Search

Demetrios Chomatenos, the archbishop of Ohrid, mentions several patriarchs of Constantinople in his numerous acts, particularly those whose decisions were used in the deliberations of his archbishopric's court. An analysis of the fashion in which the patriarchs of Constantinople were referred to in the official acts of the archbishop of Ohrid is conducted in order to offer a more nuanced picture of Chomatenos' stance toward his spiritual adversary in Nicaea and a comparison with the ways in which he addressed his contemporary, the Nicene patriarch Germanos.

The paper analyzes Introduction to Nikephoros Bryennios' historical work Yleistoriaz, both its major part, written by an anonymous author, and its last chapter, which is the work of Bryennios himself. It is argued that the Introduction to Bryennios' History by Anonymous testifies the significance of the work in Byzantium of the Komnenoi, and that Nikephoros Bryennios chose consciously the title Material of History, in attempt to stress the objectivity and the truthfulness of his writing.

The paper analyzes the well-known historical works of George Akropolites and George Pachymeres from the viewpoint of their literary composition structure, lexica and narrative techniques used for describing events and personalities from Bulgaria and Serbia. An attempt is made to surpass the 'traditional' methodology and the usually applied standard approach that focuses almost exclusively to the search for the 'strong' historical facts in these literary works par excellence, in that way overlooking their strong literary character, careful expressions, sometimes evident and sometimes more subtle style differences whose purpose was to underline the focal points and the conclusions of the content of the stories - in short, the information and the stories about Bulgaria and Serbia by Akropolites and Pachymeres are analyzed in their entirety, viewed as the integral parts of the complex literary works, and not as isolated episodes, divided from the rest of the narrative. The ways in which George Akropolites depicted and described deaths of the Bulgarian rulers were studied as one of the best examples of his conscious endeavors to bring the literary style of his History in accord with his own judgments about the rulers of the neighboring country. Scenes of death, conspicuously frequent in Akropolites' relatively short historical work, play an important role in characterizing personalities, and the same principle which Akropolites uses for judging the Byzantines is applied to the Bulgarians as well: generally positive opinion about somebody's life and achievements is emphasized with a depiction of his death in a positive way (Ivan II Asen), and vice versa, Akropolites' 'villains' receive their horrible deaths as a deserved punishment for their bad deeds (Kalojan's death). On the other hand, Akropolites' scarce information about Serbs is supplemented with his depiction of the Serbian king Uroš (1243-1276), and his stance after the death of John Batatzes from the funerary oration to the same emperor, which has been completely overlooked by the scholars until now. Akropolites confirms that the Empire of Nicaea and king Uroš's Serbia were strongly connected, and that only after the death of the 'mighty' John Batatzes Serbian king allied himself with the ruler of Epiros, despotes Michael II Angelos. More complex in structure, language, narrative techniques and expressions than Akropolites' is without doubt the voluminous History by George Pachymeres. In the context of Pachymeres' depiction of the Bulgarians and Serbs, the chapters that describe Byzantine marital diplomacy regarding Bulgaria and Serbia are studied in details, with the emphasis placed equally on the literary analysis of the corresponding chapters, and on the concordance between the content and style, author's attitudes and expressions used, Pachymeres' intention and the form he had chosen, which all contribute in the end to the better understanding of the historical circumstances, as well. The following chapters of Pachymeres' History, forming the comprehensive narrative segments, were examined in detail: - the description of the marriage of the Bulgarian tsar Constantine Tich with the niece of the emperor Michael VIII (Pachymérès II/ V, 3: 441-445); - the unsuccessful attempt of alliance by marriage between the Serbian prince Milutin and the second daughter of the emperor Michael VIII (Pachymérès II/ V, 6: 453-457); - negotiations for the marriage between now king Milutin and Simonis, young daughter of the emperor Andronikos II, with all the circumstances that followed the complex negotiating process (Pachymérès III/ IX, 30: 299-303 Pachymérès III/ IX, 31: 303-305; Pachymérès IV/ X, 1: 307-309; Pachymérès IV X, 2: 309-313; Pachymérès IV/ X, 3: 313; Pachymérès IV/ X, 4: 313-315 Pachymérès IV/ X, 5: 315; Pachymérès IV/ X, 8: 319-321; Pachymérès IV/ X, 9 321-327).

The paper analyses the political tendencies of the first half of the long reign of Emperor Manuel Komnenos, and his relationship with the members of the educated elite. It is argued that Manuel Komnenos made a conscious effort to free himself from the influence of the prominent intellectuals with whom he could not establish satisfying cooperation or from whom he was unable to command sufficient political obedience, since there was a significant generational difference between them, which also led to a political differentiation between the men of the old regime, and Manuel, and his surroundings.

Numerous rhetorical writings of the Comnenian period constitute a fruitful field of research, both with respect to historical data, i.e. hard historical facts hidden, though still recognizable, behind the peculiar and somewhat abstract mode of expression of the authors of the twelfth century, and with regard to the poetics of the literary works themselves, i.e. the internal elements characteristic not only for the genre chosen, but also for each particular author. A comparative, historical and literary approach to these works renders their sense clearer and their complex allusions more readily understood. This is a matter of some importance, since allusions constitute one of the basic elements of historical rhetoric, which reached its peak at the time of Emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143-1180), especially during the first half of his reign, i.e. till the end of the fifties of the twelfth century. The poetry of Theodore Prodromes and of the somewhat younger Anonymous ('Prodromos') Manganeios is an excellent example of this intertwining of historical and literary elements, i.e. of the presentation of historical data through rhetorical patterns. One has to concentrate on individual works attempting to determine, as far as possible, the date of composition, the circumstances of writing and the purpose of a particular poem, the occasion for which it was written and the character of the expected audience, in order to better understand both the poetry written by these two rhetoricians and the individual features of the authors, as well as their respective positions in the circle around Emperor Manuel Komnenos. The poems dealt with in the present paper stand out for calling the Serbs by their real name. This naming practice was invariably employed by both rhetoricians in cases when new achievements of the basileus were to be announced and proclaimed immediately after the event, on the occasions of first reports, first celebrations of the new victories and accomplishments of the emperor, in short, whenever precision and accuracy of expression were imperative. Comparable to contemporary news and reports, under these circumstances both Theodore Prodromes and Anony mous Manganeios insisted on the real names of the defeated peoples and on the realistic description of the circumstances under which Byzantine, i.e. imperial, victories were gained. Writing soon after the event, these two poets had neither time nor interest in availing themselves of the artificial, ideologically loaded designations of the adversaries of Byzantium. On the contrary, their aim was to clearly point out the identity of the defeated barbarians by using concrete language and precise naming and to thus announce the emperor's victory over them. Within these limits, they could, of course, deploy their literary skills in different ways and put their poetic art on display through impressive and euphonic images, depicting the ideal of the basileus on the one hand and mocking those who dared stand up against him on the other. In contrast to innumerable encomia dedicated to Emperor Manuel Komnenos on different occasions, also including some writings of the two poets under discussion themselves, the current topicality of some of the their poems bears witness to the short time that had passed between the time they were composed and the event they described. It is in these poems that the Serbs are invariably called by their actual name, without the deployment of synonyms, as to explain or qualify the ethnonym (see in the first place W. Horandner Theodoras Prodromes. Historische Gedichte, Wien 1974, XXX. Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens grecs II, ed. E. Miller, Paris, 1881 761-763 (Manganeios, no. 26)). In order to get a better grasp of the overall poetics of these two poets, it is of some relevance to investigate the reasons underlying the use of particular ethnonyms. In this case it is the precise reference to the Serbs as the defeated enemies of the emperor, not to the Dalmatians, which is the name given to the Serbs in many of their poems which summarize the events of the past years and which are consequentially not conceived as depicting current events. An analysis of the poems of Theodore Prodromos and Anonymous Manganeios devoted to Manuel's expedition against the Serbs in 1149 enables us to better assess the documentary value of their verses, the connection of Prodromos' poem with the later historians of the Comnenian period, John Cinnamus and especially Nicetas Choniates, as well as the differences between the two authors (for instance, Prodromos' view from Constantinople as opposed to the position of the immediate witness assumed by Manganeios). What both poets unequivocally confirm in their political verses is that the purpose of a poem dictated the style in which it was written and the strength of rhetoric used in it.