Writing About Byzantium

The History of Niketas Choniates

Theresa Urbainczyk

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138738683
• eBook ISBN: 9781351731669
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European Medieval History
• Index: History

Niketas Choniates was in Constantinople when it was burnt and looted by the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade and he wrote a history which has always been the mainstay for anyone wishing to learn about the Comnene dynasty and the Byzantine Empire of the twelfth century. Yet it is a very difficult and puzzling text and, given its significance for the period, is understudied. The author says at the start that he wrote his work hoping that even workers and women would be able to profit from it, yet he wrote those words, and the rest of the history, in a highly convoluted, literary and at times opaque style and language.

This examination is an introduction to the history of Niketas, and to the author's views of why this period saw such catastrophe for the Byzantines. It looks at Niketas' thoughts about history-writing, the emperors, and the Comnene dynasty in particular, about the presence of God in man's affairs, and the historian's attitudes to the women of the imperial family.

1
The puzzle of the History of Niketas Choniates

Niketas Choniates is one of the most important Byzantine historians and yet, relatively speaking, he has not received the attention he deserves. He wrote about one of the most exciting, if tragic, periods of medieval history in an ornate and elevated style. One might expect him to be better studied simply because he described the effects on the Byzantine Empire of the Fourth Crusade. His narrative however is not only worth studying because of its significance to an important period of western medieval history. From the Byzantine perspective, 1204 was a catastrophe, and here we have an eyewitness account of the fall of the city. In 1204 Constantinople, the head of the Byzantine Empire, was captured by the troops of the Fourth Crusade whose aim was supposed to be the liberation of Jerusalem.¹ Constantinople had never been taken by any enemy in the nine centuries of its position as imperial city.² Niketas describes the period before, during and after this calamitous event.³

As Constantinople neared its end, Niketas extended his criticism to everyone for their role in its downfall, everyone who lived there, not so much the Crusaders, who are portrayed as barbarians but little more could be expected from them.⁴ They took advantage of the fatal and obvious weakness of the Byzantines.⁵ Niketas’ focus, perhaps as Thucydides’ main subject is the Athenians in his history, is on the Byzantines or rather Romans, as he calls the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire.⁶ Both Thucydides and Niketas were patriots writing about the mistakes of their fellow citizens and trying to understand why the disaster happened.⁷ Towards the end Niketas has a striking aside. The last emperor before the fall of the city was Alexios Doukas, and of him Niketas says:

Inasmuch as the worst elements prevail among the Constantinopolitans (for truth is dearer to me than my compatriots), Doukas grew stronger and increased in power.

(564; my emphasis)⁸

And the Greek makes clear what the English leaves ambivalent, which is that he values truth more than he values his compatriots: ϕιλτέρα γὰρ ὑπὲρ τοὺϛ ὁμογενεῖϛ ἡ αλήθεια. This phrase encapsulates what appears to have driven Niketas to write his history. He wanted above all to write the truth as he saw it, even though it meant criticizing his own people.⁹

Most readers would agree that Niketas wrote his history to understand the calamity that had struck his city, and most would agree that he laid the blame generally with the rulers and yet there is much that is puzzling about the work.¹⁰ Anthony Kaldellis started his article on Niketas titled ‘Paradox, Reversal and the Meaning of History’ with the following paragraph:

Those who wish to study Niketas Choniates as both a historian and a sophisticated writer face a formidable challenge. The mountain to be climbed is tall and steep and there are no ‘royal highways’ to the top. It is possible that no one has been there before. If the view promises to be spectacular, the ascent is sure to be treacherous. Niketas left no directions, despite the fact that he created something new, something that he knew would confound the expectations of even the most seasoned climbers. Any place where we might pause may collapse beneath our feet; there are pits and deep caverns everywhere; or else, his grottos may be so charming that, like Siren songs, they entice us to linger and give up the ascent. Likewise, we cannot afford to be dizzied by the spiraling chasms of irony and paradox. We can take little for granted here. Where is the solid ground in Niketas Choniates’ History?¹¹

And he carries on:

I have no answer to that question.¹²

The rest of the article illustrates some of the difficulties of the text, such as the preface and the way that Andronikos is portrayed in the most negative manner, and yet when he is torn apart by the Constantinopolitan populace, Niketas turns against ‘the stupid and most ignorant inhabitants of Constantinople’.¹³ As Kaldellis points out, it is very difficult to see exactly what Niketas himself thought as one judgement may immediately be undercut by the following remark.¹⁴ He may describe an emperor in the blackest terms and then go on to praise him for extraordinary benefits he brought the empire. He narrated how Manuel framed one of his faithful subjects because he was envious of his abilities, and then says ‘A glorious deed was now performed by the emperor’ without appearing to be ironic since he describes how the cities of the East flourished under his rule (150). Or later, having described the random cruelty of Andronikos, he comments ‘yet he did participate in many virtuous actions’ (323–325). What follows is a search for some solid ground in Niketas’ History.

The work is very sophisticated, using recondite vocabulary, and it is also difficult to read and to understand. It appears to be a classicizing history¹⁵ and yet the author most frequently cited is Homer, which to classicists seems odd, since this is a historical work.¹⁶ Another complication is that there were different versions of his history circulating.¹⁷ It appears that at first there was a history which would have been acceptable to the ruling emperor, but then once Constantinople fell, Niketas felt free to write as he wished, and the result was very different.¹⁸ One might attribute the apparently contradictory judgements as being the result of careless or rapid editing.¹⁹ But complexity seems to be part of the text.²⁰ The preface itself is one of the clearest examples of Niketas’ lack of clarity and will be discussed in Chapter 2.

Niketas’ life

The name Choniates comes from the place Chonai, modern Honaz/Khonaz – Colossae in the classical period, in Phrygia – southwestern Turkey, which is where he was from.²¹ He also had a prominent brother, Michael Choniates, bishop of Athens (1182–1204), who wrote letters and a monodia or lament when Niketas died.²² None of Niketas’ letters to him has survived and only one of Michael’s to Niketas remains, but there are bits and pieces of information in others.²³ Michael relates that the boys were educated in Constantinople as their parents were rich enough to send their sons to the capital for their education, although they are thought not to be from the aristocracy.²⁴ Niketas was born about 1155 and had a career as a bureaucrat, first as a sort of tax officer, then as imperial undersecretary; then he studied law, and afterward was appointed imperial secretary; by 1188–1189 was head of the public treasury. Although we know of his titles thanks to his brother Michael, it is not entirely clear what these positions entailed.²⁵

The high point of his career was his appointment of grand logothete in 1195, but he was removed from this pinnacle when the emperor changed, just two months before the fall of Constantinople in 1204.²⁶ Niketas tells the reader that he lost his job (565) and then describes how then with the sack of the city he also lost his home and property (587–595). He and his family went into exile first to Selymbria and then to Nicaea, after briefly returning to Constantinople and seeing the destruction of the artistic masterpieces by the barbarian army (635–636). From Michael’s funeral address we learn that Niketas died about 30 years after Michael became bishop of Athens in 1182, so thus it must have been about 1215 or 1216 when he would have been 60 or 61.²⁷

His history

His history starts with the death of Alexios Komnenos in 1118 (Alexios I) and ends with events of 1207, so it carries on a little after the taking of the city. In the organization of his history he does not follow the classical Greek historians, but one might say he models his work on a writer like Tacitus, in that his history goes from emperor to emperor.²⁸ It could be argued that history-writing is dependent on whatever its focus is.²⁹ Thucydides, because he was writing about city-states, was able to keep his work about governments rather than individuals. The Roman historians in the imperial period tended much more towards biography because the power of the emperor was so great.³⁰ The History was largely about Niketas’ own lifetime and where he goes further back, he acknowledges this. He says:

Since I was not an eyewitness of that which I have recorded [that is John’s reign] I could not describe these events extensively but have set down what I heard from those contemporaries who personally knew the emperor and who escorted him on his campaigns against the enemy and accompanied him into battle.

(4)³¹

What follows is not an investigation into his sources. That is not to say this is not an important question, but my main aim here is to look at what Niketas does with his material, what impression he is trying to give the reader, and to examine the views he reveals in the work.³² Because it seemed to me that the work as a whole was intriguing, I wanted to examine it further. There is an excellent book recently published on Niketas by Alicia Simpson, which has already been referred to several times in this chapter.³³ Without this pioneering work, this book would have been very different. She has not only given the basic background to his work and describes the nature of his text, but has done invaluable research on the different versions of the history that the manuscript tradition bears witness to. This work in no way supersedes hers, but instead builds on the huge learning displayed in her book, to suggest a way of understanding Niketas that helps the reader approach this complex text. As will become apparent, there are many difficulties with this history. Andrea Catanzaro has recently produced an article, one might say trying to impose some taxis on the text.³⁴ What follows is the result of my own attempts to find a key to this challenging text. I came to this text as a classicist, and I am sure Byzantinists will find much that is lacking in what follows. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that it would be fruitful for someone with a knowledge of the historiography of antiquity to examine this most learned and allusive history. For me, what soon became striking as I became better acquainted with the text ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 The puzzle of the History of Niketas Choniates
• 2 ‘A history for workers and women’: statements of intent in the preface
• 3 The world of Byzantine women
• 4 Hellenism and classicism in the History
• 5 The influence of the Old Testament
• 6 Niketas on the emperors
• 7 Conclusion
• Appendix 1: Addresses to the reader
• Appendix 2: Niketas’ flawless heroes
• Index