ByzReview: Patriarch Nikephoros' Short History

So, we’re now more or less back where we started on this stroll through Byzantine history; with the era of Theophanes the Confessor. After Theophylakt Simocatta’s history of the emperor Maurice, and the Paschale Chronicle’s account of the rise of Herakleios and the last Persian war, our Byzantine sources dry up for the next two centuries. A good picture can be built up thanks to the existence of provincial or non-Byzantine sources, a couple of which were discussed in the previous Byzantine review, but the basic fact that no work of any Byzantine-Roman historian survives after the Arab conquests cannot be ignored. For the later Herakleian dynasty, the siege of Constantinople in the 670s, and the Iconoclasm of the 8^th century Isaurian emperors we have no real histories as such; at least until we meet a small group of religious intellectuals who picked up the thread of Byzantine historiography at the beginning of the 9^th century; George the Synkellos and his continuator Theophanes the Confessor, and a certain Patriarch of Constantinople by the name of Nikephoros. 

                Now, I have already covered the joint chronicle of George the Synkellos and Theophanes the Confessor in a couple of previous reviews. In fact, they were the first Byzantine Book Reviews I actually did, and for the most part I will not be retreading that same ground. I have covered them already as a grand history of the world and of the Roman empire, so this time around I shall be looking at them purely as a history of this particular era, as well as how they can be used in conjunction with the so-called Breviarum or ‘Short History’ of the Patriarch Nikephoros. For the century after Constans II these histories are virtually our only sources, so we must pay special heed to them.

                The Byzantine world following the Arab conquests is a fascinating and crucial phase of transition. Following the emperor Constans II’s abortive attempt to safeguard the empire’s western possessions – abortive due to his assassination in the bath – the empire’s main focus fell back onto Constantinople where Constans’ son, Constantine IV (r. 668-685), managed the empire during a climactic siege by Arab forces, which ended in victory for the Byzantines thanks at least in part to the use of the brand-new state weapon, Greek Fire – which is essentially Medieval napalm. Constantine IV’s reign is also notable for we find our first mention of a new threat on the empire’s northern border; the Bulgarians, who replace the Avars as Byzantium’s northern nemesis, and who will be an ever-present neighbour and foe to the Byzantines for the rest of its history. The Herakleian dynasty came to an end when Herakleios’ great-great-grandson, Justinian II Rhinotmetos ‘the Slit-Nosed’ (r.685-695), proved massively unpopular when he was overthrown and his nose cut off, thereby instigating two decades of political unrest. The throne in Constantinople was now up for grabs after eighty years of monopoly from one blood-line, with a turnover of six short-lived emperors (one of whom was the now noseless Justinian II, but his second reign ended no better than his first), the Arab Caliphate prepared to have another go at besieging Constantinople. The man of the hour was a certain Isaurian chap by the name of Leo (r.717-741), who after taking the throne successfully managed to repel the Arab invasion. The curious policy of Leo III and his dynasty was to embark on a campaign of Iconoclasm – removing or destroying the sacred images which formed a significant aspect to religious worship in the Christian world. Amidst this Iconoclastic policy, Leo III and his son Constantine V Kopronymos ‘the Shit-Named’ (r.741-775) waged numerous wars against their Arab and Bulgarian neighbours, for the most part successfully. After the short reign of Leo IV, his widow Eirene comes to power and brings the Iconoclastic policies to an end, much to the delight of a certain Theophanes the Confessor.

                Nikephoros’ history is one of the most concise and most accessible historical narratives I’ve encountered to date. It is a brief history, less than a hundred pages, which cover the best part of two centuries of history. While less chronologically exact than Theophanes’ chronicle, Nikephoros’ history tells a similar narrative of emperors and campaigns – albeit one less interested in chronological precision, and more interested in telling a relatively simple story of the empire during the Herakleian and Isaurian era. Beginning with the downfall of the usurper Phocas, Nikephoros goes on to recount in some detail the reign of the emperor Herakleios, a tale which takes up about a third of this history’s entire narrative. Nikephoros is less praising of Herakleios than contemporary histories of that emperor, and his particular indictment of Herakleios for apparently marrying his own niece – something which Herakleios’ contemporaries and supporters appear not to mention – forms an interesting plot thread to his narrative. While Herakleios is a major character in Nikephoros’ history, his successor and grandson Constans II is dismissed in a single sentence, the narrative essentially jumping to Constantine IV and Justinian II. After describing the legendary origins of the Bulgarian nation, and how they came to settle near the Danube, and then dealing with the chaotic reign on Justinian II Rhinotmetos and a tedious succession of short-reigning emperors who deposed eachother one after the other, Nikephoros describes the reigns of Leo III and his son, Constantine V. Nikephoros’ narrative finally ends with the arrival of Constantine V’s daughter-in-law, Eirene of Athens – a sudden and jarring end to the history, but significant for any reader who knows of Eirene’s importance in bringing Iconoclasm to an end.

*Constantine IV              (668 – 685) – Son of Constans II

*Justinian II {First Reign}(685 – 695) – Son of Constantine IV. Overthrown and de-nosed

Leontios                       (695 – 698)

Tiberius III                  (698 – 705)

*Justinian II {Second Reign} (705 – 711) – Restored to power with Bulgarian aid. Executed 6 years later

Philippikos Bardanes   (711 – 713)

Anastasius II               (713 – 715)

Theodosius III             (715 – 717)

**Leo III the Isaurian     (717 – 741) - Founder of the Isaurian Dynasty

**Constantine V Kopronymos (741 – 775) – Son of Leo III

                                   

**Leo IV the Khazar        (775 – 780) – Son of Constantine V

**Constantine VI             (780 – 797) – Son of Leo IV and Eirene. Under regency of Eirene until 790

**Eirene                          (797 – 802) – Widow of Leo IV, mother of Constantine VI. Overthrew and blinded Constantine VI, and ruled in her own right for five years.

Nikephoros I                (802 – 811)

Michael I Rhangabe     (811 – 813) – Son in law of Nikephoros I. Abdicated to Leo V the Armenian.

                                * Herakleian Dynasty. ** Isaurian Dynasty

                Thus is Patriarch Nikephoros’ history. Theophanes the Confessor tells a similar enough story of this period, and in some cases gives the same information word for word. Aside from being more chronologically enthusiastic, however, Theophanes is different in that he is much more critical of the Isaurian emperors and their Iconoclastic policies. To be exact, he considers Constantine V to be of the same calibre as the anti-Christ, and it is from him that we get the wonderful story of how the newly born Constantine defecated in his baptismal font – earning him the name Constantine Kopronymos, ‘the Shit-Named’. While Theophanes tells a more partisan story than his contemporary writer, Nikephoros, he also continues his narrative for several decades after Nikephoros calls his own history to a halt. Theophanes is practically the only writer to tell of the reigns of Constantine V’s son, Leo IV (r. 775-780), or his grandson, the young Constantine VI (r. 780-797). The empress Eirene (r.797-802), who brought an end to the Iconoclasm whilst acting as regent for her son Constantine VI, gets more than a few good words put her way by Theophanes despite the fact that she was a female ruler, one who had overthrown and blinded her own son to gain power. Lastly we see from Theophanes the disastrous reign of the emperor Nikephoros I (r. 802-811), who provokes almost the same amount of hatred from our writer as Constantine V does, before finishing up with the short reign of Michael I Rhangabe (r.811-813) who lost his throne to Leo V the Armenian. It is a long and confusing succession of rulers and events, but Theophanes is the best historical writer to seek this information from.    

                Due to the scarcity of historical texts for the 8^th century Iconoclasm, it’s time to start delving into some new types of primary source – hagiography. The writing of biographical stories about the lives of saints was a popular thing across the whole of Europe during the Middle Ages, to the extent that we probably know as much about the supposed lives of saints as we do about kings and emperors for this period. For Byzantium we are blessed with many such examples of hagiography, and while many of these stories are formulaic, repetitive and prone to sensationalism, they can be useful for offering a glimpse into everyday life in different walks of life in the empire. On occasion they can shed light onto political developments in Byzantium, or give different pictures of emperors and their personalities. One such Saint’s life, or Vita, is the Life of the Patriarch Tarasios, which tells the supposed story of the late 9^th century Patriarch of Constantinople Tarasios. This particular figure is important for the fact that he presided over the Second Council of Nicaea (the Seventh Oecumenical Council, in 787), which reinstated the veneration of Icons in Christian worship. He was also the Patriarch under whom George the Synkellos served (as synkellos), and thus was the predecessor to the Patriarch Nikephoros. Perhaps Tarasios’ importance has been overstated, thanks to the fact that several of his associates were responsible for concocting historical narratives, and that he has a biography which openly deifies him, but he was an interesting figure who presided over an important period of Byzantine history.

                For those who have never had the 'pleasure' of delving into a Byzantine Saints' Life before, let me briefly explain what happens in this particular example. We begin with a short description of our hero's early life; his holy parents, his blessed birth at which animals probably stood around his crib and marvelled, how he was a Christ-like individual even when he was a toddler - that sort of thing. The writer of this story outlines right at the beginning how unworthy he is to write a fitting tale for such a great man as Tarasios, and judging from his tired prose, his retreats to cliche and his efforts to get across the full wonders of Tarasios' worldly deeds through a handful of dull anecdotes, we can see why he thinks this. We then get the Patriarch Paul, also a pretty damn holy chap if we believe the story who, wearied out by all the Iconoclasm - which he personally abhors - is close to death and there decides to leave the Patriarchate to this decent and holy fellow Tarasios. The new Patriarch-elect makes a big show of not wanting the office, but after making a fuss he begrudgingly accepts his new position – allowing him to perform many great feats for the good of the common people. His major accomplishment, the Second Council of Nicaea which re-established image-veneration throughout the empire, is described here with a certain amount of detail, while his run-in with the young Constantine VI over the emperor’s marital problems takes up another large chunk of the narrative. With a couple more anecdotes of Tarasios’ good works, the writer then begins comparing him to various Biblical figures in order to show the man’s saintliness, before the story begins winding down as we reach the point of Tarasios’ death. The whole world is understandably upset to lose such a holy and faultless individual, even the emperor Nikephoros I (whom Theophanes hates with a passion) ends up crying his eyes out at the funeral. After a couple of posthumous miracles, the tale finally ends having proven that the great and holy individual [Insert Name Here] was indeed holy and wonderful and Christ-like, and that he should definitely and without doubt be considered a saint. Amen.

                    If I sound scathing of this text, and of hagiography in general, then I suppose this highlights my opinion of them. They are fascinating texts, believe me, and rest assured that they do have a certain amount of historical value – just be prepared to wade through an awful lot of drivel to get there. Even short Saint’s Lives can be mind-numbing, so don’t rush in unprepared.

                So then, thanks to a number of important religious intellectuals – George the Synkellos, Theophanes the Confessor, and the Patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros – Byzantine history and literature begins to reassert itself after a century or two of near absence. I would recommend anybody to read Nikephoros' Short History, but keep a copy of Theophanes by your side so that the story doesn't run out just as it gets interesting.

Bibliozantium 8

Paulus Silentarius, Georgius Pisida et Sanctus Nicephorus Cpolitanus. I. Bekker (ed). Bonn. [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae], 38, (1837).

Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History. C. Mango (ed). Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks. [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae], 13, (1990).

Ignatios the Deacon. The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios. S. Efthymiadis (ed). Aldershot: Ashgate. [Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs], 4, (1998).

The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor – Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813. trans. C. Mango and R. Scott. Oxford. (1997)

The Chronicle of Theophanes – Anni mundi 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813). trans. H. Turtledove. Philadelphia. (1982)