Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη

αναλυτική αναζήτηση

 ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
z
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Αναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΑΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΒΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΓΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΔΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΕΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΖΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΗΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΘΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΙΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΚΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΛΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΜΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΝΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΞΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΟΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΠΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΡΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΣΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΤΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΥΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΦΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΧΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΨΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα Ω

Populace of Constantinople

Συγγραφή : Merianos Gerasimos (20/9/2007)
Μετάφραση : Loumakis Spyridon , (proofread.) Kurkuvelos Pia Christine

Για παραπομπή: Merianos Gerasimos, "Populace of Constantinople",
Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=11813>
Λαός της Κωνσταντινούπολης (26/1/2012 v.1) Populace of Constantinople (21/6/2010 v.1) 
 

1. Introductory remarks about the composition of the populace of Constantinople

The “populace”of Constantinople, understood with the political meaning of the term, did not include all of the city's inhabitants. Particular groups (e.g. tradesmen and simple craftsmen, shopkeepers, laborers, fishermen, servants, and beggars) composed the populace, the "demos" of the source, which composed the largest group of the population in the capital but the poorest one in its majority.1 The existence of fortune and reputation created the difference between the "mesoi" (middle class) (merchants, ship-owners, craftsmen and others) and the populace. Often, Byzantine authors, especially those who expressed aristocratic ideals, placed these two social strata together under terms such as "mass" and "mob".2 However, aside from their snobbery, a reality appeared through their words: all those who were under-privileged, that is the tax payers, belonged in the mass, so from this point of view the “mesoi” (middle class) did as well.3 Nonetheless, the “mesoi” (middle class) must not be confused with the “populace”, since their financial importance over the course of the centuries was such that in periods of financial distress they themselves reinforced the state.

2. Early Byzantine period: the demos (populace) of the city and the demoi (circus factions) of the Hippodrome

The particular importance of the populace of Constantinople4 can be observed from its foundation, when Constantine the Great (324-337) endowed the demos of the Byzantine capital with the Hippodrome and with the food-distribution measure of the civilian annona,5 recognizing through his former action the civil space where the ceremonial juxtaposition between the emperor and the populace took place, while through the latter action the function of consumption. The prototype in this sector for the new capital was again Rome.6 Nevertheless, the demos of Constantinople cannot be compared to the dominant demos of Rome, whose institutional place stemmed from the Roman legacy; on the contrary, the institutional place of the demos of Constantinople was derived from its participation in imperial ceremonial celebrations, or from the foundation of the capital by Constantine the Great, since from him the demos borrowed its legalizing strength.7

The populace of Constantinople, though just theoretically, constituted one of the three “political forces” (the other two were the senate and the army) that gave their approval in favour of the person of the new emperor, ratifying, thus, his legitimacy.8 The populace was not limited to just expressing its opinion about the emperor during the process of his election, but could judge him for his successful or unsuccessful policies and his Orthodoxy during all of his reign. The Hippodrome, which constituted the main meeting point of the populace of Constantinople, was the place in which Constantine the Great had granted the populace the right to freely express its opinion since 331.9 Only at the Hippodrome could the populace come in such direct contact with the emperor,10 where it could also ask for the replacement or the punishment of much hated office-holders.11

The populace gathered at the Hippodrome, aside from occasions of grand ceremonies, imperial enthronements and military triumphs, mainly to watch chariot races. There the populace was divided to the Venetoi (Blues) and the Greens, as happened long ago at other cities, Procopios informs.12 The circus factions (demoi) constituted those parts of the populace, organized for chariot races, that supported their teams, and even the emperors supported one or the other circus faction of the Hippodrome.

The circus factions stemmed from the Roman hippodrome, but at Byzantium they acquired a political function surpassing the capital and its Hippodrome.13 The circus factions probably did not take a general stance in relation to the political and religious issues; they followed, more or less, agitators who either looked after their own interests or served high ranking persons, or expressed the general attitude prevailing within the city.14 However, we can observe some social and religious «tendencies» inside the circus factions: the Venetoi were the minority, more aristocratic and orthodox, whereas the Greens were the majority, more popular and showed an inclination towards Monophysitism.15 These characteristics defined the terms of the conflicts between the demoi.

Constantinople during the 6th century was composed of various communities divided by language, religion and regional identity. Out on the streets of the city one could have heard a variety of languages, but this national heterogeneity was absolutely natural in the centre of the empire where decisions were made, attracting from the provinces men in search of better luck as well as refugees. The capital was extremely crowded (for example, it is calculated that Constantinople around 600 had 300.000-500.000 inhabitants)16 and this suffocating gathering of people, combined with financial misery, accentuated the social tension that was also being stirred up by the national, religious and sport rivalries.17

The disturbances and the uprisings of the populace that had started at the Hippodrome were a common phenomenon, but the most popular uprising of the populace was the Nika Riot (532) that nearly overthrew Justinian I (527-565). The financial misery, the suppression and the injustices of hated office-holders against the populace had prepared from long ago the ground for the uprising, which prevailed for a few days in the capital thanks to the union and the reconciliation of the circus factions.18 Finally, after various plots on the government's part to disunite the populace, Justinian’s generals Belisarios, Narses and Moundos intruded the Hippodrome by surprise, where the populace had gathered to crown the nobleman Hypatios as emperor, and slaughtered around 35.000 men.19

3. Middle and late Byzantine period: guilds and assemblies of the people

The circus factions still existed, despite the serious blow that Justinian inflicted upon them, and often played an important role during the next years, as happened with the overthrow of the emperor Maurice (582-602) by Phocas (602-610) in 602, and the overthrow of Phocas by Herakleios (610-641) in 610.20

The populace was a factor the emperors always took into consideration – always at various degrees – since it remained a «constitutional body» which in the end could not only participate in the emperor’s election, but could dethrone him as well. The general approval of the emperor and his policies by the populace formed an important support to monarchy, a fact that was not taken for granted and that urged many, especially sharp-sighted emperors to renew it. Thus, they would ask for the opinion of the populace in state affairs or they would keep it informed in order to achieve its approval.21 Herakleios, for example, started negotiations with the ruler of the Avars, accompanied by high ranking dignitaries and by representatives of the classes of merchants and handicrafts, as well as by representatives of the Greens and the Venetoi; also, Leo III (717-741) explained the measures he took against the icons at speeches addressed to the populace.22

The impression is given that the circus factions ceased to function as a means of political activity at the beginning of the 9th century or even earlier,23 resulting in only having a decorative role during official ceremonies,24 though there are different opinions about the diminution of their political importance and the date that this happened.25 Around the 10th century and thereafter, these groups seem to be identified with the guilds.26 From the time of Basil II (976-1025), the emperors took into consideration the wealthy guilds, which came to exercise great political influence during the 11th century, as did the populace on the whole.27 In 1042 the masses of the populace of Constantinople overthrew Michael V (1041-1042), whose fall marked the consolidation of the populace of the capital as a countable political power, maintaining its influence until the end of the 11th century, when Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) managed to controlled it.28 It should be noted that the emperors of this period would address at times the populace as well as the senate.29

Nevertheless, during the period 1081-1180, that is from the accession of Alexios I Komnenos to the throne and the establishment of the military aristocracy of the landowners until the death of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), the senate, the guilds and the masses of the people were confined to a ceremonial role and were put under strict control. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that right after the end of that period, the particular bodies regained, more or less, the roles they possessed before 1081.30

With the exception of the confinement of its activity during the period 1081-1180, the populace decisively contributed to the political life in the 11th and 12th centuries. During the 162 years that intervened from the dethronement of Michael V until the Fall of 1204, the inhabitants of the capital were involved in successful uprisings and “demonstrations” against the government more than 14 times.31 A characteristic example of populace’s catalytic role at the end of the 12th century is the rise and the fall of Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185).

An allusion has already been made to the convocation of assemblies in which the populace participated in order for imperial decisions to be approved, an old practice32 that the last Palaiologoi, however, widely used. Although we do not know the exact composition of the assemblies during the later period, it is possible that besides the senators, the wealthiest of the rest of the inhabitants, who had their own “authority”, took part in these.33 Indicative is the praise that Manuel Chrysoloras addressed to Manuel II Palaiologos (1391-1425), because the emperor would notify his subjects his plans and would ask for their help.34 Undoubtedly, the populace of Constantinople formed a factor that, during the period before the Fall, limited the imperial omnipotence that was after all gradually weakening during the entire Palaiologan period. As a consequence, the last Byzantine emperors were obliged to keep the populace informed and to seek its approval35 in order to apply their policies upon issues such as the Union of the Churches or the Byzantine-Turkish relations.

1. Charanis, P., “The Role of the People in the Political Life of the Byzantine Empire: The Period of the Comneni and the Palaeologi”, Byzantine Studies/Études Byzantines 5/1-2 (1978), pp. 69-70.

2. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), pp. 327, 346-347.

3. It is indicative of the fact that actually free persons at Byzantium were considered the privileged ones who were not subjected to any form of taxation, since the Byzantine meaning of freedom had above all a financial dimension. This was reasonable for a concentric state, whose incomes derived mainly from taxes. See Kazhdan, A., “The Concepts of Freedom (eleutheria) and Slavery (duleia) in Byzantium”, in Makdisi, G. - Sourdel, D. - Sourdel-Thomine, J., (ed.), La notion de liberté au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident (Penn - Paris - Dumbarton Oaks Colloquia, IV, Session des 12-15 October 1982, Paris 1985), pp. 216-218, 223-224.

4. The populace was called populus in Latin, and δήμος or δήμοι in Greek, two terms that according to Alan Cameron were identical, at least during most of the times (see Cameron, A., “Demes and Factions”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 67 [1974] p. 90-91).

5. Σωζομενός, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, ΙΙ.3.5, French translation by A.-J. Festugière with the Greek text of the edition of J. Bidez, Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, livres I-II (Sources chrétiennes 306, Paris 1983), p. 238.

6. Dagron, G., Η γέννηση μιας πρωτεύουσας. Η Κωνσταντινούπολη και οι θεσμοί της από το 330 ως το 451, trans. Μ. Λουκάκη (Athens 2000), p. 346.

7. Dagron, G., Η γέννηση μιας πρωτεύουσας. Η Κωνσταντινούπολη και οι θεσμοί της από το 330 ως το 451, trans. Μ. Λουκάκη (Athens 2000), p. 362.

8. See Καραγιαννόπουλος, Ι.Ε., Η πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Thessaloniki 1992), p. 47 f.· Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 71.

9. Λουγγής, Τ., Ιουστινιανός Πέτρος Σαββάτιος. Κοινωνία, πολιτική και ιδεολογία τον 6ο μ.Χ. αιώνα (Thessaloniki 2005), pp. 144-146.

10. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 76.

11. Καραγιαννόπουλος, Ι.Ε., Η πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Thessaloniki 1992), p. 52.

12. Προκόπιος, Ὑπὲρ τῶν πολέμων, Ι.24.2, ed. J. Haury, G. Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia I: De bellis libri I-IV (Lipsiae 1962), pp. 123.9-11. At this point it must be clarified that the terms «circus faction of the Venetoi» and «circus faction of the Greens» possess a much closer meaning in relation to the terms «οι δήμοι» (the crowds) and «ο δήμος» (demos), which preserves its ancient meaning, declaring the whole body of the free citizens of a city (See Λουγγής, Τ., Ιουστινιανός Πέτρος Σαββάτιος. Κοινωνία, πολιτική και ιδεολογία τον 6ο μ.Χ. αιώνα [Thessaloniki 2005], p. 144). At the beginning there were four circus factions, including, besides the Greens and the Blues, the Whites and the Rousioi (the Reds), but in the course of the 5th and 6th century, the Rousioi were assimilated with the Greens, and the Whites with the Venetoi. See Λουγγής, Τ.Κ., Επισκόπηση βυζαντινής ιστορίας Α΄ (324-1204) (Μελέτες ΚΜΕ, Athens2 1998), pp. 113-114.

13. Dagron, G., Η γέννηση μιας πρωτεύουσας. Η Κωνσταντινούπολη και οι θεσμοί της από το 330 ως το 451, trans. Μ. Λουκάκη (Athens 2000), p. 337. See also Beck, H.-G., “Senat und Volk von Konstantinopel. Probleme der byzantinischen Verfassungsgeschichte”, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1966, 6 (München 1966).

14. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 76.

15. Λουγγής, Τ.Κ., Επισκόπηση βυζαντινής ιστορίας Α΄ (324-1204) (Μελέτες ΚΜΕ, Athens2 1998), p. 114· Cf. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 76.

16. Magdalino, P., “Μεσαιωνική Κωνσταντινούπολη: Κτισμένο περιβάλλον και αστική ανάπτυξη”, in Λαΐου, Α.Ε.,(editor-in-chief), Οικονομική ιστορία του Βυζαντίου από τον 7ο έως τον 15ο αιώνα Β΄ (Athens 2006), p. 231.

17. Croke, B., “Justinian’s Constantinople”, in Maas M.(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge 2005), pp. 73-76.

18. Προκόπιος, Ὑπὲρ τῶν πολέμων, Ι.24.17, ed. J. Haury, G. Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia I: De bellis libri I-IV (Lipsiae 1962), p. 126.17-23.

19. For the Nika Riot see Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Αι., Βυζαντινή Ιστορία Α΄ 324-610 (Thessaloniki2 1996), pp. 266-271· Greatrex, G., “The Nika Riot: A Reappraisal”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 117 (1997), pp. 60-86. Λουγγής, T., Ιουστινιανός Πέτρος Σαββάτιος. Κοινωνία, πολιτική και ιδεολογία τον 6ο μ.Χ. αιώνα (Thessaloniki 2005), pp. 146-161.

20. See Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Αι., Βυζαντινή Ιστορία Α΄ 324-610 (Thessaloniki2 1996), pp. 325-327, 330-331· Λουγγής, Τ.Κ., Επισκόπηση βυζαντινής ιστορίας Α΄ (324-1204) (Μελέτες ΚΜΕ, Athens2 1998), pp. 144, 147.

21. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), pp. 77-80. Cf. Καραγιαννόπουλος, Ι.Ε., Η πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Thessaloniki 1992), pp. 35-37.

22. For Herakleios see Πασχάλιον Χρονικόν, ed. L. Dindorf, Chronicon Paschale I (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Bonnae 1832), p. 712.12-19. For Leo III see Νικηφόρος πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ἱστορία σύντομος, 60, ed. And English trans. C. Mango, Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 13, Washington, D.C. 1990), p. 128.6-7. Cf. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 77-78.

23. Charanis, P., “The Role of the People in the Political Life of the Byzantine Empire: The Period of the Comneni and the Palaeologi”, Byzantine Studies / Études Byzantines 5/1-2 (1978), p. 71 and note 7.

24. Καραγιαννόπουλος, Ι.Ε., Η πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Thessaloniki 1992), p. 53.

25. See for example Cameron, A., Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford 1976), p. 297 f.·Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 77.

26. Beck, H.-G., Η βυζαντινή χιλιετία, trans. Δ. Κούρτοβικ (Athens2 1992), p. 77· Vryonis, Sp. Jr., “Byzantine Δημοκρατία and the Guilds in the Eleventh Century”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), p. 314.

27. Garland, L., “Political Power and the Populace in Byzantium Prior to the Fourth Crusade”, Byzantinoslavica 53 (1992), p. 19.

28. Angold, M., Η Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία από το 1025 έως το 1204. Μία πολιτική ιστορία, trans. Ε. Καργιανιώτη, supervised by Π.Α. Αγαπητός (Athens2 1997), pp. 106-107, 241.

29. Vryonis, Sp. Jr., “Byzantine Δημοκρατία and the Guilds in the Eleventh Century”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), p. 309 f.

30. Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c. 300-1450 (Cambridge 1985), p. 586.

31. Garland, L., “Political Power and the Populace in Byzantium Prior to the Fourth Crusade”, Byzantinoslavica 53 (1992), p. 51.

32. Καραγιαννόπουλος, Ι.Ε., Η πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Thessaloniki 1992), pp. 55-59· Charanis, P., “The Role of the People in the Political Life of the Byzantine Empire: The Period of the Comneni and the Palaeologi”, Byzantine Studies / Études Byzantines 5/1-2 (1978), pp. 75-78.

33. Κιουσοπούλου, Τ., Βασιλεύς ή Οικονόμος. Πολιτική εξουσία και ιδεολογία πριν την Άλωση (Athens 2007), pp. 160-163.

34. Μανουήλ Χρυσολωράς, Λόγος πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Μανουὴλ Β΄ Παλαιολόγο, ed. Χ.Γ. Πατρινέλης, Δ.Ζ. Σοφιανός (Athens 2001), p. 62.23-36. Cf. Κιουσοπούλου, Τ., Βασιλεύς ή Οικονόμος. Πολιτική εξουσία και ιδεολογία πριν την Άλωση (Athens 2007), pp. 161, 167-168.

35. Κιουσοπούλου, Τ., Βασιλεύς ή Οικονόμος. Πολιτική εξουσία και ιδεολογία πριν την Άλωση (Athens 2007), pp. 181-189.
     
 
 
 
 
 

Δελτίο λήμματος
 
press image to open photo library
 

>>>
 
 
 
 
 
 

copyright © 2008, ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ

Το έργου συγχρηματοδοτείται σε ποσοστό 80% από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΤΠΑ) και κατά 20% από εθνικούς πόρους στο πλαίσιο του Επιχειρησιακού Προγράμματος "Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας" του Γ΄ ΚΠΣ.