ByzReview: Michaels Psellos and Attaleiates

It appears that in this review we shall have to come face-to-face with one of Byzantium’s most notorious historians – the 11^th Century philosopher and courtier, Constantine (Michael) Psellos. Psellos was in a unique position to tell the history of the empire during this most turbulent time, having served nearly a dozen separate rulers during his long and messy career in the palace. Psellos’ Chronographia, just one of many pieces of writing of his we still have available to us today, is a long history of the emperors of this century told reign by reign, and as Psellos himself apparently knew and advised many of these Byzantine rulers, he goes into excruciating detail on their general character and vices. As an authority on the 11^th century court and history Psellos is often one of the first considered, though he is by no means the only. 

The Byzantine Empire in one of its most popular shapes

                With the death of the childless Basil II in 1025, the imperial throne was to see a particularly high turnover of emperors during the subsequent decades, including Basil’s brother Constantine VIII, who ruled for a further three years, before it passed into the hands of Constantine’s daughters. The empress Zoe, one of the last descendents of the Macedonian dynasty, brought four separate emperors to power during the first half of the 11^th Century, and after the death of her sister in 1056 the throne was once again up for grabs. The short-lived Michael VI Bringas (r.1056-1057) was overthrown by the military aristocrat Isaac I Komnenos (r.1057-1059), who later fell ill and was persuaded to pass power over to the influential courtier Constantine Doukas and his family. Amidst all these struggles for power, the imperial finances were failing and a number of invasions took place as frontier-security was eroded. In particular the arrival of the Seljuk Turks on the eastern fringes of the empire was to have lasting consequences for Roman and world history.

                Things were to go from bad to worse when Constantine X Doukas (r.1059-1067) died, leaving an underage son as emperor – always a risky thing to do. At first his widow, Eudokia, ruled as regent for the young emperor Michael, but it wasn’t long before another military aristocrat was to lay his hands on the shiny red boots of imperial power. The short but momentous reign of Romanos IV Diogenes (r.1068-1071) was dominated by attempts to check the borders of the empire against foreign invasions, which eventually culminated in the Battle of Manzikert against the Seljuk Turkish invaders in 1071. Hailed as a disastrous defeat for Byzantium, the confrontation at Manzikert resulted in Romanos IV being captured, and a short while later a palace coup back in Constantinople brought Michael VII Doukas (r. 1071-1078), the son of the late Constantine X, back into to nominal power. The young emperor and his government were incapable of holding back the Turkish advance, and before long most of Anatolia had fallen into enemy hands. After years of misrule by Michael VII and

The empire a few years after the Battle of Manzikert.

his ministers, several rebellions broke out against his incapable rule, one in the west led by a certain Nikephoros Bryennios, and one in the east led by one Nikephoros Botaneiates. The next emperor, then, looked likely to be a Nikephoros, and sure enough it was the eastern rebellion led by Botaneiates which succeeded in deposing Michael VII first. 

                As I tend to do in these reviews of Byzantine historical narratives, I’ll include here a short roundup of the emperors covered by these histories especially, though the accounts mentioned here do begin with earlier emperors: 

Constantine IX Monomachos   (1042 – 1055) – Last husband of the empress Zoe

Theodora                                 (1055 – 1056) – The empress Zoe’s sister. Last ruler of Macedonian blood

Michael VI Bringas, ‘the Aged’ (1056 – 1057) – Theodora’s appointed successor

Isaac I Komnenos                   (1057 – 1059) – Overthrew Michael VI in a military rebellion

Constantine X Doukas              (1059 – 1067) – Appointed successor by Isaac I

Romanos IV Diogenes             (1068 – 1071) – Married the empress Eudokia, widow of Constantine X

Michael VII Doukas                  (1071 – 1078) – Son of Constantine X, overthrew Romanos IV

           

Nikephoros III Botaneiates     (1078 – 1081) – Overthrew Michael VII in a military rebellion

The long and exciting Chronograhia of Michael Psellos begins with a short account of the reign of Basil II, juxtaposing him with the subsequent and less glorious reign of his brother Constantine VIII (r.1025-1028). Basil is generally shown to be a great and firm ruler, putting down rebellions and leaving the treasury full of money, which his successors foolishly squander. The biographical portraits drawn by Psellos are often rather complex, showing us a side to these emperors which other histories tend to not. The empress Zoe’s lusty attachment to Michael IV the Paphlagonian, whom she marries and grants the imperial position, Michael V’s foolishness in trying to oust Zoe from power , the many quirks and vices of Constantine IX Monomachos – the emperor to whom our writer devotes the most space and perhaps most nuanced story – all are treated with a peculiarly Psellosian flavour.

Psellos, with Michael VII

The aspect of Psellos’ work which makes it especially intriguing to both the historian and the general reader is the extent to which our dear friend Psellos inserts himself into his own narrative. How often does Psellos appear as an active protagonist within this history, telling us of his life story, of his immense intelligence and rhetorical abilities, or trying to cover his own arse by explaining himself and his circumstances? Quite a lot, let me tell you. If one is to believe his words, then Psellos was not only a chief advisor and close friend to Constantine IX, but was also present at the blinding of Michael V beforehand, was one of the chief negotiators for Michael VI to the rebel Isaac Komnenos, subsequently getting in as a senior member of Isaac’s court, was present at the exact moment that Romanos IV Diogenes became emperor, and then became a principal advisor to Michael VII Doukas. Wow. This man was there at all the big moments of the middle 11^th century. If he really was everywhere he tells us, I wonder how much he’s not telling us. Perhaps that he was involved in the coup against Romanos IV Diogenes, for example, and that it was necessary for him to prop up useless, foolish and incapable emperors such as Michael VII. 

So, after years of moving his way through the corridors of power, briefly winding up in a monastery only once (and voluntarily at that), Michael Psellos’ narrative finally judders to a halt. Psellos’ account is left without a definite finish, and comes to an end precisely when a certain Nikephoros Botaneiates was leading a rebellion against Michael VII. The last pages consist of an oration or letter from the emperor Michael, imploring Botaneiates to cease his insurrection – an ominous end to the text, considering we know exactly what happened thereafter. Psellos’ ultimate fate is unknown, while Michael VII was to end up consigned to a monastery after Nikephoros Botaneiates took the throne. What happened to our beloved narrator we don’t really know. Was he killed during Botaneiates’ uprising? Perhaps he was blinded, suffering the same grisly fate as Romanos IV or else being consigned to a monastery. Maybe he ingratiated himself to the new emperor, or was sidelined in government only to die sometime later. Or maybe he quit politics once again, and headed back to monastic seclusion for the last years of his life. Nobody knows, sadly. All we know is that he left behind a substantial body of literature, not just his Chronographia but also letters, orations, scientific and theological texts. He was a true polymath, and he himself knew it. 

I shall now discuss, for the remainder of this review, yet another historian of the 11^th century – and another one who goes by the name of Michael. The History of Michael Attaleiates is rather different to what has come before, both Psellos’ work and other previous historians. Attaleiates himself was a wealthy judge of aristocratic origin, active in the later years of the 11^th century who went on to write a history for the reign of Nikephoros III Botaneiates. Beginning in the reign of Michael IV the Paphlagonian – an arbitrarily chosen emperor, from what I can tell – Attaleiates examines the reign of each subsequent emperor mostly through the eyes of military events. We get less of Psellos’ in-depth character assessments of the 11^th century emperors, with condemnations and praisings, and instead get more of a focus on what happened in terms of world events, border conflicts and internal rebellions, being brief and lacking in detail. At least, that’s how it starts. After the reign of Constantine IX, Attaleiates begins to spend more time and more care discussing the events of history, which makes a certain amount of sense – after all, he would have a more intimate knowledge and more reason to talk about more recent history, and as his intended audience is none other than his new imperial patron it would make sense. The lions’ share of the book is dedicated to the events surrounding the reign of Romanos IV Diogenes and the decade after, and two thirds into the narrative we finally see the main impetus for Attaleiates’ work – to be a shameless panegyric.

Nikephoros III with his wife, Maria of Alania

This particular emperor, Nikephoros Botaneiates, was a relatively minor and unimportant ruler in the grand scheme of the 11^th century. An aristocratic usurper who deposed the useless emperor Michael VII Doukas in 1078, Botaneiates was only to rule for about three years before he likewise fell prey to another aristocratic usurper, Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081 – 1118). The interesting thing is that Alexios was to prove significantly more pivotal in the grand scheme of history than his immediate predecessor, ruling for nearly four decades, establishing his family as the unassailable ruling dynasty of Byzantium, and seemingly pushing back the tide of enemies which was engulfing the empire. It is therefore little wonder that this emperor, and not Nikephoros III, who was to become the greater and more famous to posterity. Botaneiates really accomplished nothing during his reign, and is perhaps one of the most forgettable of all the emperors to rule during the troubled 11^th century – yet he appeared at one of the most interesting moments in this entire historiographical schema.

With the accession of Botaneiates, Michael Attaleiates chose this exact moment to write his own history of Byzantium in the 11^th century, and just as Psellos shamelessly praised the emperor he was serving at the time of writing, so Attaleiates did likewise – but more so. The entire last third of Attaleiates’ work is dedicated to describing the life, family, ancestry and reign of Nikephoros Botaneiates, showing this one emperor in particular to be a shining example of a magnificent, heroic, just and generous ruler. It is sycophantic to say the least, and a little bit cringe-worthy to read – but worse than that, it feels even a little bit passionless as far as panegyrics go. He hits every note he needs to, as though he’s following a textbook on how to write sickening love letters to your all-powerful  autocrat with whom you want to ingratiate yourself, from the claiming that he’s descended from an illustrious ancient Roman family and that his father and grandfather were mighty and wise heroes who helped previous emperors to greatness, to saying that every act and policy he carries out is wonderful and perfect and will help everyone, to basically stating that he has never done anything wrong and can never do anything wrong. It’s all the more sobering when one remembers that this man had only ruled for two years, and was to be deposed less than a year later having achieved nothing of any lasting consequence. It’s sad, but this is the way history goes.

Besides praising Nikephoros III, the History of Attaleiates is interesting in other regards. As a detailed narrative of the events from the death of Constantine X to the accession of Nikephoros III this work holds a certain usefulness, considering that this period deals with the all-important Battle of Manzikert – an event which Psellos essentially decides to hurry over, for dubious reasons. We gain a little peak at the mechanics of government at the time which could result in power changing hands violently like this, and as a stage-setter for Alexios I Komenos’ assumption of the throne. Aside from this, Attaleiates is a relatively interesting read which doesn’t get bogged down in the author’s own desire to explain himself, as Psellos does. All in all, it’s a relatively good historical narrative which offers a fascinating glimpse into one specific moment in Byzantine history, sandwiched inside a passionless note-perfect panegyric.

So this then is a series of histories of the 11^th century, an era which saw the need for several different historical accounts. The end of the Macedonian epoch, the Seljuk invasion, the Doukas emperors, the brief rule of Nikephoros III Botaneiates, and the eventual accession of Alexios I Komnenos all served to alter the Byzantine-Roman empire from what it had once been. It is fortunate that we have such interesting and varied historical sources available to us for this most important moment in world history. Next time, we shall delve into the work of Nikephoros Bryennios and, more importantly, that of his wife – the famous Byzantine authoress Anna Komnene.

Bibliozantium 14

Psellos, Michael. Chronographie ou Histoire d'un siècle de Byzance (976–1077). Emile Renauld (ed). In two volumes. (Paris, 1926/1928).

Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronografia). Salvatore Impellizzeri (ed). In two volumes. (Vicenza, 1984).

Michael Psellus. Fourteen Byzantine Rulers – The Chronographia of Michael Psellus. Translated by E.R.A. Sewter.  [Penguin], (St. Ives, 1966).

Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos. W.J. Aerts (ed). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae], 30, (1990).

Michaelis Attaliotae Historia. I. Bekker (ed). Bonn. [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae], 4, (1853).

Michaelis Attaliatae Historia. Eudoxos Th. Tsolakis (ed). Athens: Academia Atheniensis. [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae], 50, (2011).

Michael Attaleiates. The History. Translated by Anthony Kaldellis and Dimitris Krallis. Washington D.C: Harvard University Press. [Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library], 16, (2012).

[A Brief Explanation: The number of different editions and translations of Psellos various works is probably too great to attempt an exhaustive collection here, in this humble bibliography. Every edition of everything written by Psellos is far too much. I’ve just included a couple of editions of his Chronographia here. The first one is one of the earliest useable editions of the text, with French. The second entry is an updated edition, complete with Italian translation. The third is the standard English translation by E.R.A Sewter, which can be easily and cheaply acquired as a Penguin edition – or instantly and for free, as the entire translation can be found online. The last three entries are for Michael Attaleiates – the first being the old Bonn text, the second being a modern CFHB edition, the third being a modern English translation with facing text, which is probably the best one to dig up if you’re interested.

                Also included in the list is a certain Historia Syntomos, another text attributed to Michael Psellos. Though not of especial relevance in this review, I did want to write a brief word on this last text and include it in this bibliography for no other reason than that I quite like it as a source and a text. As it was too weighty to include in the main body of this review, I have added it down below in case anyone has the slightest interest in this curious little text].

The Historia Syntomos attributed to Michael Psellos could be described as a brief chronicle of the Roman state from its foundation in ancient times up until the reign of Basil II. As with Psellos’ more famous work, the Chronographia, the Historia Syntomos concerns itself almost exclusively with biographical snippets of all the emperors from the earliest days of Rome down to the beginning of the 11^th century. It is arranged in a strictly chronological order, though this shorter work which deals with a much greater period of time – mentioning just about every Roman ruler from Romulus onwards – means that each emperor is given a much briefer section of writing. In most cases an emperor is given just a short paragraph, in which a general biographical picture is painted, one or two historic deeds are described, and one or two quotations supplied. The writer of this ‘history’ is not seeking to compose a complete universal history of the empire, but rather to arrange a series of short biographical blobs in order of chronology.

                The information found within this text is largely culled from earlier sources, and is probably not of especially great historical value. It could be considered a general instruction book for future emperors – for which they can read and gain a brief overview of their predecessors, what they did wrong, and any wise words they could share to a current ruler of the empire. It is interesting to read, just because it attempts to bring together a list and brief history of all the Roman emperors from legendary times. The list begins with the founding of Rome by Romulus, includes all of the legendary seven kings of Rome, and then moves onto a few of the consuls of the early Republic. Unable to find many things to say about the Republican consuls – who were, after all, not actually monarchs – the list picks up again with Julius Caesar and Augustus, and then moves on in a rational order from there. There are a few factual errors, such as family connections between emperors, but the basic image of a uniform Roman state which begins in 732 BCE and carries on without interruption up to the 11^th century is maintained throughout the text.

                This is most interesting for the Byzantine historian, for it brazenly and unquestioningly reinforces one of the great pillars of Byzantine ideology – that their empire is one and the same with the old Roman empire of antiquity. The Roman state began when Romulus and Remus founded the city of Rome, became a republic, built an empire, converted to Christianity, moved its capital to the east, and continued unbroken down to the days of our writer. That Basil II is the last emperor mentioned in this text is also very interesting, for if one does believe that Michael Psellos composed this text, then it serves as something of a prologue to Psellos’ Chronographia, ending with the emperor who serves as the starting point for that work. It’s mostly conjecture this, but it’s a point I find interesting.

ByzReview: John Skylitzes' 'Synopsis Historion'

Having concluded the 10^th Century in my last review, with Leo the Deacon and his history of the emperors Nikephoros II Phokas and John I Tzimiskes, it now falls upon me to review the action-packed primary sources of the 11^th Century, beginning with the chronicler John Skylitzes and his Synopsis Historion. 

The 11^th Century was a time of great crisis and change for the Byzantine-Roman Empire, and nowhere is this better displayed than in the historical narratives found later in this century. The names of Michael Psellos, John Skylitzes, Michael Attaleiates, Nikephoros Bryennios and Anna Komnene are almost half-famous outside of Byzantine studies, and no wonder. Writing in the aftermath of an unstoppable Turkish invasion, after the death of the ruling Macedonian family and during the rise of a new imperial dynasty on the cusp of the Crusades, one of Byzantium’s most traumatic chapters was about to begin. Of these various historians who wrote within mere decades of each other, I opted to begin with John Skylitzes for a couple of reasons. Though writing a bit later than Michael Psellos, whose famous Chronographia is a cracker by the way, Skyltizes’ chronicle begins much earlier than those of his contemporaries and concludes much earlier. Skylitzes opens his work exactly where Theophanes the Confessor left off, in the early 9^th Century with the short and inconclusive reign of Michael I Rhangabe (r.811-813), and gives us a continuous narrative of the next two and a half centuries up to the similarly short and inconclusive reign of Michael VI Bringas (r.1056-1057). The period covered can pretty much be described as that of the so-called Macedonian Dynasty (circa 866-1056), during which the Roman empire of Byzantium was ruled by the descendents of Basil I the Macedonian*(barring frequent and almost habitual interruptions from outsiders, of course), the empire achieving its territorial zenith for the first time since Justinian I, and during which the new Byzantine aristocracy rose to power.

The 'Monomachos Crown'. Isn't Byzantine stuff pretty?

As a historical source, Skylitzes’ Synopsis Historion has the problem of being wholly unoriginal. He was a chronicler after all, a compiler of information and assembler of other people’s historical work, and nowhere can this better be seen than in the first main chunk of his narrative, from Michael I down to Romanos II. For this period he copies his information directly from an earlier chronicle which covers this exact period, that of Theophanes Continuatus, which I have already reviewed. For the reigns of the emperors Michael I Rhangabe, Leo V the Armenian, Michael II the Stammerer, Theophilos, Michael III the Drunkard, Basil I the Macedonian, Leo VI the Wise, Alexander, Romanos I Lekapenos, Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and Romanos II, the reader will find little here that is not also addressed – sometimes in greater detail – in this earlier chronicle. Skyltizes’ style of Greek is a little different, and he has certainly engaged with the material in a different way by sometimes casting his characters and events in a different light, but overall he tells us the same story. 

Likewise for the reigns of Nikephoros II Phokas (r.963-969) and John I Tzimiskes (r.969-976) Skylitzes ends up retracing the steps of another historian, Leo the Deacon, giving a more summarized account of these two emperors but nevertheless telling us very little which we do not already know from this earlier source. Things begin to get more interesting with the reign of Basil II ‘the Bulgar-Slayer’ onwards, at least if you want something more relevant to Skyltizes’ own day. Let’s just quickly run down the main events of this period.

So, after the usurper-emperors Nikephoros II and John I successfully expanded the borders of the empire, the young Basil II Porphyrogennetos (r.976-1025) and his brother finally assume power in their own right. Basil II immediately faced dreadful opposition to his rule, at home from rebellious aristocratic warlords, and abroad in the shape of a revived Bulgarian empire. Over the course of his long reign, Basil II defeated and tamed his aristocratic enemies, of whom the Phokas and Skleros families end up being the most notable in this narrative, and completed the conquest of Bulgaria – earning him the nickname, later in history, of ‘the Bulgar-Slayer’. After 49 years of solo-rule, one of the longest reigns the Roman empire had ever seen, Basil finally died. Being childless, the empire

The empire at the end of Basil II's reign.

passed to Basil’s younger brother Constantine VIII (r.1025-1028), who after a three-year reign also died, having achieved nothing but scandal and a bad reputation. Constantine VIII’s two surviving children, Zoe and Theodora, were by this point already well into middle age, and as the last representatives of the Macedonian dynasty they were the sole claimants for the throne. Before he died, Constantine VIII ensured that Zoe – who was still unmarried – would now marry one of the courtiers and thereby raise him as the next emperor. Though not exercising formal authority herself, at least for much of the time, the empress Zoe was to be a central figure in imperial politics from 1028 down to her death in 1050, raising four separate men to the throne during this time. Her first husband, Romanos III Argyros (r.1028-1034), was of little use as a ruler, and eventually died under mysterious circumstances after an undistinguished reign. Zoe’s second husband, Michael IV the Paphlagonian (r.1034-1041), was a similarly useless candidate for the throne – though it was the fact that his brothers held a monopoly on power that made this ruler interesting. As Skylitzes tells us, Michael was not really in control, but rather it was his brother John the Orphanotrophos who ruled from behind the throne. Eventually Michael was to die himself, leaving his nephew, Michael V ‘the Caulker’ (r.1041-1042) to inherit the throne alongside his adoptive mother, the empress Zoe. Michael V was not happy about sharing power, and his brief reign came to an end when he foolishly tried to

A scene from the Madrid manuscript of Skylitzes

depose Zoe. The populace of Constantinople rose up against him, restoring Zoe to power alongside her sister Theodora, and having the young emperor and his uncle blinded. After a brief solo reign, Zoe married for a third time, this time to a certain Constantine IX Monomachos (r.1042-1055). Constantine was to outlive the empress, amidst scandals involving his mistress and many of his courtiers, as well as a deteriorating situation on the eastern frontier and yet more violent internal rebellions. By the time Constantine IX died, the empire was looking a little shaky. The last surviving member of the Macedonian dynasty, Zoe’s aged sister Theodora, smoothly assumed power, but it was clear to one and all that this situation was temporary. Theodora was old and childless, meaning that the Macedonian dynasty had reached its end at last. With the end of Byzantium’s most makeshift imperial house, there was nothing to prevent the new Anatolian aristocracy from squabbling for the throne. Theodora appointed as her successor Michael VI Bringas/Stratiotikos, ‘the Aged’ (r.1056-1057), who immediately faced an angry military elite hungry for wealth and power. Michael VI’s reign was dominated by an armed insurrection from these eastern warlords, who flocked to the banner of one Isaac Komnenos. Skylitzes concludes his narrative with Michael VI’s deposition, and the ascension of Isaac I Komnenos. 

The following is a list of the emperors of the late Macedonian dynasty, from Basil II to Isaac Komnenos:

*Basil II Bulgaroktonos           (976 – 1025) – Son of Romanos II, great-great-grandson of Basil I

           

*Constantine VIII                    (1025 – 1028) – Brother of Basil II. Died leaving two daughters

Romanos III Argyros              (1028 – 1034) – Married Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII

Michael IV the Paphlagonian  (1034 – 1041) – Second husband of the empress Zoe

Michael V Kalaphates               (1041 – 1042) – Nephew of Michael IV, adoptive son of Zoe

*Zoe and Theodora                        (1042)       – Daughters of Constantine VIII

Constantine IX Monomachos   (1042 – 1055) – Third husband of Zoe

*Theodora                               (1055 – 1056) – Daughter of Constantine VIII, sister of Zoe

Michael VI Bringas                   (1056 – 1057) – Appointed emperor on Theodora’s death

Isaac I Komnenos                   (1057 – 1059) – Seized the throne from Michael VI

* Blood descendants of the Macedonian dynasty

Skylitzes presents us with a long and complex history of Byzantium, and at first it may appear difficult to judge. In one way it could be seen as a continuation of Theophanes Continuatus, bringing the narrative full circle to end of the Macedonian dynasty, but I think it shows us something much more interesting than just that. Throughout the text we can see the gradual emergence of a curious cultural phenomenon, the formation of Byzantine aristocratic clans, who over the course of several generations become steadily more powerful, until in the end they become the main candidates for the throne. In the days of Basil I and Leo VI we begin to see the appearance of names who will become a common feature of Byzantine history thereafter, including Phokas, Argyros and Doukas. To begin with they are mere warlords and professional soldiers, the same sorts of people who would have tried to seize power over the empire before, but as time goes on they become more common and begin to appear in every facet of government. During the early years of Constantine VII they seem poised to take the throne by force, but then they follow Romanos I Lekapenos’ example and attach themselves to the reigning dynasty, gaining power through intrusion and co-option. In many ways it was a

Mosaic of Zoe and Constantine IX in Hagia Sophia

miracle the Macedonian dynasty survived as long as it did. Through recurring usurpation from Lekapenos, Phokas and Tsimiskes, temporarily being subdued through sheer force by Basil II, by the time of the empress Zoe the aristocracy had become accustomed to marrying into the reigning dynasty rather than trying to supplant it, with Romanos III being from the old and powerful Argyros clan, and Constantine IX being a Monomachos. When the last Macedonian empress died in 1056, the Anatolian aristocracy was too well established to put up with a weak civilian emperor like Michael VI. From this point on, an emperor would be the representative of one powerful family or another.

So how does it read, then? Skylitzes is a fairly no-nonsense chronicler of events by reign, each chapter being devoted to one particular emperor. This is certainly following in the tradition set up by Constantine VII and Genesios, more interested as they are in emperors rather than events. The solid, impersonal year-by-year chronicles of Theophanes the Confessor and his ilk are long gone by now. As such, Skylitzes is dominated by the imperial court and capital, with occasional detours to provincial matters and border conflicts. Occasionally he gives us a look at foreign lands, but these are exceptions to the main narrative, which focuses on emperors and their courts and families. He tries to keep his history strictly factual, rarely indulging in irrelevant stories or digressing on a single point. Rarely does he seem too propagandistic, like Theophanes Continuatus does. In fact, one gets the impression that the writer of this text is a little more negative about these previous emperors than his source, especially in the case of the Macedonian emperors themselves. It could be that whereas Theophanes Continuatus and Leo the Deacon are written to glorify particular rulers, Skylitzes – writing a century later, can be a tad more honest than his source text, and can say what he or his patrons may feel about the emperors of the Macedonian era.

One of the scenes found in the 'Madrid Skylitzes'

                The stuff that can be said about John Skylitzes’ Synopsis would probably take up another few pages. We could talk about the weird connection between Skylitzes’s work and that of another chronicler, George Kedrenos, and ask ourselves who was copying whom. We could talk about the Madrid manuscript of Skylitzes, which is filled with hundreds of colourful and adorable little pictures illustrating the text, portraying Byzantine life and civilisation in a fascinatingly original way. We could even talk about Skylitzes Continuatus, a continuation of the text – possibly written by John Skyltizes himself – which brings the narrative down by a further twenty years to the reign of Nikephoros III Botaneiates. Alas this text has not yet been translated into English, and anyway it is often considered to be a mere copy of Michael Attaleiates in the same way Skylitzes uses Theophanes Continuatus. In the end, there is just far too much to say about it.

                So in conclusion, John Skylitzes’ Synopsis is a very interesting chronicle, albeit a little unoriginal. It blatantly reproduces information from other sources, but its sheer scope and the near incidental additions it makes to the other sources make it more than worth a read, especially when cross-examining particular periods and events. If you have to read just one Byzantine source from these centuries, then it would make sense to start with this one. As a supplement to Theophanes the Confessor, Skylitzes is very useful in that regard. By all means look it up, even if you have only a passing interest in Byzantine history.

* Unless you believe Leo VI (r.886-912) was actually the biological son of Michael III, in which case this dynasty is actually a continuation of the previous Amorian dynasty (820-866), and therefore Skyltizes’ framing of his narrative around this group of rulers is even more apt.

Bibliozantium 13

Georgius Cedrenos et Ioannis Scylitzae. Compendium Historiarum. I. Bekker (ed). [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae], 8/9, (Bonn, 1838-1839). In two volumes.

John Skylitzes. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum. I. Thurn (ed). [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae], 5, (Berlin, 1973).

John Skyltizes. A Synopsis of Byzantine History – 811-1057. Trans. J. Wortley. [Cambridge University Press] (Cambridge, 2010).

Ioannes Skyltizes Continuatus.  E. Tsolakes (ed). (Thessaloniki, 1968)