Some remarks on the divergences in the narrative of george akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Some remarks on the divergences in the narrative of george akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes

Bojana D. Pavlovic

Institute for Byzantine Studies of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Republic of S erbia

Abstract

This paper deals with the differences between the texts of the two main sources for the 13 th-century Byzantine history - XpoviKp сиуурафр of George Akropolites and Envoys Chronicle of Theodore Skoutariotes - who give an account of the events from 1204 to 1261. The Chronicle of Theodore Skoutariotes relies on the historical work of George Akropolites to a great extent, although significant additions to or omissions from Akropolites' narrative can be noticed. The greatest divergence from the text of Akropolites is in the portrayal of the Laskarid emperors and the first Palaiologos, Michael VIII. Skoutariotes expressed positive attitude towards the Laskarids in the praises of their imperial virtues. In respect to Michael VIII, however, Skoutariotes tended to mitigate the excessive commendation of Akropolites by omitting certain epithets, or, by a careful word play that sometimes resulted in completely opposite statements compared with the ones we find in Akropolites. The differences in the accounts of the two writers can be explained by Skoutariotes' employment of other sources, unknown to us today, and also by the fact that he included his eye-witness account in the Chronicle he compiled. The additional details provided by Skoutariotes are corroborated with the information we find in other surviving sources, a fact which gives his testimony much more significance than previously believed. Apart from that, the author rises an important question of the employment of Skoutariotes' Chronicle by later historians. The article consists of the following sections: Introduction; George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes. Their works; Methodology; Results and general remarks; as well as Divergences concerning the reign of Theodore I Laskaris (1205-1221); John III Vatatzes (1221-1254), Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258); Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259-1282); and Conclusion.

Key words: George Akropolites, Theodore Skoutariotes, history of Byzantium, Chronicle, Laskarids, Michael VIII Palaiologos.

НЕКОТОРЫЕ ЗАМЕЧАНИЯ К РАСХОЖДЕНИЯМ В НАРРАТИВЕ ГЕОРГИЯ АКРОПОЛИТА И ФЕОДОРА СКУТАРИОТА1

Бояна Драган Павлович

Институт византийских исследований, Сербская Академия наук и искусств, г. Белград, Республика Сербия

Аннотация

Исследование нацелено на анализ различий между текстами двух основных источников по византийской истории XIII в. - «XpoviKp оиуурафр» Георгия Акрополита и «Envoys хро\лкф> Феодора Ску- тариота. Обе хроники описывают события 1204-1261 годов. «Хроника» Феодора Скутариота опирается на исторический труд Георгия Акрополита. Следуя ему, Феодор Скутариот охватывает обширный период истории Никейской империи и последующих лет. Он делает значительные добавления или пропуски. Наиболее значимым различием двух исторических трудов оказывается изображение императоров династии Ласкари- дов и первого Палеолога - Михаила VIII. Положительное отношение к Ласкаридам Феодор Скутариот выразил в похвалах их императорских добродетелей. Однако относительно Михаила VIII Феодор Скутариот стремится удержаться от непомерных восхвалений, характерных для Георгия Акрополита. Феодор Скутариот отказывается от использования некоторых эпитетов, или, играя словами, добивается прямо противоположного эффекта своих высказываний в сравнении с «Хроникой» Георгия Акрополита. Различия в изложении исторических событий у двух писателей могут отчасти объясняться использованием отличных, не дошедших до сегодняшнего дня, источников. Сыграл свою роль тот факт, что Феодор Скутариот являлся очевидцем некоторых описываемых им в его «Хронике» событий. Другие сохранившиеся источники позволяют увидеть особую значимость свидетельств Феодора Скутариота о разных событиях, которая в историографии явно недооценена. Важен и интересен вопрос об использовании «Хроники» Феодора Скутариота византийскими историками последующего времени.-Статья состоит из разделов «Введение», «Георгий Акрополит и Феодор Скутариот. Их труды», «Методология», «Результаты и общие замечания», в том числе разделы «Расхождения, касающиеся правления Феодора I Ласкариса (1205-1221)», «Иоанн III Ватаци (1221-1254)», «Феодор II Ласкарис (1254-1258)», «Михаил VIII Палеолог (1259-1282)», и «Заключение».

Ключевые слова: Георгий Акрополит, Феодор Скутариот, история Византии, хроника, Ласкариды, Михаил VIII Палеолог.

Introduction

A lot of pages have been dedicated to Byzantine historiography and its characteristics only to conclude that each work has its own features and that each writer is unique, no matter how minor his writing may seem at first glance [36]. Certainly, there exist common places and common elements since the works stem from the same culture and were intended for an audience (we refer to the educated elite) that shared the same intellectual views as the writers [10]. This being said it is obvious that challenges of dealing with Byzantine historiography do not seize to exist. They are rather augmenting, enhancing the will of the researchers to dive deep below the surface of the text and strive for the unanswered questions, or better yet, for the unasked questions that will provide new and unexplored paths for further research. When it comes to the 13th century, Byzantine history challenges come from the mere fact that there existed two strong political currents, pro- and anti- Palaiologan that dictated the tone of the historiographical works of the period. Complex political, social and ecclesiastical issues were treated from different angles and have come down to us in the form of opposing historical texts. Further research on this subject, as well as new methodological approaches are being explored [32]. Even though it is certain that we do not possess all of the sources for the period in question we have just about enough information to get the general idea of how conflicting these two parties were. In the light of the above mentioned in this paper we shall analyze the main narrative sources for the history of the so-called “Byzantine Empire in Exile”, i. e. Nicaean Empire, the works of George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes. Although the two texts may seem quite similar at first glance, there are serious and non-negligible differences. This has firstly been noted by A. Heisenberg who dealt with Skoutariotes' additions and divergences to the text ofAkropolites [20, S. 277-302]. A valuable Russian translation of these additions was later made by P.I. Zhavoronkov [1, c. 315-336]. (For the differences between the Russian and English translation cf. [5]). As opposed to the work of Akropolites, which has been thoroughly analyzed [1; 16] (See: [29, S. 442-447, 477-478; 66, o. 3259]), Skoutariotes' Chronicle has been unrightfully disregarded in the past. Apart from A. Heisenberg, very few scholars have paid more attention to this Chronicle [3]. However, modern Byzantinists have paid much more attention to this work realizing its importance [55; 56; 57; 63]. And its importance lies precisely in the divergence from the text of Akropolites. The most significant difference rests in the portrayal of the Laskarid emperors (especially John III Vatatzes and Theodore II Laskaris) and the first Palaiologan emperor, Michael VIII. Therefore, it is the goal of this paper to carry out a more thorough analysis of these differences, as well as to pose a few questions with respect to the purpose of their composition and the audience they were intended for. Before we go into further inquiry chief information about the two writers and their works should be provided.

George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes. Their works

George Akropolites was born in an aristocratic family, in Constantinople, most probably around 1217 [16, p. 6, n. 13; 46, no. 518; 51, p. 49]. His social and political engagement began in Nicea, the capital city of the “Empire in Exile”, at the court and in the service of the emperor John III Vatatzes. Akropolites was also educated at the imperial court along with several of his peers and future emperor's servants. He attended the classes of the most learned men of his time, Nikephoros Blemmydes and Theodore Hexapterigos [16, p. 8-9]. Akropolites was subsequently entrusted with the education of the heir to the throne, Theodore II Laskaris (12541258). Good relations between the student and his teacher, testified in the correspondence of the two intellectuals [53], were disrupted after Theodore II's rise to power and due to the emperor's illness which Akropolites informs us of2. Further engagement and rise in status Akropolites continued as “megas logothetes” of the Laskarids and also under Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259-1282), with whom he was in family relations through his wife Eudokia, the emperor's cousin3. It is assumed that Akropolites got the title of megas logothetes as early as 1255 from the emperor Theodore II Laskaris [16, p. 2223]. As “megas logothetes” Akropolites was ordered to travel to Lyons where, in 1274, he signed a document proclaiming the union of the Churches. The clash with the Arsenites, the followers and supporters of the patriarch Arsenios and fierce opponents of the policy of Michael Palaiologos, ensued in which George Akropolites also had an important share [16, p. 14-16; 18, p. 409.26-411.2]. The great logothetes ofMichael VIII died in 1282, the year when the emperor, whom he had served for nearly thirty years, also passed away [16, p. 16].

The work of George Akropolites, XpoviKX оиуураф'л, written probably in the 1260s, contains a detailed but very biased portrayal of the events in the Nicaean Empire with an emphasis on military and political history [29, S. 442-446]. (About the time of the creation of the work cf. [16, p. 31-34]). It gives an account of the affairs starting from 1204, the fall of Constantinople to the Latins, and ends abruptly in 1261, right after the description of Michael VIII's triumphal entry into the Queen of the cities. Akropolites' work is mostly distinguished by the negative description of the emperors of the Laskarid dynasty while his positive hero and, thus, one of the leading characters of his work, is Michael VIII Palaiologos. The role of the most negative hero of Akropolites' work was given to the emperor Theodore II Laskaris, either because of the personal animosity of the historian towards the son and successor of John III Vatatzes [16, p. 2934, 39-41], or due to the fact that Akropolites, with such a hostile portrayal of Theodore II, wanted, in fact, to emphasize the positive character and virtue of Michael VIII. It should not be forgotten that Xpovixx onyypa^'n was written during his reign and in the City recaptured by the Byzantines in the time of the first Palaiologan emperor. Akropolites' work was a program history, a fact that can be supported by Michael VIII's own statements. Namely, in the typicon for the Monastery of St. Demetrios of the Palaiologoi-Kelibara in Constantinople the emperor says: “As to how the members of the family placed the prosperity to be found here below second to their concern about living in a manner pleasing to God which would lead them to inherit the life hidden in Him (God. - B. P), we shall refer (the reader. - B. P) to the discourses and books composed by the learned. For these give an account not only of their dignities and honors, the great influence they had with rulers, and how they accumulated vast riches, no less of their combat in wartime, their generalship, and their valor, but they also inform us of their erection of religious houses, holy convents and monasteries, their donation of property, their aid to the poor, their concern for the infirm, and their protection of the indigent of all sorts, and all their pious deeds which bore fruit before God” [30, p. 449] (Also see [8, p. 1242]). Of these learned men who wrote about the Palaiologan family members practically nothing is known, but it is possible that the emperor referred, among others, to Niketas Choniates, who mentions some of the emperor's family members in his History, and

Jacob, the archbishop of Ochrid, who dedicated several poems to the memory of Michael VIII's father Andronikos. Ultimately, the emperor could have also referred to the work of George Akropolites, who started writing before the typicon was issued [8, p. 1240, n. 1]. Therefore, it would not be wrong to assume that the emperor instigated his megas logothetes to write the history of his reign. It is clear that the chief object of Akropolites' work was to deal with Michael's rise to power. His work ends suddenly, with the year 1261, therefore, there is no mention of significant but controversial matters related to Michael's coming to the throne. George Akropolites, an eyewitness and a participant in the events, does not provide any information on blinding of John IV Laskaris, a legitimate heir to the throne. Interesting enough, his History does not even reach the point of discussing the Church matters. Therefore, it can only be speculated about the reasons for, as it seems to us today, the abrupt end of the work. It should not be completely ruled out, however, that the work of megas logothetes had a continuation, unknown to us today, for it has been established that some of his works were burnt at the Council of Blachernae in 1283 4. It was at that time that the part of his History, which could have dealt with the later years of the reign of Michael Palaiologos, above all with his coronation in Constantinople and the negotiations with the papacy, could have been burnt5. If, indeed, Akropolites' History dealt with the later events, why is it that his close follower Skoutariotes, clearly a sympathizer of the Laskarid party, also ended his Chronicle with the year 1261, since it is assumed that he compiled his work in the late 1280s? Be that as it may, the fact remains that the “sin” of Michael Palaiologos, committed at the very beginning of his reign - the blinding and removal of the son and successor of Theodore II, John IV Laskaris, from the throne - is completely omitted from both works. In this way the rise and renewal of the Empire under Michael VIII Palaiologos - the main theme of Akropolites' History - was immortalized, although, based on the account of Skoutariotes, it is clear that the restoration of the Empire began even before his time, in the time of the Laskarid emperors. It does not escape notice, though, that both of the works in question represent a counterbalance to the History of Niketas Choniates which dealt with the decline and fall of the Empire, the corruption of its rulers and decay of moral integrity of its inhabitants [50].

Not much is known about the personality of Theodore Skoutariotes [52, p. 1912-1913]. It is assumed that he was born at the end of the first half of the 13th century. Theodore Skoutariotes was “o dm t§v Ssposmv” (“the one in charge of the petitions”), he became dikaiophylax in May 1270 and afterwards “oaKskMou xyg psyakpg sk- кkna^ag”. By 1277 Theodore Skoutariotes was already hypertimos and finally, after having signed the acceptance of the Union 6, he was appointed Metropolitan of Kyzikos by Michael VIII. Morever, Theodore Skoutariotes was one of the ambassadors to the papal court together with the imperial officials and unionist supporters George Metochites and Constantine Meliteniotes [54,S. 64-65]. (Also see: [55, S. 551, Anm. 3]). Skoutariotes was removed from his position in 1283 upon the arrival of the new emperor Andronikos II, after which, as is believed, Theodore Skoutariotes began writing his Chronicle. He was exiled and retired to the Prodromos Monastery but was soon liberated without suffering further consequences. As it seems, Skoutariotes owned a very rich library and was in the possession of numerous manuscripts [56, S. 127, Anm. 2]. He was also identified as a writer of the two short legal comments, one regarding the retirement of a certain bishop and the other in respect to his appointment. Furthermore, Skoutariotes seems to have written two comments on the final part of Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidei written by Choniates, as well as on the Life of the Apostle Paul [63, p. 255-256]. Theodore Skoutariotes probably died around 1305 [70, o. 226].

With respect to his Envoys xPovtKp [64] the following should be noted. Firstly, serious doubts were expressed regarding Skoutariotes' authorship. The work was found in Marcianus gr. 407 and, based on a marginal note,

Heisenberg attributed its authorship to Theodore Skoutariotes, although the compiler of the Chronicle wished to remain anonymous as he himself stated in the introduction [64, o. 3.313]. Doubts in Skoutariotes' authorship were expressed by A. Kazhdan who pointed out that the marginal note on the manuscript speaks rather in favor of Skoutariotes' possession and not necessarily the authorship of the text [16, p. 70,n. 432]. Further research concluded that Skoutariotes is most probably the compiler of the aforementioned Chronicle, although certain scientific circles prefer to leave this question open7. If we assume that Theodore Skoutariotes is the author of the work, it is important to note that he belonged to the circle close to the patriarch Arsenios Autorianos which also enabled the writer to get acquainted with emperor Theodore II. However, Skoutariotes owed his rise in career to emperor Michael Palaiologos, who appointed him to all of his ecclesiastical offices. The fact that it was precisely during the reign of Michael Palaiologos that Skoutariotes advanced in his career did not mean he had no sympathies for the Laskarid family [16, p. 70]. It should not be forgotten that many other intellectuals of that period started their careers under Michael VIII coming forward as the advocates of the Union, only to change their views with the arrival of Andronikos II to power - Gregory of Cyprus, Nikephoros Choumnos. Quite the contrary, Theodore Skoutariotes clearly expressed his preference of the Laskarids which he was able to do more freely after 1283. Sympathies for the dethroned family and sharp criticism of the first Palaiologos were also expressed in the work of George Pachymeres who wrote his Еиуурафгка1 ^атop^аr in the 1290s, during the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos [29, S. 447-453; 66,o. 60-82; 67; 4, с. 174-175].

The Chronicle of Theodore Skoutariotes [64] (Also see [54]) is, along the History of Akropolites, one of our main sources for the study of the 13 th century Byzantine history. It is a chronicle which starts with the year of the creation of the world and describes the events until 1261, the year when the work of Akropolites suddenly stops. It is divided into two main parts - the first dealing with Biblical kings and early Byzantine period, whereas the second, more detailed, begins with the reign of Alexios I Komnenos with Choniates and Akropolites as its main sources [62,p. 774]8. Starting from 1204/1206, Skoutariotes becomes a very close follower of Akropolites' narrative with some, as has already been mentioned, significant differences. The praise of emperor Theodore II at the very end of the description of his reign, as well as the omission of the excessive glorification of the deeds of the first Palaiologos, testify to Skoutariotes' preference of the Laskarids and his connections to the pro- Laskarid circle which formed a great opposition to the rule of Michael VIII. Another anonymous writer who composed a Speech dedicated to Patriarch Arsenios, a Logos that was found among the writings of Filotheos, Metropolitan of Selimvria, also belonged to the pro-Laskarid circle [16, p. 69; 35, p. 77-78]. Skoutariotes' work is also free from stylistic and complicated phrases that distinguish the History of megas logothetes, a fact which could serve as an argument that the Chronicle was intended for a wider audience [61, p. 34, 42-43]. The issue of the audience is therefore particularly interesting given the fact that Akropolites and Skoutariotes belonged to the two opposing circles. Thought provoking is also a fact that both Akropolites and Skoutariotes owed their rise in office and social status to the emperors they later turned their quills against. Also, it is noteworthy to say that it seems Skoutariotes had neither wish nor intention to go any further in his description of the events beyond 1261. It is as if he consciously chose not to write about controversial matters, either because he had no intention to write on his own but only to collect the material and make a compilation of the works of his predecessors, or because he had no intention of justifying his position in respect to the Church union. The reasons that instigated him to take up the task of making a synopsis Skoutariotes expressed in the introductory part of his work [64,o. 3.1-4.18]. Finally, we must not rule out the possibility that the compiler's old age prevented him from continuing his task [64, o. 555.25-556.7]. Whatever the case may be, the History of megas logothetes, that narrated about the restoration of the Empire represented, because of its basic theme, a convenient reading material that was, in the hands of Theodore Skoutariotes, liberated from all the disputable places or at least alleviated to the extent to which it could have been acceptable for the supporters of both the Palaiologoi and the Laskarids (On the Arsenites as a political party cf. [65; 60]).

Methodology

A comparative study of the texts of Akropolites and Skoutariotes has been carried out in order to detect all the existing differences and to make a selection of the presented material, since not all of the dissimilarities have the significance for this research. Apart from the analysis of the two main sources close attention has been paid to the extent to which the text of Skoutariotes' Chronicle followed other sources of the period in question in order to establish the level of its dependence on Akropolites' text since it is known that Skoutariotes employed Akropolites' sentences often verbatim. At the same time, it was also important to determine to what extent Skoutariotes used other sources of the period in question, as well as his eye-witness account. Special attention has, therefore, been paid to the expressions used in the mentioned works, for phrases can tell us a lot about the social background and impact the words had on the audience which was able or unable to fully understand their meaning [58]. Moreover, our research has also consulted other sources that gave a clearer picture of the opposing parties and their attitudes in the creation of a pro- and anti- Palaiologan climate in the restored Empire (It has already been shown that Michael VIII enjoyed greater sympathies among the inhabitants of the Capital than among the people of Asia Minor, cf. [42, p. 117-118]).

Results and general remarks

The research showed that Theodore Skoutariotes had the tendency to simplify the sentence structure, sometimes even to a great extent. When relying on Niketas Choniates, Skoutariotes made even greater discrepancies in the sentence structure, as opposed to the text of Akropolites, for it is also known that Choniates wrote in highbrow language and used complicated and learned phrases [44] 9. Introductory sentences to the reign of Alexios Doukas Mourtzouflos can serve as one out of many examples for this testimony. Whereas Choniates tends to express himself in a very stylistic manner, Skoutariotes simplifies his testimony to a large extent preserving, however, the point of Choniates'narrative.

Nicetae Choniatae Historia [40, S. 565.4-9]

'Qq ohv Ka0ap6q eiq Aoukov p PaciXda pexa- kЈkdPЈuto, o pdv S5ive rcpaypaxrav pexaPoXaq Kai xo nav avaKUKpceiv dcKenxexo, co^icpaxxaq -v xo p0oq Kai xov xponov ^povnpaxxaq, Kai xo Kpuywow ayxivonv oiopevoq, dni rcaoiv Kai xo ehepyexpv dq xohq Mexravoq aimvaq avaSuopevoq dK xo™ px Kpweiv, ©q eXeye, PaciXiKov xo amopaxov Kai avaKpiPeq dv xalq rcpa^e- ci, xo 5d nepiecKeppevov Kai xpoviov.

Avravnpon cnvoytq xpovucp [64, c. 445.12-14]

'Qq ohv Ka0ap§q eiq Aoukov p PaciMa pexene- cev, o pdv ©5ive rcpaypaxrav pexaPoXaq, ^pov^pa ex©v peya Kai xo enepyexpcai aei dq xo peXXov avaPaXXopevoq.

In some cases, Skoutariotes was perceived as a metaphrasis of the works of the two historians, Choniates and Akropolites, a hypothesis that cannot be entirely supported when all the discrepancies are taken into account [16, p. 67]. Also, even though the metaphraseis of the works of Choniates and Akropolites appeared very early, it has been proven that Skoutariotes used the originals while compiling his Chronicle [69, c. 131-132].

Another important aspect of the analysis was to see whether Skoutariotes relied more on the account of Choniates or Akropolites in respect to the events both of the historians narrated about. It was concluded that Skoutariotes was, in this respect, for the years 1204-1206, much more dependent on the account of Choniates10, though he omits the historian's lament on the fallen City [40, S. 647-655]. This is an interesting remark, for such an approach - greater reliance on the testimony of a historian who was closer to the events described in his work - has also been noticed in the Roman History of Nikephoros Gregoras [6, c. 61, 67-70]. The compiler of the Chronicle, however, was also to a great extent independent, which just testifies to his use of other unknown material, as well as to the fact that he was not just a mere copyist of the works of his predecessors but a skillful compiler and a careful critic of the sources that were at his disposal. Hence the narrative of Skoutariotes seems to emerge ever more as an independent and more reliable account than it has been previously given the credit for, and its compiler appears in a new light as the research on the Chronicle expands.

In respect to the reign of Theodore I Laskaris the narrative of Akropolites and Skoutariotes do not differ to a great extent. However, the biggest discrepancy is connected to the portrayal of the emperor. Following in the footsteps of other Byzantine historiographers, Skoutariotes also dedicated the pages of his Chronicle to the descriptions and characterization of the emperors. However, unlike Akropolites who either paid little attention to characterizing the Laskarids (the case of Theodore I), or made strong efforts to present them in a negative way (John III and Theodore II), Skoutariotes presented his readers with positive images of the mentioned rulers. Therefore, it is in his Chronicle that we find more information on the Laskarid emperors than in the work of megas logothetes.

To begin with we should first focus our attention to the battle at Antioch on the Meander in 1211. As is familiar, the emperor Alexios III Angelos, who fled from Constantinople even before its fall, tried to restore the throne for himself and his successor but met with a strong opposition from the Laskarid supporters who thought Theodore I the most suitable candidate for the position of the future emperor. Alexios III, therefore, started negotiations with the Seljuk sultan, Ghiyath ad-Din Kaykhusraw I, in order to wage war against Theodore I and help him regain his throne. The decisive battle between the Byzantines and the Turks was fought at Antioch on the Meander in which Kaykhusraw lost his life and Theodore I saved his newly established Empire. This important victory of the Byzantines was described in several Byzantine sources, of which the narratives of Akropolites, Skoutariotes and Gregoras, as well as an enkomion of Choniates dedicated to Theodore I, are the most interesting for our topic. One of the decisive battles for the preservation of the Nicaean Empire was presented in the works of Akropolites and Skoutariotes in an almost identical way. Curiously enough, it is not in the works of the mentioned writers but rather in an enkomion of Choniates and in the work of a later historian, Nikephoros Gregoras, that we find more praise of the emperor for this victory. And even though all of the sources mention the duel between the sultan and the emperor, neither Akropolites nor Skoutariotes state that Theodore Laskaris decapitated the sultan11, whereas we find this information in Choniates [41, p. 174.21-27], and in a detailed description of the duel in Gregoras. Based on the almost identical accounts, it is clear that Skoutariotes used Acropolites' History as a source for his narrative about the battle, whereas Gregoras might have also consulted Choniates' enkomion. Nevertheless, it is also worth noting that Gregoras coincides in terminology with Skoutariotes and not Akropolites, when he mentions the spear on which the sultan's head was carried after the battle [64, o. 456.24-25; 39, p. 21.3-5]. This may lead to believe either that the historian consulted the Chronicle as well, or that both Skoutariotes and Gregoras used another source which provided them with this information.

The survival of the Empire but also the destiny of Alexios III were, thus, sealed. Nevertheless, the information we find concerning the last days of his life differ in the works of our main sources - Akropolites and Skoutariotes. Namely, whereas megas logothetes only mentions that Theodore's father-in-law was taken to the monastery of Hyakinthos and soon died there, Skoutariotes mentions that the ex-emperor was blinded for his betrayal of the Romans [20,S. 17.19-23; 64, o. 457.4-12]. Interesting enough, Gregoras says that Theodore I treated his father- in-law with respect [39, p. 21.18-19]. The additional information Skoutariotes provides us with either point to his use of a source unknown to Akropolites, or to the more plausible fact that the information about blinding of Alexios III did not seem important for the megas logothetes' narrative in general. The victory on the battlefield was significant for the newly established Empire and for its preservation, though Akropolites did not give Theodore I such credit for this victory as did Choniates and Gregoras. This is also evident in the fact that both Akropolites and Skoutariotes merely mention that the peace was concluded between the Romans and the Seljouks after the battle, whereas Gregoras informs us of the peace envoys sent by the Seljouks to the emperor who was even in the position to dictate the terms of the peace treaty [20, S. 17.16-18; 64, o. 456.2631; 43, S. 217, Anm. 25; 39, p. 12-15].

Proof of Skoutariotes' use of other sources apart from Akropolites is an episode, found only in his Chronicle, which relates about a simple and thoughtless man who came to Nicaea in search of a good emperor. It is clear that Skoutariotes used this episode to stress Theodore I's virtues and significance and that the story, based on its nature, could have stemmed from oral tradition, i. e. that it was repeatedly being retold by the Byzantines and that it was something they were familiar with. After having inquired after the good emperor, the man was presented to Theodore I who asked him whether he thought him to be a good ruler. The man answered that a truly good emperor is the one who shows grace to his subjects by presenting them each with gifts. And though the emperor Theodore thought his constant fight for the protection of his people to be quite a satisfactory evidence of his care and grace, the man insisted on being given material reward, for, according to the man's opinon, the emperor's concern for his subjects was his natural debt to his people. Theodore I consented and ordered the man to be provided with various treasures, who only then acknowledged that the emperor was indeed good and most wonderful of all. [64, o. 463.3-24] (See Russian translation [1, c. 317-318]).

This story clearly served to prove the emperor's generosity and his openhandedness. Although George Akropolites did not relate the episode himself, there is a sentence which could testify to the fact that he too possessed the same information. In his final description of Theodore I, Akropolites mentions that the emperor was most liberal with gifts, giving much gold to whomever he wished, so that they were rich in an instant [20, S. 32.3-5; 16, p. 157].

Another information Skoutariotes thought worth mentioning as opposed to Akropolites are the names of Theodore I's sons by empress Anna, Nicholas and John, who died young [64,o. 465.30]12. Nicholas was supposed to inherit his father's throne and was even made co-emperor [45, p. 121-124; 16, p. 157-159], a fact rather important for the preservation of the dynasty and securing the continuity of the merely consolidated Empire 13.

In general, the image of the first Laskarid emperor in Akropolites' work is not negative. Megas logothetes was more objective when he wrote about the founder of the dynasty than when he referred to his heirs. This is, of course, understandable when one takes into account the relationship between Michael Palaiologos and the two Laskarid emperors - John III and Theodore II. Theodore I had no connections to the founder of the Palaiologan dynasty and was an emperor who consolidated the Empire after the fall of its capital.

Therefore, Akropolites also praised him although not nearly as much as Skoutariotes did. Apart from the physical description to which we find Akropolites and Skoutariotes in agreement [20,

S. 31.22-32.11; 64, o. 466.7-10], Skoutariotes adds information on the emperor's piety and his oaths in safeguarding the Orthodox faith and the traditions of the fathers from the Latins and the Persians, in this way putting an end to quarrels and damages committed on the souls of his people [64, o. 466.10-27]. Skoutariotes continues his praise stating that Theodore was a founder and father (yevdpxno), not only of his family but of the other emperor's that followed, who took upon himself to stand up to such a tumultuous wave,

e. the fall of the Capital. The emperor was brave enough to face the drowning of the Roman magnificence and an utter destruction of honor of both the Empire and priesthood. Theodore I united both the Empire and priesthood, and yet he wasn't bribed, nor was he instigated by the rule over the cities, but only by the mercy of God, trying to protect his countrymen. And though he was a fugitive and homeless he became the greatest of all emperors, a second Noah, he succeeded in saving the seeds of the new life from the utter cataclysmic destruction, to raise up that which has fallen and establish himself as ruler over the Romans and Roman villages and cities, and over the high-priesthood and the senate and the army being a benefactor to all those who fled from the hands of the Latins [64, o. 466.28-467.26] (See Russian translation [1, c. 319-320]). Some of the orations of Niketas Choniates are also dedicated to the praise of Theodore I and might have served as a source and an inspiration for Skoutariotes [41,S. 129-147]. The praises of the emperors are to be find elsewhere in the Chronicle. These elements of panegyric clearly point to a literary education of the author [61, S. 42-43].John III Vatatzes (1221-1254)The information on the reign of John III Vatatzes in the works of George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes also largely coincide, although Skoutariotes provides us with some interesting details that are not to be found in the work of megas logothetes, whereas he omits the details unfavorable to John III. Concerning the details that are to be found in the Chronicle of

Skoutariotes we should mention the episode with the patriarchate of Tarnovo. Namely, the chronicler explains that the reason the emperor agreed to let John II Asen get the patriarchate in Tarnovo was because the Bulgarian emperor agreed to help him regain Constantinople [64,o. 478.21-29]. Also, when referring to the archbishop of Ochrid, Demetrios Chomatenos, a prominent political figure of his time, Skoutariotes provides his full name, whereas Akropolites just calls him Demetrios [64, o. 468.28-30; 20,. 34.1]. The most important difference is the portrayal of the emperor John, for it is in the Chronicle and not in the History of George Akropolites that we find the praise of a member of the Laskarid family once again. However, it should not be forgotten that Akropolites was a writer of еттафюд koyo<; for John III Vatatzes which is for the most part positive, though not entirely liberated from ironical comments [21,

S. 12-29].

Firstly, the two texts differ in the depiction of the last days of the emperor's life. Akropolites merely mentions that John III came to the Eastern parts of his country and then went back to Nicaea, whereas Skoutariotes provides more exact details about his sojourn in the Empire's capital. According to the Chronicle, the emperor came there in February wanting to secure the area because he feared the Tatar incursion [20, S. 101. 19-23; 64, o. 504.16-18]. That is when an illness befell the emperor who died soon afterwards [20,S. 101.23-103.19; 64, o. 504.26-505.21]14. The greatest divergence from the text of Akropolites, however, comes with the final portrayal of the emperor. Whereas megas logothetes ironically remarks that the emperor extended a more open hand to the foreign ambassadors than to his own subjects, Skoutariotes mentiones John III's mercy (eksnM-oown) and beneficence (еплюйа) towards many [20, S. 103.20-23; 64, o. 505.22-31]. (See the English translation [16, p. 271]). This characteristic of the emperor was especially praised after his death and had a strong influence on the creation of his cult. It is noteworthy that at the time Skoutariotes compiled his Chronicle the cult of the emperor John the Merciful (the Almsgiver) must have been widespread, especially in Asia Minor, so it should not be ruled out that the chronicler consulted suitable texts, or at least had the cult in mind when referring to this characteristic of the emperor [35, p. 69-71]. An interesting, though ironical reference on this feature of the emperor and his cult is also made by Akropolites when he states that, in comparison to Theodore II who was so terrible to his subjects, his father was called the blessed [20, S. 105.12-14].

Another important detail is the omission of the emperor's sexual appetites in the Chronicle of Skoutariotes. There is also no mention of John Ill's favorite lover, Marchesina. The story of Marchesina is particularly interesting for Akropolites places it at the end of his narrative about John III. Although he does not provide many details which can be found in the writings of Nikephoros Blemmydes and the Roman History of Gregoras, one cannot escape the feeling that such a story was intentionally placed at the end of that part of Akropolites' History in order to leave a bitter taste [20, S. 103.23-104.10; 38, p. 35-36, 91-94; 39, p. 45.4-47.12]. (On the interpretation of the episode about Marchesina cf. [6, c. 84-87]). Skoutariotes is, on the other hand, silent on all these matters.

Skoutariotes' portrayal of John III ends with a long praise of the emperor which lacks ironical comments, characteristic for the narrative of Akropolites. Namely, Skoutariotes praises the emperor for the care for his subjects, as well as for his efforts concerning the renewal of the fortifications and the restoration of the cities no matter how small they were. John III also stowed away all sorts of weapons and there were also people in bigger cities who were craftsmen and who made various war machines. Moreover, Skoutariotes mentions that the emperor undertook various measures in order to encourage agricultural production, paying to those who fell short in money from his own treasury. The emperor also acquired cattle for the people and he founded libraries filling them with books. The reign of John III was characterized by such abundance in food and drinks and everything his subjects might wish for, so Skoutariotes asks which city, village or person was not well off in his time? A rhetorical question, indeed, though his portrayal of the Empire which flourished in Vatatzes' reign is supported by other sources [17, p. 97.21-99.24; 39, p. 42.1-20, 44.5; 25; 9]. The emperor took great care not only of his subjects, but also of people who were subjected to others. As a proof of his words, Skoutariotes names the monasteries on Sinai, the patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, as well as the monasteries in Constantinople, on Mount Athos and in Thessaloniki whose benefactor John III was. Such was the emperor John III, protector, helper and a proper governor [64, o. 506.6507.20] (See Russian translation: [1, c. 321-325]). His son, Theodore II, took care of his father's funeral and buried him with great honors in his endowment, Sosandra monastery [64, o. 509.1617]. And whereas Skoutariotes has nothing but the words of praise for the late emperor, Akropolites' final statement in respect to John III is an introduction to the reign of his son: “It was the hope of all Romans, and especially of those who served in the army and those who lived in the palace, that they would gain many good things from the new emperor. And if there was anyone who had been distressed by his father or had suffered either privation of money or property, he had hopes of finding a deliverance of these misfortunes... But he (Theodore) was so bad to his subjects and he treated those under his control in such a way that they all called his father, the emperor, blessed. And if someone suffered very badly at Theodore's hands, he wished he had departed this life before his (John's) death and he longed to end his life and to be numbered by the majority” [20, S. 104.23-105.17; 16, p. 271]. That is how megas logothetes introduces the narrative on his main negative hero, Theodore II Laksaris, whereas Skoutariotes offers a different portrait of yet another member of the Laskarid dynasty.

Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258)

Probably the biggest point of departure from Akropolites' text is the part of the Chronicle which deals with Theodore II Laskaris. This is, of course, to be expected, if we take into account that Skoutariotes was personally acquainted with the patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos and emperor Theodore who were also the main opponents of Michael VIII's rise to power.

The first divergence from Akropolites' text is the story about Arsenios' coming to the patriarchal throne. According to all our sources there were several serious candidates for this position. The most prominent was certainly Nikephoros Blemmydes, one of the most learned men of his time. According to Akropolites,

Blemmydes, knowing and dreading the emperor's character, declined the offered position. However, this did not distress the emperor who was also not happy to choose Nikephoros Blemmydes. He, however, states that Theodore II pressured him to accept the position [38, p. 38-40]. Akropolites offers his readers an explanation for such an attitude of Theodore II, making an interesting remark aimed at discrediting the emperor's choice of Arsenios: “...for rulers want those who act as patriarchs to be submissive and moderate in their thinking and to succumb easily to their wishes as if they were commands. This is what happens in the case of boorish men especially, for they are not able to be confident in learning, whereas learned men appear unyielding and oppose the emperors' decrees” [20, S. 106.18-107.3; 16, p. 277-278]. Blemmydes himself also states that he was not satisfied with the emperor's character [38, p. 37-40]. Skoutariotes, on the other hand, mentions that Theodore II was displeased to learn that not everybody agreed on the choice of Blemmydes as patriarch, but they rather preferred someone else [64, o. 509.27-510.4]. And whereas Akropolites, Blemmydes and Gregoras only mention that there were two candidates to the patriarchal throne [16, p. 55.17-18], it appears that there were several of them. Apart from Blemmydes and Arsenios, the Logos mentions certain Kydones, hegoumenos of the Sosandra monastery [68, o. 457.237-458.254]. Eventually, as Skoutariotes explains, Arsenios Autareianos was chosen by reading of the Scriptures [64,o. 510.1-25; 68, o. 458.248-254] (See Russian translation [1, c. 325-326]).It is clear that in respect to Arsenios, George Akropolites does not even try to hide his antipathy. Grand logothetes presented Arsenios as a man of very little education: “(He. - B. P) had little experience of letters (he had only reached the level of grammar education)” [20, S. 107.6-8; 16,

p. 278]. The anonymous writer of Logos mentions that Arsenios was entrusted to patriarch Germanos II in order to receive proper education [68, o. 452.87-453.95]. However, the information we find in other sources of the period testify to the fact that Akropolites' portrayal did not correspond to the truth, if not entirely than to a great extent. Theodore Skoutariotes provides much more details on Arsenios' background and family. We learn that the patriarch's father,

Alexios Autareianos, was a judge in Constantinople and his mother, Eirene, stemmed from the Kamateroi family. His name was George [68, o. 451.61-62] and upon entering the monastery of Oxeia he took the name Gennadios. Nevertheless, he was subsequently named Arsenios, taking the first letter of his father's name. He attained education in grammar and mathematics, but, from his early childhood, Arsenios took up a yoke of solitary life and advanced in virtues. Skoutariotes also mentions that he was a hegoumenos of this monastery and that he was dispatched as an ambassador to the papal court together with the archbishops of Kyzikos and Sardis on behalf of the emperor Vatatzes. Afterwards he retired to a monastery on the Apollonias Lake where he lived in peace and quiet. When the emperor learned about the whereabouts of Arsenios, he sent for him. And so this man was taken from the yoke of the solitary life to Nicaea where he was ordained and made a deacon and a patriarch, all in one week [64, o. 509. 23-512.2; 68, p. 451.61-62] 15 (See Russian translation [1, с. 326-327]).

This portrayal of Arsenios and his election to the patriarchal throne are presented with much more detail in the work of Skoutariotes than in the History of George Akropolites. Skoutariotes' testimony is also supported by the Logos for Arsenios, which provides us with even more details about the early life of the patriarch. Apart from these two sources, the Roman History of Nikephoros Gregoras is also not negative in respect to Arsenios. Acknowledging that he was a man who had no experience in government affairs, and that the time required a more powerful and experienced person, someone of a stronger character who would understand the gravity of the situation, Gregoras in a way justified the patriarch, thereby mitigating Akropolites' negative portrayal. For Gregoras, Arsenios was a simple man, full of virtues but inexperienced in the political affairs. It is plausible to assume that the historian wanted to pursue the policy of a mild course in this way, presenting a more moderate image of the main characters of the period in question in order to overcome an inconvenient issue of the arrival of Michael Palaiologos to the throne [39, p. 55.16-18, 68.3-6]16.

Finishing his account on Arsenios, Skoutariotes provides an additional information that is not to be found in the work of grand logothetes. Namely, the emperor Theodore II erected a temple to St. Tryphonos, a protector of the city, and gave it the beauty and grandeur it now (i. e. the time of Skoutariotes) possesses. The emperor set up a school for grammar and rhetoric there. He hired teachers and brought pupils having provisioned money from royal treasuries. This was the first temple dressed in earthen bricks [64, o. 512.3-11] (See Russian translation [1, c. 327]). Archaeological evidence testifies to the splendor and grandeur of the church, of which very little has been preserved17. The importance of St. Tryphon for Theodore II is further described by Skoutariotes who mentiones that, on the eve of an important battle with the Bulgarians, the saint appeared to the emperor in his dream, ordering him to cross the Dardanelles. The next morning the emperor was victorious [64,o. 514.6-12]. After that Theodore II commissioned coins with the image of Saint Tryphon, his protector and the protector of his family [16, p. 284-285, n. 7].

One of the most intriguing discrepancies in the texts of the two historiographers is the account of the second Bulgarian campaign which took place in late spring/summer 1256 around Adrianople and Didymoteichon. It is intriguing because this time Skoutariotes provides us with more information about the military campaign and not about the personality and merits of an emperor. A view has been expressed that Skoutariotes has been present in the entourage of Theodore II, which would explain his firsthand knowledge of the events [16, p. 302]. At the end ofthe campaign Skoutariotes refers to him and the emperor saying that they have come to Kalamos [64, o. 530.18]. This could mean that the learned chronicler took notes and included his eye-witness account in the Chronicle he compiled, or that he used another unfamiliar source to fill up his narrative with more details.

The first addition of Skoutariotes' account is a story about a hawk and a partridge chased by the hawk. Namely, as the emperor and his archons gathered in a place called Mamas, there was an omen of good news that was going to happen. The partridge, chased by the hawk, entered the room and, running past everyone, ran under the emperor's legs, whereas the hawk sat above. The emperor showed the two birds to those who were present and said: “Do you see this partridge? This is the Persian sultan wishing to flee for refuge to us so that we can restore him to his possessions. And this hawk, which is chasing it, represents the Tatars. I order you to let this partridge walk into your estates and cut off the hawk's head.” Having said this, the emperor rushed to the western cities with a great army [64, o. 522.14-31; 68,o. 459.276-285] (See Russian translation [1, c. 328]). The story was followed by signing a treaty with the Seljouks against the Tatars [15, p. 216].