Download PDF | Niketas Choniates A Historiographical Study, Oxford University Press ( 2013)
389 Pages
Preface and Acknowledgements
This book evolved from my doctoral dissertation submitted to King’s College, London in 2004. In the course of writing the dissertation and transforming it into a book, I have benefited greatly from the assistance of a number of individuals and institutions. My greatest debt is to my teacher Judith Herrin, who supervised the dissertation, and has willingly offered her counsel, encouragement, and support ever since. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to Paul Magdalino and Jonathan Harris, who examined the dissertation, made valuable comments and suggestions, and encouraged me to produce the book. Paul Magdalino kindly offered his advice and wisdom during my time in Istanbul.
Many thanks are owed to Stephanos Efthymiadis and Antony Kaldellis, who took a genuine interest in my work and were kind enough to read the draft version and make corrections, comments, and suggestions. Stephanos Efthymiadis has willingly offered his guidance, support, and friendship since we first worked together. Antony Kaldellis saved me from numerous errors and omissions, challenged my thinking on points of substance, and improved upon those arguments that were less than convincing. Riccardo Maisano provided me with offprints of his studies on Niketas Choniates, and John Davis supplied his critical edition of the Metaphrase in addition to making valuable corrections on the draft version of this book.
I thank them both. Furthermore, I thank the anonymous readers of the manuscript submitted to Oxford University Press for their corrections and suggestions. Finally, 1 am happy to acknowledge the enormous debt of gratitude I owe to the late Jan-Louis van Dieten, whose scrupulous work on Niketas Choniates has been the starting point and inspiration for my own work. With regards to my financial benefactors, I am grateful to the A. G. Leventis Foundation for awarding me with a three-year educational grant that made the undertaking of the dissertation possible and Dumbarton Oaks Research Center for awarding me a Junior Fellowship in my final year that enabled me to complete the dissertation with the best available resources. I thank the former Director of Byzantine Studies, Alice-Mary Talbot, for her support and encouragement throughout my time there.
I also thank Princeton University for awarding me a Stanley J. Seeger Visiting Research Fellowship in Hellenic Studies in Autumn 2007 during the tenure of which I was able to engage in research directed towards the book and to take advantage of the excellent resources available at Firestone Library. Special thanks are due to the Director of the Programme, Dimitri Gondicas, for his superb hospitality and enthusiastic support. The National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Spring 2008 allowed me to lay the groundwork for the transformation of the dissertation into a book, and I warmly thank the former Director of the School, John Davis, and the Director the Gennadius Library, Maria Georgopoulou, who provided me with a warm and friendly working environment. On a more personal level, I thank my husband Vangelis for his patience and understanding with regards to my long working hours, my sister Vasiliki for being my lifetime companion and confidant, and my daughter, Ileana, who forced me to write the book whilst awaiting her arrival. Without the happiness and fulfilment she has brought me, this book would have never been completed.
Note on Citation and Transliteration
When transliterating Greek names and terms, I have attempted to render them nearest to their original equivalents (e.g. Komnenos for Comnenus). However, those terms which have acquired a standard English spelling are not presented in their original equivalents (e.g. Constantine is used rather than Konstantinos, Nicaea instead of Nikaia). Citations from Jan-Louis van Dieten’s edition of the History appear in parentheses in the text and in the footnotes under the abbreviation NC. Works cited in abbreviated form are listed in full in the Table of Abbreviations. Those listed in the bibliography are cited in full in the first citation and thereafter by author or editor and short title. For my translations of Niketas Choniates, I have consulted the English translation by Harry Magoulias and the Italian translation by Anna Pontani. When comparing passages of the different versions of the History, an English translation is not particularly helpful since the revisions often entail stylistic variations and grammatical changes which cannot be seen in translation. Therefore in these cases, I have cited the Greek in order to illustrate clearly the process of successive revision and have provided the reader with a summary of the passages in English. The same is true when comparing passages of the History with Niketas’ orations and the Dogmatike Panoplia or with other authors so as to demonstrate the ways in which the historian adapted his material in different contexts and utilized his sources and models. In these cases also, I have cited only the Greek.
Introduction
The twelfth and early thirteen centuries in Byzantine history are largely known to us through the History of Niketas Choniates. The period witnessed the pinnacle of Byzantine revival under the Komnenian emperors John II (111843) and Manuel I Komnenos (1143-80) who, following in the footsteps of the formidable Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), succeeded in restoring Byzantium to a position of strength and respectability in international politics and maintained the solidarity and cohesion of the empire in a constantly changing world. Yet the twelfth century was also the period which witnessed the rapid decline of the Byzantine state under the heirs of the three great Komnenoi, who failed not only in their individual attempts to consolidate their own position and thereby also, in their quest to ensure the security and survival of the empire. By the beginning of the thirteenth century, the edifice of the Byzantine Empire was beginning to collapse under severe external pressure and widespread internal disorder resulting from a long series of insurrections. With hindsight, therefore, it is not at all surprising that the period both culminated in and ended with the capture of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and the partitioning of the empire’s territories thereafter. This, in sum, is the story related by Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness and participant in the tragedy unfolding in Byzantium, a historian who preserved for posterity the empire’s moment of greatness as well as the hour of its demise.
A distinguished statesman, orator, and theologian, Niketas was also perhaps the greatest of all Byzantine historians. His monumental History has long been known to scholars and students of Byzantine history as well as to those working in related fields, such as medieval European and Balkan history, literature, theology, and art history. The text is unquestionably the single most important source for the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries and has therefore rightly been considered essential for any reconstruction and interpretation of the period. Niketas provides his readers with a host of precious details regarding the intricate political life of the empire, the shady inner workings of the imperial administration, the dynamic social and cultural milieu of twelfth-century Constantinople, the intellectual and theological preoccupations of the elite, and a wealth of anecdotal scenes from everyday life, both in the capital and the provinces. What is more, his History is the only contemporary Byzantine narrative covering the final crucial decades of the twelfth century, the origins of the Vlach-Bulgarian rebellion in the Balkans as well as the subsequent founding of the “Second Bulgarian Empire’, and the most important Greek eyewitness account of the Fourth Crusade and its aftermath. This means that Niketas’ work is not only extremely valuable for reconstructing the history of the Byzantine Empire in this period of political decline, but also for the history of the otherwise obscure emergence of the medieval Bulgarian state in the late twelfth century, and, not least, for the fateful confrontation between Byzantium and the West that resulted in the fall of Constantinople in 1204.
If the History’s significance lies primarily in the scope and breadth of its subject matter, its sophistication and stylistic brilliance are undoubtedly due to the personality and skills of its accomplished author. As a historian, Niketas has been seen as a ‘model of enlightenment’,’ an author who successfully combined ‘all the traditional tricks of artful rhetoric with a newly found humanity, open-mindedness and scepticism’.* His ambitious History presents a lengthy and coherent narrative of the period beginning with the death of Alexios I Komnenos in 1118 and ending with the events of the Greek revolt against the Latins in Thrace in 1206, that is, nearly one hundred years of history. Although the account is for the most part traditionally organized in the format of ‘imperial biographies’ (i.e. focusing on the deeds and lives of the leading figures of the age), Niketas successfully combines this with a continuous narrative of events that often blurs the lines between historical biography and event-focused history and ventures well beyond the confines of the imperial court at Constantinople or the battlefield. At the same time, his often impressive historical analysis is artfully combined with a powerful and engaging narrative that is quite remarkable in its literary effectiveness.
The History is also unique in terms of composition, and it was not until the meticulous critical edition by Jan-Louis van Dieten in the series Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae (1975) that modern scholarship was provided with a text that not only takes into account the different versions in the extant manuscripts but also shows the differences between them. Van Dieten also painstakingly reconstructed the origins and manuscript tradition of the History and demonstrated that the text was composed in two main versions: an older, shorter version written mainly prior to 1204, which he termed b(revior), and a revised, longer, and more critical version written after 1204, which he termed a(uctior).? The evidence on the History’s sequence of composition has been recently re-examined and re-assessed in an attempt to provide a more precise dating of the different versions of the text, uncover the circumstances of their composition, and determine the distinct purposes of the author at each phase of the composition.* Recent years have also seen the publication of a revised and corrected edition of the History, accompanied by an Italian translation and a comprehensive historical/literary commentary.” On the other hand, comparatively few translations of the text into modern languages have been published. Besides the ongoing Italian translation, the History is currently available only in the German translation by Franz Grabler (1958) and in the English translation by Harry Magoulias (1984).° However, both of these are slightly problematic since Grabler’s translation was based on an earlier edition of the text by Immanuel Bekker in the Bonn Corpus (1835) and Magoulias’ translation, besides being long out of print, is not always accurate.
Modern historical scholarship has focused on two key aspects of Niketas’ History, namely, the historian’s Kaiserkritik and his explanation for the decline and fall of the Byzantine Empire. These aspects are not unrelated since they are both founded on Niketas’ sincere belief in the traditional idea that the wellbeing of an autocratic state ultimately depends on the competence of its emperor.’ It is thus certainly unsurprising that the element of criticism looms large in the History considering that the author himself was a highranking official who observed political developments from within the confines of the imperial court and witnessed first-hand the tragedy of the capture of Constantinople. Niketas’ critique of the imperial incumbents rests largely on the traditional concepts of the unfaltering Kaiseridee and he often evaluates emperors in accordance with the degree which they possessed or lacked cardinal virtues such as philanthropy, piety, justice, prudence, courage, and temperance. At the same time, however, his ideological notions do not prevent him from applying concrete criticism to imperial policies and openly rejecting the divine origins of political power—one of the fundamental doctrines of Byzantine political philosophy. Indeed, his criticism often develops into profound historical analysis and his aversion to imperial absolutism implies that the autocracy of the emperors of his day inclined towards tyranny.®
Niketas’ political scepticism and his analytical abilities have no doubt singled him out in the minds of modern commentators, who have often based their own analysis of the period on his powerful and insightful critique. Yet it is precisely for this reason that the historian’s presentation and interpretation of the past has been reconsidered in the light of recent scholarship. In his study of the reign of Manuel I Komnenos, Paul Magdalino attempted to demonstrate the unfairness of Niketas’ criticism of this emperor which, he contends, was largely based on the historian’s need to explain the decline of the empire in the final decades of the twelfth century. Looking at Niketas’ criticism of Manuel within the broader context of the historian’s relentless criticism of later rulers, Magdalino concluded that Niketas was criticizing an ‘imperial type’ whose shortcomings and errors were ultimately responsible for the empire’s decline and fall.” Alexander Kazhdan reached similar conclusions when he identified the stereotypical notion of the dramatis personae in the History and pointed to Niketas’ creation of a sensation of repetition in imperial actions that reproduced an almost farcical atmosphere at court, which was then brilliantly contrasted with the final collapse looming overhead.'°
This, however, does not necessarily mean that Niketas limited his explanation of the fall to imperial misrule. Indeed, as both Magdalino and Kazhdan recognized, the historian’s criticism of the imperial incumbents is often broadened to include various segments of Byzantine society, most notably corrupt civil servants, incompetent or self-seeking military commanders, fraudulent monks, and, not least, the fickle Constantinopolitan mob. According to Kazhdan, Niketas believed that ‘the tragedy of Byzantium was rooted in the corruption of its rulers and in the corruption of its people’.”! Thus the historian attempted to persuade himself and his readers that the capture of Constantinople was an act of divine providence and that the wrath of God was destined to fall upon those who perpetrated this great atrocity. Like Kazhdan, Magdalino centres his view of Niketas’ explanation on the theme of divine retribution which underlies the historian’s criticism of the emperors. Thus ‘whether he [Niketas] accuses them of indolence, vainglory, personal immorality, occultism, impiety or tyranny, and whether he puts the blame on them personally or on the general corruption of Byzantine society, he is demonstrating why God withdrew his favour from the “holy nation” and gave it to peoples, who however unspeakable in their manners, somehow had integrity where the Byzantines were hollow’..'* More recently, however, Jonathan Harris has stressed the importance of the genre of Kaiserkritik in the History and concluded that, for Niketas, the main reason for the collapse of the empire was the weakness and corruption of its emperors.'* Similarly, Michael Angold has suggested that Niketas’ recourse to divine retribution in order to rationalize the capture of Constantinople was only a surface explanation. More profoundly, says Angold, the historian presented the fall as the ‘culmination of the deterioration of Byzantium’s body politic —an explanation that once again centres on Niketas’ evaluation of the emperors of his day."
This subtle variety of approaches in recent scholarship points to the impressive complexity of Niketas’ own approach to historical causation and evaluation—historiographical aspects of his work that have not yet been fully examined, and will be looked at closely here. Equally impressive is the author’s literary talent, which has captivated even the most sceptical of readers.'” In this aspect as well, Niketas surpasses all Byzantine historians. According to Kazhdan, the ultimate artistry of Niketas’ narrative lies in the author’s ‘tragic perception of reality’. Although writing during and in the aftermath of a politically difficult period, Niketas consistently shows tolerance and sensitivity towards the sufferings of his fellow human beings. At the same time, however, he cannot escape the conclusion that the tragedy of Byzantium was the natural crown of a long arc of time, which he had personally witnessed. His intense anxiety and the continual expectation of catastrophe permeate the whole of the History and anticipate the fall of Constantinople.'® For Kazhdan, this implies a self-consciousness and humanity on the part of the author that is new in the history of Byzantine literature. It also reflects a significant change in the function of historiography as Niketas’ work, unlike that of his predecessors, does not present an idealized version of the imperial past but rather a dramatic description of human transience.’ More recently, Kazhdan’s views have been reinforced by the comments of Apostolos Karpozilos, who has suggested that Niketas is the first Byzantine historian to critically approach his subject without a manifest tendency for self-projection, without claiming the role of the protagonist, and without serving the ends of others."®
Niketas’ self-consciousness, his humanity, and ‘tragic perception of reality’ are undoubtedly important aspects of the intellectual originality and literary artistry of the History. More recently, Stephanos Efthymiadis has suggested that Niketas’ literary mastery lies in the art of variatio, that is, the diversity and change in focus which characterizes the History. He points out that the text, one of the most voluminous works in Byzantine literature, is simultaneously ‘scholarly and entertaining, succinct and comprehensive, denunciative and elusive, elegant and naturalistic, candid and venomous, pious and scurrilous, intertextual and original’.'? No less important are Niketas’ masterfully sculpted character portraits, his unique powers of description, his obsession with images, his engaging story-telling, his mirabilia and naturalistic scenes.”° Amongst these, the historian’s intricate character portraits have deservedly drawn the most attention. For Kazhdan, the stylistic innovations in characterization that occurred throughout the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries culminated in the work of Niketas, whose principal heroes are endowed with internal contradictions and appear three-dimensional.”’ Niketas’ insistence on the inherent complexity of human nature and its contradictory qualities defines his intellectual approach to the study of human character and underlies his presentation of the historical figures in the History.”” His method of developing characters is usually indirect; historical figures come to life mainly through the display of their actions and the revelation of their thoughts and emotions. Only rarely do we get a glimpse of their physical appearance and only rarely do we hear them speak. Perhaps more importantly, Niketas’ characterizations are not furnished all at once in distinct parts of the narrative but instead are inserted here and there so as to produce a cumulative effect and make an explicit connection between the personality of the subject and his or her actions.” They usually entail circumstantial and detailed scenes from the subject’s everyday life, often comico-tragic, as well as a wealth of imagery and metaphor so as to infuse with vividness the character sketched.
Amongst Niketas’ many talents is his knack for presenting the past with epic, tragic, and comic hues—something that is also encapsulated in the art of variatio. Indeed, it has been noted that the historian’s selection of language is often based on the tone he wishes to set for a particular incident he is narrating or an individual he is describing.** For example, it is characteristic of Niketas to utilize the language of Homer to depict beauty, but to abate his zeal for antiquity in episodes where God is assigned a prominent role. As one scholar has acutely remarked, ‘Niketas’ language is on occasion reminiscent of a chorus in an ancient tragedy, at other times the lamentations of Jeremiah, or the prose historical writing of Thucydides and Xenophon’.”? The erudite Niketas was, of course, extremely well-read in Greek literature, and not only the classics, but also early Christian and Byzantine literature. This is immediately noticeable in the sheer wealth of learned citations and allusions to ancient and biblical sources in the History. Niketas’ language, however, should neither be taken as pure imitation of his literary models nor mere pageantry. We need only consider that its wealth surpasses that of any other Greek historian, and its creativity lies in the fact that it always encapsulates the particular meaning, image, or emotion the historian wishes to convey. In this sense, Niketas masterfully employs literary language to present his own vision of historical reality and recreates the past through his careful selection and adaptation of vocabulary.”°
What is clear from the discussion above is that Niketas’ History, in addition to being a historical work of the highest quality and greatest importance, is also a literary masterpiece. Luckily, the literary analysis of Byzantine historical texts is well on its way to becoming a distinct field of research in Byzantine studies and the old prejudices (e.g. allegations of plagiarism, distortion, bias, unoriginality) against the literary dimension of Byzantine historical writing are gradually subsiding.”’ Still, comparatively few Byzantine histories have been studied as literary products of the past, and most are employed by modern historians to recreate and interpret the past. This approach constitutes the very foundation of modern historical research. But it does not cancel out the necessity for historiographical analysis of Byzantine historical texts—an analysis that would primarily entail the study of how the Byzantine historians themselves understood, recorded, approached, and conceptualized history. This is especially important when one is confronted with the dominance of a single author for the reconstruction and interpretation of an important period of Byzantine history. This is certainly the case with Niketas, and all too often modern historians, impressed by Niketas’ literary artistry and intellectual sophistication, have also assumed the accuracy and impartiality of the History.’* More specifically, mistakes and misconceptions have arisen from taking material out of context, disregarding authorial purpose, or simply ignoring the conceptual approaches, methods, and techniques which lay beneath Niketas’ representation of historical reality. Although shortcomings and deliberate misrepresentations have been identified and considered in specific cases, a comprehensive and up-to-date study of Niketas and his work is still lacking.”?
The present study is an attempt at a historiographical analysis of Niketas’ History. When examining a work of such magnitude and mastery one cannot be exhaustive, and I admit that the focus has been placed on those historiographical aspects which I have found the most interesting, namely the structure of the narrative, the presentation and evaluation of the leading figures of the period, the sources from which the historian compiled his account, and the literary models and historical concepts which guided him. Such an examination should obviously take into account both historical and literary aspects, namely how Niketas selects, gathers, organizes, and deploys the evidence; his presentation, analysis, and understanding of the past; his critical evaluation of historical figures; and his stylistic qualities and creative employment of rhetorical techniques. All too often, the line separating the ‘historical’ from the ‘literary’ is blurred simply because such a line did not exist in Niketas’ time, and in trying to understand the historian and his work, I have attempted, as far as possible, to approach the History as the creator himself approached it. Inevitably, however, questions of accuracy and truthfulness do arise since Niketas’ text is a historical source of prime importance. In the same measure, literary analysis is required when approaching a historical work whose principal method of representation stems from rhetoric. Since Byzantine historians recorded contemporary history and, as a result, much of their accounts were based on personal observation, information from eyewitnesses, and their connections to individuals of political significance, I have also found it necessary to delve into Niketas’ world in order to uncover his personal preoccupations and prejudices. In this context, I have also taken into account the author’s other works, namely the orations and letters as well as the theological treatise Dogmatike Panoplia.
Lastly, I have found it imperative to describe and analyse the substantial differences in style, content, and purpose between the two main versions of the History. The discrepancies between them have been mainly employed in an attempt to understand the aims and purposes of the History as well as the historian’s changing attitude to events and figures of the past. This is important because in revising and significantly expanding his history with the benefit of hindsight, and also with the knowledge that it would become the sole testament of Byzantium’s tragic decline and fall, Niketas produced a historical narrative that consciously presents the progressive deterioration of the empire and suggests the ultimate victory of the West. It is a scurrilous, cynical, and resentful narrative—an invective against all those whom the historian considers responsible for the decline and fall of the empire, but at the same time, a sensitive, emotional, and profound recollection of the personalities and events that shaped Byzantine history in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The text largely defined how the Byzantines perceived their own past, and still weighs heavily on modern notions of this entire era of Byzantine history.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق