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

There is no doubt that Skoutariotes used this story in order to foreshadow the defeat of the Seljouks and also to spice up his narrative. The employment of such literary technique just speaks in favor of Skoutariotes' literary engagement and not a mere compilatory work on his Chronicle. Furthermore, it is once again that we are dealing with a story which rather belongs to an oral tradition or is based on an eye-witness account. It is being told as an anecdote and could have served to point out the strength of the Empire in the time of the great campaigns. And though the army of Theodore II was more successful in the second campaign against the Bulgarians, it is to be noted that Akropolites tended to augment the perilous situation the Byzantine army found itself in and to diminish the achievements of the emperor. This is proved by further discrepancies in the texts of our two sources.

The first clash between the Byzantines and the Bulgarians ended in a disaster for the Byzantine army. Despite the order from the emperor not to engage in a battle with the enemy, the two generals, Manuel Laskaris and Constantine Margarites, thought it better to try to stand up to the enemy, but they were defeated. The accounts of Akropolites and Skoutariotes do not differ much in this regard. However, Skoutariotes provides a detail concerning the place where the generals were defeated, Barsakina [64,o. 523.17-24; 20, S. 126. 9-14]. Other discrepancies and additions to Akropolites' text concern the movement of the Scythian army, as well as the pursuit of the Scyths by George Nestongos and Cuman Kleopas. Skoutariotes adds that the Scyths plundered the region of Rhaidestos, Herakleia and Byzie [64, o. 523.27-524.1]. Having received a detachment of the army to find the Cumans and engage them in a battle, the two men set off to find them. And whereas Akropolites mentions that the emperor failed in this enterprise, Skoutariotes offers a different perspective. He clearly states that Nestongos and Kleopas found the Cumans (Scyths), killed many of them, freed the prisoners and left the Cumans without booty [64, o. 524.5-11; 20, S. 127.21-23]. skoutariotes narrative campaign

The second Bulgarian campaign ended with the peace treaty. The Bulgarians consented to handover the town of Tzepaina to the Byzantines. Theodore II stayed in the region of Regina waiting for the cession of the town, which both Akropolites and Skoutariotes inform us of. However, Skoutariotes adds a chronological detail in respect to the conclusion of the peace - it was the day in which the memory of the apostles Peter and Paul are celebrated, it was the end of June [64, o. 525.2-5].

One of the most distressing episodes in the narrative of Akropolites is his account of the disaccord that broke out between him and Theodore II. It was after dinner time and the sun was already rising on the horizon, when the emperor mounted on his horse and went in his usual survey of the Byzantine army. He used to call it a city on the move which guards all the Roman cities (|v Kai nokiv Kwonpsvpv rovopaZs) (For this expression cf. [16, p. 309,n. 4]). Skoutariotes adds that this was a clever and true remark of the wisest emperor (oo^rog xonro keyoiv Kai akpBrog o oo^dnmog Paodsng), whereas Akropolites omits these epithets in his text [64, o. 525.17-19]. On the other hand, Skoutariotes omits Akropolites' incursion in the text [20, S. 128.10-18]. Following the accounts of both our writers we learn that a disturbing rumor has reached the emperor that the Russian Ouros, a father-in-law of the Bulgarian ruler responsible for the conclusion of the peace treaty between the Byzantines and the Bulgarians, swore false oaths and was deceiving the emperor. After having asked his entourage and megas logothetes not once, as stated by Skoutariotes, but several times according to Akropolites, to express their opinion on the matter and after having received the same answers, the emperor, “as if in a Bacchic frenzy” [20, S. 130.25-26; 16, p. 307], filled with anger and madness, ordered Akropolites to be whipped [20, S. 127.24-131.14]. Skoutariotes is milder in representation of Theodore II's rage; the chronicler mentions the castigation of the grand logothetes but does not make explicit mention of the whipping.

Skoutariotes says that the emperor filled himself with great rage and wanted to take the sword out of the scabbard but he withheld from it. However, other things happened to grand logothetes that were painful, which is a clear allusion to the whipping of Akropolites. Skoutariotes continues and says that the next day Akropolites was given back his title and restored to his former honors. He was escorted to the emperor by the emperor's uncle, Manuel Laskaris and protovestiarios Mouzalon, after the painful things had been performed [64, o. 525.18-526.7]. Akropolites, understandably, provides more details in respect to the incident and makes his readers believe that a whole month passed after he had been restored to his office [20, S. 131.16-133.29]. Also, unlike Skoutariotes, Akropolites uses the opportunity to prepare the stage for the most hated characters of his work, the Mouzalones brothers. Grand logothetes relates that it was megas domestikos Andronikos Mouzalon, a man of “thin and weak little body” to take him off his mount [20, S. 130.29-131.1]. We find no such reference to Andronikos Mouzalon in Skoutariotes.

Further on, Skoutariotes and Akropolites differ in the name of the place where the encounter between the emperor Theodore and Theodora, wife of the despot Michael II Komnenos, took place. Namely, as it had already been agreed to conclude the marriage between the emperor's daughter Maria and despot Michael's son Nikephoros, Theodora came to the emperor to a place Akropolites names Langadas, where they agreed to give Servia and Dyrrachion to the emperor, so that Theodora and her son can return safely to their home [20, S. 132.30-133.18]. Skoutariotes also mentions their encounter, but he states that the meeting point was the town of Lentzas, where they celebrated the Exaltation of the Cross (14th September) [64, o. 526.26-28]. Thus, the chronicler provides once again more precise information about the emperor's whereabouts and movements which might point to the fact that he was one of the bishops in Theodore II's entourage. As he later informs us, it was the patriarch Arsenios who performed marriage rites between Nikephoros and Maria [64, o. 527.47]. Interesting enough, Akropolites does not mention that it was Arsenios who concluded the marriage between the two [20, S. 134.3-6].

Theodore Skoutariotes spices up his narrative with yet another story we do not find in the History of George Akropolites. He refers to a strange omen (xspag Bau^aarov) that happened at that time. After the emperor had passed through the camp, and the sun had risen, there was an imperial flag, and, as it was the custom in the military campaigns for a party of soldiers to go before the ones carrying the shield, suddenly the flag was detached from the spear because of the wind, although it was fastened well, and after it had been lifted very high up by the wind so that it could barely be observed, it suddenly fell to the ground. A lot has been talked about this incident since [64, a. 526.14-21] (See Russian translation [1, c. 330]).

An interesting episode that is not to be found in the narrative of Akropolites gets even more weight if we think of the context in which it was used and its place in the Chronicle. A fact that Skoutariotes used this phrase xspag Bau^aarov, leads to the conclusion that something important and most probably negative for the Byzantines was about to happen. Two events emerge as a possible explanation for the episode, of which Skoutariotes makes no additional references. Either our chronicler referred to the war with the despot of Epirus, for the event precedes the episode in which the marriage between despot's son and the emperor's daughter is described, or he makes an allusion to the most disturbing event that followed soon afterwards - the flight of Michael Palaiologos to the Turks. As mentioned, Skoutariotes does not make any comment about the episode, thus, leaving his audience to understand and perceive it in the way it seemed more appropriate to them.

Continuing his account and returning with the emperor to the East, as Skoutariotes himself states ("Oxs ohv sig xov Kaka^ov f kBo^sv), which is a clear evidence of his presence and eye-witness account [64, a. 530.17-18], the chronicler provides more information about the emperor's agreement with the Seljouk sultan. Sometime around the beginning of December the emperor crossed the Helespont, celebrated the birth of Christ in Syria and went straight to Lydia and, as he was marching towards Sardis, he suddenly got the message from the sultan that he was coming to meet him there. Skoutariotes provides information on the movement of both

Theodore II and the sultan once they finally met in Sardis. After that, they went to Magnesia along with the emperor's army which was so great, as Skoutariotes remarks, so that it stretched from a place called Hlera to the straits of the river Maeander [64, o. 530.12-29]. According to the agreement, the sultan sought protection from the Tatars and it was decided that the Byzantines get Laodikeia, Chonai and two small fortresses, Sakaina and Ypsele [64, o. 531.4-7]. However, they were soon again in the hands of the Muslims, for the emperor returned them to the sultan [64,o. 531. 8-9]. And whereas we find this piece of information in the Chronicle, Akropolites says that the Romans were unable to keep the city of Laodikeia in their hands. There is no mention of the three other places Skoutariotes referred to [20, S. 144.10-15].

As was the case with the previous Laskarid emperors, Skoutariotes differs from Akropolites when it comes to the presentation of Theodore II's final hours and passing the final judgment on the emperor.

Both Akropolites and Skoutariotes mention that a terrible illness had befallen the emperor. The doctors were powerless to do anything. Not much time elapsed after the emperor had fallen ill and the illness consumed his entire body. Akropolites says that the emperor's body was reduced to a skeleton, cf. [20, S. 153.6-8]. George Pachymeres, however, relates about a long disease of the emperor and informs the readers that it lasted for a longer period [17, p. 53.1314]). The point of departure between the two narratives is Skoutariotes' mention of the patriarch Arsenios who was summoned by the emperor to ask him to whom he should reveal his deeds. The patriarch advised him to think of a person he would be willing to choose. The emperor chose the archbishop of Mytilene, a wise man, full of virtues, who confessed his soul [64, o. 533. 29-534.9]. He fell before his feet, imitating the whore of the Gospels, and cried the streams of tears, so that they turned into mud and he often repeated the sentence “Christ, I have forsaken thee” [64,o. 534.10-15; 20, S. 153.12-20]. The emperor repeated the same thing when the patriarch Arsenios came to give the emperor a letter of absolution [64, o. 534.16-21; 16, p. 337, n. 5]. After that, the emperor took the monastic robes leaving the earthly for the heavenly, eternal and everlasting Empire, not even ruling the full four years [64, o. 534.22-25] (See Russian translation [1, c. 331]). The repentant death of Theodore II and the absolution he received from the patriarch is also corroborated by Arsenios in his will [7, coll. 949]. Akropolites does not mention that the emperor became a monk, nor does he pay much attention to the phrases and expressions he used in describing his departure. His narrative is concise, also in respect to his illness, which is in accordance with the writer's dislike of this imperial figure [20, S. 4-25; 16, p. 336]. Both of our sources, however, agree that the emperor was buried in the monastery of Sosandra [64,o. 534.26-27; 20, S. 153.23-25].

It is worth of mentioning that a later historian, Nikephoros Gregoras, whose account is closer to Akropolites' in respect to the last days of Theodore II, is more eloquent when he narrates about the emperor's illness. Namely, the historian says that, at the age of thirty-six, the emperor was attacked by a serious illness that appeared as if to be carrying the weapons of death (олка Bavarou). Against the emperor's body, as Gregoras continues, the disease had set up various siege devices (| 5y каі логкйяд rag eksnokstg ката топ PaotkiKou оюратод avTpoTpoaoa). It is interesting to mention that Theodore Skoutariotes, finishing his narrative in the Chronicle, makes similar reference to his illness (єтг 5є каі t§v pyByoopevrav то psysBog о те vong apn%avst, ка і т о o §ра vapK a, таТд a kksnakkpkotg nokropKoupsvov voootg) [64, o. 555.30-556.1]. And even though Gregoras does not mention the absolution given by the archbishop of Mitylene and the patriarch, he states that the emperor took the monastic robe and, after having cried the streams of tears, departed from the world [39,p. 61.18-25, 62.2]. (About tears cf. [28, p. 130; 27]).

Apart from different portrayal of the emperor's final hours, it is Skoutariotes that devoted two pages to the praise of the emperor, as well as to the exaltation of his learning and education (лоААоі pcv BaupaZouoi то ката фtkoooф^av aony^vrov, каі то туд фрогуоеюд ©д акуВюд аларарЛА^). Also, the emperor was admired for his considerable strategic qualities and recklessness with which he scared off the enemies, not just the Persians who approached him in a servile manner, but also the Arabs and the Egyptians, whose monarch he won over by sending glorious gifts. There existed the people who worshiped the love of honor, munificence and the wealth-creativity of his right hand, but there were also others who gradually destroyed and were stricken by his many and great God given privileges. Theodore II also augmented to a great extent, everything his father and emperor cared for and maintained. Skoutariotes adds a personal note when he states that he is praising him because of the proceeding of the story and because of his great knowledge and wisdom, and as he loved those who are versed in stories and loved to reflect with such friendliness deeply inside, he (Skoutariotes) has no one so eager in these matters he could measure him up to [64,o. 535.5-25]. Of particular importance is that the emperor gathered books, not only those of the great Ptolemy, but of many other arts and sciences and he filled all the Roman cities with them, a fact which was especially important given into account the disaster that struck the Empress of the Cities. He built libraries and theaters, brought learned men to the cities of the Empire, so once again the debates about logical questions and conclusions could be heard in the markets. But, alas, a common misfortune happened and this emperor died, not having ruled the entire four years. A natural debt had to be paid and after the departure of his earthly body it fell to lot to those who tasted some of his grace, and of course to the writer himself (roonsp 5yxa кацог), to obey the things concerning him [64, o. 535.26-12] (See Russian translation [1, с. 332-333]). It seems as if this final remark was directed to the people who transgressed the oaths given to Theodore II on his deathbed and was related to the events that followed.

The portrait of the Laskarid emperors in the work of Theodore Skoutariotes is, as is shown, positive and favorable to the members of this dynasty. Skoutariotes' positive feature as a writer/compiler is that he tended not to conceal even some less complimentary events (the castigation of Akropolites) and characteristics (Theodore Il's moody temper) of the monarchs, though he did try to mitigate them. Some of the totally unfavorable features Skoutariotes did leave out (John III's apetite for women). However, it is noteworthy to say that his additions to or omissions from the text of Akropolites were easily discovered, for the author does not seem to have tried to disguise them. In respect with the account on Michael VIII and his reign, tendency to mask certain phrases and to employ word games has been spotted. On more than one occasion, Skoutariotes skillfully used word play to write completely opposing statements to Akropolites'text, which only makes the question of the audience, as well as Skoutariotes' writing skills more interesting.

Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259-1282)

The heir to the Nicaean throne after the death of Theodore II was his minor son, John IV Laskaris. The emperor left his closest associate and friend, protovestiarios George Mouzalon, as epitropos. All the historians who narrate about these events agree on this point. What draws particular attention, however, is the mention of the will written by Theodore II on his deathbed. Both Akropolites and Skoutariotes mention that Theodore II had drawn up a testament for his son and heir, but that the document was in reality more beneficial to George Mouzalon whom the emperor had made the master of all Roman affairs (Khprov t § v Pro^aiK § v a navTrov npay^arrov) [20, S. 154.13-15; 16, p. 340, n. 2; 64, a. 536.13-20]. Pachymeres mentions a written order (eniaTolag n^nP§v Paailsrog) entrusted to Mouzalon as regent [17, p. 71.9-13]. Gregoras also informs us of a written will, indicating that Mouzalon was entrusted with the care of the Empire and he mentions the multiple oaths of allegiance given to the emperor and his protovestiarios, but the historian does not stress that the testament was made in favor of Mouzalon [39, p. 63.10-13]. George Akropolites is extremely negative towards the Mouzalones brothers. In his animosity towards them he goes so far as to say that they were not even worth the three obols [20, S. 124.10-12]18. On the other hand, Skoutariotes was not at all negative towards the brothers. What is more, he provides us with information regarding the military duties of George Mouzalon which Akropolites prefers to leave out [64, a. 514.3-4, 14-15]. Other historians, George Pachymeres and Nikephoros Gregoras are also not negative in their portrayal of George Mouzalon. Based on their testimonies, he was a man of great inteligence [17, p. 64-79; 39, p. 62.3-19].

The brutality of the murder of the Mouzalones is evident in all of the sources. George Akropolites accentuates the wrath the aristocracy felt towards the protovestiarios, but he, as is expected, justifies their behavior by the negativity with which he portrayes the Mouzalones. The bodies of the Mouzalones brothers were cut into pieces, but it all happened because of the unstoppable rage the members of the aristocratic families felt for them. It was not the aristocracy to blame, it was the emperor, for he had given the rule over the Roman affairs “...to loathsome little man, worthless specimens of humanity who had been raised on the songs of the theatre and took pleasure in the flute and strings and practiced, to use the Homeric phrase, `false of tongue, nimble of foot, peerless of beating the floor in dance', while he neglected noble men and expert commanders who had given good and pleasing service to the emperor his father” [20, S. 154.24-156.18]. (The English translation see [16,

р. 339-340]). Theodore Skoutariotes also mentions the brutality with which the brothers were killed, the chopping of their bodies, but he omits the part about the justification of the rage of the aristocratic families, although he does admit that there were families which were maltreated by the emperor (oi пара топ РааЛшх; кекакюцгл'ог av5ps<; suysvsT;) [64, о. 536.23]. Skoutariotes, however, provides additional information as to how it came to the Mouzalones' murder. Namely, the writer relates that the body of the emperor was displayed in the monastery of Sosandra and that the protovestiarios was performing funeral rites. When Mouzalon was about to leave the monastery several members of the aristocratic circle, fearing that he might gain the people to his side, approached the dying emperor and started once again swearing oaths they had previously given. They persuaded the protovestiarios to stay in the temple together with his brothers and the slaughter ensued [64,о. 537.8-27] 19 (See Russian translation [1,с. 333]).

Once George Mouzalon was murdered the Roman people, those in office together with the military and the holy order started discussing the matter of the election of the new epitropos. And whereas Akropolites states that the patriarch was also present there, Skoutariotes, as well as Arsenios in his 5га0ркр, state that the patriarch came from Nicaea to take part in these matters [20, S. 156.19-157.2; 64, о. 537.28-31; 7, coll. 949C]. As is familiar, a man who was thought the most appropriate for the position was Michael Palaiologos.

In the historical work of George Akropolites the character of Michael Palaiologos is gradually formed. The historian mentions the nobility of his birth by mentioning his father Andronikos, megas domestikos, with all the epithets deserving of such a man [20, S. 3.27-74.12, 83.20-22, 84.4-6; 16, p. 242]. Another source, most favorable to Andronikos Palaiologos corroborates Akropolites' glorification of domestikos' deeds - Jacob, the archbishop of Ochrid. He eulogized in his Monody and the elegiac verses the father of the founder of the Palailogan dynasty, the great domestikos Andronikos and his offspring [37, p. 65-80]. Also, in his praise of the emperor John III Vatatzes, Archbishop Jacob left valuable information on the expedition to the island of Rhodes which was led by Andronikos Palaiologos [37, p. 88.23-89.11]. There is, however, not much information on the personality of Jacob in the sources. It can be assumed that he occupied the position of the archbishop until 1246, when he fled to Thessaloniki to Andronikos Palaiologos, probably because of the resistance of the local population. As bishop of Bulgaria Jacob signed various documents until 1253 after which he went to Mount Athos where he became the abbot of the Lavra Monastery. He was in close relations with the Palaiologoi and, thus, probably with the latter emperor Michael. Jacob probably died around 1298. In his Apology patriarch John Bekkos mentioned him as deceased and it is believed that, since Bekkos died in 1298, Jacob passed away sometime earlier [31, coll. 977]20. However, unlike Akropolites who speaks favorably of Andronikos' administration in Macedonia, Theodore Skoutariotes gives a somewhat different picture. And whereas Akropolites states that Andronikos governed well, Skoutariotes states quite the opposite:

Georgii Acropolitae Opera [20, S. 84.13]

... Kakfi <; Sianpeya; dv Tp toutou apxp

Avravnpou auvoyi; xpovucp [64, a. 498.12]

...KaKw^ Sianpeya; Tp Ty; ©eaaaXovtep; dmaTaa^

There is, however, not enough evidence to corroborate either of the two statements [16,

p. 244, n. 6]. Apart from that, on several occasions Skoutariotes omitted the excessive praise of Michael VIII's father we find in the text of Akropolites. When megas logothetes expressed his opinion on Andronikos as: “...a most intelligent and gentle man, well-acquainted with arming for battle and governing people in times of war and peace” [20, S. 83.18-22; 16, p. 242], a statement which clearly served to outline the abilities and capacities of his son and later emperor, Skoutariotes leaves these epithets out of his narrative, but admits, as does Akropolites, that Andronikos was: “marvelled at by all and celebrated for so speedy and great a victory, not only by his own people but also by foreigners” [20, S. 83.22-25; 16, p. 242; 64, o. 497.20-23].

Other important issues in respect to Michael Palaiologos are the charges against “the lese- majeste” to which he was subjected on two or three occasions. It is only in the work of Pachymeres that we find the information on the third charge against Michael [4, с. 146]. In respect to this matter, texts of Akropolites and Skoutariotes do not differ greatly. There are, however, slight but significant discrepancies. Akropolites, who was also an eye-witness of the events, is very detailed in his long account on how it came to the accusations against Michael Palaiologos, finishing his account with the famous ordeal by red hot iron [20, S. 92.25-100.14]. Skoutariotes is, on the other hand, a lot briefer and does not mention the ordeal at all. The omission of the story about the ordeal is even more important if one takes into account that it is precisely on the origin of the ordeal that Akropolites builds his account about Michael Palaiologos as a protector of Roman custom and Roman ways [16, p. 266-267, n. 26; 4, с. 145]. What Skoutariotes does mention, however, is that Michael was held in suspicion even after he had been released, an interesting remark if we take into account that there was another accusation against his persona [64, o. 503.4-504.13]. (See also [16, p. 259-268; 4, с. 145]). In respect to the second process Akropolites and Skoutariotes are more or less in agreement. However, Skoutariotes omits Akropolites' incursions in the text, but both of our sources agree that Theodore II gave an oath to Michael guaranteeing him safety and reinstated him to his previous position [20, S. 134.7-138.20, 144.20-23; 64, o. 527.8-528.27, 531.15-17; 16, p. 312-321, 326, 327-328, n. 9; 4, c. 146].

It is also worth mentioning that Skoutariotes omits to narrate about the battle at Vodena in 1257, which Akropolites uses to point out the military skills of Michael Palaiologos: “.. .he was strong in arm, brave in disposition, and tried in battle; he had been trained in many previous wars” [20, S. 147. 18-20]. (The English translation see [16, p. 330-331]). Interesting enough, Akropolites is the only source which refers to this event. Michael's warrior skills are also augmented in Akropolites' account of the campaign that resulted in the capture of Prilep, where Akropolites was in command, by despot Michael II Komenos. Probably wanting to absolve Palaiologos from the failure of the Byzantine army, Akropolites notes that the emperor Theodore: “...gave him an army from Macedonia which was very small in size and worthless in quality” [20, S. 145.4-5]. (The English translation see [16, p. 328]). Skoutariotes does not make such a comment on the emperor's army [64, o. 531.17-19]. Also, when describing the campaign of 1259, Akropolites refers to Michael Palaiologos and his dependence on God, thus stressing his piety, whereas Skoutariotes leaves that comment out of his narrative [20, S. 150.22-23; 16, p. 359, n. 7; 64, o. 543.2-4]. Significant discrepancy is also to be noted in the description of the siege of Galata. Akropolites presents this campaign as an insignificant and minor one, whereas Skoutariotes, Pachymeres and Gregoras speak of this endeavour as a serious one. Skoutariotes is chronologically more precise than Akropolites, for he notes that Michael's attempts in taking Galata lasted from January to April [20, S. 173.19-175.19; 64, o. 546.24547.24]. (On other sources cf. [16, p. 368]).

The greatest divergence between the texts of the two sources is related to the return of Arsenios to the patriarchal throne. Namely, after having crowned Michael VIII as emperor for the first time and before the legitimate heir, John IV, Arsenios resigned from his position and the new patriarch was elected. However, as the patriarch Nikephoros died soon after he had been elected, the question of the election arose again. Both of the sources remind us that it was Theodore II who first elected Arsenios as Byzantine patriarch, but Akropolites and Skoutariotes totally differ in the way they write about Arsenios. Akropolites states, once again, that he was “...a dull man both in speech and in deed. He had no reason adorning him, neither that which comes from an education nor that produced by nature but, in addition, he had an unpleasant disposition and was obdurate in manner, quick in enmity, slow in friendship, and bearing ill will like a shadow following the body” [20, S. 177.7-178.5]. (The English translation see [16, p. 370]). As opposed to that Skoutariotes offered a completely distinct image of Arsenios, stating that he was a man of a good natural disposition that stemmed from his very nature. He also had some knowledge and he was not ignorant of philosophy, but he wounded his soul by an arrow for the love of God when he was very young, for he preferred the solitary life. Especially interesting are the words and phrases both of our writers used, for it seems that Skoutariotes played with the expressions he found in Akropolites to make his portrait of Arsenios totally opposite to the one we find in the work of megas logothetes:

Georgii Acropolitae Opera [20, S. 177.7-178.5]

...avyp каі єі; Xoyov каі єі; npa^iv оауафио- стато;. оптє yap Xoyov єіхє tov косро™ута xonxov, єїт' єк пal5є^a; уєуєуурєуоу, єїт' єк фпсєю; пю; проРаХХорєуоу, alia каі to h 0о; >пу рхє 5єіуб; каі скіурб; tov тропоу, каі тахп; реу єі; єх0рау, єі; 5є фШау<Рра5>™;, каі тру руусікакіау фєрюу шспєр Tiva скюу спуєфєпореууу тф сюраті.

Ауюуброи оптові; xpovncp [64, с. 548.19-26]

...avxp каі єі; loyov каі єі; пра^іу пауєифие- ФОФОФ, каі раїїста тov єк фбсєю; пю; проРаХХбрєуо;, то™ yap єк пal5є^a; рікроу ті рєтє- схєу, бНуа Tiva тшу єукикМюу фЛософуса; то™ рх 5окє!у dпє^pю; тшу тоюбтюу єхєіУ, ру5є аууоєїу ®v ппєрібєїу єбогарасє, тф 5є РєХєі то™ про; 0єоу єрюто; трю0єі; єк уєбтуто; тру фихуу, пасі хa^pєlv єіпшу тої; raTa косроу, ®v обк єбхєрш; єхопсіу оі пХєюп; афютас0аі, tov роууру Рюу проє&єто.

Akropolites goes on to say that in the beginning of Michael's reign, Arsenios did everything that the emperor asked and that he suddenly changed for the worst, having as accomplices Andronikos, the archbishop of Sardis and Manuel, called Opsaras, of Thessaloniki [20, S. 178.8-179.1]. Skoutariotes, on the other hand, states that Arsenios fulfilled the imperial coronation of Michael Palaiologos, but when he saw that the emperor was not giving way to his counsel he came to differences with him, and having become dissaffected with him, he was driven away from the throne. In the same way were affected Manuel of Thessaloniki and Andronikos of Sardis who were banished from the church [64, o. 548.30549.1]. Akropolites was also more positive towards the newly elected patriarch Nikephoros, for he portrays him as “a most chaste and moderate man in speech and manner, pleasant to all who knew him” [20, S. 180.2-4]. (The English translation see [16, p. 370]). Skoutariotes leaves out such a characterization of Nikephoros. An interesting observation is also the way in which Akropolites portrays the second coming of Arsenios to the throne. Megas logothetes exclaims that he does not know how sebastokrator Tornikes succeeded in pressing the emperor to return Arsenios to the throne, describing to him some miracles of the patriarch [20, S. 180.5-11]. Skoutariotes also mentions Tornikes as the one who compelled the emperor return Arsenios [64,

o. 549.18-22], but, whereas Akropolites finishes his account with the following statement: “the emperor's goodness and readiness to do good made him agree to the advice of the sebastokrator, and Arsenios was again elevated to the patriarchal throne, having stated in writing that he would think and act rightly with regard to the emperor”, Skoutariotes completely omits this remark of the megas logothetes [20, S. 180.11-15]. (Also see [16, p. 371, 375, n. 17; 1, c. 334-335]).

However, the chronicler chooses to write about Arsenios again, this time as an eye-witness, providing his opinion on the matter21. He says that the ones accused of having dissaffection in regard to the emperor have been falsy convicted. They have both (Arsenios and Michael) suffered from one another. However, Skoutariotes accentuates that he was a witness in all the matters, for he took part in practice and counsel day and night and lived together with the patriarch under the same roof. Arsenios, being a true archbishop, teacher and shepherd wanted his flock to be pious and demanded the same in return. Nevertheless, his flock did not step forward to virtue, but it rather dragged God's wrath upon itself because of the transgression of frequent and horrible oaths (Sia xy; napapdos©; xrov on%v§v Ka i ^ptKx §v o pK^poot §v), and since the repentance also wasn't like it was supposed to be, he made repentance for the salvation and demanded back the same. He strived for the good and reproached the sinful for the emendation [64, o. 549.23-550.16] (See Russian translation [1, с. 335]).

It is clear from the testimony of Skoutariotes that he referred to the usurpation of the throne that was to be committed by Michael Palaiologos. The writer's intrusion in the text at this point clearly served to make his testimony more reliable and to stress the correctness of the patriarch's actions. Worth mentioning are also the expressions Skoutariotes employed to denote the oaths given by both parties - Michael Palaiologos and John Laskaris - that were transgressed several times. Patriarch Arsenios also informs us of this in his Will, using similar expressions (оркод фргкюЗе- отатод ка1 фоРерютатод) [7, coll. 953C] (On Arsenios' account of the transgression of oaths cf. [7, coll. 949-953]). So it is more than plausible that Skoutariotes consulted the patriarch's testament22.

As has already been mentioned, Akropolites' text ends abruptly with his intention to insert the speeches he had composed on the occasion of Michael's triumphal entry into Constantinople. Skoutariotes, on the other hand ends his account mentioning the great logothetes' speeches, stating that the time has come to put an end to his account because of his old age and because of the illness which is taking over him [64, o. 555.17-556.14]. In this fashion end both of our narratives on the reigns of the Laskarids and Michael VIII Palaiologos.

Conclusion

The information Skoutariotes provides in his Chronicle in respect to the Laskarid dynasty and Michael VIII Palaiologos is valuable. Most of it can be confirmed in other sources, both contemporary and later. The omissions from his text were mostly in the service of offering his readers a more moderate portrayal of a very biased account of his main source, George Akropolites, whereas the additions tend to show the writer's engagement in writing his own narrative. Even though his only intention was to write a synopsis of the most important events, it is clear when analyzing different levels of style employed in the Chronicle, the employment of elements of rhetoric (eulogizing the emperors, making biographical portraits which is clear from the narrative structure, using word play) and the fact that the author made use of different source material to which we should add his own eye-witness account, that he had more ambition than just making his work a mere compilation [61, p. 34-37]. It is more probable that such a compilation was intended for the earlier part of his Chronicle, but in respect to the events starting from the fall of Constantinople a hypothesis can be expressed that something else was intended. Lacking the stylistic beauty of a sentence and complexity of phrases so preferred by the Byzantine writers, for the Chronicle was supposed to address the audience which was neither well-educated nor familiar with the AAyog [64, o. 4.6-7], it can be concluded that Theodore Skoutariotes tended to offer to his readers, a wider audience than the one which was able to understand Akropolites, his own view of the main protagonists of the 13th-century Byzantium. He provided his contemporaries, but also the following generations, with an alternative to the narrative of Akropolites, and he provided his fellow historians with a possibility to verify the account of the learned grand logothetes. It was not a curious thing for the same writer to produce two versions of his own text (such were the versions of Niketas Choniates' History who made one final revision of his historical work in 1215/17 [49]), and it was certainly not a peculiar thing to have two versions of the same events by two different writers. Even though we cannot be certain whether the later historians, George Pachymeres (also a church official) and Nikephoros Gregoras, consulted his work, it should be noted that both of these two writers gave a very positive portrayal of the Laskarid emperors. On the other hand, Pachymeres gave an extremely negative account on the reign of Michael VIII, whereas both Skoutariotes as well as Gregoras, mitigated both extremely positive and negative portrayal of the first Palaiologan emperor. Therefore, Skoutariotes might have been an adequate reading material for the later writers, because, with the help of his work they were in ability to validate the objectivity of Akropolites' testimony and to get a clearer picture of the events of their time. It should not be forgotten that a 14th-century writer, Ephraem of Ainos, composed a work for which it was concluded relied mostly on the account of Akropolites (For the sources of Ephraem cf. [33]). Bearing in mind the similarities in the expressions used in the works of Akropolites and Skoutariotes and the fact that Ephraem praised the Laskarid emperors in his work [12, p. 279-280, 327], it is not at all to be excluded that the author was familiar with the text of Skoutariotes. As a result of all that has been said, the Chronicle of Theodore Skoutariotes should be consulted to a much greater extent than it has previously been the case, bearing in mind that one may find interesting and significant information about the restoration of the Empire after its fall in 1204.

Notes

This article has been written as a result of the research conducted within the project “Tradition, Innovation and Identity” (No 177032) of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Scientific editing of the article is carried out by Yury Vin.

A well-known episode from Akropolites describes how Theodore II Laskaris, in one of his furious outbursts, ordered to have the megas logothetes whipped [20, S. 130.29-131.22; 16, p. 307].

The degree of kinship between Eudokia and Michael Palaiologos has so far not been established; cf. [16, p. 18].

Detailed information about the Council can be found in the work of George Pachymeres [19, p. 35-37].

Significant account about the history and dogmatic issues that followed the negotiations on the Union was left by the father of Theodore Metochites, George Metochites [22; 23].

The same document was signed by historian George Pachymeres [24, p. 30].

On the problems related to Skoutariotes' authorship cf. [55; 62].

On the time structure of the text cf. [61, p. 37-3 8].

On the language of the learned elite cf. [47; 48; 59, p. 117]. On Skoutariotes' employment of Choniates' text cf. also [50, p. 125].

It is interesting to note that Akropolites gives the wrong year for the fall of Constantinople to the Latins [20, S. 7.23-8.1], whereas Choniates and Skoutariotes both note the right date [40, S. 569.7-10; 64, c. 446.27-31].

Akropolites provides this information in another place ofhis work [20, S. 27.8; 64, c. 456.20-22].

Akropolites also refers to the two early deceased sons of Theodore I without mentioning their names [20, S. 31.13-17].

On the co emperors in Nicaean period cf. [2].

On further reference about the emperor's illness cf. [17, p. 99.27-101.3; 39, p. 49.23-24].

The Logos for Arsenios mentions that the name of Arsenios' father was Theodore, cf. [68, c. 451.5455]. Also, this source mentions the patriarchs's mother, Eirene [68, c. 451.55-56]. At the same time, the anonymous writer adds that Arsenios was a blood relation of the Choumnos family, although no further conclusions can be made on account of this information, cf. [68, c. 452.85-87]. Certain doubts have been expressed that the authors of Logos might have been Maximos Planoudes or Nikephoros Choumnos, cf. [68, c. 436-442].

On Gregoras' views on the main protagonists of the 13th-century Byzantine politics cf. [6, c. 87-96].

On more information on the church cf. [13, p. 104-108; 14, p. 132].

On the proverb used on this occasion by Akropolites cf. [16, p. 300, n. 8]. The same proverb will be used by the historian in the story about the murder ofthe Mouzalones, cf. [20, S. 156.9-14].

On the accounts of Pachymeres and Gregoras in respect to the murder cf. [6, c. 104-105].

Also see [37, p. 101-106; 11]. On the date of the death of John Bekkos cf. [34].

On the writer's intrusions in the text cf. [26].

George Pachymeres also relates in detail about the transgression of the oaths [17, p. 134-137. 16, 1-2, 257. 10-15; 18, p. 181.10-12, 225.7-24].

REFERENCES

Litavrin G.G., ed. GeorgiyAkropolit. Istoriya [George Akropolites. History]. Saint Petersburg, Aleteya Publ., 2005. 415 p.

Zhavoronkov P.I. Izbranie i koronatsiya nikeyskikh imperatorov [The Election and Coronation of the Nicaean Emperors]. Vizantiyskiy vremenik [Byzantina Xronika], 1988, vol. 49, pp. 55-59.

Zavrazhin V.N. K voprosu o tolkovanii odnogo fragmenta iz prilozheniy Feodora Skutariota [On the Question of Interpretation of One Fragment from the Work of Theodore Scoutariotes]. Vizantiyskiy vremenik [Byzantina Xronika], 1980, vol. 41, pp. 252-255.

Nikolic M., Pavlovic B. Slika Mihaila VIII u delima istoricara epohe Paleologa [The Image of Michael VIII in the Historical Works of the Palaiologan Period]. Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta [Collection of Works of Byzantine Institut], 2017, vol. 54, c. 143-181. (in Serbian).

Nikolov A. Retsenziya: Georgiy Akropolit. Istoriya (V perevode P.I. Zhavoronkova) i George Akropolites. The History (transl. by R. Macrides) [Review: George Akropolites. History (transl. by P. I. Zhavoronkov) and George Akropolites. The History (transl. by R. Macrides)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo

Svyato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriya I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiya. Religiovedenie [St. Tikhon's University Review. Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies.], 2009, vol. 1 (25), pp. 108-113.

Pavlovic B. “Romejska istorija” Nicifora Grigore : istorijska analiza delа: dis. ... st. d. n. [“The Roman History” of Nikephoros Gregoras: Historical Analysis of His Work]. Beograd, 2018. 535 c. (in Serbian).

Arsenius, patr. Testamentum. Migne J.-P., ed. Niketae Choniatae Opera omnia. Paris, In via dicta Thibaut, 1865, coll. 948-957. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, vol. 140).

Thomas J., Constantinides Hero A., Constable G., eds. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders ' Typika and Testaments. Vol. 3. Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. ХШ, 435 [859-1294] p.

Charanis P. The Aristocracy of Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century. Colleman-Norton P.R., ed. Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of A.C. Johnson. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1951, pp. 336-355.

Croke B. Uncovering Byzantium's Historiographical Audience. Macrides R., ed. History as Literature in Byzantium: Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, April 2007. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 2010, pp. 25-53.

Dujcev I. Un nouveau temoignage de Jacques de Bulgarie. Byzantinoslavica, 1960, vol. 21, pp. 54-61.

Lampsides O., ed. Ephraem Aenii Historia Chronica. Athens, Academia Atheniensis, 1990. LX, 456 p.

Foss C., Tulchin J. Nicaea: A Byzantine Capital and Its Praises. With the Speeches ofTheodore Laskaris; In Praise of the Great City of Nicaea; and Theodore Methochites, Nicene Oration. Brookline, Massachussets, Hellenic College Press, 1996. IX, 256 p.

Foss C. Pilgrimage in Medieval Asia Minor. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 2002, vol. 56, pp. 129-151.

Gardner A. The Lascarids of Nicaea. The Story of an Empire in Exile. Amsterdam, A. Hakkert, 1964. ХШ, 321 p.

Macrides R., ed. George Akropolites. The History. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007. XXI, 464 p.

Failler A., йd. GeorgesPachymйrиs. Relations historiques. Vol. 1. Paris, La soc. d'йd. “Les belles lettres”, 1984. 326 p.

Failler A., йd. Georges Pachymйrиs. Relations historiques. Vol. 2. Paris, La soc. d'йd. “Les belles lettres”, 1984. I, 339 [326-667] p.

Failler A., йd. Georges Pachymйrиs. Relations historiques. Vol. 3. Paris, La soc. d'йd. “Les belles lettres”, 1999. XXIV, 305 p.

Heisenberg A., Wirth P., eds. Georgii Acropolitae Opera. Bd. 1. Stuttgart, B.G. Teubner, 1978. XXVin, 366 p.

Heisenberg A., Wirth P., eds. Georgii Acropolitae Opera. Bd. 2. Stuttgart, B.G. Teubner, 1978. XXVI, 121, XXIX-XLII p.

Georgii Metochitae Historia Dogmatica. Lib. 1-2. Cardinal Mai A., Cozza-Luzi J., eds. Patrum Nova Bibliotheca. Vol. 8, Pt. 2. Romae, Apud

Spithoever, 1871. I. 228 p.

Georgii Metochitae Historia Dogmatica. Lib. 3. Cardinal Mai A., Cozza-Luzi J., eds. Patrum Nova Bibliotheca. Vol. 10, Pt. 1. Romae, Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1905, pp. 319-370.

Gill J. The Church Union of the Council of Lyons (1274) Portrayed in Greek Documents. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1974, vol. 40, pp. 5-45.

Glykatzi-Ahrweiler H. La politique agraire des empereurs de Nicйe. Byzantion, 1958, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 51-66.

Hinterberger M. Autobiographische Traditionen in Byzanz. Wien, Verl. d. Цsterreich. Akad. d. Wissensch., 1999. 415 S. (in German).

Hinterberger M. Trдnen in der byzantinsichen Literatur. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Emotionen. Jahrbuch der Цsterreichischen Byzantinistik, 2006, Bd. 56, S. 27-51.(in German).

Hinteiberger M. Emotions in Byzantium. James L., ed. A Companion to Byzantium. Chicester, U.K., Wiley- Blackwell Publ. Ltd, 2010, pp. 123-134.

Hunger H. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Bd. I. Mьnchen, C.H. Beck'sche Vbrl., 1978. 542 S. (in German).

Grйgoire H., ed. Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua: Opusculum necnon Regulae quam ipse monasterio S. Demetrii praescripsit fragmentum. Byzantion, 1959-1960, vol. 29/30, pp. 447-475.

Ioannes Veccus, Cp. patr. Oratio Secunda Apologetica. Migne J.-P., ed. Ioannis Vecci, Cpl. patriarchae, Opera omnia. Paris, In via dicta Thibaud, 1865, coll. 969-1010. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, vol. 141).

Kinloch M. Rethinking Thirteenth Century Byzantine Historiography: A Postmodern, Narrativist andNarratologicalApproach: Ph.D. Thesis. Oxford, 2018. 339 p.

Lampsides O. Beitrдge zum byzantinischen Chronisten Ephraem und zu seiner Chronik. Athens,

Kollaros, 1972. 180 p.

Laurent V. La date de la mort de Jean Beccos. Echos d'Orient, 1926, vol. 25, pp. 316-319.

Macrides R. Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period. Hackel S., ed. The

Byzantine Saint: University of Birmingham. Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies.

London, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1981, pp. 67-87.

Macrides R. How the Byzantines Wrote History. MarjanoviC-Dusanic S., ed. Proceedings of the 23rdInternational Congress of Byzantine Studies, Plenary Papers. Belgrade, National Committee for Byzantine Studies, 2016, pp. 257-263.

Mercati S.G. Collectanea Byzantina. Vol. 1. Bari, Acconcia Longo, Augusta, 1970. 712 p.

Munitiz J.A., ed. Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiographia sive Curriculum Vitae nec non Epistula universalior. Turnhout, Brepols, Leuven, University Press, 1984. 156 p.

Schopen L., Bekker I., eds. Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia. Vol. I. Bonnae, ed. Weberi, 1829. 568 p.

Dieten I.A. van, ed. Nicetae Choniatae Historia. P 1. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1975. CVIII, 656 p.

Dieten I.A. van, ed. Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et epistulae. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1972. XXIV, 279 p. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 3).

Nicol D.M. The Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, 1261-1274. Runciman St., ed. Nicol D.M. Byzantium, Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western Word. Collected Studies. London, Variorum Reprints, 1972, pp. 113-146.

Dieten J.L. van, ed. Nikephoros Gregoras. Rhomдische Geschichte. Tl. 1. Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1973. VIII, 339 p.

Simpson A., Efthymiades S., eds. Niketas Choniates. A Historian and a Writer. Geneva, La Pomme d'or, 2009. 272 p.

Oikonomides N. Cinq actes inйdits du patriarche Michel Autфreianos. Revue des Йtudes Byzantines, 1967, vol. 25, pp. 113-145.

Trapp E. u. a., Hrsg. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. Wien, Verlag der Цsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976, Fasc. 1. 163 S. (in German).

Sevcenko I. Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose. XVI. Intern. Byzantinischenkongress. Akten. Tl. 1/1. Jahrbuch der Цsterreichischen Byzantinistik. Wien, 1981, Bd. 31/1, pp. 289-312.

Sevcenko I. Some Additional Remarks to the Report on Levels of Style. Jahrbuch der Цsterreichischen Byzantinistik, 1982, Bd. 32, pp. 220-229.

Simpson A.J. Before and After the Fall 1204: The Versions of Niketas Choniates' Historia. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 2006, vol. 60, pp. 189-221.

Simpson A.J. Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. XVI, 372 p.

Kazhdan A.P. et al., eds. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. 1. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991. LIV, 728 p.

Kazhdan A. P. et al. , eds. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. 3. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991. XXXIII, 1475-2232 p.

Festa N., ed. Theodori Ducae Lascaris Epistulae CCXVII. Firence, Tip. G. Carnesecchi e figli, 1898. XII, 414 p.

Tocci R., Hrsg. Theodori Scutariotae Chronica. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015. VII, 545 S. (in German).

Tocci R. Zu Genese und Kompositionsvorgang der Synopsis Chronike des Theodoros Skutariotes. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2005, Bd. 98, Hft. 2, S. 551-568. (in German).

Tocci R. Bemerkungen zur Hand des Theodoros Skutariotes. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2006, Bd. 99, Hft. 1, S. 127-144. (in German).

Tocci R. Der unsichtbare Kaiser. Zum Bild Iustinianos' I. bei Theodoros Skutariotes. Kotzabassi S., Mavromatis L., Hrsg. Realia Byzantina. Berlin, New York, De Gruyter, 2009, S. 283-292. (in German).

Cuomo A., Trapp E., eds. Toward a Historical Sociolinguistic Poetics of Medieval Greek. Turnhout, Brepols Publ., 2018. VIII, 233 p.