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