126
Prinzing 1985: G. Prinzing, Eine kanonistische Quelle zur Ge-
schichte Pelagoniens im 14, Jahrhundert. In: Cupido legum, hrsg.
v. L. Burgmann, M.Th. Fogen u. A. Schminck, Frankfurt am
Main 1985, S. 179-193,
Prinzing 1988: Ders., Historisch-geographische Bemerkungen
zu Carev dvor und Malaina. In: Byzantinoslav. 49 (1988) 213-
221.
Prinzing 1992: Ders., Das Kaisertum im Staat von Epeiros.
Propagierung, Stabilisierung und Verfall. Im Druck (Akten des
‘Symposions iiber das Despotat von Epeiros, Arta 1990).
Simon 1986: D. Simon, Byzantinische Provinzialjustiz. In: BZ
79 (1986) 310-343.
Simon 1987: Ders., Die BuBbescheide des Erzbischofs Choma-
tian von Ochrid. In: JOB 37 (1987) 235-275,
Soustal 1981: P. Soustal (unter Mitwirkung v. J. Koder),
Nikopolis und Kephallenia, Wien 1981,
Spieser 1973: J.-M. Spieser, Inventaires en vue d'un receuil
des inscriptions historiques de Byzance. I. Les inscriptions de
‘Thessalonique. In: Travaux et Mémoires 5 (1973) 145-180.
Stauridu-Zaphraka 1990: Alkmene Stauridu-Zaphraka, Ni-
xawa kat ’ Hxetpoc tov 130 audva. ISeokonixy avtinapd-
Bean atv xpocrdBerd tovg va avaxticovy tv
avtoxpatopia, Thessalonike 1990,
127
ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPIRE OF NICAEA
MICHAEL ANGOLD / EDINBURGH
I wonder if there is any system of administration other than the
Chinese that displays so impressive a continuity as that of the By-
zantine Empire. Continuity does not mean that there was no
change, but it took the form of continual adaptation. This was one
of the strengths of the Byzantine adminstrative system. Major
changes, on the other hand, rarely occured. On only three oc-
casions was there a radical restructuring of the administration, The
first came with the Diocletianic reforms that some might take as the
foundation of a Byzantine administrative system. The second was
the creation of the theme system. Despite views to the contrary, it
still seems preferable to see this as a long term process whereby a
series of expedients would produce a radically altered form of
government. Some light may be shed on this by examining the
third resturcturing of the Byzantine administrative system: the one
that occurred in response to the fall of Constantinople in 1204.
‘There is an argument that a restructuring would have taken
place whether Constantinople had fallen or not, because even
before the fourth crusade appeared on the scene in 1203 the By-
zantine Empire had apparently reached an impasse. Constantinople
was dominated by a bureaucratic ascendancy. The emperor
Alexius III Angelos had retreated with his family, aristocratic
backers and hangers-on to the palace of the Blachernai on the edge
of town, The provinces were increasingly independent of
Constantinople. The towns were controlled by their archontes and
the most powerful of these sometimes extended their effective
control over whole districts. Bishops struggled to maintain some
sense of unity. Michael Choniates at Athens is the obvious
example. He was critical of the Constantinopolitan elite that
seemed to care nothing for the state of the provinces. The bureau-128
cracy at Constantinople still went through the motions of govern-
ment; its procedures were more complicated than ever and its
personnel more bloated as places were found for friends and
relatives. The bureaucracy was a distinctive feature of Byzantine
government. It could bring decided strengths. It could also be a
source of political weakness when unchecked and without
purpose, as was the case in the late 12th century.
The conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders produced a
drastic solution. It swept the bureaucracy away. Literally so! The
bureaucrats and their counterparts in the church, the clergy of St.
Sophia, made a pathetic sight as they abandoned their city with
little idea of where to go. Aristocrats fled to their centres of power
in the provinces, hoping to shore up some fragments against their
ruin, This was most likely to mean, in the immediate aftermath of
the fall of the city, a deal with the Latins. Theodore Lascaris was
an exception. He had fled from Constantinople in the summer of
1203 in order to organise resistance around Nicaea on behalf of
his father-in-law, Alexius IIT Angelus (1195-1203). This was
directed to begin with against the regime of the latter's nephew,
Alexius IV Angelus, who had the backing of the crusaders. But
once they had seized Constantinople on their own behalf in March
1204, they were the new enemy. Theodore now fought on his
own account, for his father-in-law fell into the hands of the
crusaders. He had himself proclaimed emperor in 1205 and then in
March 1208 organised the election of a new orthodox patriarch.
On Easter Day 1208 he was then crowned emperor by the new
patriarch. A Byzantine Empire was thus set up in exile at Nicaea.
Theodore Lascaris had to set up some sort of goverment in
exile. At first, it was rudimentary, consisting of relatives and
companions-in-arms. If Theodore Lascaris had a chief minister in
the early part of his reign, it was his wife's uncle Basil Camaterus,
who was prominent under Alexius II Angelos and had adminis-
trative experience going back to the reign of Manuel Comnenus.
He it was who persuaded Theodore Lascaris to have a new
patriarch elected at Nicaea. Another uncle of Theodore Lascaris
Theodotos Phocas was Grand Duke and therefore commander of
129
the fleet. He seems to have combined this, at least for a time, with
governing the theme of Thracesion, where the main naval base,
‘Smyrna, was situated. Theodore Lascaris had many brothers. He
entrusted them with military commands and provincial governor-
ships. They were rewarded in the normal way with the dignity of
sebastokrator. What it amounted to, as Professeur Ahrweiler has
noted, was the imposition of an aristocratic clique, which made
Nicaea the centre of its operations. The same thing was going on
in other parts of western Asia Minor, where other aristocrats
seized power. Theodore Lascaris induced them to recognise his
overriding authority, but in return he had to tolerate their
ascendancy in their localities. A sign of this was the grant of high
court titles. Sabas Asidenos at Miletus and Nicephorus Kontoste-
phanos in the Maiander valley were both accorded th dignity of
sebastokrator, which until then had been reserved for brothers and
uncles of reigning emperors. The slightly lesser dignity of Caesar
was given to Leo Gabalas who had seized the island of Rhodes in
the chaos surrounding the fall of Constantinople. Whereas Sabas
‘Asidenos and Nicephorus Kontosthephanos disappear very
quickly and Theodore Lascaris was able to establish his direct
authority in the areas they controlled, Leo Gabalas reigned on in
Rhodes until his death (ca. 1204) and established an independent
principality. Circumstances here dictated a devolution of imperial
authority.
Theodore Lascaris relied on members of his family and the
officers of his court. He was acting much like that emperors of the
house of Comnenus and Angelus who created an inner circle
composed of household officers and members of a private chance-
ry. Among the most important household offices were those of
protovestiarios and steward or epi tes trapezes. These are met
with early on in Theodore's reign. The office of protovestiarios
was held by Basil Comnenus, who must have been related in
some way to the emperor. The epi tou kanikleiou or keeper of the
inkstand was a key member of the private imperial chancery. By
1213 this post was held by one of Theodore Lascaris's entourage.
He is described as a member of the imperial household (oikeios).130
Another officer of the private chancery was the mystikos. The
existence of this office at Nicaea is attested early on. Before 1204
the holders of this office was most prominent for their role as
supervisors of monasteries on behalf of the emperor, but their
duties also included those of a private secretary.
‘There was not much call for the services of bureaucrats. Before
the fall of Constantinople the historian Nicetas Choniates was
Grand Logothete or head of the civil service. He eventually made
his way to Nicaea, expecting some use to be made of his
experience, but he was not received with the enthusiasm he had
expected by the clique in power at the Nicaean court. The best he
could manage was service with the protovestiarios, who treated
his badly and kept him on short rations. Nicetas tumed for help to
Basil Kamateros, who was probably responsible for finding
Nicetas a position as the Nicaean court orator. But Nicetas's old
office of Grand Logothete was soon to be revived at Nicaea, but
not for Nicetas. In 1216 we find the new holder presiding over a
lawsuit brought before the imperial court. This can hardly be taken
as proof that a bureaucratic system of government was in the
process of being reconstituted, but it does show that government
was being put on a more permanent basis.
This conclusion also emerges if we follow the history of the
office of consul of the philosophers. It is a surprise to find this
office in existence at Nicaea under Theodore I Lascaris. It was
held by the future patriarch Theodore Eirenikos. The office of
consul of the philosophers had earlier been revived by Manuel I
‘Comnenus for the future patriarch Michael Ankhialou, with a view
to upholding the purity of orthodoxy. Theodore Lascaris presum-
ably revived the office, in his tun, because of his disquiet about
the reemergence at Nicaea of heretical teachings about the
Eucharist. Theadore Eirenikos was succeeded in the post of consul
of the philosophers by Demetrius Karykes, whose duties were
more varied. He was a teacher and had the dubious privilege of
teaching the young Nicephorus Blemmydes, but more to the point
he was also responsible for examining him viva voce at the end of
his studies, when he tried to get his own back. This suggests that
131
he had a responsibility for the general supervision of education,
like the original holders of the office in the 11th century. Like
them, he does not seem to have been a cleric, though he had very
close — Blemmydes said much too close — relations with a
deacon of the patriarchal church. He was, however, called upon to
defend the orthodox position in the preliminary debates with the
Latins that occurred at Nicaea in 1234 and this too may well have
been part of his official duties as consul of the philosophers. He
combined this post with the functions of judge and Grand
Logariast, in which capacity he carried out a fiscal survey
(exisosis) in the theme of Thracesion. This can be dated to ca.
1226. Karykes was a very old man by the time Blemmydes came
to know him, His career almost certainly started before 1204 and it
continued to at least 1234. It shows how government at Nicaea
was being systematised. There was now a need to educate young
men for an administrative career. There was a call too for profes-
sional judges and fiscal surveys became a necessity. These needs
were met by loading them in a fairly haphazard manner on the
handful of men with the experience and ability needed.
The fiscal survey for which Karykes was wholly or partly
responsible came in the wake of the Emperor John Batatzes's
victory over the Latins of Constantinople in 1224 and their ex-
pulsion from any significant territories in Asia Minor. It was a fine
opportunity to complete the restoration of provincial government,
for which a fiscal survey was a necessity. The provincial adminis-
tration of western Asia Minor was disrupted by the conditions of
the late twelfth century and deteriorated still further with the events
of 1204. The damage does not seem to have been too serious
because Theodore Lascaris was able to restore theme administra-
tion fairly rapidly. In 1211 he sent his brother the sebastokrator
George Lascaris to the theme of Thracesion to supervise its
defence against the Latins. In 1213 it was the tum of his epi tou
Kanikleiou to take over the administration of this theme. Theodore
used his family and members of his household to recover control
of provincial administration. Presumably, some of the records, in-
cluding fiscal surveys, had survived from before 1204 and these