙΙΙ 1 557–582; GREENHALGH, Plundered Empire 477–478 (for Epirus).

218

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

dence, the Byzantine walls were also the subject of in-depth discussions. Burgess seems to have been the first to identify the walls as enclosing a smaller, Byzantine city, clearly distinct from the Roman phase72. The narrations of the travelers regarding Byzantine Nicopolis were drawn primarily from the Byzantine historians (e.g. Procopius, Nicetas Choniates, Kedrinos) and “ecclesiastical” history according to Leake, who considered it an essential source of information on the significance of the city in the Byzantine period73. There are thus references to the Apostle Paul’s visit to the city, its decline due to the end of idolatry and the cessation of the Actian Games, its brief revival under Julian, the invasions of the Goths and the Huns, and its second revival during the reign of Justinian74. Nicopolis was the most significant urban center of Epirus within the framework of the Byzantine provincial administration, according to Leake. Indeed, as the seat of the provincial governor of Epirus Vetus and the capital of the theme of Nicopolis, the city retained its power until the 10th century75. Pouqueville dates the complete destruction of the city by the Bulgarians to 72

See KARABELAS, William Goodison και Richard Burgess 167–168, n. 75, 180. LEAKE, Travels I 199. Spon & Wheler and Pouqueville also took advantage of the ecclesiastical history regarding their narration on Nicopolis, Arta and other places of Epirus; see POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 11–21, mainly 12–13 (on Nicopolis), 96–98 (on Arta); SPON – WHELER, Voyage 106–107 (on Arta); KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 196. However, their relevant information is confusing. On the ecclesiastical history of the entire region during the Byzantine period see E. CHRYSOS, Συμβολή στην ιστορία της Ηπείρου κατά την πρωτοβυζαντινή εποχή (Δ΄–Στ΄ αι.). EpChr 23 (1981) 9–111, here 99–104; G. PRINZING, Church History, in: Epirus: 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, ed. M. B. Sakellariou. Athens 1997, 194–195. On the relation between bishoprics and settlements see VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 344–345, 350–351, 354–357. 74 LEAKE, Travels I 188–189, 197–198; HUGHES, Travels I 421–422; BURGESS, Greece I 94; WORDSWORTH, Greece 229, 231; HOLLAND, Travels 75; HOBHOUSE, Journey I 34; POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 11–14. For the presence of the Apostle Paul in Nicopolis which has been questioned see BISHOP OF NICOPOLIS, MELETIOS, Ο Απόστολος Παύλος στην Νικόπολη, in: Nicopolis B. Proceedings of the Second International Nicopolis Symposium (11–15 September 2002), ed. K. L. Zachos. Preveza 2007, I, 123–133; II, 79. For the significance of the visit of the Apostle Paul to a Greek city, though Thessaloniki, see MAZOWER, Travellers 93. 75 LEAKE, Travels I 198. See also HUGHES, Travels I 422. 73

219

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

this period and in particular to the reign of Emperor Leo VI the Wise76. In the early 11th century Nicopolis, provoked by the abuses of power of the tax collector Ioannis Koutzoumitis, participated in the revolt against the Byzantine Emperor Michael IV77. Hughes realized the difficulty of determining the exact point in history at which Nicopolis was abandoned, a subject which continues to be debated78. However, Leake, following the ecclesiastical historical events, connected the decline of its metropolis with the period of Bulgarian raids (late 9th century onwards), which certainly caused significant political and ecclesiastical rearrangements79. Nonetheless it seems that these perilous conditions were the primary driving force behind the abandonment of the position in favor of the more easily defensible locations initially of Arta and, much later, Preveza. For Leake, who considered security the primary consideration for habitation, the movements of populations which lived at significant distances from the imperial center to safer locations in their regions, as was the case in Antiquity, explains their development80. Regardless, the area (and not the city) of Nicopolis also appears after 1204 as a region belonging to the “Despotate of the West,” the state of Epirus according to Leake81. Finally, the route the travelers followed from Preveza and Nicopolis to Arta and the interior (e.g. Ioannina) also included a visit to the ruins of Rogoi. This was a “fortified city of the Byzantine empire, built on Greek foundations,” i.e. the ancient city of Bouchetion, an Elean colony82. Leake, 76

POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 14. LEAKE, Travels I 198; HUGHES, Travels I 422. For these events see CHRYSOS, Μέση βυζαντινή περίοδος 191. 78 HUGHES, Travels I 422. On this subject see VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 481–484; KONSTANTAKI, Η πόλη της Πρέβεζας 4; CHRYSOS, Μέση βυζαντινή περίοδος 186–188. 79 LEAKE, Travels I 199. 80 LEAKE, Travels I 199. See also VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 343. 81 LEAKE, Travels I 198. 82 LEAKE, Travels IV 255. See also WORDSWORTH, Greece 239–240. The castle of Rogoi has also been debated as far as its identification is concerned; for example Leake (Travels IV 255) and Hughes (Travels II 336) identified it with ancient Charadros. However, recent scholarly research has identified it as ancient Bouchetion; see VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 476–478; S. DAKARIS, Το Κάστρο των Ρωγών. Δωδώνη 6 (1977) 201–234; N. D. Karabelas 77

220

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

drawing from the Byzantine sources, offers cursory historical information: Rogoi was the seat of a bishopric, which belonged to the metropolis of Nafpaktos (10th century), while also being one of the most crucial fortified cities of Epirus in the 14th century according to John Kantakouzenos83. The fortress of Rogoi was built at a location surrounded by ancient plane trees “which witnessed the reign of King Pyrrhus, the victory of Augustus and the destruction wrought by the barbaric Attila” according to Hughes. He also supported three distinct phases of construction, “ancient Greek, Roman, and modern Frankish.”84 Similarly, Wordsworth dates the renovation of the walls “to the Roman and Gothic period.”85 Modern archeological research has discovered the construction phases (Classical, Hellenistic, Roman) of the ancient settlement, and dated the Byzantine castle of Rogoi to the middleByzantine period (possibly the 11th century)86. A visit to the Ambracian Gulf and the surrounding lands seems to have been enough to sate the travelers’ thirst for knowledge of Antiquity. However, the contemporary situation, which was markedly different from that of the travelers’ own political and intellectual world, contrasted starkly with the glorious past87. The oriental atmosphere of Preveza and Arta, though at times impressive, was another element that signified this contradiction88. In notes that Rogoi appear as Velichi in the maps of the early modern period and connects the toponym with the presence of Vlachs; see KARABELAS, Ο Άγγλος θεολόγος Thomas S. Hughes 128. 83 LEAKE, Travels IV 255. 84 HUGHES, Travels II 329–330, 335. 85 WORDSWORTH, Greece 240. 86 VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 147–149, 476–478. For the castle see also A. BROOKS, Castles of northwest Greece. From the Early Byzantine Period to the First World War. Huddersfield 2013, 145–154. 87 See indicatively HUGHES, Travels I 424. For this contradiction in the travelers’ works see A. KALESIS, Αναγνώσεις ετερότητας στις ταξιδιωτικές αφηγήσεις του F. C. H. L. Pouqueville (PhD thesis). Volos 2006, 202–203. 88 See HUGHES, Travels I 406; HOLLAND, Travels 65; URQUHART, Spirit I 193. It must be noted that the oriental character of these areas is related strictly to the Ottoman world; see L. DROULIA, Η Οθωμανική Ανατολή των περιηγητών, in: Η Λευκάδα μέσα στο ταξίδι. Πρακτικά Β΄ Συμποσίου, Λευκάδα (9–10 Αυγούστου 1997). Leukada 1999, 27–38. Of course traveling in Greece brought the travelers into contact with the world of the East

221

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

the travel narrations, enthusiastic reports of the remnants of Antiquity gave way to descriptions of the Byzantine past, which the majority of travelers seem to have connected with the relevant writings of their contemporary scholars (such as Gibbon). There is a generalized disdain for this period, as is evidenced for example by the writings of Pouqueville, who placed the blame for the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans squarely on the fact that the former was ruled by a family of Gasmouloi (!). Regarding Epirus in particular, he noted that contemporary Greeks insisted on attributing Nicopolis’ destruction to an earthquake instead of the Bulgarian raids; as for the art of the Paregoretissa and Byzantine art in general, he found it repellent89. Despite this, Pouqueville made crucial contributions to the study of the medieval and Ottoman history of Epirus, through his search for and publication of unpublished historical sources90. It is clear that the study of Byzantine historical sources, which began to be published from the 17th century onwards, decisively influenced the documentation of the history of Epirus91. By relating the relevant narrations, Leake read the Byzantine past of the region according to its perception by the Byzantine historians92. He thus described Arta as a Greek city and the and its boundaries, which stood between political realities and geographical and cultural diversities or fantasies. For the concepts of Orience, Orientalism(s) see V. LALAGIANNI, Οδοιπορικά γυναικών στην Ανατολή. Athens 2007, 62–93. See also KALESIS, Αναγνώσεις 57–68; M. SARIGIANNIS, Από το “Φοβερό Τούρκο” στον εξωτισμό του “Ανατολίτη”: Εικόνες των Οθωμανών στους δυτικούς περιηγητές του 17 ου αι., in: Πρακτικά ΙΗ΄ Πανελλήνιου Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου. Thessaloniki 1999, 91–108. 89 POUQUEVILLE, Voyage II 14, 95; POUQUEVILLE, Ταξίδι στην Ελλάδα. Τα Ηπειρωτικά 133, 208. See also KALESIS, Αναγνώσεις 306–309. 90 See L. VRANOUSSIS, Χρονικά της μεσαιωνικής και τουρκοκρατούμενης Ηπείρου. Ioannina 1962, 36–42. Pouqueville’s texts on Epirus republished by: I. BEKKER, Historia politica et partiarchica Constantinopoleos – De rebus Epiri, V (CSHB). Bonn 1849. 91 For the publication of Byzantine sources see H. HUNGER, Βυζαντινή Λογοτεχνία. Η λόγια κοσμική γραμματεία των Βυζαντινών, trans. in Greek by T. Kolias – K. Synelli. Athens 1997, ΙΙ 16–21; D. REINSCH, Hieronymus Wolf as editor and translator of Byzantine texts, in: The reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500, ed. P. Marciniak – D. C. Smythe. London – New York 2016, 43–53. 92 See E. KOUNTOURA-GALAKI – N. KOUTRAKOU, Η πρόσληψη του δυτικοελλαδικού χώρου στους λόγιους συγγραφείς της παλαιολόγειας περιόδου με έμφαση στα υστεροβυζαντινά

222

SEEKING BYZANTIUM: A TOUR AROUND THE AMBRACIAN GULF

state of Epirus as an independent Greek principate, which persisted despite territorial losses until the Ottoman conquest. Additionally, he described the geography of the region utilizing the terms of the Byzantine writers (Despotate of the West or Despotate of Aetolia / Acarnania and Aetolia) and recognized Carlo I Tocco as the most powerful Frankish lord of western Greece93. The same positions, precursors of the subsequent (national) historiographical trends, would also be adopted in the mid-19th century by the scholars who studied the history of Epirus, or more specifically the history of the socalled “Despotate” (e.g. P. Aravantinos, A. Miliarakis, I. Romanos)94. The travelers’ accounts also clearly depict another historical characteristic of Byzantine Epirus: a blend of various different cultures. Ancient Greek and Byzantine – albeit “barbarian and oriental,” according to Wordsworth95 – elements mingle with Venetian and “Gothic” influences, evidence of Italian/western penetration in the region from the 11th century onwards, together comprising the personality of the contemporary “vulgar” Epirotes. Even though their past was observable primarily through existing monuments, Byzantium persisted through both the natural environment, which had remained virtually unchanged from the medieval period, and collective memory, as depicted in the names of both locations and people. One particularly striking example is the survival of the name of Carlo Tocco in Aetolia/ Acarnania, which was known as “Karlilí.”96

αγιολογικά κείμενα, in: Preveza B. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for the History and Culture of Preveza (16–20 September 2009), ed. M. Vrelli-Zachou – Ch. Stavrakos. Preveza 2010, I 45–67. 93 LEAKE, Travels IV 203–204, I 205. Leake was a proponent of Greek language and emphasized the significance of the development of Greek education in the 19 th c.; see SIMOPOLOUS, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες ΙΙΙ 1 236–331. 94 See SYGKELLOU, The reception of the “Despotate” of Epirus. 95 WORDSWORTH, Greece 232. 96 LEAKE, Travels I 124; IV 204; HOLLAND, Travels 77. Holland includes the “old” castle of Vonitsa, a place strongly connected with Preveza, in that region. Leake relates the existence of a Venetian castle there; see LEAKE, Travels I 166. Recent research confirms its presence since the middle Byzantine period; see VEIKOU, Byzantine Epirus 513–514; SMYRIS, Το δίκτυο των οχυρώσεων 100–102. See also BROOKS, Castles 173–190.

223

EFSTRATIA SYGKELLOU

In conclusion, looking towards the East97, the travelers who visited the Ambracian Gulf and Epirus read the past – including the Byzantine past – through the lens of the ancient and Byzantine historical sources, the writings of ancient and contemporary geographers and historians, as well as the contemporary European historiographical works. The local inhabitants exerted a significant influence, and their testimony is in part responsible for the confusion and misunderstandings evident in certain accounts98. In this framework, personal aspirations mingled with admiration for antiquities, curiosity about the “exotic” or “barbarous” oriental world, and greater or lesser sympathy for Hellenism; finally the travelers all followed the trends of the political and cultural environment of their times. As for Epirus, with careful, penetrating observation (Leake), or thirst for the discovery of material evidence (Pouqueville) or critical analysis (Holland), the travelers provided a decisive contribution to the methodical description of her history. Their works, despite any weaknesses99, left behind a crucial body of material for the comprehensive documentation of the history of this region.

97

See E. Skopetea’s comment regarding the travelers’ predetermined views on the visited locations; E. SKOPETEA, Η Δύση της Ανατολής: εικόνες από το τέλος της Οθωμανικής αυτοκρατορίας. Athens 1992, 53. See also supra n. 88. 98 See for example the case of Manos Maneas, a merchant from Arta who informed Spon and Wheler that Arta was not Ambracia; SPON – WHELER, Voyage 105; KARATSIOLI, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες 195–196. 99 See GREENHALGH, Plundered Empire 21–24; KALESIS, Αναγνώσεις 41–47.

224

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS ACCORDING TO THE AUTHOR OF THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA (1367–1399)

T

he so-called Chronicle of Ioannina1 was known in the previous bibliography as the Chronicle of the Monks Komnenos and Proklos, until its attribution to these two non-existent Byzantine writers was disproved2. Regarding its historiographical genre, it is a local chronicle, a form which first appeared in the 14th century and, together with the proWestern chronicles, rejuvenated the Byzantine historiographical tradition3. The text describes the events which took place in Epirus from 1367 to October of 1399. During this period, the northern region of the State of Epirus was under the rule of the Serbian Thomas Preljubović and, after his murder in December of 1384, his Italian successor, Esau de’ Buondelmonti4. The author of the chronicle was a local monk who was cloistered in one of the monasteries in the Castle of Ioannina, and was an eyewitness to 1

A. KARPOZELOS, Βυζαντινοί Ιστορικοί και Χρονογράφοι Δ΄ (13 ος–15ος αι.). Athens 2015, 524–533. For the text, see also the fascinating philological study of B. OSSWALD, La Chronique de Iôannina: composition et intentions, in: Histoire de l’écriture et écriture de l’(H)histoire. Actes du Colloque international des 12, 13 et 14 mars 2014. Culture Éthique Religions et Sociétés. Institute catholique de Toulouse, ed. B. Rey Mimoso-Ruiz. Toulouse 2016, 73–120. Osswald’s work is based only on the fragmentary text transmitted by the oldest of the witnesses to its written tradition, and not the entirety thereof. 2 L. VRANOUSSIS, Deux historiens Byzantins qui n’ont jamais existé: Comnénοs et Proclos. Επετηρίς του Μεσαιωνικού Αρχείου 12 (1962) 23–29. 3 KARPOZELOS, Βυζαντινοί Ιστορικοί και Χρονογράφοι 405–408. 4 D. M. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros 1267–1479. A Contribution to the History of Greece in the Middle Ages. Cambridge 1984, 131–178.

Epirus Revisited. New Perceptions of its History and Material Culture, ed. by Christos Stavrakos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 16 (Turnhout, 2020), p. 225–240  BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.121924

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

many of the events he describes. This local chronicler, who possessed both an ecclesiastic education and formidable literary skills5, began his historical documentation with the objective of presenting the life and times of Thomas Preljubović. At the same time, he kept a continuous documentation of events after the death of Thomas in the form of diary notes, in the same fashion as his more well-known approximate contemporary, George Sphrantzes. He completed his work in October of 1399. Over the following two years, and undoubtedly before January of 1402, he edited the first draft of his text, with the inclusion of events, supplementing its title and including an epilogue paragraph6. The two oldest witnesses of its tradition, the codices Οxon. Aedis Christi gr. 497 and Petrop. gr. 2518 preserve the first and final drafts of the Epirote chronicle correspondingly9. The Oxford manuscript, which was copied before October of 1430 by a local priest, preserves the effort of this same scribe to continue the historical narrative, with the addition of 12 supplementary notes, up to October of 141910. 5

C. N. CONSTANTINIDES, Ηπειρωτικά μελετήματα. Ζητήματα από την πνευματική ζωή στη Μεσαιωνική Ήπειρο. Ioannina 2018, 225. 6 This conclusion regarding the more exact dating of the text is supported by a supplementary note which refers to an event dated to 6 January 1402. The subsequent witnesses of the manuscript tradition of the text, on which the first editions were based, included this note after the epilogue. If it had been completed before this date, then the note would have been incorporated in the text. On this note, see L. I. VRANOUSSIS, Χρονικὰ τῆς Μεσαιωνικῆς καὶ Τουρκοκρατούμενης Ἠπείρου. Ἐκδόσεις καὶ Χειρόγραφα. Ioannina 1962, 133 n. 3; G. SOULIS, The Serbs and Byzantium during the Reign of Tsar Stephen Dušan (1331–1355) and his Successors. Washington D. C. 1984, 108. See also OSSWALD, La Chronique de Iôannina 78–79. 7 P. SCHREINER, Το αρχαιότερο χειρόγραφο του Χρονικού των Ιωαννίνων, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta 1990, 47–51. 8 A. RIGO, La Cronaca delle Meteore. La storia dei monasteri della Tessaglia tra xiii e xvi secolo. Florence 1999, 33–35. 9 We arrived at this conclusion through the collation of the text preserved by the two oldest codices, which had not been utilized by the earlier editors of this Epirote chronicle. 10 P. SCHREINER, Το αρχαιότερο χειρόγραφο 49–50; L. I. VRANOUSSIS, Ιστορικά και τοπογραφικά του μεσαιωνικού κάστρου των Ιωαννίνων. Athens 1968, 76–79; D. S. GEORGAKOPOULOS, Οι

226

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

The text contains invaluable information on the history of Epirus and the wider region of Northwestern Greece during the second half of the 14th century and the first decades of the 15th century11. In numerous cases it is the only source of information on certain persons and events12. The text was first utilized as a historical source in the early 19th century, when it was first published in the editio princeps of the memoirs of the French traveler and consul in Ioannina, François-Charles-Hughes-Laurent Pouqueville. It became an object of philological study and was repeatedly re-printed with commentary, while also being translated into French, Latin, Russian, Serbian and Spanish13. Despite being characterized as a noteworthy specimen of Byzantine historiography outside of Constantinople14, the lack of a modern critical edition, primarily due to its convoluted later tradition history, is apparent. The critical and commentary edition we are preparing aims to fulfill exactly this desideratum15. As part of our effort – which, we hope, will soon see the light of day – we are utilizing manuscripts which had not been discovered or used by the previous philological editors. The basic outline of our local Gianniote chronicler’s historical narrative focuses on the activity of the two protagonists, Thomas Preljubović (1367– 1384) and Esau de’ Buondelmonti (1385–1411), while also describing the

Μητροπολίτες Ιωαννίνων στις αρχές του 15 ου αιώνα: Νεα στοιχεία από τη συνέχεια του Χρονικού των Ιωαννίνων στον κώδικα Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 49. Επιστημονική Επιτηρίδα Βελλάς Ιωαννίνων 8 (2017–2019) 293–297. 11 NICOL, Despotate 131–178. 12 For the text as a historical source, see L. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Το Χρονικό των Ιωαννίνων ως ιστορική πηγή, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta 1990, 53–62. This study focuses, perhaps excessively, on the discussion regarding the historical worth of the post-Byzantine vernacular compendium of the text, which includes certain information not preserved in other sources and is likely the product of an imaginative scribe. The compendium itself was published by L. VRANOUSSIS, Τὸ Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων κατ’ ἀνέκδοτον δημώδη ἐπιτομήν. Επετηρίς του Μεσαιωνικού Αρχείου 12 (1962) 57–115. 13 See VRANOUSSIS, Χρονικά 16–30, 36–42, 85–97, 103–116, 225–227. 14 SCHREINER, Το αρχαιότερο χειρόγραφο 47. 15 D. S. GEORGAKOPOULOS, Το ζήτημα της κριτικής έκδοσης του Χρονικού των Ιωαννίνων: Από τον K. Krumbacher στη σύγχρονη έρευνα. Ηπειρωτικό Ημερολόγιο 31 (2012) 255–262.

227

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

repeated Albanian raids on the castle of Ioannina and the wider region 16. Already from the title of the text, only now made known through the older manuscripts which had not been utilized by its previous editors, the author appears to be heavily prejudiced against the Serbian ruler of Ioannina, Thomas Preljubović17. He decided to describe the activity of the latter negatively, characterizing him as a tyrant: Σύγγραμμα ἱστορικὸν ὡς ἐν συνόψει συντεθὲν δηλοῦν τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς βασιλέως κυροῦ Ἀνδρονίκου τοῦ Παλαιολόγου κατάρξαντας μέχρι καὶ τοῦ δεσπότου Θωμᾶ τοῦ τυράννου, τοῦ ἐπονομαζομένου Κομνηνοῦ τοῦ Πρεαλούμπου18. He is presented with this same epithet in the introduction of the text: τοῦ ὕστερον τυραννήσαντος τὴν πολυθρύλητον τῶν Ἰωαννίνων πόλιν19. This is followed by the description κάκιστον του Πρελούμπου γέννημα20. The decision of the kastrinoi Gianniotes21 to accept him as their ruler is decried as τὸ μεῖζον κακὸν, because τὴν δουλείαν φεύγοντες τῶν Ἀλβανιτῶν μείζοσι κακοῖς 16

NICOL, Despotate 139–165; E. SYGKELLOU, Ο πόλεμος στον Δυτικό Ελλαδικό χώρο κατά τον ύστερο μεσαίωνα (13ος–15ος αι.). Athens 2008 (passim). 17 C. MATANOV, The Phenomenon Thomas Preljubović, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta 1990, 63–68. 18 The original title of the text, which was transmitted by the earlier manuscripts: Οxon. Aedis Christi gr. 49, f. 352r (before 1430) and Petrop. gr. 251 f. 1r (first quarter of the 17th c.), was omitted and altered in its subsequent manuscript tradition. VRANOUSSIS, Deux historiens Byzantins 24–25. See also OSSWALD, La Chronique de Iôannina 74–75. 19 Χρονικόν Iωαννίνων (ed. L. VRANOUSSIS, Τὸ Χρονικὸν τῶν Ἰωαννίνων κατ’ ἀνέκδοτον δημώδη ἐπιτομήν. Επετηρίς του Μεσαιωνικού Αρχείου 12 [1962] 57–115), 6.13–15. 20 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 7.20–21. Thomas was the son of the Serbian ceasar Gregorios Preljub (†1355/56), to whom Stephen Dušan had entrusted the administration of  essaly in the period of Serbian expansion into Byzantine territory. See SOULIS, Serbs and Byzantium 108–111. 21 On the inhabitants of the castle of Ioannina as a social class, see M. S. KORDOSES, Tα βυζαντινά Γιάννενα. Κάστρο (πόλη), ξώκαστρο: κοινωνία, διοίκηση, οικονομία. Athens 2003, 162–169; A. KONTOGIANNOPOULOU, Κοινωνική διαστρωμάτωση στις βυζαντινές πόλεις (11ος–15ος αι.). Η περίπτωση των Καστρηνών. Μεσαιωνικά και Νέα Ελληνικά 11 (2014) 9–27.

228

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

ἑαυτοὺς περιέβαλον22. This bias is due to the author’s clear prejudice in favor of the kastrinoi Gianniotes, who he describes in the first paragraphs of his text as ἄνδρες ἐπισημότατοι καὶ τῶν εὖ γεγονότων and noble lords23. In complete contrast to his treatment of Thomas24, the author praises his wife, Maria Angelina25, describing her as εὐσεβή, εὐσεβεστάτη βασίλισσα, ἀγαθὴ τῷ ὄντι κυρία and ἀγαθὴ βασίλισσα26 who suffered together with the Gianniotes of the castle from the former’s violent behavior27. The author’s love and adoration of her are more than evident in his description of her death and the universal mourning during and after her burial, on 28 December 139028. The author was in all likelihood her spiritual guide and confessor, and the extensive detail with which he describes even her husband’s private life is likely due to this relationship: καὶ οὕτως ἀπ’ αὐτῆς [Μαρίας Αγγελίνας] ἐξέκλινεν ὁ δεσπότης ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἰς κακίαν καὶ μῖσος αὐτὴν παρετήρει καὶ εἰς ἀρσενοκοιτίας πάθος ἐνέπεσεν τὰ γὰρ κρυφῇ γινόμενα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ αἰσχρόν ἐστι καὶ λέγειν29.

22

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 9.6–8. On the Albanian raids in the northwestern region of Greece, as well as their migration and settlement in Southern Greece, see A. DUCELLIER, Οι Αλβανοί στην Ελλάδα (13ος–15ος αι.). Trans. K. Nikolaou. Athens 1995. 23 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 8.18–20. 24 NICOL, Despotate 143; MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό των Ιωαννίνων 58–59; KORDOSES, Βυζαντινά Γιάννενα 308–309. 25 Maria was the daughter of Simeon Uroš Palaiologos, the half brother of Stephen Dušan, who had been entrusted with the administration of the southern section of the (divided) State of Epirus. Subsequently, following the death of the Despot of Epirus Nikephoros II (†1359), he conquered  essaly and established his seat of power in Trikala. Maria’s mother Thomais was a daughter of the Despot of Epirus John Orsini (1323–1335) and a sister of the Despot Nikephoros II. See SOULIS, Serbs and Byzantium 116; D. Z. SOPHIANOS, Oι Σέρβοι ηγεμόνες των Τρικάλων και οι μονές της περιοχής, in: Βυζάντιο και Σερβία κατά τον ΙΔ΄ αιώνα. Αthens 1996, 186–187. 26 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 9.17, 28.19, 31.13, 36.3–4. 27 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 28.10–11. 28 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 36.1–30. 29 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 16.31–34; KORDOSES, Βυζαντινά Γιάννενα 309–310.

229

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

The author’s clear prejudice against Thomas originates with the latter’s behavior regarding the local ecclesiastical authorities30, which began immediately after his arrival in the castle of Ioannina. In order to better convey his rage and frustration, he notes: καὶ πρῶτα μὲν κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας χωρεῖ καὶ τὸν ποιμένα αὐτῆς ἐξωθεῖ Σεβαστιανὸς δὲ οὖτος ἦν, ἀνὴρ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ περιβόητος ἀφαιρεῖ δὲ τὰ προσόντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ χωρία καὶ κτήματα, καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς Σέρβοις αὐτοῦ ἀπονέμει καὶ μελάνδυτος, φεῦ, καὶ σκοτοδυτοῦσα ἡ τῶν Ἰωαννίνων μητρόπολις γίνεται τὸν αὑτῆς ποιμένα μὴ ἔχουσα, ἕως οὗ καὶ εἰς παντελῆ ἐρημίαν ἡ ἐκκλησία κατήντησε καὶ χορτοθήκας, οἴμοι, καὶ σιτοθήκας τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκήματα πεποίηκε, καὶ ὕστερον καὶ κατὰ τῶν θείων σκευῶν χεῖρα τετόλμηκε31. A victim of Thomas’ guile was the honorable abbot of a certain monastery in Metsovo, Isaiah, who was arrested, imprisoned and threatened with blinding. In order to save Isaiah, the pious Christians attempted to bribe Thomas, who despite accepting the proffered sum ultimately blinded the abbot32. Later, in 1382, the new Metropolitan, Matthew, in light of the conferment of the title of Despot upon Thomas by Manuel II Palaiologos, achieved the recovery by his Metropolis of its properties and dependents33. There clearly must have been an intervention and demand by the Patriarchate for Thomas to return the property of the Metropolis, which at first had been divided and offered to the Serbs of Thomas’ retinue but which he ultimately decided, in 1380, to keep for himself34. Despite his success, the 30

NICOL, Despotate 144. Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 10.6–21. Confiscation and utilization of church property in times of emergency (attacks, sieges) was not uncommon in the late Byzantine period, see MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό Ιωαννίνων 60. On the property of the Metropolis of Ioannina, see KORDOSES, Βυζαντινά Γιάννενα 240–246. 32 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 23.21–31. 33 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 26.13–14. 34 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 23.35–37. Multiple sources attest the attempts of the Serbs to confiscate church property during their expansion into Macedonia, see M. NYSTAZOPOULOU-PELEKIDOU, 31

230

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

Metropolitan Matthew was unable to cooperate with the Serbian ruler and was forced to flee to Albanian-ruled Arta35. The Serbs Thomas brought with him are described as numerous 36. Of these, all those whom the author characterizes as honest were immediately distanced secretly from him, and any who could not cope with his μανιώδη σκαιότητα openly abandoned the city37. Thomas rewarded those who decided to persevere by his side by marrying them to the widows and bestowing upon them as dowry the property of the lords38 who had perished in the plague which struck the city in 1368, a fact the author does not fail to correlate with the κακίαν39 of Thomas. Generally, our Gianniote chronicler liberally bestows epithets and accusations on the cunning tyrant in order to describe his activity, in terms both eloquent and graphical40. He is first described as a fox which deceived the Gianniotes and subsequently transformed into a lion οὐ πολὺ τὸ ἐν μέσῳ καὶ τὴν ἀλωπεκῆν ἀποτίθεται καὶ τὴν λεοντῆν ὑπενδύεται41. He proved himself to be avaricious, covetous of wealth, an enemy of Christ, a murderer, a vessel of the Devil and an apostate autocrat42. Μικρὰ γαρ πᾶσα κακία πρὸς κακίαν τοῦ Θωμᾶ43, is his constant refrain, appropriated from Ecclesiastes44, in the description of his life and times in Ioannina. Constant Bυζαντινή Διπλωματική. Τα έγγραφα των δημοσίων λειτουργών. Τhessaloniki 2014, 10 n. 37. 35 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 26.17–19. The Spata, the Albanian rulers of Arta from the 2nd half of the 14th c. to 1416, were Christians and seem to have developed relations with the local clergy, even making donations for the murals of the church of the Paregoretissa. See B. PAPADOPOULOU, Επιτύμβια παράσταση στο ναό της Παρηγορήτισσας στην Άρτα. DChAE 25 (2004) 141–153; see also Ch. STAVRAKOS, in this volume (with further bibliography). 36 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 9.21; NICOL, Despotate 143. 37 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 10.40–46. 38 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.6–12; NICOL, Despotate 144. 39 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.5. 40 See also OSSWALD, La Chronique de Iôannina 91–109. 41 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 10.4–5. This is a proverbial expression, cf. Πλουτάρχου Βίος Λυσάνδρου VII.4.2.; see KARPOZELOS, Βυζαντινοί Ιστορικοί και Χρονογράφοι 539. 42 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 11.15–21, 24.7–12, 31.23. 43 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 10.49–50, 12.39–40, 20.21–22. 44 Εκκλησιαστής 25.19.

231

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

insecurity, a perennial feature of despotic regimes, fed his paranoia. For this reason, he deeply distrusted the Gianniotes and treated the lords of the castle in particular thusly: τοὺς Ἰωαννίτας πάντας προδότας, δολίους καὶ φάλτζους ἐπωνόμαζε, καὶ οὐ μόνον κατηγόρευσεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παντελῶς αὐτοὺς κακῶς εἶχε […] παντοιοτρόπως πάντας ἐμίσει καὶ τους ξένους ἠγάπα45. However, this meticulously constructed narrative of a heinous tyrant is at odds with the image of the patron of the arts and donor who, together with his wife, bestowed donations upon the monasteries of Meteora and Mt. Athos, information which is preserved in their donor documents and inscriptions46. Thomas’ construction activities are mentioned in only a single sentence: καὶ ὡς πλάνος τάχα κτίζει καὶ ἐκκλησίας καὶ ἑορτάζει καὶ ψυχικὰ ποιεῖ47, with the chronicler refusing to go into further detail due to his bias. These construction activities are also alluded to in a phrase regarding the various debts with which he burdened the Gianniotes: Πρὸς μὲν τῶν ἐπισήμων τεχνιτῶν ζημίαι καὶ ἀγγαρεῖαι μετὰ δασμῶν, πρὸς δὲ τῶν ἀτέχνων καὶ ἐλευθέρων ἀνθρώπων δουλεία ἄμισθος καὶ κόπος ἀδαπάνητος48. 45

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 11.39–42, 16.19–20. N. A. BEES, Μετεώρου πίναξ ἀφιερωθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς βασιλίσσης Παλαιολογίνης. ArchEph 3 (1911) 177–185; A. XΥNGOPOULOS, Nέαι προσωπογραφίαι τῆς Μαρίας Παλαιολογίνας καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ Πρελιούμποβιτς. DChAE 4 (1964–1965) 53–70; T. PAPAZOTOS, Ο Θωμάς Πρελιούμποβιτς και η Μαρία Παλαιολογίνα κτήτορες του Ναού της Παναγίας Γαβαλιωτίσσης στα Βοδενά. Κληρονομία 13 (1981) 509–516; NICOL, Despotate 154–155; G. SUBOTIC, Δώρα και δωρεές του Δεσπότη Θωμά και της βασίλισσας Μαρίας Παλαιολογίνας, in: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. E. Chrysos. Arta 1992, 69–76; KORDOSES, Βυζαντινά Γιάννενα 305–306; D. Z. SOPHIANOS, Tο εκδοτήριο, εξισαστικό γράμμα της Μαρίας Αγγελίνας Δούκαινας Παλαιολογίνας, in: Realia Byzantina, ed. S. Kotzambassi – G. Mavromatis (Byzantinisches Archiv 22). Berlin – New York 2009, 267–282. 47 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 14.22–24. 48 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.34–39. 46

232

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

Despite this documented Christian donor activity, prominent residents of the castle of Ioannina together with members of branches of the Vatatzes and Philanthropenos aristocratic families of Constantinople which had fled the city and settled in Ioannina after the Frankish conquest of 120449 became victims of Thomas’ tyrannical authority; they were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, blinded, exiled or forced into self-imposed exile together with their families in order to avoid his dogged pursuit. A similar fate was in store for two prominent residents of Kastoria, who visited Ioannina in December of 1379. Despite the fact that οὐδὲ νοῦς, οὐδὲ γλῶσσα δυνηθείη ἐξειπεῖν τὰ τούτου πανουργήματα καὶ μηχανήματα50, the torture imposed upon his victims is described in detail. The motivating factor behind this inhuman treatment was, according to the chronicler, avarice, which he considered a new idolatry51. Additionally, Thomas imposed onerous taxes, tariffs and monopolies on basic goods, necessary for everyday life (wheat, cheese, wine, meats, fish, fruit and vegetables)52. Professional artisans and free citizens alike were required to perform menial and forced labor53. These policies resulted in a reign of terror in the castle of Ioannina54. Already from the initial period of Thomas’ rule, the powerful local noblemen Vardas and Kafsokavadis, who controlled the castles of Agios Donatos and Arachovitsa, rebelled and attempted to achieve independence from his tyrannical reign55. A revolutionary movement which occurred later, in December of 1379, does not seem to have met with success; however, it offered the Serbian ruler a pretense to further intensify his repression56. 49

M. S. KORDOSES, Oι κλάδοι των Κωνσταντινουπολιτικών οικογενειών στα Γιάννενα μετά το 1204 και η νομή της εξουσίας, in: Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. L. M. Hoffmann – A. Monchizadeh. Wiesbaden 2005, 445–456. 50 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.32–34. 51 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 10.48–49, 11.16–18. 52 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.24–28, 21.28–30; KORDOSES, Βυζαντινά Γιάννενα 262–264. 53 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.35–39. 54 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 12.41–45. This reign of terror was further intensified by the repeated Albanian raids in the Ioannina basin. 55 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 10.32–40; NICOL, Despotate 143–144. 56 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 21.12–36; NICOL, Despotate 149.

233

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

The Albanians which the Despot Nikephoros II faced in the fateful battle of the Acheloos in 135957 are described by our Gianniote chronographer as having δυστροπία and κακογνωμία58. During the reign of Thomas (1367– 1384), these Albanian clans repeatedly assaulted his domain from the North and South59. They would deliberately choose to raid the Ioannina basin at the end of spring or during the harvest (September–October), thus preventing the Gianniotes of the castle from tending their extensive vineyards, trampling these vineyards with their cavalry and seizing loads of grapes destined for wine production60; for this reason the author describes in some detail the periods of Albanian raids in his text. According to the author, Thomas, in his efforts to repel the attacks of these antagonistic Albanian clans, which would often feud even between themselves, displayed the worst of his inhuman behavior. The repeated Albanian raids, apart from trampling the local vineyards, did not end well for the raiders, and were successfully repelled. It is likely that Thomas even hired κλέπτας ῥιμπαρέους, λῃστὰς καὶ κουρσάρους61 and Turks62 as mercenaries, a fact which draws the ire of the author. At other times he utilized a traditional tool of Byzantine diplomacy, the marital treaty63, in order to temporarily stave off hostilities. He first offered his daughter Irene to Ioannis, the son of the Albanian lord of Arta Petros Liosa, and subsequently, after R. MIHALIJČIC, Η μάχη του Αχελώου. Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Στερεοελλαδικών Μελετών 3 (1970) 365–371. 58 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 4.27–28. 59 OSSWALD, La Chronique de Iôannina 83–91. 60 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 17.4–5, 21.4–6, 34.13–16. See also SYGΚELLOU, Πόλεμος 171–173. 61 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 16.16–17. The recruitment of criminal elements as mercenaries seems to have been commonplace in the late Byzantine period. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό Ιωαννίνων 61. On the forces of the lords of Western Greece in the late Byzantine period, see SYGΚELLOU, Πόλεμος 315–334. 62 Alliances with the Turks for the purpose of defeating one’s enemy were far from unprecedented in the late Byzantine period, see MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό Ιωαννίνων 59–60. 63 NICOL, Despotate 145–146. See also S. KOTZAMBASSI, Δυτικές πριγκίπισσες στην αυλή των Παλαιολόγων, in: Το Βυζάντιο κατά τους παλαιολόγειους χρόνους: Σχέσεις Ανατολής και Δύσεως και αφετηρία του Νέου Ελληνισμού. Πρακτικά Συνεδρίων, Μυστράς 6–8 Νοεμβρίου 2015 και 27–29 Μαΐου 2016, ed. G. Xanthaki-Karamanou. Athens 2017, 41–52. 57

234

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

her death in 1375, his sister Helen to Petros’ successor, John Spata64. The author is of the opinion that Thomas provoked the Albanian raids in part through his brutal treatment of the antagonistic Albanians, as he never passed up an opportunity to arrest them individually and inflict inhuman torture on them65. The most destructive raid took place in February of 1379: The Malakassaioi66, in concert with a traitor, the deaf Nikephoros Perates, succeeded in crossing to the island of the lake of Ioannina. From there they managed to approach and scale the fortified escarpment of the castle, the Ἐπάνω Γουλά67, overrunning and holding it for three days and assaulting the besieged Gianniotes from the rear. The organized resistance of the residents of the castle, under the orders of their apparently capable ruler, which also included a dramatic naval battle with boats and canoes on the lake, proved successful, and the raiders were repelled68. The text of the prayer to the Archangel Michael, the patron saint of the city, in gratitude for its salvation which is cited in full and in all likelihood written by the author depicts both the atmosphere of terror which had gripped the populace along with his personal opinion regarding the Albanian raiders: Ὡς θῆρες ὠρυώμενοι νῦν ἐκύκλωσαν ἡμᾶς δυσμενεῖς φθοροποιοὶ καὶ ζητοῦσι καταπιεῖν τὴν σὴν πόλιν, Ἀρχιστράτηγε, καὶ κατάβρωμα θέσθαι βουλόμενοι ἡμᾶς τὰ βουλεύματα τούτων αὐτὸς ματαίωσον, τὰς ὁρμὰς τὰς λυσσώδεις αὐτὸς ἀνάστειλον, τὴν ὀφρὺν αὐτῶν κατασπῶν σὺ προστάτης γὰρ ἡμῶν καὶ θεῖος φύλαξ ἀσφαλέστατος69.

64

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 13.15–20, 16.10–13. Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 14.1–11. 66 This Albanian clan was particularly aggressive, see G. Ch. SOULIS, Περὶ τῶν μεσαιωνικῶν ἀλβανικῶν φύλων τῶν Μαλακασίων, Μπουΐων καὶ Μεσαριτῶν. EEBS 23 (1953) 213–216. 67 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 18.6–41. On the Ἐπάνω Γουλά, see VRANOUSSIS, Ἱστορικὰ καὶ τοπογραφικὰ 19–27. 68 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 18–19. 69 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 19.23–32. 65

235

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

The prisoners who surrendered or were captured were enslaved and handed over to the populace70. Among them were Bulgarians and Vlachs, who were punished by having their noses cut, so that αἱμάτων χύτρα ἦν τότε ἡ πόλις τῶν Ἰωαννίνων, ὡς ἔκπαλαι ἡ τῶν Νικομηδέων μεγαλόπολις71, as is noted by the chronicler, who was well-read on ecclesiastic history. The tyrant was so proud of his achievements against the Albanians that καὶ Ἀλβανιτοκτόνος ἐπεθύμει γενέσθαι καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι72, a fact confirmed by the relevant inscriptional evidence from the castle of Ioannina73. Two months later, in May of 1379, after thwarting another Albanian raid from Arta, Thomas gouged out the eyes of all those captured and sent them as a μικρὸν κανίσκιον74 to John Spata, thus forcing him to retreat. The chronicler, due to his Christian faith in combination with his evident aversion to the tyrant, was of course appalled by this inhuman act, as is proven by the biblical refrain on his incomparable cruelty75. However, Thomas also achieved significant successes which the chronicler could not conceal, despite his bias. Apart from successfully repelling the Albanian raids, he gradually achieved the stabilization of the rather fluid boundaries of his domain by conquering, through various means, a series of minor fortifications which functioned perimetrically as defense outposts for the major administrative and military center of the period, the castle of Ioannina76. At the same time, his reign saw significant architectural activity

70

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 19.23–32. Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 20.13–16. Nicomedia was well-known in martyrological tradition as a place of martyrdom during the periods of the Roman persecutions. The church honors the memory of the ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ Δισμυρίων Μαρτύρων on 28 December. See KARPOZELOS, Βυζαντινοί Ιστορικοί και Χρονογράφοι 535 n. 38; H. DELEHAYE, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Paris 1902, 349. 72 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 20.18–20. 73 VRANOUSSIS, Ἱστορικὰ καὶ τοπογραφικὰ 64–73; NICOL, Despotate 154; MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό Ιωαννίνων 60. 74 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 21.10–11. 75 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 21.5–9. 76 MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό Ιωαννίνων 60–61. 71

236

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

in the castle, which the author mentions in only one paragraph77, confirmed by inscriptional testimony78. Thomas’ long-standing policy of repression resulted in his murder at the hands of his four bodyguards, on 23 December 138479. His widow Maria Angelina immediately seized power and attempted to reduce the misery which her husband had piled upon the unfortunate residents of the castle with his authoritarian policies80. The local chronicler mentions the Albanian threat as the reason for the conclusion of a second marriage treaty, in order for a man to assume the sovereignty of the castle. Summarily, and with the blessing of Maria’s brother, the monk Joasaph, who had arrived with this express purpose from Meteora, the Italian Esau de’ Buondelmonti, the brother of Magdalene Tocco, Duchess of Cephalonia, was chosen81. The author, however, does not mention that the chief reason for the marriage taking place in such a short time period, just 40 days after the death of Thomas, was the existence of an extramarital affair between the two, a fact mentioned by the historian Chalcocondyles82. The fact that the author omits this despite his in-depth knowledge implies a close relationship with Maria Angelina. The new despot, to which the local chronicler displays an evident positive bias already from the beginning of his narrative, describing him as ἀγαθὸν83 and φιλόχριστον84, immediately attempted to relieve the taxational burdens imposed by his predecessor85. He repatriated the exiled aristocracy and the Metropolitan Matthew86. When Matthew died two years later, in 77

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 14.22–24. VRANOUSSIS, Ἱστορικὰ καὶ τοπογραφικὰ 64–70, 73–75; KORDOSES, Βυζαντινά Γιάννενα 76–77. 79 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 28.1–7. 80 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 28.7–23. 81 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 29.1–11; NICOL, Despotate 157. 82 Λαόνικος Χαλκοκονδύλης Ι 198–199 (ed. E. DARKÒ, Laonici Chalcocandylae Historiarum Demostrationes, I–II. Budapest 1922–1927). See also NICOL, Despotate 157–158. 83 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 30.13. 84 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 31.12, 33.6. 85 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 31.11–23. 86 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 31.1–7. 78

237

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

1386, he achieved the election of the head of the Archimandrion, Gabriel, to the vacated position87. Esau did not cave to the demands of the remaining Serbs, who still held claim over the properties and residents of the Metropolis which had been given to them by Thomas and which he had subsequently kept for himself, in order to ultimately restore them, in 1382, for diplomatic reasons, to the Metropolitan Matthew, a fact which the chronicler clearly endorses88. Esau generally attempted to enforce a moderate policy: οὐ μόνον τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐντὸς τῶν Ἰωαννίνων ἐγλύκανεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἔξωθεν Ἀλβανίτας εἰς γαλήνην καὶ ἀγάπην εἰρηνικὴν κατέστησεν89. However, he was forced to deal with the ceaseless Albanian raids90. John Spata, who had been in control of Arta since 1374 and who is lauded from the beginning of his reign by the author, as it was to his court that the metropolitan Matthew had fled: ἀνὴρ δραστήριος καὶ τὰ πάντα λαμπρός, ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ κοσμούμενος καὶ τῷ κάλλει σεμνυνόμενος91, refused to cease his attacks. The situation stabilized when, following the death of Maria Angelina in December of 1390, Esau decided, with the blessing of the wise Metropolitan Gabriel, to conclude another marriage treaty, this time with the daughter of John Spata, Irene, whom the author lauds in similar fashion to her father: γυνὴ ἀνδρεία, φρονήματι καὶ κάλλει εὐπρεπὴς καὶ ἀρετῇ περιβεβλημένη92. The assertive and energetic Esau was finally in a position, after the achievement of this modus vivendi, to set out on campaign with his powerful father-in-law and quash the other Albanian clans. A notable example was the grand campaign against Gjirokastra in April of 1399, the failure of which led to his brief captivity93. He also fought against Turkish raiders in the battle of Driskos in January of 139694. The death of John Spata in October 87

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 32.10–21; NICOL, Despotate 159. Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 32.5–10. 89 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 31.29–33. 90 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 34.7–16. 91 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 15.8–11. 92 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 37.10–12; NICOL, Despotate 162–163. 93 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 39–40; NICOL, Despotate 163–164. 94 Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 38.3–19; NICOL, Despotate 163. 88

238

THE DESPOTS OF IOANNINA AND ALBANIANS IN THE CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA

1399 resulted in the conquest of Arta by a certain Serbo-Arvanito-BulgaroVlach, Bogoes, an event which the author mourns in truly lyrical fashion and with which he chooses to temporarily end his long-running historiographical labor95. Crucial information on the Albanian raids which in the first two decades of the 15th century continued to terrorize the flocks and vineyards of the Ioannina basin can be found in the supplementary notes made by the continuer of the work in the final pages of the Oxford manuscript, which remain in their entirety unpublished96. In conclusion, it is beyond any doubt that the local chronicler was a man of the cloth who was closely connected with the local church, aristocracy and the wife of the two despots, Maria Angelina. The objective of his work, as he himself declares in his entreaty to Christ to aid him in his task, was ἵνα γνῶσιν οἱ μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐρχόμενοι οἷος ἦν ὁ Θωμᾶς τοὺς τρόπους καὶ πόθεν ὥρμητο97. In other words, his primary motivation was his resentment of the despotic power of Thomas, which he describes in detail. However, over the course of his writing this motivation shifted, and he decided to continue his narrative into the years of the reign of Esau de’ Buondelmonti. This network of relations with the church, the aristocracy and the ruling family offered our chronicler a unique opportunity to provide a detailed account of the events in the period under examination (1367–1399). His attitude towards the two despots was clearly dictated by their conduct regarding the local church and aristocracy. The same is true for the Albanian raiders, whom he presents ad hoc: profoundly negatively when they raid the properties of the kastrinoi and encroach on their freedom, with Christian compassion when they respond to Thomas’ provocative actions and

95

Χρονικόν Ιωαννίνων 41; NICOL, Despotate 164–165. Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 49, ff. 270r–272r; VRANOUSSIS, Ἱστορικὰ καὶ τοπογραφικὰ 75–81. These are published and commented on in the study D. S. GEORGAKOPOULOS, Η συνέχεια τού Χρονικού των Ιωαννίνων στον κώδικα Oxon. Aedis Christi gr. 49 (under publication in the Festschrift for Prof. K. Bourdara). 97 Οxon. Aedis Christi gr. 49, f. 352 r and Petrop. gr. 251 f. 1r. His entreaty to Christ is not preserved in the subsequent manuscripts in which the text was transmitted, and is thus omitted from the editions of the text based on them. 96

239

DEMETRIOS S. GEORGAKOPOULOS

attack him, are imprisoned and tortured by him, and in a positive light when they ally with Esau. Despite the evident bias of the author against Thomas Preljubović, the historical reality cannot be obscured within his text. The Chronicle of Ioannina remains an important source of information on the presence of Serbs and Albanians in Epirus during the second half of the 14th and the early 15th century98. The new critical edition of this work based on the oldest witnesses of its manuscript tradition will, we believe, contribute to its further utilization as a historical source and to its re-evaluation as a monument of late Medieval Greek literature.

98

The credibility of the chronicle as a historical source is confirmed by other sources, see MAKSIMOVIĆ, Χρονικό Ιωαννίνων 60–61.

240

INDEX NOMINUM

Actium 211, 217 Aetolia 61, 223 Aetoloakarnania 59, 84 Agnus Dei 142 Akarnania/Acarnania 59, 61, 77, 223 Ἀλβανιτοκτόνος 236 Alexios 48, 49 Ali Pasha 197, 206, 217 Alivizios Fokas 192 Alkadioi 37 Ambracia 210, 213 Ambracian Gulf 60, 77, 84, 211, 217, 221, 224 Amfilochia 59, 79 Anania(s) 162 Anastasius/Anastasios (emperor) 99 Angelina Maria 229, 237, 238 Angellokastron 29 Ano Lesinitsa 49 Apodyteria 65 Apollonia 104, 115, 116, 117, 122, 128, 129 Apulia 143

Arachovitsa 233 Arachthos 210 Arapaj 97 Archimandr(e)ion 238 Argyrokastron 49 Arta 14, 29, 31, 33, 37, 42, 46, 139, 146, 150, 156, 159, 164, 187, 189, 193, 210, 212, 220, 221, 236, 238 ἄσπρα 49, 52 Athanasios 193 Athens 146, 150, 164 Athos Mt. 232 Attila 221 Augustus 217 Avlon(a)/Vlorë 117, 129 Balkans 185, 186, 189, 197 Bardanes George 17 Bardas 233 Bartholdy Jakob Ludwig Salomo 208 Basilica – St. Michael 98 Basiliko 47 241

INDEX NOMINUM

Bellin Jacques-Nicolas 207 Benjamin of Tudela 214 Berat 29 Beresford George de la Poer 210, 215 Bitonto 147 Bogoes 239 Bu(i)as 38 Bulgaria 13, 14, 34 Buondelmonti Esau 225, 227, 237, 239 Burgess Richard 210, 211, 217 Byron (Lord) 209, 217 Çetë 105 Chapel – St. Demetrios 119 Choiseul-Gouffier 208 Chomatenos Demetrios 16 Church – Sts. Apostles (Hagioi Apostoloi) 156 – St. Athansios 47 – Bojana 157 – St. Demetrios Katsouri 44 – St. George 49, 197 – Laurentius 107 – Maria /Mary 101, 115, (Studenica)148 – St. Michael 106, 108 – St. Nikolaos 49, 106, 197 – Pantepoptes 120 – Paregoritissa/Paregoretissa 39, 45, 47, 139, 140, 141, 143, 149, 154, 156, 157, 158, 162, 164, 214, 216, 222

– Parioritsa (Paregoretissa) 215 – Phaneromeni 196 – Porta Panagia – St. Theodore 106 – Veneranda 105, 106 – Virgin (Kastoria) 52 Cockerell Charles Robert 209, 217 Constantinople 43, 44 Corfu see Kerkyra Corinth 116 Coronelli, V. M. 204 Curzon Robert 210, 217 Cyprus 192 Dečani 148 Delvinaki 51 Dodwell Edward 208, 217 Donatos (Agios, castle) 233 Driskos 238 Dropoli 50 Dupré Louis 209 Dušan – Stephen 28 – Symeon 28 Dyrrachium/Durrës 15, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 104, 107, 116 Ἐπάνω Γουλὰς 235 Fatih Camii 120 Fauvel Louis François Sebastian 207, 211, 212 Fokas see Alivizios Fortosi 196 Foucherot Jacques 207, 211, 212 France 144 frigidarium 63 242

INDEX NOMINUM

Gabriel 238 Gasmouloi 222 Gjirokastra 238 Gkinou Chatzimanthos 197 Gkoura 51 Golem 101, 102 Goodisson William 209, 211 Grammenochoria 187, 195 Grammosta 192 Greveniti 193 Guicciardini Francesco 210 Guys P. A. 204 Hagioi Saranda 49, 52 Helen(a) 235 Hobhouse John Cam 209, 211, 212 Holland Henry 209, 212, 215, 217 Hughes Thomas Smart 209, 211, 215, 216, 218, 220 Ioannes 124 Ioannina 33, 42, 46, 188, 189, 194, 220, 225, 228, 231, 233, 236 Ioannoutzos see Karamesines Irene 234 Italy 144, 148 Juan Fernández de Heredia 46 Julian 219 Justinina Prima 16 Kafsokavadis 233 Κάλλιστος/-ου 103, 104 Kanapare 105 Kanina 29 κανίσκιον 236 Kantakouzenos Ioannes VI 22 Kapesovo 197

Karamesines Ioannoutzos 197 Karamoutaraioi 51 Kariye Camii 156 Karlilí 223 Kastoria 127, 128, 192, 233 Kastrinoi 228 Katsanochoria 188, 195 Kavaja 100, 104, 105 Kefalos 84 Kephallonia/Cephallonia 32, 192, 237 Kerkyra/Korkyra/Corfu 116, 208 Klokotnica 19, 24 Komani 102 Komnenos (monk) 225 Komnenos – Alexios I 14, 95, 96, 127 – Doukas Michael II 41 – Doukas Nikephoros I 41 – Doukas Theodoros 15 – Isaak 14 – Manuel 18, 123, 125, 127, 128 Komno (Κόμνω) 52 Konitsa 193 Kos 67 Koutzoumitis Ioannis 220 Krioneri 84 Krystallopigi 106 Larta (Arta) 213 Leake William Martin 208, 215, 217, 218 Lear Edward 210, 211, 212 Lefkas 45, 47, 59 Leo VI 220 243

INDEX NOMINUM

Linotopi 192 Liosha – Ioannes 29 – Petros 29, 46, 234 Macedonia 191, 192 Malakasaioi 37, 235 Mani (Mane) 122 Matera 148 Matthew/Matthaios (metropolitan) 230, 231, 237 Mazarakaioi 37 Melissenos Makarios 25 Messolong(h)i 84 Meteora 232 Michael 193 Michael, archangel 39 Μιχάλης 49 Molfettta 147 Monastery – Panagia Mavriotissa 127 – Pantanassa 41, 45, 153, 155 – St. Athanasios and Kyrillos (Muzinë, Hagioi Saranda) 52 – St. Athanasios Gkoranxi (Dropoli) 50 – St. Ioannes (Polylopho) 50 – St. Ioannes Prodromos (Moschopoli/Voskopojë) 50 – St. Nikolaos/Nicolas 96 – St. Theodore of Ilycetos 96 – Taxiarchs (Gkoura) 51 – Tzora 50 Morea 25, 26, 28 Moschopoli/Voskopojë 50

Muzinë 52 Nazareth 146 Negades 197 Nicaea 44, 157 Nicopolis/Nikopolis 61, 78, 80, 84, 85, 211, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222 Niketa Thopia 101 Nikola(o)s 48, 49, 193 North Douglas Frederick Sylvester 209 Ochrid 16 Onouphrios 192 Palaia Preveza 218 Palaioklessi (Palaioklissi) 60 Palaiologina Anna 43 Palaiologos – Andronikos II 123 – Manuel II 230 – Michael VIII 124, 126, 127, 128 Palaioprévyza 218 pastophoria 119 Patras 61, 103 Pelagonia 21, 24 Peloponnese 61 Peqin 100 Perates Nikephoros 235 Petra 95, 100 Philanthropenos (family) Philippiada 41 Photike 106 Pogoni 47, 187 Pojani 115 244

INDEX NOMINUM

Polylopho 50 Pouqueville François-CharlesHughes-Laurent 208, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 222, 227 Praefurium 64 Preljubović Thomas 29, 30, 32, 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 240 Preveza 190, 195, 217, 218, 220, 221 Prizren 149 Proklos (monk) 225 Psalidas Athanasios 218 ψυχοπομπὸς (psychopomp) 40 Pyrrhus 221 Qerret 101, 104 Robert Guiscard 96 Rogoi 220, 221 Ruvo di Puglia 145, 147 Russia 13 Saint-Sauveur André Grasset 208 Salaora 212 Scrofani Saverio 208, 211 Serapheim 159 Serbia 25 Sgouros, Leon 14 Shimmihl 97 Spada (or Σπάθα) 52 Spata (family) 34, 37, 38, 49 Spata – Γιακούμπης 49 – Ioannes/Gkines 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 235, 236, 238 – Michael 48 – Michales (Μιχάλης) 50 – Mourikes 40

– Pavlos 40 – Sgouros 40 Spatafora 52 spolia 118, 121 Spon Jacques 207, 211 Stephen Uroš IV Dušan 100 Stephen Uroš V 100 Tenisko 193 Tessera 83 Thamar 43 Theodoulos 121 Theophilos (emperor) 129 Thesprotia 190, 195 Thessaloniki/Thessalonike 15, 16, 23, 28, 30, 116, 157 Thessaly 22, 24, 25 Thomas 43 Thyrreion 61, 78, 81 Tocco – Car(o)lo I 30, 32, 223 – Magdalene 237 Trikala 122 Tsaraplana 51 Turner Joseph Mallord William 209, 216 Urquhart David 210, 211, 215, 216 Vardas see Bardas Vatatzes (family) 233 Vatatzes Ioannes 18, 20, 35 Via Appia 93 Via Egnatia 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 106, 116 Vlachs 236 Vonitsa 45, 47, 59, 79 245

INDEX NOMINUM

Wallachia 197 Wheler George 207, 211 William of Apulia 96 Wordsworth Christopher 210, 211, 215, 216, 217, 221, 223 Xeropotamos 61

Yolande of Montferrat 23 Zagori 34, 187, 188, 194, 195 Zela 101 Zenebisaioi 37 Zoulanaioi 37

246