International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

THE LATE BYZANTINE EMPIRE ‒ PART 2
Chairs:
 Erekle Jordania, Bogdan-Petru Maleon
Nikolaos Chrissis
, 
Paradise Lost or Negligent Shepherd? Constantinople and Byzantine Identity after 1204
Juho Wilskman
, 
Warfare in the Conflicts between the Orthodox Successors States 
of Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century
Bogdan-Petru Maleon
, 
The Status of War Prisoners in Late Byzantium
Katerina B. Korrè
, 
Τίτλοι, αξιώματα και προσωπογραφία στο ύστερο Βυζάντιο: 
ο στρατιωτικός οίκος των Λάσκαρη και το οφφίκιο του Μεγαδούκα
Nurfeddin Kahraman – Refik Arıkan
, 
New Approaches for the Byzantine-Ottoman Relations (1284 – 1302)
Konstantinos Giakoumis
, 
For the Recovery of the Dwindling Empire. 
The Great Palaeologan Strategy for the Westernmost Parts of Via Egnatia
Boban Petrovski
, 
Τοπαρχίαν Πολόγους: Location and Chronological Framework
Erekle Jordania
, 
Byzantine Pontos and the Kartvelians in the XIII-XV Cc.
Christos Malatras
, 
The Earthly Order: Social Stratification in Late Byzantium

---

596
Nikolaos Chrissis
Athens, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Paradise Lost or Negligent Shepherd? 
Constantinople and Byzantine Identity after 1204
This paper examines the role of Constantinople in the conceptualization of Byzantine identity 
after the imperial city fell to the army of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Constantinople is traditionally 
considered as a cardinal point of reference for Byzantine self-perception, particularly for the elite. 
However, in the extraordinary circumstances of displacement occasioned by the conquest, its image 
was radically reassessed, sometimes in ways that have not been fully appreciated by earlier scholarship. 
For the first generation after the Fall, Constantinople was the lost paradise to be reclaimed, 
the ancient home to which the Rhomaioi ought to return. The shocking events of the conquest, 
nevertheless, soon prompted contemporaries to seek foci of identity other than the collapsed 
imperial state apparatus which the capital encapsulated. At the highpoint of the Nicaean Empire, 
and particularly under Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258), the lustre of the Queen of Cities was 
considerably dimmed; for a brief period, at least, even the official imperial self-representation 
broke free of the Constantinople-centred outlook. The old capital was accused of failing its duty 
as guardian of the empire and was likened to a negligent shepherd who did not protect his flock. 
However, the myth of Constantinople was later revived and used to full propagandist effect by the 
Palaiologan regime in order to promote its achievements and bolster its legitimacy.
Thus, rather than being a constant of Byzantine self-identification, the significance of 
Constantinople ebbed and flowed for more than a century. The paper explores the political and 
ideological context of these transformations and their impact on Byzantine collective identity. It 
looks into the role of particular groups and individuals in adopting and promoting specific attitudes 
towards the imperial city.
Contemporary epideictic oratory, such as imperial encomia and praise of cities, constitutes 
a key corpus of sources for evaluating the ‘public’ image of Constantinople. The comparisons and 
contrasts, for example, between Theodore II’s encomium of Nicaea and Theodore Metochites’ 
encomia of both Nicaea and Constantinople are revealing of the attitudes of their authors as well as 
of the priorities of the audience and the mental climate of the time. 

---

597